"Ridiculous quantities like this only exist because of the transition from imperial to metric. In a country that has been metric for a longer time these will be 100g, 200g, 500g etc which are just as convenient. If you need to be more precise you can go in 50's, or 10's BUT unless you need to 100's are fine, and are very easy to work with. "

I think the issue is that people tend to say things in simple one -or- two syllable words. "A qtr, half a pound, 12 oz" is just more aestetically pleasing than n hundred grammes, etc.

re (Andy): "Ridiculous quantities like this only exist because of the transition from imperial to metric..."

REPLY:

A. You said it

B. So why didn't the politicians and bureaucrats do something about it, instead of imposing these 'ridiculous' (your word again) quantities on us for the past 15 years?

C. What are the politicians and bureaucrats doing about this 'ridiculous' problem now [ANSWER: Eng. 'Nothing' - Ger. 'Nichts' - Fr. 'Rien' - Yorks. 'Nowt']

D. Does UKMA agree with you?

E. I don't think you're right anyway. Some of these 'ridiculous' quantities exist over in Europe* as well

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* P.S. I wish to clarify my ealier statement. By 'Europe', I meant of course 'continental Europe'. I apologise most sincerely (and I really mean that, honest) for any misunderstanding my words may have inadvertently caused and for any implication that the United Kingdom is not geographically part of the continent known as 'Europe'. The U.K. *is* part of Europe (geographically speaking)

Apart from jam and milk I can't think of anything that isn't in rounded metric anyway (I'm sure you can point out more)

As for that lot across the channel, I honestly don't know why they would use odd quantities like you mention. Can't say I've really noticed it.

<<Apart from jam and milk I can't think of anything that isn't in rounded metric anyway >>

If you take a trip to Tesco - erm - Sainsbury's you'll be surprised. esp with fish, meat and some sauces.

Thanks for "coming out here" to the front board, Andy. Unfortunately I'm not allowed to post to the inner ones, it seems. Still, metre(eric) and Danny can have a whale of a time chasing bundles of hay now! ;-)

Yeah but pieces of fish and meat are never going to be rounded sizes whatever you measure them in.

No - what I mean is - they still use packageing that was used when it was all imperial.

So you get metric/round imperial, or just metric (like 56g).

Check a pack of Walkers crips next time you get one.

==


Quicky : Anyone know how much carbs (in grammes) there are in a pint of cider?

A gentle reminder of metric confusion on the supermarket shelves - Appendix 2 from "Weights and Measures: Britain's Way Ahead" (January 2005, 60pp. Tony Bennett & CMS), price £4

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix 2 - Metric Weights Confusion

A Survey of Metric Weights of Packaged Goods

This survey was carried out in September 2003 in Somerfield Supermarket, Old Harlow, Essex. The following different weights were noted in a 10-minute survey of several supermarket shelves:

740g - Piccalilli Large *** 320g - Dolmio Bol
710g - Jar of Beetroot Slices *** 300g - Tins of Beans and Peas
540g - Grapefruit Segments *** 295g - Mediterranean Tomato Soup
500g - Dolmio Original *** 290g - Chestwood Mushrooms
480g - Ragu Lasagne Sauce *** 283g - Curry Paste
454g - Blackcurrant/Strawberry Jam *** 250g - Easy Cook Peas
440g - Tikka Curry Sauce *** 220g - Tins of Butter Beans
439g - Pineapple Chunks *** 213g - Bob the Builder Spaghetti
432g - Fruit Salad *** 205g - Spaghetti Hoops
425g - Green Giant Asparagus *** 190g - Pesto / Cranberry Sauce
420g - Tikka Masala Sauce *** 185g - J West Tuna in Garlic
415g - Heinz Baked Beans *** 180g - Tartare Sauce
411g - Pear Halves *** 176g - Mashed Potato Mix
410g - Somerfield Red Kidney Beans *** 175g - Mint Sauce
400g - Heinz Spaghetti *** 140g - Apple & Herb Stuffing
390g - Ratatouille Provencal *** 110g – Houmous
375g - Egg Lasagne *** 100g - Polish Mayonnaise
340g - Chicken in White Sauce *** 97g - Somerfield Mashed Potato Mix
335g - Chicken Quarters *** 85g - Sage & Onion Stuffing
325g - Somerfield Sweetcorn Tins *** 73g - Table Salt Refill

Why have you included some rounded sizes there?

Andy,

The survey was literally a 10-minute survey of all metric sizes found on jars, tins, packets etc. in Somerfields, High Street, Old Harlow on a date in September 2003. Rounded sizes or otherwise.

Extremely confusing, aren't they?

In fact, as you quite rightly say, 'ridiculous'.

Pre-metrication, all crisp packets were 2 oz. They're all well under that now and crisp-makers make packets of crisps with literally any small amount of grams in them that they can get away with. Jars of honey and jam were all 1 lb., sometimes 1/2 lb. Many still are, but all sorts of intermediate sizes are made now.

You knew where you were with Imperial weights.

You don't know where you are these days with metric weights. And that's 15 years after the compulsory metrication of packaged supermarket goods

I take your point although I can't say I have ever noticed the confusion.

I tend to shop using my eyes to judge the size of things rather than the figures on the packet.

