NEW WORK ITEM PROPOSAL
Closing date for voting

Date of circulation

Secretariat

COPOLCOReference number(to be given by the Secretariat)

ISO/TC COPOLCO N
Proposal for new PC

A proposal for a new work item within the scope of an existing committee shall be submitted to the secretariat of that committee with a copy to
the Central Secretariat and, in the case of a subcommittee, a copy to the secretariat of the parent technical committee. Proposals not within thescope of an existing committee shall be submitted to the secretariat of the ISO Technical Management Board.
The proposer of a new work item may be a member body of ISO, the secretariat itself, another technical committee or subcommittee, ororganization in liaison, the Technical Management Board or one of the advisory groups, or the Secretary-General.
The proposal will be circulated to the P-members of the technical committee or subcommittee for voting, and to the O-members for information.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Proposals without adequate justification risk rejection or referral to originator.
Guidelines for proposing and justifying a new work item are contained in Annex C of the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 1.

The proposer has considered the guidance given in the Annex C during the preparation of the NWIP.
Proposal (to be completed by the proposer)
Title of the proposed deliverable.
(in the case of an amendment, revision or a new part of an existing document, show the reference number and current title)

English title

Guidance on unit pricing

French title

Lignes directrices relatives aux prix à l'unité(if available)

Scope of the proposed deliverable.

The unit pricing standard would provide principles and guidance in designing, developing, implementing,
maintaining and improving a flexible, responsive and effective and measurable regime for small to large
retailers by: Establishing best practice for informing consumers of the unit price of goods including what unit
prices are and how they can be used.
 Defining a unit pricing scheme and types of labels and promotions to which it may apply.
 Assisting organisations and legislators identify and remedy any deficiencies in their current unit
price schemes.
It is proposed the standard would: Provide for the manner in which quantity is expressed including weight, measure, count and area.
 Stipulate the prominence and legibility of unit prices.
 Indicate where unit prices should be displayed Specify how the unit price should be expressed – e.g. one unit of measure for all sizes of a
specific product or one unit per store/district; Specify exemptions for some stores, products or prices

FORM 4 (ISO) v. 2013

Page 1 of 3

New work item proposal

Purpose and justification of the proposal*

The purpose of unit pricing guidance standard is to allow consumers to quickly assess the value of
products when compared with similar products packaged in a different size and/or a different brand.
Consumers have an enormous number of choices to make when deciding what to buy. These choices are
influenced by a range of factors including taste, food preferences, health, social or environmental impact
considerations, but also and especially, price. Price comparison is made more difficult by the number andvariety of items or stock keeping units) which confront consumers in supermarkets and other retail stores.

*The reason for requiring justification statements with approval or disapproval votes is primarily to collect input on market or stakeholder
needs, and on market relevance of the proposal, to benefit the development of the proposed ISO standard(s). Any NSB vote in relation to a
proposal for new work may result in significant commitments of resources by all parties (NSBs, committee leaders and delegates/experts) or
may have significant implications for ISO's relevance in the global community. It is especially important that NSBs consider and express
why they vote the way they do. In addition, it is felt that it would be useful for ISO and its committees to have documentation as to why the
NSBs feel a proposal has market need and market relevance. Therefore, please ensure that your justifying statements with your approval ordisapproval vote convey the reason(s) why your national consensus does or does not support the market need and/or global relevance ofthe proposal.

If a draft is attached to this proposal,:Please select from one of the following options (note that if no option is selected, the default will be the first

option):Draft document will be registered as new project in the committee's work programme (stage 20.00)
Draft document can be registered as a Working Draft (WD – stage 20.20)
Draft document can be registered as a Committee Draft (CD – stage 30.00)
Draft document can be registered as a Draft International Standard (DIS – stage 40.00)
Is this a Management Systems Standard (MSS)?
Yes  No
NOTE: if Yes, the NWIP along with the Justification study (see Annex SL of the Consolidated ISO Supplement) must be sent
to the MSS Task Force secretariat (tmb@iso.org) for approval before the NWIP ballot can be launched.
Indication(s) of the preferred type or types of deliverable(s) to be produced under the proposal.
x International Standard

Technical Specification

Proposed development track  1 (24 months)

Publicly Available Specification
2 (36 months - default)

Technical Report3 (48 months)

