<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: BIS sticks with pints of beer (but only on draught)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://metricviews.org.uk/2009/11/bis-sticks-with-pints-of-beer-but-only-on-draught/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://metricviews.org.uk/2009/11/bis-sticks-with-pints-of-beer-but-only-on-draught/</link>
	<description>Commentary on the measurement muddle in the UK</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 12:03:27 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: philh</title>
		<link>http://metricviews.org.uk/2009/11/bis-sticks-with-pints-of-beer-but-only-on-draught/comment-page-1/#comment-23719</link>
		<dc:creator>philh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Nov 2011 22:08:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://metricviews.org.uk/?p=555#comment-23719</guid>
		<description>John Smith wrote:
&quot;A unit of 10mL is easy? So is a unit of 3.2% 12U.S. fl. oz. of beer. Do the math, and this works out to being equivalent to about 0.4 fl.oz of pure ethanol. Close enough to a 40% 1 imp. or U.S. fl. oz. shot (pony). So a “unit” of 10mL is 1/3 of a standard U.S. beer or unit or alcoholic serving. Refusing to work with ounces, and pints, 468 mL is ugly indeed, but, assuming it’s 3.2% means that’s equivalent to 1-1/2 U.S. units. or a 1-1/2-fl.oz. shot (jigger).&quot;

A &quot;unit&quot; of alcohol of 10 mL is easy so long as the drink itself  is quantified in mL. I cannot comment on the international use of non-metric you refer to John but I can state that the only use of imperial for the sale of booze in the UK is for draught beer and cider in &quot;open containers&quot; (i.e. in pubs). Other than that the sale of alcoholic drink is in mL.

The UK metric association&#039;s contention on this subject is that it makes no sense to enforce the pub pint when all other forms are litre based. We also argue that so called &quot;unit&quot; should be exposed for what it really is. 

The whole business of price comparison and staying within healthy limits of alcohol consumption would be simpler if the assoc&#039;s recommendations were accepted.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>John Smith wrote:<br />
&#8220;A unit of 10mL is easy? So is a unit of 3.2% 12U.S. fl. oz. of beer. Do the math, and this works out to being equivalent to about 0.4 fl.oz of pure ethanol. Close enough to a 40% 1 imp. or U.S. fl. oz. shot (pony). So a “unit” of 10mL is 1/3 of a standard U.S. beer or unit or alcoholic serving. Refusing to work with ounces, and pints, 468 mL is ugly indeed, but, assuming it’s 3.2% means that’s equivalent to 1-1/2 U.S. units. or a 1-1/2-fl.oz. shot (jigger).&#8221;</p>
<p>A &#8220;unit&#8221; of alcohol of 10 mL is easy so long as the drink itself  is quantified in mL. I cannot comment on the international use of non-metric you refer to John but I can state that the only use of imperial for the sale of booze in the UK is for draught beer and cider in &#8220;open containers&#8221; (i.e. in pubs). Other than that the sale of alcoholic drink is in mL.</p>
<p>The UK metric association&#8217;s contention on this subject is that it makes no sense to enforce the pub pint when all other forms are litre based. We also argue that so called &#8220;unit&#8221; should be exposed for what it really is. </p>
<p>The whole business of price comparison and staying within healthy limits of alcohol consumption would be simpler if the assoc&#8217;s recommendations were accepted.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter K</title>
		<link>http://metricviews.org.uk/2009/11/bis-sticks-with-pints-of-beer-but-only-on-draught/comment-page-1/#comment-23716</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter K</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Nov 2011 16:35:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://metricviews.org.uk/?p=555#comment-23716</guid>
		<description>@John Smith

Wow, what an amazing muddle you describe - imperial flozs, US flozs, pints (US and imperial), quarts (US and imperial), gallons (US and imperial), barrels (who knows how many different sizes), &quot;talls&quot;, &quot;shots&quot;, &quot;ponies&quot;, &quot;jiggers&quot;, US beer units, etc.

Never mind, &quot;bars are messy&quot; you say.

You may be able to handle all these units, and see no problem with serving beer in either type of fluid ounce (presumably because you able to &quot;do the math&quot;), but in the UK most people are familiar only with millilitres and litres (and pints for milk and draught beer). If a drink was to be advertised as being served in a 16 oz glass, most people would think that it was a pre-metric description of the weight of the glass. 