<<
The survey was literally a 10-minute survey of all metric sizes found on jars, tins, packets etc. in Somerfields,
>>


This is not the fault of metrication itself, but the half-hearted way in which the UK Government started to introduce metrication.

Dear Tony

Given that you disapprove so much of the confusion that reigns with packaged quantities, perhaps you should join with UKMA who are calling for rational metric quantities to end this confusion.

Stan - re: "...perhaps you should join with UKMA who are calling for rational metric quantities to end this confusion"

REPLY: If we have to have metric quantities at all, I would certainly support that particular aim of UKMA. I believe that dual labelling is usual in the U.S. and that most food products there are in units of 2 oz., lbs. etc. - may be not drinks, but certainly most packaged foods. That would be the ideal solution now in the U.K. - and one that was advocated by the Customary Measures Society in its report: "Weights and Measures: Britain's Way Ahead"

"REPLY: If we have to have metric quantities at all, I would certainly support that particular aim of UKMA. I believe that dual labelling is usual in the U.S. and that most food products there are in units of 2 oz., lbs. etc. - may be not drinks, but certainly most packaged foods. That would be the ideal solution now in the U.K. - and one that was advocated by the Customary Measures Society in its report: "Weights and Measures: Britain's Way Ahead""


Due to downsizing in the US, it is now possible to see products in quarter and half ounce increments.

Would the Customary Measures Society advocate 50 g increments to replace 2 ounce increments since the metric here to stay and the factories that fill the containers use grams in their operations?

If metrication is to be implemented in a fair way, then central control is required to prevent downsizing under the guise of metrication. If the public can be convinced that "You lose some, you gain some" the resistance to metrication would be reduced. For example, is a comodity is traditionally sold in 1/2 lb and 1 lb packets, then the replacement sizes should eb 200g and 500g (200g is a little elss than 1/2 pound, while 500g is a little more tham 1 lb).

<<I believe that dual labelling is usual in the U.S. and that most food products there are in units of 2 oz., lbs. etc. - may be not drinks, but certainly most packaged foods. >>

Most in the sense of "a majority" is correct, but not "nearly all."

Dual labelling is required by law on most types of consumer products. There was an amendment to the FPLA proposed by NIST to change the Customary from "required" to "allowed" but it seems stalled out.

There is a rapidly growing number (my guess is 20% of packaged food and personal care products) in which the metric size is "rounder" than the Customary size. Some products are just odd-sized in both measurement systems, so a few percent of the total would be debatable as to which was the design size, and which was the secondary marking. I've posted a few examples in other threads.

Glad to see that everyone ignored Danny's ludicrous claim that factories output in gramme amounts!

Perhaps someone should tell him why some things are labelled as 454g, 227g etc

"There is a rapidly growing number (my guess is 20% of packaged food and personal care products) in which the metric size is "rounder" than the Customary size. Some products are just odd-sized in both measurement systems, so a few percent of the total would be debatable as to which was the design size, and which was the secondary marking. I've posted a few examples in other threads."


I was to a Kraft Dairy plant some years ago not far from where I live. They make various cheese products here. Even though their labels are primarily non-metric with metric in parentheses, their filling machines display grams and are set to fill to a gram amount. When they fill the container they fill it to more then what is on the package. I asked why they used grams and not ounces and the guy told me it was because all of the machines they have are German and there is no way to program them to do anything but metric.

I'm sure other plants do the same.

Steve
"Glad to see that everyone ignored Danny's ludicrous claim that factories output in gramme amounts!"

Factories pack in grammes in the UK. Get over it. They may pack to 454g/1lb, but it is done on metric equipment.

More importantly, any word from BWMA re why you can't post inside?

Oops - above was me. Forgot I hadn't logged in anywhere else!

Did anyone ever figure out why RIP was unable to post to the inner boards? I'll bet it is a unsolvable glitch in Network54's software.

<<
If metrication is to be implemented in a fair way, then central control is required to prevent downsizing under the guise of metrication. If the public can be convinced that "You lose some, you gain some" the resistance to metrication would be reduced. For example, is a comodity is traditionally sold in 1/2 lb and 1 lb packets, then the replacement sizes should eb 200g and 500g (200g is a little elss than 1/2 pound, while 500g is a little more tham 1 lb).
>>

This would require a large expansion of governmental powers. I don't think that prior to metrication the government had the authority to specify what sizes could be sold, so this would take away the right of manufacturers to determine what sizes they sell. Is that a good thing, and can it be justified by the "we have to make sure no one is ripped off" argument?

I think that as long as price per unit is specified, there should be no problems.

<<Factories pack in grammes in the UK. Get over it. They may pack to 454g/1lb, but it is done on metric equipment.>>

Why would a machine that could be set to a round figure be set to odd amounts like 454? I'm not willing to believe that they'd buy expensive new equipment that does it in exact grammes but could not find the cash to change all the bottles and containers.
BTW - I used to work at a famous factory that produced a certain black drink - that used machines configured in imperial.

<<More importantly, any word from BWMA re why you can't post inside>>

My plea on another thread goes unanswered and my email has gone the same way. I'm not sure why BWMA have turned a dislike to me whist allowing certain nutters to post all sorts of rubbish.

I find myself in a strange position of supporting a movement that does not like me! Now I know what it must feel like to be Tony Benn!! ;-)