Known patented items (see ISO/IEC Directives, Part 1 for important guidance)
Yes

x No

If "Yes", provide full information as annex

A statement from the proposer as to how the proposed work may relate to or impact on existing work,
especially existing ISO and IEC deliverables. The proposer should explain how the work differs fromapparently similar work, or explain how duplication and conflict will be minimized.
Currently there is no existing ISO or IEC work of a similar nature. The proposal was fully discussed andendorsed by ISO COPOLCO and no indication of similar work or duplication was raised by member countries.
A listing of relevant existing documents at the international, regional and national levels.
Unit Pricing – New Work Item Report to COPOLCO May 2014
Unit pricing: An effective tool? Report conducted by Option consommateurs and presented to the Industry Canada’s Office of Consumer
Affairs , Canada June 2010
US National Conference on Weights and Measures. No date. A Guide to U.S. Retail Pricing Laws and Regulations
EU Council Directive 79/112/EEC of December 18, 1978 on the harmonization of laws of member states regarding the labelling, presentation
and advertising of foodstuffs for the final consumer
Unit pricing: a guide for grocery retailers - Australian Competition and Consumer Commission 2010

FORM 4 (ISO) v. 2013

Page 2 of 3

New work item proposal

A simple and concise statement identifying and describing relevant affected stakeholder categories (including small
and medium sized enterprises) and how they will each benefit from or be impacted by the proposed deliverable(s)Large and small retailers, government agencies, consumers, food packers
Liaisons:

Joint/parallel work:

A listing of relevant external international organizations
or internal parties (other ISO and/or IEC committees) to
be engaged as liaisons in the development of thedeliverable(s).

Possible joint/parallel work with:

OIML
Consumers International
Malaysian Association of Standards Users
National Assoc. of Consumer Agency Administrators, US

IEC(please specify committee ID)

CEN(please specify committee ID)

Other(please specify)

A listing of relevant countries which are not already P-members of the committee.

Preparatory work (at a minimum an outline should be included with the proposal)
A draft is attached An outline is attachedAn existing document to serve as initial basis

The proposer or the proposer's organization is prepared to undertake the preparatory work required
Proposed Project Leader (name and e-mail address)

John Furbank
johnfurbank@internode.on.net
c/o Standards Australia

 Yes

No

Name of the Proposer(include contact information)

ISO COPOLCO Secretariat
copolco@iso.org

Ms. Alison Scotland
alison.scotland@standards.org.au
Supplementary information relating to the proposal
This proposal relates to a new ISO document;This proposal relates to the adoption as an active project of an item currently registered as a Preliminary Work Item;
This proposal relates to the re-establishment of a cancelled project as an active project.
Other: This proposal relates to a COPOLCO resolution 15/2014 which approves the development of a NWIP
proposing the development of a guideline standard on unit pricing at Annex 3 to COPOLCO 18/2014.

Annex(es) are included with this proposal (give details)

Annex 1 Outline of proposed standard

FORM 4 (ISO) v. 2013

Page 3 of 3

Annex 1 Unit Pricing - Outline
Definitions
Pre-packed means a single item that consists of the product and packing material
made up ready for retail sale.
Unit price means the price based on a standard unit of quantity including weight, volume,
length, area, number or a unit of quantity which is widely and customarily used in themarketing of specific products (e.g. ‘number of washes’).
Unit pricing means displaying the unit price of an item adjacent to the selling price. The unit
price may be marked on the shelf adjacent to the goods or, where the selling price is on the
package, on the package. Unit pricing also includes stating the unit price in printed catalogues,
in-store promotional material and on-line advertising.

UNIT PRICE = PRICE OF ARTICLEQUANTITY

Shelf label from New York State, USA.

Introduction
The purpose of a unit price is to allow consumers to quickly assess the value of
products when compared with similar products packaged in a different size and/or adifferent brand.
Consumers have an enormous number of choices to make when deciding what to buy.
These choices are influenced by a range of factors including taste, food preferences,
health, social or environmental impact considerations, but also and especially, price.
These choices are made more difficult by the number and variety of items or stock
keeping units (SKUs) which confront consumers in supermarkets and other retailstores.
It is difficult to establish the average number items or SKUs in supermarkets. However
an indication of the numbers involved is provided by recent Canadian and Australianindustry reports. In 2012 the average number of items carried in a Canadiansupermarket was 42,686 1 and in Australia a major supermarket chain carried 55,000
items 2. These figures show consumers have an enormous number of choices to makewhen deciding what to buy.