By the way, I assume that you mention 468 mL in the belief that this is equivalent to 1 UK pint (it&#039;s actually 568 mL). Just goes to show how easily mistakes are made when converting from one unit to another.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@John Smith</p>
<p>Wow, what an amazing muddle you describe &#8211; imperial flozs, US flozs, pints (US and imperial), quarts (US and imperial), gallons (US and imperial), barrels (who knows how many different sizes), &#8220;talls&#8221;, &#8220;shots&#8221;, &#8220;ponies&#8221;, &#8220;jiggers&#8221;, US beer units, etc.</p>
<p>Never mind, &#8220;bars are messy&#8221; you say.</p>
<p>You may be able to handle all these units, and see no problem with serving beer in either type of fluid ounce (presumably because you able to &#8220;do the math&#8221;), but in the UK most people are familiar only with millilitres and litres (and pints for milk and draught beer). If a drink was to be advertised as being served in a 16 oz glass, most people would think that it was a pre-metric description of the weight of the glass. </p>
<p>By the way, I assume that you mention 468 mL in the belief that this is equivalent to 1 UK pint (it&#8217;s actually 568 mL). Just goes to show how easily mistakes are made when converting from one unit to another.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Wild Bill</title>
		<link>http://metricviews.org.uk/2009/11/bis-sticks-with-pints-of-beer-but-only-on-draught/comment-page-1/#comment-23711</link>
		<dc:creator>Wild Bill</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Nov 2011 00:07:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://metricviews.org.uk/?p=555#comment-23711</guid>
		<description>John, you say &quot;United States, Liberia and Burma sticking to the old measures....&quot;

Pro imperial measures people all claim that Liberia and Burma use imperial, but they&#039;re wrong on that just as they&#039;re wrong claiming that the U.S. does. The US uses &quot;U.S. Customary&quot; which is different from UK imperial. The situation with Liberia is hazy. The only reason that Liberia and Burma get lumped in with the US in these arguments is that none of the three claim officially to the U.N. that they are &quot;metric nations&quot;. That doesn&#039;t mean that they are &quot;Imperial nations&quot; or &quot;USC nations&quot;. Liberia (as far as I can tell from other peoples&#039; blogs uses whatever is handy (which often turns out to be metric) but the government hasn&#039;t made an offical comment on it. Burma (so it seems) tends to state official national statistics in metric, but the people tend to use a bunch of indigenous traditional measurements for a lot of things.

&quot;...a vast majority of the commonwealth nations and many U.S.-influenced countries continue to dispense gasoline, beer, and water in U.S. or Imperial fluid ounces, pints, quarts, gallons, and barrels.&quot;

If by &quot;The Commonwealth&quot; you mean Massachusetts, then OK, but if you meant the zone formerly known as the British Commonwealth then no we don&#039;t (mostly) use fl.oz, pints, gallons or whatever. Britain still uses pints but only for milk in glass bottles, or beer and cider on draught. You won&#039;t buy quarts, gallons or barrels of anything in Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Canada (etc). Possibly you might in some of the tiny Caribbean Island nations.

And on the subject of beer confusion, I have said the following before in a different thread, but hey:

Consider this situation: you drink Guinness(*) down at your local pub. They don’t have Guinness on tap, so when you ask for a Guinness they take a 500ml bottle out of the fridge (or a 500ml can) and serve you with that. You’re used to it, and indeed plenty of the UK pub-going public are used to being served 500ml servings of beer if their pub doesn’t do their favourite on draught.

You go and stay with your brother (in a different town) for the weekend. You pop out for a beer on Saturday night after the match. He buys the drinks. You ask for your favourite – a Guinness.

Unknown to you, your brother’s local pub *does* have Guinness on draught, so unknown to you (not being at the bar), you get given a pint, not 500ml. That’s 12% more than you’re used to, but in the hubbub, would you notice?

6 pints later, you’re falling all over the place and wondering why. You’d think that the UK government would want to set up the rules so that people knew what they were drinking – they claim that they do – but here that’s not the case.

Suppose instead that you drink just one unexpected pint. You’ve still consumed 12% more than you planned. Are you over the drink-drive limit? You may know that you aren’t normally, but that’s at home when you’re drinking 500ml measures. You could lose your licence and more – and all due to the confusion that the UK government causes with their insistence on their “pints for draught beer and cider” rules.

Just a thought….

