The government actually IS doing a consultation on bringing back imperial measurements!

[Kendodd]

I thought it was a joke.
AIBU to think this is a complete load of bollocks waste of money?

The questions don't even give you the option of saying just keep metric.
Example question -
For Consumers,

a) If you had a choice, would you want to purchase items:

(i) in imperial units?

(ii) in imperial units alongside a metric equivalent?

www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1079711/choice-on-units-of-measurement-markings-and-sales-consultation.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjchIqM1pT4AhXIPsAKHWSZBW0QFnoECAUQAQ&usg=AOvVaw05usEgoqbR2NHfgE3SzAYH

I am 50 so was born post decimalisation.

Decimalisation has nothing to do with metrication.

@Florenz @PetraBP as an engineer I can assure you that units of measurement are really incredibly important and anything other than metric SI units is a total waste of time. Fine to have equivalent indicators but many coversion factors have infinite decimals. The metric system is based on the physical measurable properties of water. Imperial is pretty random.

@Daftasabroom

You might like this

@cakeorwine thank you I hadn't heard that sketch before.

Alternatively ...

The “non metric” US actually requires BOTH metric and imperial on their food packages.

We could and should do the same.

No one loses out that way.

@SerendipityJane I am Addison and that has been my life for the 25 years.

Implementing this would mean forcing food producers and packers to completely change their packaging, at a time when food prices are already rising fast. This cost will be passed on to the customer. It is therefore a stupid idea.

So..how would you run it?

e.g. 200g as the mass with the Imperial mass as 7.05 ounces or 7 1/ 20 ounce

Or 7 ounces as the mass and the metric label as 198.446 g on there.

I think most UK products come in masses to the nearest 10g - so 200g, 500g.

I think US products come in masses to the nearest ounce e..g 10 ounces.

Do we really want to convert all machines etc so they weigh out to the nearest ounce?

How would you work the nutrition information on the back?
would you do it per 100g?
Per ounce?
This is some rice from the USA

It's 250g (8.8 ounces)

www.walmart.com/ip/BEN-S-ORIGINAL-READY-RICE-Spanish-Style-8-8-oz-pouch/440208788?athcpid=440208788&athpgid=ContentPage&athcgid=null&athznid=ItemCarousel_b5f2130e-b251-4893-ac63-5294fe744ce9_items&athieid=v0&athstid=CS020&athguid=zkIRvzEdUeMX0cMZCct76-vS1dKek81rw-Zb&athancid=null&athena=true

The nutrition is per cup

@cakeorwine I am loving your work here.

I would just love to ask Johnson some of those questions....

Of course Imperial units should use common fractional values, not decimal fractions! So 17 ounces is 1 (and) 1/16 of a pound. 15 lbs is 1(and) 1/14 stone, so much more convenient than 1.071428571428571 stone.
As we know, everyone in this country is perfectly comfortable calculating with fractions, so it shouldn’t be a problem.

Maybe Johnson could convert 17.156 ounces into ounces and grains and whatever comes next into fractions!

Try telling a calculator to use fractions rather than decimals!

Most scientific calculators can use fractions. I have quite a few students who insist on using that function. It is utterly useless, of course because you cannot immediately compare numbers. Who knows if 7/22 is bigger than 16/53 at a glance?I assume they do it because they don’t know how to change their calculators to decimals. Or it’s some more nonsense coming from school that we have to unteach. It will be a shock to them when they get to work and discover that, instead of gently recommending decimals as I do, their boss just rejects their calculations.

Hmm… as far as I can see packagers change the look/branding of their packaging fairly frequently.

I doubt that when new allergy labelling rules came in not long ago it cost a lot to comply.

It isn’t going to cost them much for a package that has 454g printed on it (check your jam, honey and marmalade- chances are it’s a 454g jar) to have the label, which will be being printed from a computer file, to be amended to say “454g/1lb”.

And you wouldn’t need the pack sizes to change at all.

In the UK we have products in both round metric and round imperial sizes to this day.

Just look in your cupboard and you might be surprised at how many things are 454g, 340g, 227g, 113g or perhaps 568ml and 284ml.

The label might be metric but the pack size is 1lb, 12oz, 8oz, 4oz, 1 pt and half-pt.

Likewise, if something is 100g, there would be no problem labelling it as 100g/3.5oz or if it’s 200g it can be labelled 200g/7.05oz.

Observe the following (other supermarkets are available!):

1lb strawberry jam, labelled 454g:

www.sainsburys.co.uk/gol-ui/product/sainsburys-strawberry-jam-454g

12oz marmalade labelled 340g:

www.sainsburys.co.uk/gol-ui/product/duerrs-fine-cut-seville-orange-marmalade-340g

8oz coffee labelled 227g

www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/253080263

1 pt vinegar labelled 568ml

www.waitrose.com/ecom/products/essential-malt-vinegar/007602-3554-3555

10oz chicken kievs labelled 284g

www.waitrose.com/ecom/products/essential-frozen-garlic-chicken-kievs-2/501123-70809-70810

Half pt buttermilk labelled 284ml

www.waitrose.com/ecom/products/essential-waitrose-buttermilk/821397-770792-770793

Also observe:

750g tea dual labelled with imperial and metric, so it can be done!

www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/254887972?sc_cmp=ppcGHS+-+Grocery+-+NewMPX_Shopping_All_Other_Smart+Shopping+All+Products_Other_Online+BudgetAll+ProductsPRODUCT_GROUP254887972*&ds_rl=1116322&gbraid=0AAAAADiyNatAtcReS8E45tbeFwaqxrViV&gbraid=0AAAAADiyNatAtcReS8E45tbeFwaqxrViV&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIsvHL-Nio-AIVhu3tCh24AwSmEAQYBCABEgLMpfD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds

So people have coped quite nicely for years with buying food that is in metric even though it's actually a 'round' Imperial measurement such as jam.

Curiously the jam I get is 370g - that's 13 1/ 20 ounce

If people were bothered, then as you say, it would be no bother to put the Imperial equivalent on the labels. But companies haven't. For some reason

It can be done. It's perfectly legal. It always has been.

But companies mostly don't bother. Why not?

The EU directive

The indication expressed in a unit of measurement listed in
Chapter I shall predominate. In particular, the indications expressed in
units of measurement not listed in Chapter I shall be expressed in
characters no larger than those of the corresponding indication in
units listed in Chapter I.

eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:1980L0181:20090527:EN:PDF

In other words, Imperial could always be used as long as the font wasn't bigger than metric,

The reason most companies don’t bother is because the EU directive WAS going to make it illegal to have any mention of any measures other than metric by 2009 but then it was very quietly shelved in 2007 by which time most companies had already gone over to metric only in preparation.

The government seems to be banging the drum for allowing imperial only. I’m against this as it will alienate those who work
in metric and just about everyone who came and settled here from the EU.

Having both measures on everything is a sensible compromise.

The government seems to be banging the drum for allowing imperial only. I’m against this as it will alienate those who work in metric and just about everyone who came and settled here from the EU.

I think you may have missed the point that these are exactly the two groups this government doesn't give a shit about.