Use of unit pricing
In a media release issued in July 2013 the UK consumer organization ‘Which’ stated3
that eight in ten (78%) people shopped around for the best price for their groceries andaround four in ten (43%) compared prices when shopping in supermarkets, more thanthere were previously.
In 2009/10 the Canadian Association Option consommateurs conducted a survey 4 toshow how well Canadian consumers understood and used unit pricing. The survey
found, while quality and taste of the product was the factor that influenced the choice of
37% of Canadians, 23% were influenced by price. They also found that cost
consciousness increased dramatically in households with a family income of less than
$25,000 (37%) compared to only 9% in families with incomes higher than $120,000.
With regard to the use of unit pricing in purchasing decisions Option consommateurs
found a high proportion of those consumers who had noticed unit pricing always (23%)
or usually (31%) use it. When consumers had access to unit pricing and understood it,they used it extensively. Only one in twenty stated that they had never consulted unit
pricing. The report concluded that this demonstrated the great popularity of unit pricing,once assimilated.

Is information provided by unit pricing useful?
Unit pricing has been supported by consumer organizations and some retailers
because it reduces time spent comparing brands, eliminates confusion relating to pricecalculations and ultimately allows shoppers to save money at the checkout. Unit pricing
enables consumers to rationally evaluate the most economic package size and brand.
The time spent determining the most economic purchase is shortened substantially,
errors in product price comparisons are significantly reduced and importantly, lower
grocery shopping expenditure is attained.
This view was neatly expressed by the then Australian Minister for Competition andConsumer Affairs, Dr. Craig Emerson introducing the mandatory Australian Unit Price
Code In 2009, when he declared: “Unit pricing is a valuable tool that enables
consumers to seek better value for money when shopping for groceries.

1

Canadian food marketing institute2

Deloitte Access Economics Analysis of the Grocery Industry 2012

3

Supermarkets commit to ‘Price it Right’ Which UK Media Release July 2013

4 4

Précis of Unit Pricing requirements stated in Unit pricing: An effective tool? Report conducted by Option consommateurs
and presented to the Industry Canada’s Office of Consumer Affairs , Canada June 2010

History of unit pricing
Since the 1980’s many countries have reduced or removed the requirement for specificgoods to be sold in prescribed quantities, and packers and retailers, focussing oncompetitive price points and methods of production, moved to non-uniform package
sizes. This resulted in a huge number of package sizes which made it difficult for
consumers to compare prices of many consumer items.
As a result of campaigning by consumers and to help consumers compare values,
retailers decided to voluntarily, or were required in some states of the USA, to display
the unit price of pre-packed goods in addition to the selling price.
Subsequently, the provision of unit prices for grocery products became compulsory inseveral Nordic countries and the European Union which made the provision of unit
pricing for grocery, and other, products compulsory in all member countries byDirective 98/6/EC passed in 1998.

Legislative and voluntary unit pricing
In countries that have introduced legislation the legislation varies in relation torequirements for manner of display, categories of goods or businesses and/or size ofbusinesses required to display unit prices. Other legislation provides for a broader
range of goods and/or businesses. In other countries, for example New Zealandgrocery retailers provide unit pricing on a voluntary basis. In South Africa two of themany national supermarket chains provide unit pricing on shelf prices (not in advertising) on
a voluntary basis.
Some South American countries including Argentina, Chile and Costa Rica havemandatory schemes.

Deficiencies associated with current unit pricing practices
The two main areas of concern for consumers relating to current voluntary or
mandatory unit pricing is legibility and prominence and different values for displayed
unit of measurement.

Legibility and prominence
In the CHOICE/Queensland Consumers Association survey 61% of all respondents
either agreed or strongly agreed that unit prices on the shelf labels would be more
helpful me if the unit prices stood out more and only 10% disagreed or strongly
disagreed. When asked if: ‘The unit prices on the shelf labels would be more helpful tome if the print size was bigger’ 60% of all respondents either agreed or strongly agreed
with the statement and only 11% disagreed or strongly disagreed with it.5
The Option consommateurs survey 6 also established that one in four respondents
found the unit pricing information very or somewhat unclear. The survey did notindicate the reason for this, but, the report states it ‘shows clearly that this information
seems not to be understood by everyone and it is not perceived as being very clearlypresented’. Only 22% of respondents said that the unit price labelling on most items

5

Unit pricing still has room for improvement Australian Consumers Association (Choice) Dec 20116

Option consommateurs

was very clear. The report concluded that it was presumably due to the lack of clarity inunit pricing today that a vast majority of Canadians surveyed want the government tomake unit pricing mandatory. 7
A problem area for consumers, particularly elderly or infirm consumers is the legibility
and prominence of labelling on the top or bottom shelf where goods are displayed. In an
exploratory study Queensland Consumers’ Association interviewed a cross section of
consumers on price print height, print density, location of the unit price on label, andviewing angle of unit prices on shelf labels located 200mm from the ground.
The Survey found the legibility and prominence of the unit prices, measured by eachindicator of legibility and prominence, were substantially increased if the labels wereangled out rather than vertical to the shelf, and if the print height was 6mm rather than
4mm or 3mm. It also found that prominence and legibility were increased if the unit
price was under the selling price not amongst or under the product information. 8