(*) or Grolsch, or……</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>John, you say &#8220;United States, Liberia and Burma sticking to the old measures&#8230;.&#8221;</p>
<p>Pro imperial measures people all claim that Liberia and Burma use imperial, but they&#8217;re wrong on that just as they&#8217;re wrong claiming that the U.S. does. The US uses &#8220;U.S. Customary&#8221; which is different from UK imperial. The situation with Liberia is hazy. The only reason that Liberia and Burma get lumped in with the US in these arguments is that none of the three claim officially to the U.N. that they are &#8220;metric nations&#8221;. That doesn&#8217;t mean that they are &#8220;Imperial nations&#8221; or &#8220;USC nations&#8221;. Liberia (as far as I can tell from other peoples&#8217; blogs uses whatever is handy (which often turns out to be metric) but the government hasn&#8217;t made an offical comment on it. Burma (so it seems) tends to state official national statistics in metric, but the people tend to use a bunch of indigenous traditional measurements for a lot of things.</p>
<p>&#8220;&#8230;a vast majority of the commonwealth nations and many U.S.-influenced countries continue to dispense gasoline, beer, and water in U.S. or Imperial fluid ounces, pints, quarts, gallons, and barrels.&#8221;</p>
<p>If by &#8220;The Commonwealth&#8221; you mean Massachusetts, then OK, but if you meant the zone formerly known as the British Commonwealth then no we don&#8217;t (mostly) use fl.oz, pints, gallons or whatever. Britain still uses pints but only for milk in glass bottles, or beer and cider on draught. You won&#8217;t buy quarts, gallons or barrels of anything in Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Canada (etc). Possibly you might in some of the tiny Caribbean Island nations.</p>
<p>And on the subject of beer confusion, I have said the following before in a different thread, but hey:</p>
<p>Consider this situation: you drink Guinness(*) down at your local pub. They don’t have Guinness on tap, so when you ask for a Guinness they take a 500ml bottle out of the fridge (or a 500ml can) and serve you with that. You’re used to it, and indeed plenty of the UK pub-going public are used to being served 500ml servings of beer if their pub doesn’t do their favourite on draught.</p>
<p>You go and stay with your brother (in a different town) for the weekend. You pop out for a beer on Saturday night after the match. He buys the drinks. You ask for your favourite – a Guinness.</p>
<p>Unknown to you, your brother’s local pub *does* have Guinness on draught, so unknown to you (not being at the bar), you get given a pint, not 500ml. That’s 12% more than you’re used to, but in the hubbub, would you notice?</p>
<p>6 pints later, you’re falling all over the place and wondering why. You’d think that the UK government would want to set up the rules so that people knew what they were drinking – they claim that they do – but here that’s not the case.</p>
<p>Suppose instead that you drink just one unexpected pint. You’ve still consumed 12% more than you planned. Are you over the drink-drive limit? You may know that you aren’t normally, but that’s at home when you’re drinking 500ml measures. You could lose your licence and more – and all due to the confusion that the UK government causes with their insistence on their “pints for draught beer and cider” rules.</p>
<p>Just a thought….</p>
<p>(*) or Grolsch, or……</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Steele</title>
		<link>http://metricviews.org.uk/2009/11/bis-sticks-with-pints-of-beer-but-only-on-draught/comment-page-1/#comment-23709</link>
		<dc:creator>John Steele</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Nov 2011 12:20:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://metricviews.org.uk/?p=555#comment-23709</guid>
		<description>@John Smith

I think some of your points require substantiation.

Crude oil moves in tankers due to the vast quantities.  55 gallon drums are used for lubricating oil and other speciality products.  I don&#039;t think they are ever used for crude and rarely (emergency supplies) for fuel.  Announcements on metrication by various Caribbean, African, and Middle Eastern countries leave me feeling there is a very short list of countries using Customary or Imperial gallons, quarts, pints.  Can you provide a list of countries you think still do (you can omit US for everything, UK for beer, and for milk in returnable containers)?

A few states limit beer to 3.2%, but generally that is a low alcohol content.  Most beer is in the range 4.5 - 6.5%.  Bottled beer must be labeled and sold with Customary net contents, supplemental metric is allowed.  I can&#039;t find any Federal law affecting measure of draft beer.  Since 50 States=50 Ways, there may be a State that forbids dispensing by the liter, but I don&#039;t think that is generally true (however, it is rare in the US to find a place that emphasizes metric servings)

Places continuing to serve in ounces may or may not be the end of the world.  A law forbidding serving in metric quantities (UK, draft beer) is obviously a barrier to metrication and should be overturned.  If 95% of the world&#039;s population uses metric as their only system of measurement, is it really worth maintaining another system and converting back and forth.

