The empty measure
— the Government's shoddy report on metrication

The "complete appraisal" that isn't

Following its general election success in 1997, the Labour government stated its intention to undertake a "complete reappraisal" of metric policy. The findings of this review were released in July 1999 under the title, The Adoption of the International System of Units as the Primary system of Measurement in the United Kingdom.

This report does not constitute a reappraisal of policy. It does not, for example, examine critically the EC's current proposals or attempt to establish whether or not previous metric changes have translated into benefits for consumers and traders. Of the report's 34 pages, most are padding: four pages involve preliminary information, ten provide background notes and overviews of government policy since 1862, six reproduce documents of a historical nature and seven pages are blank. This leaves only seven pages to deal with current issues — and two of these are almost blank. Thus, the relevant component of report amounts to just over five pages.

In short, the report is a statement that the DTI is to implement EC directive 80/181. This means that metric descriptors must be used for all goods, and that metric must be used for unit pricing. This latter requirement means that every weighing machine used in trade will have to be replaced or converted by 31st December 1999. The report's large amount of background information appears to be included only for the purpose of engulfing the reader in images of metric inevitability and superiority. The report also includes a large number of throwaway sentences and quips that favour metric hut do not convey a balanced or accurate picture. For instance:

i) The reader is told that metrication is "under way" in the USA — but not that the US Congress last year removed the five words mandating the use of metric in federal contracts, or that US states that had previously adopted metric for the design and construction of state highways have since reverted to inch-pound.

ii) The report twice refers to the views of "consumer groups" but at no point to the views of consumers themselves. The report makes no reference to survey evidence establishing beyond all doubt that these groups do not represent consumers on metric issues (for example, those conducted between 1995 and 1999 by Gallup, NOP, Mori, Abbott Mead Vickers, BMRB, as well as the DTI itself).

iii) The report states that the debate is about the "pace and timing" of change — it is not. It is about whether metric is necessary, beneficial or sustainable without the sanction of fines and other penalties. Dr Howells' redefining of the debate is used in the report to support the DTI's decision to impose the kilogram from 1st January 2000 as opposed to "seeking to defer the date", thereby side-stepping the obvious alternative that weighing machines should not be converted at all.

As illustrated by BWMA's previous papers, there is a desperate need for the British government to undertake an in-depth and systematic sector-by-sector study of how metric units affect producers, retailers and consumers. The DTI's report, however, goes no further than to rubber-stamp decisions handed down by the EC.

The purpose of this paper is to identify the outstanding issues and to demonstrate why the DTI report, although two years in the making, is an Empty Measure.

Compulsion does not mean conversion

A central assumption of the report is that metric compulsion will lead to metric conversion, that is, the discarding of imperial. However, no explanation is forthcoming as to why this should be the case. The report merely says that consumers will have access to conversion charts and leaflets, and that dual marking and pricing by retailers will "help their customers with the change".

BWMA believes that this assumption is misplaced. In general, people do not convert to a new system when they still have access to an alternative that they prefer. For instance, centimetre equivalents have existed on clothing for many years but have not replaced inches for practical purposes. This is because customers, familiar with their clothing sizes in inches, look specifically for the inch label when choosing sizes. People shopping for clothes have not started thinking in metric simply because metric is available, and there is no reason why the reduced legal status of the inch should change its position as the de facto primary unit for clothing.

This principle applies to other descriptive purposes, for instance:

13cm x 7.5cm / 5 x 3 inch photos

568 ml / 1 pint milk

156 litre / 5½ cubic foot freezer

51 cm / 20 inch bicycle frame

Dual marking does not lead to conversion as the DTI suggests but simply a continuation of the existing system. This also applies to unit pricing. When shoppers are presented with two prices, they refer to the one that conveys more meaning. In the context of loose foods, this is the price per pound. Retailers who price food as "£4.15/kg" will not be conveying information as effectively as retailers who mark food as "£4.15/kg – £1.89/lb" since, in the latter case, consumers will have the opportunity to look at the price on the right.

Similarly, in the case of carpets and fabrics, must consumers relate to the price per foot and yard. The notion that customers will spontaneously use the metre because it belongs to the International System of Units ignores other, more persuasive, influences in society such as the use of yards on road signs, seen by millions of motorists each day. Metric will become the primary system in law but not in the market place.

Imposing metric will cause immense complications. While it is quite usual to use different units for different purposes, compulsory metrication will lead to different units being used for the same purposes. In the case of unit pricing, traders will have to price foods twice: once in kg/g for the EC and again in lb/oz for shoppers. This causes immense practical difficulties for traders.

The DTI report acknowledges that dual unit pricing will be a burden for traders but promptly relieves itself of any responsibility by stating dual pricing will not be mandatory by law. This tendency by the DTI to see matters only in legal terms prevents it from understanding that, in the commercial world, the demands of consumers to have meaningful information creates on traders pressures as great as any laws. In the fresh food sector, consumers require pricing information to be conveyed in pounds and ounces, and traders are obliged to display this if they are to remain competitive. The report makes no reference to consumer opinion but the extent of consumer resistance to metric has been demonstrated by the February 1999 survey by the British Market Research Bureau which asked the public,

"Thinking about buying fresh foods such as vegetables, fruit, meat and cheese, do you prefer to think in pounds and ounces or kilograms and grams?"

The survey found that only 15% of people prefer metric compared to 72% for lb/oz. Among women — who account for most shoppers of fresh foods — the proportion for metric is a mere 8% compared to an overwhelming 83% for imperial. This ten-to-one majority of women who favour lb/oz renders the DTI's references to "price transparency" and "misinformed choices" somewhat unreal and bizarre.