Different values of unit of measurement
Due to historical or customary factors related to weights and measures legislation(legal metrology) modern unit pricing codes may use different measurement values fordifferent products in the same store. These different values are detrimental to a
consumer’s ability to compare prices.
In supermarkets and street markets in the Netherlands very often the unit price isindicated per 500g. It is understood that this practice developed because consumers
were familiar with "a pound of ..." (where the historical term "pound", although not alegal unit, is an approximate equivalent to 500g) and consumers are subtly persuaded
into thinking that the price of a product was not so high.

Why develop an ISO unit pricing standard?
The purpose of unit pricing guidance standard will be to facilitate the clear, prominentand unambiguous display of the unit price of pre-packed food and general household
items in retail stores by showing the price per unit measure of like products. The
standard could also provide technical guidance and practical examples for interpreting
broad statements like ‘the unit price must be unambiguous, easily identifiable andclearly legible’.
A unit pricing standard would be of value to, and likely to be used by, consumers,
industry, market surveillance organizations and legislators.
This proposal is to develop a guidance standard providing principles for thedevelopment, implementation and maintenance of an effective unit price labelling
scheme for small and large retailers, and packers where a price is stated. The
principles would be intended to help organizations identify and remedy any deficiencies
in their unit price schemes.

7

Option consommateurs

8

Queensland Consumers Association January 2014 ‐ forthcoming

The standard would provide principles and guidance in providing a flexible, responsive
and effective and measurable regime for small to large businesses.
Without limiting or defining the proposed standard the COPOLCO recommends thescope of the standard would:

Establish best practice for informing consumers of the unit price of goods
including what unit prices are and how they can be used.



Define a unit price scheme and types of products to which it may apply e.g.
shelf labelling, package labelling, printed catalogues and in-store promotional
material and electronic advertising.

It is proposed the standard would address:








Method in which quantity is expressed including weight, measure, count andarea.
Prominence and legibility of unit prices.
Location of unit prices.
How the unit price should be expressed – e.g. one unit of measure for all sizesof a specific product or one unit per geographical area.
Exemptions for some products, prices or practises.
Rounding of unit price (for example) $1.238 per 100g to $1.24 per 100g.
Consumer and staff education and awareness.

The guidance standard, for clarity and owing to the technical nature of the subject, islikely to contain some specific detail. Under each principle it could, for example,
contain some essential activities/outcomes that an effective unit price regime shouldhave in its menu of activities and which an organization could employ to satisfy theprinciple (The Australian Standard on Compliance Program AS 3806 serves as a good
template).

ANNEX 3 to COPOLCO 18/2014

Template
Proposal for new work
ISO COPOLCO

279

GUIDANCE1

SECTION & TITLE
Proposer's details

GUIDE
Provide Proposer's contact details and associatednational standards body/organization for use incorrespondence.
Varant Meguerditchian National Sector Manager
Standards Australia

2

Description ofproblemWhat is the problem/need?
What is the evidence?
Is it generic or sector specific?

3

Need for standard

Why is an international standard the best way toaddress the problem (rather than public education,
regulation, or others)?

4

Benefit tocommunity

What is the added value of the work?
Is it within COPOLCO's terms of reference?

5

Alignment withinISO

Are any existing standards and technical committees
relevant to the proposed area of work?
Which COPOLCO working group(s) should be involved?

6

Personnel &resources

Who is working on the proposal?
Who is taking the lead on the proposal's development?
(Indicate the key persons, consumer representatives,technical experts or national standards bodies who haveagreed to conduct the necessary work.)

John Furbank, Consumers Federation of Australia (Chair ofStandards Australia COPOLCO Mirror Committee has agreed to be
the Key Person. This work is supported by Australia, Korea, South
Africa and Norway. Australia and …? has expertise in this area.

7

Timeline

What type of tasks are necessary (e.g. research,monitoring, liaison)?
Research into existing codes and legislation and how
these work in practice,
How much time is required to complete the work?

280

A. Complete a pre-submission check to ensure that: All sections of the form are complete.
 The need for standard and benefit to community is fully articulated
and, where possible, quantified.
 The personnel, resources and timeline have been completed.
 The declaration is complete.
 Any supporting documentation is attached to the proposal.
B. Seek guidance from the ISO/COPOLCO Chair's Group to ensure that all sections of
the template have been completed in accordance with requirements.
C. Submit completed proposal along with all supporting documentation by email to the
ISO/COPOLCO Secretariat or the ISO/COPOLCO Chair's Group.

