- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,591
The title says it all.
340g is the new pound
- Thread starter moribundman
- Start date
- Status
Why has the pound lost 13.592 grams?
Originally Posted By: Jim 5
Why has the pound lost 13.592 grams?
I am behind the times, when did it lose the other 100 grams?
Or were you referring to some Canadian pound?
Why has the pound lost 13.592 grams?
I am behind the times, when did it lose the other 100 grams?
Or were you referring to some Canadian pound?
Originally Posted By: XS650
Originally Posted By: Jim 5
Why has the pound lost 13.592 grams?
I am behind the times, when did it lose the other 100 grams?
Thanks for pointing that out. Not sure why I missed that.
What happened to the 113.592 grams?
Originally Posted By: Jim 5
Why has the pound lost 13.592 grams?
I am behind the times, when did it lose the other 100 grams?
Thanks for pointing that out. Not sure why I missed that.
What happened to the 113.592 grams?
Mori said the "title says it all". Who are we to question that.
I indirectly found the answer on Google along with a little light thinking.
I indirectly found the answer on Google along with a little light thinking.
Originally Posted By: eljefino
I bet cans of coffee will still weigh under 340g.
A half Gallon of ice cream = 48 ounces....
I bet cans of coffee will still weigh under 340g.
A half Gallon of ice cream = 48 ounces....
Last edited:
3 lb tins of coffee have 1 kg in them here....2.2 lbs.
Maybe Mori is talking British pounds ??!!
Maybe Mori is talking British pounds ??!!
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,591
Originally Posted By: XS650
Mori said the "title says it all". Who are we to question that.
I indirectly found the answer on Google along with a little light thinking.
Products that have been commonly packaged in 1 lbs (454 g) quantity are increasingly downsized to 340 g retail units. Coffee is one of the most obvious products that are affected. The size of a container holding 340 g is marginally smaller than a container holding 454 g and most consumers, unless they read the label, won't realize they are suddenly buying a lot less product for the same or even likely higher price.
What I also find ridiculous are those downsized products that look like they were packaged for Hobbits. I am talking, for example, about those "short" soda cans and tiny cereal boxes ("Buy two for $4!"). Considering that we all should cut down on waste, which to a large degree comes from totally overpackaged goods, the small package sizes and the "individually wrapped" (peanut) are quite idiotic. I am not saying one should buy everything in bulk, but downsizing the standard retail units makes no sense. Rant over.
Mori said the "title says it all". Who are we to question that.
I indirectly found the answer on Google along with a little light thinking.
Products that have been commonly packaged in 1 lbs (454 g) quantity are increasingly downsized to 340 g retail units. Coffee is one of the most obvious products that are affected. The size of a container holding 340 g is marginally smaller than a container holding 454 g and most consumers, unless they read the label, won't realize they are suddenly buying a lot less product for the same or even likely higher price.
What I also find ridiculous are those downsized products that look like they were packaged for Hobbits. I am talking, for example, about those "short" soda cans and tiny cereal boxes ("Buy two for $4!"). Considering that we all should cut down on waste, which to a large degree comes from totally overpackaged goods, the small package sizes and the "individually wrapped" (peanut) are quite idiotic. I am not saying one should buy everything in bulk, but downsizing the standard retail units makes no sense. Rant over.
Shouldn't this be in the food (fight) forum?
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,591
No.
OK
Originally Posted By: moribundman
Originally Posted By: XS650
Mori said the "title says it all". Who are we to question that.
I indirectly found the answer on Google along with a little light thinking.
Products that have been commonly packaged in 1 lbs (454 g) quantity are increasingly downsized to 340 g retail units. Coffee is one of the most obvious products that are affected. The size of a container holding 340 g is marginally smaller than a container holding 454 g and most consumers, unless they read the label, won't realize they are suddenly buying a lot less product for the same or even likely higher price.
What I also find ridiculous are those downsized products that look like they were packaged for Hobbits. I am talking, for example, about those "short" soda cans and tiny cereal boxes ("Buy two for $4!"). Considering that we all should cut down on waste, which to a large degree comes from totally overpackaged goods, the small package sizes and the "individually wrapped" (peanut) are quite idiotic. I am not saying one should buy everything in bulk, but downsizing the standard retail units makes no sense. Rant over.
One of my friend's coffee shops in Chicago has shirts that say "we sell pounds".
You two would get along well. That's an interesting rant. A fairly common observation is that portion sizes have gotten out of control over the years in this part of the world. Larger items (e.g. pounds of coffee) which have been quietly downsized are obviously still not intended as single-servings; my suspicion is that certain demographics would probably buy larger quantities of particular items more often if their single-serving counterparts actually contained one serving. How much of any given market would depend on a lot of factors, of course. Rant over.
Originally Posted By: XS650
Mori said the "title says it all". Who are we to question that.
I indirectly found the answer on Google along with a little light thinking.
Products that have been commonly packaged in 1 lbs (454 g) quantity are increasingly downsized to 340 g retail units. Coffee is one of the most obvious products that are affected. The size of a container holding 340 g is marginally smaller than a container holding 454 g and most consumers, unless they read the label, won't realize they are suddenly buying a lot less product for the same or even likely higher price.
What I also find ridiculous are those downsized products that look like they were packaged for Hobbits. I am talking, for example, about those "short" soda cans and tiny cereal boxes ("Buy two for $4!"). Considering that we all should cut down on waste, which to a large degree comes from totally overpackaged goods, the small package sizes and the "individually wrapped" (peanut) are quite idiotic. I am not saying one should buy everything in bulk, but downsizing the standard retail units makes no sense. Rant over.
One of my friend's coffee shops in Chicago has shirts that say "we sell pounds".
It is the metric pound.
One troy pound is 12 ounces, which is 340 grams.
Originally Posted By: greenaccord02
One troy pound is 12 ounces, which is 340 grams.
A troy pound is 12 troy ounces which is 373.2 grams.
One troy pound is 12 ounces, which is 340 grams.
A troy pound is 12 troy ounces which is 373.2 grams.
- Status
Similar threads