Incidently in the US, a &quot;unit serving&quot; of alcohol is considered ½ fl oz, roughly 15 mL, of pure alcohol, about 50% larger than the UK definition.  The TTB floated a proposal (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) for mandatory labeling of this on alcoholic beverages, but I think the labeling proposal died.  However, the TTB requires wine and spirits to be labeled in metric and beer in Customary, guarenteeing lots of nuisance conversions if the system had to be implemented.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@John Smith</p>
<p>I think some of your points require substantiation.</p>
<p>Crude oil moves in tankers due to the vast quantities.  55 gallon drums are used for lubricating oil and other speciality products.  I don&#8217;t think they are ever used for crude and rarely (emergency supplies) for fuel.  Announcements on metrication by various Caribbean, African, and Middle Eastern countries leave me feeling there is a very short list of countries using Customary or Imperial gallons, quarts, pints.  Can you provide a list of countries you think still do (you can omit US for everything, UK for beer, and for milk in returnable containers)?</p>
<p>A few states limit beer to 3.2%, but generally that is a low alcohol content.  Most beer is in the range 4.5 &#8211; 6.5%.  Bottled beer must be labeled and sold with Customary net contents, supplemental metric is allowed.  I can&#8217;t find any Federal law affecting measure of draft beer.  Since 50 States=50 Ways, there may be a State that forbids dispensing by the liter, but I don&#8217;t think that is generally true (however, it is rare in the US to find a place that emphasizes metric servings)</p>
<p>Places continuing to serve in ounces may or may not be the end of the world.  A law forbidding serving in metric quantities (UK, draft beer) is obviously a barrier to metrication and should be overturned.  If 95% of the world&#8217;s population uses metric as their only system of measurement, is it really worth maintaining another system and converting back and forth.</p>
<p>Incidently in the US, a &#8220;unit serving&#8221; of alcohol is considered ½ fl oz, roughly 15 mL, of pure alcohol, about 50% larger than the UK definition.  The TTB floated a proposal (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) for mandatory labeling of this on alcoholic beverages, but I think the labeling proposal died.  However, the TTB requires wine and spirits to be labeled in metric and beer in Customary, guarenteeing lots of nuisance conversions if the system had to be implemented.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Smith</title>
		<link>http://metricviews.org.uk/2009/11/bis-sticks-with-pints-of-beer-but-only-on-draught/comment-page-1/#comment-23703</link>
		<dc:creator>John Smith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Nov 2011 19:55:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://metricviews.org.uk/?p=555#comment-23703</guid>
		<description>I know this thread is old, and I am in the United States, but I have to say, I can&#039;t see the problem with dispensing beer in Imperial or U.S. fluid ounces.


It isn&#039;t just a matter of the United States, Liberia and Burma sticking to the old measures, a vast majority of the commonwealth nations and many U.S.-influenced countries continue to dispense gasoline, beer, and water in U.S. or Imperial fluid ounces, pints, quarts, gallons, and barrels.

Crude oil continues to be traded in BBLs (42-USgal barrels no longer used)) in USD.  The actual product is moved in 55-USgal drums.  This causes no problem whatsoever, unless one insists upon liters only.


Fact is, LIFE isn&#039;t in liters.  Nor is it in gallons of any sort.  Bars are messy, drunken, imprecise establishhments more worried about cigarette fines than precision pours.

In the U.S. a &quot;tall&quot; actually varies from bar to bar.  22, 23 U.S. fl. oz (slightly bigger than imperial by about 4%) are the weapon of choice.  Beer must be dispensed in ounces from a keg.  I once saw beer by the liter, and told them they were breaking the law, but didn&#039;t report the matter to weights and measures.  A unit of 10mL is easy?  So is a unit of 3.2% 12U.S. fl. oz. of beer.  Do the math, and this works out to being equivalent to about 0.4 fl.oz of pure ethanol.  Close enough to a 40% 1 imp. or U.S. fl. oz. shot (pony).  So a &quot;unit&quot; of 10mL is 1/3 of a standard U.S. beer or unit or alcoholic serving.  Refusing to work with ounces, and pints, 468 mL is ugly indeed, but, assuming it&#039;s 3.2% means that&#039;s equivalent to 1-1/2 U.S. units.  or a 1-1/2-fl.oz. shot (jigger).

Anyway, getting back to kegs.  IDK what the hell a BBL of beer is.  Nor does it matter.  You find out how many ounces per keg, then divide by 22 or 23 or whatever you are pouring.

Even if the numbers are neat on paper, they won&#039;t be in practice.

