| 2009 Week 5 |
|
|
|
| Friday, 06 February 2009 16:37 | |||
|
Several significant events have occurred since my last scribblings... and it was only a few short hours after my last entry last week that I heard that the NWML (National Weights and Measures Laboratory) had published it's response on the recent consultation on pre-packaged goods sizes. For those who haven't been keeping up... this is all about the fact that if you buy a jar of British-made jam it's going to be in something like a 320g jar but if you buy one made in Germany or France it could be 250g or 500g. This is because of regulations introduced decades ago to "protect" the consumer against retailers and manufacturers varying quantities in order to make more money. There are rules like this all across Europe but it has been deemed sensible at this stage to drop most of those regulations. This basically means that, once the new law comes into effect, packaging for almost all food and drink products (with the exception of wine, spirits, etc.) can be in any size the manufacturer wishes to use.
(click here to see the government response and here to see guidance for businesses) Many people will see this as a victory for common sense and may hope that those who still use "lb and oz" sizes for their jars and packets might move towards rational metric sizes. Unfortunatly, products that did not fall under the old regulations already seem to be going backwards from metric to imperial sizes (albeit with metric on the label - such as Cadbury's Dairy Milk) and now there will be little anybody can do about it except complain loudly! But, as always, time will tell which way things went. The second item of news was that the latest "Metric Martyr" Janet Devers has decided not to appeal her convictions for selling with imperial scales and selling by the bowl. Hackney Council are clearly delighted with this and signalled that traders should see this as evidence that they will act against unscrupulous traders... but for some reason the "Metric Martyrs" seem to think that they've won some sort of victory... on the one hand the legal process has won over and there has been no headline stating "Metric Martyr Wins Appeal" but on the other hand there is also no headline saying "Metric Martyr Loses Appeal". The resulting news story didn't make any big waves so, as far as that tabloid reading public is concerned, nothing has changed - until the next trader gets hauled in and The Sun and The Mail cry foul! The other big news item was obviously the snow. I seriously doubt that anybody in Britain missed out on this one... along with the usual mixture of imperial and metric measures as the "Fahrenheit", "inch" and the "foot" continue to play a big part of weather reporting, particularly with the BBC who seem unable to just use the centimetres and Celsius that they get from the Met Office. When members of the public are interviewed and asked about their personal experiences I can understand the use of imperial measures now and then but weather and news reporters should have no excuse! All of this did make me think though... about something that hasn't yet struck me about the legal requirements of the EU Weights and Measures directive, the one that insists that metric must be used for all "public health, safety and administration purposes" (paraphrased) except where exempt (i.e. road signs, etc). When the BBC report on the weather, particularly where severe weather warnings are concerned, I'm guessing that the BBC, like the Met Office, are (or at least should be) legally obligated to use metric measures. On the same basis, the Met Office currently reports wind speeds in mph... but this isn't one of the derogations in the EU directive and so surely that should be metric too? Answers on a postcard to The Met Office please...
|