With regards to descriptive uses of measurement, the report notes that the British Retail Consortium is concerned at the "lack of suitable conversion tables" for goods manufactured to UK/US specifications (e.g., an 18inch saw as 457mm). But the problems with metric descriptions go beyond being merely inappropriate. Compulsory metric labels can have effects ranging from the absurd (¼lb hamburgers) to the dangerous (using metric for inch-based engineering components). The simple fact is that there are no suitable conversion tables for such goods let alone where UK units overlap with colloquial English.

Although the report indicates clearly the government is to impose metric for goods based on imperial designs, the picture is less clear as to the government's intention regarding other types of foods and goods where metric is unsuitable. BWMA is to put a set of questions to the Minister concerning this issue.

No measure is legal until made legal!

Under British law, freedom is assumed until laws are passed to the contrary. The EC directive reverses this principle by rendering all units of measurement illegal unless included in the Annex to the directive. This ban arises from the directive purporting to "authorise" — for a temporary period — the use of information not contained in the Annex to assist metric conversion. Rather than merely imposing a minimum standard of information (i.e. metric), the directive is designed to prohibit additional information. The EC is therefore attempting to deny the use of supplementary information by withdrawing permission that was not needed in the first place! The implications of this are profound, both in practical terms, since there is no limit to the directive's application, and in terms of civil liberties, since criminality replaces liberty as people's assumed state.

American and tertiary measures

To make matters worse, a directive that indicates only what units can be used necessarily affects measures beyond the British imperial system, the original "target" of the directive. US units, not listed in the Annex, become temporary "supplementary indications" as do tertiary measures, such as describing the width of a bed as "king size" instead of 1.52 metres. BWMA's fourth research paper, A Half Measure?, identified many areas where EU manufacturers, retailers and consumers are breaking EC law by using units not listed in the Annex to the directive.

Appendix C provides another example of the directive's unworkability. Reproduced is the infamous Article 1 explaining how units listed in Chapters 1, 2 and 3 of the Annex "must be used for expressing quantities". With reference to indications of time, the Annex dutifully includes four units: the second, minute, hour and day. However, the Annex does not include the week, fortnight, month, year, decade, century or millennium. These units of time are now illegal for economic and public administrative purposes, unless supplementary to one of the four legal units of time.

A key question is this: if the British government does not intend to implement the directive regarding units of time, why should it implement it regarding, for example, units of weight used for selling fresh foods? The EC directive does not state specifically that kilograms and grams must be used for weighing loose foods after 31st December 1999. It merely says that until 31st December 1999, pounds and ounces are authorised for use without metric. After that date, it is assumed that kilograms and grams must be used for loose foods since the directive applies to everything, including loose foods. But there is no specific reference to loose foods, any more than there is to ¼lb hamburgers, 8oz steaks or 15-inch car tyres.

So, the DTI is taking a kaleidoscope of contradictory positions: in one instance, Dr Howells is to use criminal law to force tens of thousands of British fruit and vegetable traders to convert to the metric system. On the other hand, he takes no legal action through the European Court of Justice against other EU governments for allowing Continental fresh food traders to use "livres" and "pfunds", even though these units are not listed in the Annex. And while he intends to force producers to re-label 18-inch saws as "457mm", he considers himself free to fill a report with illegal terms such as "January 2000".

Questions in search of answers

How will the DTI permit consumers to continue ordering goods in lb/oz when no such derogation is made for this purpose by the EC directive?

· Will inch-based engineering components be required to have metric labels?

· Will waterway signs be changed to display kilometres for distance and speed signs?

· Will metric be required for newspaper advertisements — including those in the classified columns?

· Will estate agents have to convey, in shop windows and in leaflets, dimensions of houses in metres and centimetres?

· Will quarter-pound hamburgers sold in fast food outlets require metric as the most prominent descriptor?

· Will restaurants selling steaks have to describe them in metric?

· Will the quantity of gold in jewellery have to be described in metric (e.g. g/cm³)?

· Will canned cider companies that label 568ml cans as "one pint" be required to make the reference to the pint no more prominent than the metric?

· Cadbury's market a product described on the packaging as a "Yard of Chocolate". Is this legal?

· Will 3½-inch computer discs be described as "9cm"?

· Will egg cartons have to display metric information?

Conclusion —
the mismeasure of democracy

Subject to the democratic process, any government can support, assist or promote metric adoption in the private sector. A government can even compel metric by, for example, passing laws preventing the sale of goods that do not have metric indicators. A government cannot, however, control the way people think. Nor can it prevent people exchanging information additional to that made mandatory by law, protestations by the EC notwithstanding.

If individuals, pursuing private concerns on private property, choose to use units of measure alongside those made compulsory, then there is nothing the government can do about it.

This is why the DTI's vision of Britain going "fully metric" cannot be achieved since, in a democracy, people are free not to. The DTI can impose metric but it cannot prevent imperial. And since there is no reason to assume that the public will switch to metric when they still have access to imperial, the mass public conversion on which the DTI's policy hinges will not happen. What Britain needs is a new policy on weights and measures, based on the realities of the market place and the wishes of the public. Part of this process involves standing up to the European Commission.

Instead, the DTI takes two years to produce a report that appears to have no purpose other than to hide its subservience to Brussels behind stories about "consumer groups" and US "metrication programmes". If nothing else, the report is the final proof that the DTI cannot come to terms with its inability to complete metric conversion. It represents the last gasp of a policy that can go nowhere, other than being continuously postponed in an endless succession of completion dates, from 1975 to 1989, 1999, 2009 and beyond.

Return to Initial Page: INITIAL PAGE