You&#039;ve got foam, waste, and the impossibility of evacuating every last drop from one container into another container.  There&#039;s waste, spillage, bad lines, evaporation, foam, and the inability of the pump to pump liquid once it gets to a low-enough level anyway.



The world won&#039;t end because of the U.S. gallon or the imperial pint. . .

The whole argument is moot in the real world</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I know this thread is old, and I am in the United States, but I have to say, I can&#8217;t see the problem with dispensing beer in Imperial or U.S. fluid ounces.</p>
<p>It isn&#8217;t just a matter of the United States, Liberia and Burma sticking to the old measures, a vast majority of the commonwealth nations and many U.S.-influenced countries continue to dispense gasoline, beer, and water in U.S. or Imperial fluid ounces, pints, quarts, gallons, and barrels.</p>
<p>Crude oil continues to be traded in BBLs (42-USgal barrels no longer used)) in USD.  The actual product is moved in 55-USgal drums.  This causes no problem whatsoever, unless one insists upon liters only.</p>
<p>Fact is, LIFE isn&#8217;t in liters.  Nor is it in gallons of any sort.  Bars are messy, drunken, imprecise establishhments more worried about cigarette fines than precision pours.</p>
<p>In the U.S. a &#8220;tall&#8221; actually varies from bar to bar.  22, 23 U.S. fl. oz (slightly bigger than imperial by about 4%) are the weapon of choice.  Beer must be dispensed in ounces from a keg.  I once saw beer by the liter, and told them they were breaking the law, but didn&#8217;t report the matter to weights and measures.  A unit of 10mL is easy?  So is a unit of 3.2% 12U.S. fl. oz. of beer.  Do the math, and this works out to being equivalent to about 0.4 fl.oz of pure ethanol.  Close enough to a 40% 1 imp. or U.S. fl. oz. shot (pony).  So a &#8220;unit&#8221; of 10mL is 1/3 of a standard U.S. beer or unit or alcoholic serving.  Refusing to work with ounces, and pints, 468 mL is ugly indeed, but, assuming it&#8217;s 3.2% means that&#8217;s equivalent to 1-1/2 U.S. units.  or a 1-1/2-fl.oz. shot (jigger).</p>
<p>Anyway, getting back to kegs.  IDK what the hell a BBL of beer is.  Nor does it matter.  You find out how many ounces per keg, then divide by 22 or 23 or whatever you are pouring.</p>
<p>Even if the numbers are neat on paper, they won&#8217;t be in practice.</p>
<p>You&#8217;ve got foam, waste, and the impossibility of evacuating every last drop from one container into another container.  There&#8217;s waste, spillage, bad lines, evaporation, foam, and the inability of the pump to pump liquid once it gets to a low-enough level anyway.</p>
<p>The world won&#8217;t end because of the U.S. gallon or the imperial pint. . .</p>
<p>The whole argument is moot in the real world</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeremiah</title>
		<link>http://metricviews.org.uk/2009/11/bis-sticks-with-pints-of-beer-but-only-on-draught/comment-page-1/#comment-19969</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeremiah</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Nov 2009 13:15:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://metricviews.org.uk/?p=555#comment-19969</guid>
		<description>I for one would like to know who exactly in the Trading Standards is responsible for the rule that only pints can be served?  Is it a single person or a committee of people who have made the decision and is it based on a true concern or a personal prejudice against the metric system?

In reference to Phil&#039;s comment about comparing between a pint and half litre, is this a real important point to the public?  How many patrons of pubs actually stop to consider the price before making a purchase?  Or do they just purchase what they like no matter the price and are just out drinking to have a good time?  

I would suggest that the pubs be allowed to offer different size (small, medium &amp; large) pints, where each of the sizes correspond to 400 mL, 500 mL and 600 mL.  In this case the pint name is retained for those who prefer it but like in Australia, the name is just a vague reference to a glass, with no particular or specific amount intended.  

If the law defining the pint were changed so that the pint can be defined as any amount between 400 and 600 mL, then it would cover most (if not all) the pints that ever existed and the pint would be defined as intended.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I for one would like to know who exactly in the Trading Standards is responsible for the rule that only pints can be served?  Is it a single person or a committee of people who have made the decision and is it based on a true concern or a personal prejudice against the metric system?</p>
<p>In reference to Phil&#8217;s comment about comparing between a pint and half litre, is this a real important point to the public?  How many patrons of pubs actually stop to consider the price before making a purchase?  Or do they just purchase what they like no matter the price and are just out drinking to have a good time?  </p>
<p>I would suggest that the pubs be allowed to offer different size (small, medium &amp; large) pints, where each of the sizes correspond to 400 mL, 500 mL and 600 mL.  In this case the pint name is retained for those who prefer it but like in Australia, the name is just a vague reference to a glass, with no particular or specific amount intended.  </p>
<p>If the law defining the pint were changed so that the pint can be defined as any amount between 400 and 600 mL, then it would cover most (if not all) the pints that ever existed and the pint would be defined as intended.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Martin Vlietstra</title>
		<link>http://metricviews.org.uk/2009/11/bis-sticks-with-pints-of-beer-but-only-on-draught/comment-page-1/#comment-19946</link>
		<dc:creator>Martin Vlietstra</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:22:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://metricviews.org.uk/?p=555#comment-19946</guid>
		<description>One of the problems in the past has been the refusal of Government to publicise the definition of a &quot;unit&quot; of alcohol.  While I do not expect every drinker to know how to use that information, I would at least expect a journalist to know how to use a calculator to work out ABV (at least when he is sober) and to use this information to target their chosen audience.  Likewise with the medical profession

Fortunately I have seen a few small cracks in this policy - it is up to us to exploit these cracks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One of the problems in the past has been the refusal of Government to publicise the definition of a &#8220;unit&#8221; of alcohol.  While I do not expect every drinker to know how to use that information, I would at least expect a journalist to know how to use a calculator to work out ABV (at least when he is sober) and to use this information to target their chosen audience.  Likewise with the medical profession</p>
<p>Fortunately I have seen a few small cracks in this policy &#8211; it is up to us to exploit these cracks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: philh</title>
		<link>http://metricviews.org.uk/2009/11/bis-sticks-with-pints-of-beer-but-only-on-draught/comment-page-1/#comment-19945</link>
		<dc:creator>philh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 23:26:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://metricviews.org.uk/?p=555#comment-19945</guid>
		<description>In fairness to Alchohol Concern they seem worried by the thought of deregulation per see rather than a change to metric. They would rather keep things as they are so the existing guidance to consumers on the type and size of drinks does not have to be changed.
The trouble with existing advice is it takes no account of the wide variation in strength in the same type of drink. For example wine can be anything from 9% to 15% ABV. Beer can range from 3% to 6% or even more for some super-strength lagers.
Admittedly a lot of people simply wouldn&#039;t know how to calculate consumption from percentage ABV but that is no excuse for obscuring the fact that a so called unit is actually 10 ml or a cl of alcohol. At least the more numerate among us would have the opportunity to work it out for ourselves, especially of the size of drinks were in rational metric quantities.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In fairness to Alchohol Concern they seem worried by the thought of deregulation per see rather than a change to metric. They would rather keep things as they are so the existing guidance to consumers on the type and size of drinks does not have to be changed.<br />
The trouble with existing advice is it takes no account of the wide variation in strength in the same type of drink. For example wine can be anything from 9% to 15% ABV. Beer can range from 3% to 6% or even more for some super-strength lagers.<br />
Admittedly a lot of people simply wouldn&#8217;t know how to calculate consumption from percentage ABV but that is no excuse for obscuring the fact that a so called unit is actually 10 ml or a cl of alcohol. At least the more numerate among us would have the opportunity to work it out for ourselves, especially of the size of drinks were in rational metric quantities.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: A</title>
		<link>http://metricviews.org.uk/2009/11/bis-sticks-with-pints-of-beer-but-only-on-draught/comment-page-1/#comment-19944</link>
		<dc:creator>A</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:35:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://metricviews.org.uk/?p=555#comment-19944</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m surprised that Alcohol Concern did not side with deregulation which would allow people to choose smaller quantities of alcohol. I also find it rather confusing on their part considering their agenda. How could they miss the opportunity to allow people to consume smaller quanitities of alcohol? A glass of beer is already expensive and people may feel that they are not getting their money&#039;s worth unless they drink all of the glass.

As for CAMRA, this could have been an opportunity which would have gone in their favour! Point 5 makes this clear as to why. How short sighted of them.

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m surprised that Alcohol Concern did not side with deregulation which would allow people to choose smaller quantities of alcohol. I also find it rather confusing on their part considering their agenda. How could they miss the opportunity to allow people to consume smaller quanitities of alcohol? A glass of beer is already expensive and people may feel that they are not getting their money&#8217;s worth unless they drink all of the glass.</p>
<p>As for CAMRA, this could have been an opportunity which would have gone in their favour! Point 5 makes this clear as to why. How short sighted of them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