TEMPLATE______________________________________________________________________
1 Proposer's Details
Name: John Furbank
Email: johnfurbank@internode.on.net
Telephone: M +614 23 515 134
Associated NSB/Organization: Consumer Federation of Australia, Standards Australia
2 Description of the Problem
Resolution 16/2013 At COPOLCO 2013 COPOLCO noting that unit pricing is not a counterfeiting
issue but, at the same time, an important consumer issue, invites the working group, Consumer
protection in the global marketplace to study the feasibility of developing a New Work Item
Proposal for a guideline standard on unit pricing, in cooperation with OIML, and report back to the2014 plenary meeting.
Unit Pricing means displaying the price of a prepacked grocery item as a standard unit ofmeasurement adjacent to its selling price. For example 500ml of milk offered at $2.00 the unit
price would be $4 per litre.
There is a demonstrative need for unit pricing because the multitude of pack sizes for grocery
items makes it difficult for consumers (particularly vulnerable consumers) to know the quantity inrelation to the price. Unit pricing would provide consumers with a base price with which tocompare like items (e.g. different sizes and brands of prepacked goods) and substitute/alternative
items (e.g. frozen/canned/loose vegetables). Unit pricing would assist consumers to get the bestvalue for their money. The market share of packaged food and other packaged products isincreasing very rapidly in most countries and is very high in many.
The level of risk to consumers is an economic one because of their inability, where countries do
not have unit pricing, to ascertain which item is the best value for money. However even incountries that have unit price legislation (EU countries, USA, Australia) a standard could also bebeneficial because parts of the standard could be voluntarily adopted by retailers to improve thequality of unit pricing and could act as a catalyst for changes to improve any
legislation/guidelines.

3 Need for Standard

281

Discussion at COPOLCO indicated that unit pricing is an international problem. An international
standard/guide would enable consumers to ascertain which item is the best value for money. Aninternational standard could be used by many counties where pre-packaged goods are sold. EU
countries, USA, Australia and others already have legislation for unit pricing, but an improvement
to these could be achieved through the establishment of an International Standard. Many retailchains operate across national boundaries and use the same system for marking prices in all theirstores. An International Standard will promote the alignment of future regulatory requirements
for unit pricing, which will be of benefit to suppliers.

4 Benefit to Community
The objective of a standard or guide would be to :• Define a unit price scheme and types of products to which it may apply.
• Stipulate the prominence and legibility of unit prices.
• Use one standard unit only to show unit prices for products sold by weight or volume(e.g. per kg and per litre, not per 100g and kilogram for the same product category in thesame store/country.
• Develop information and education for consumers about what unit prices are and how
they can be used.

5 Alignment within ISO
EU countries, USA, and Australia currently have legislation for unit pricing. Not aware of any
national standards for unit pricing.
The Consumer Protection in the Global market Place WG is the appropriate WG for this project.

6 Personnel & Resources
John Furbank, Consumers Federation of Australia (Chair of Standards Australia COPOLCO
Mirror Committee has agreed to be the Key Person. This work is supported by Australia, Korea,
South Africa and Norway. No specific funding is required at this time.

7 Timeline
COPOLCO agreed (see Resolution 16/2013 above) to propose a new area of work for ISO to
study the feasibility of developing a New Work Item Proposal for a guideline standard on unit
pricing, in cooperation with OIML. Research should be conducted and presented in a report to the2014 plenary meeting.

Recommendation by Chair's Group

Date submitted: _____________________________________
Date of initial review: _________________________________
Date of recommendation: _____________________________
282

ANNEX 4 to COPOLCO 18/2014

Unit Pricing – New Work Item Report to COPOLCO May 2014
Preface
The purpose of this report is to seek COPOLCO's support for a New Work Item (NWI) todevelop a guidance standard on unit pricing.
BackgroundAt the COPOLCO Plenary held in Malta May 2013 delegates passed the following
resolution:‘COPOLCO 2013 Resolution 16/2013
COPOLCOnoting that unit pricing is not a counterfeiting issue but, at the same time, an importantconsumer issue, invites the working group, Consumer Protection in the Global
Marketplace to study the feasibility of developing a New Work Item Proposal for a
guideline standard on unit pricing, in cooperation with OIML, and report back to the 2014
plenary meeting.’
A new activity proposal template for unit pricing was completed and presented at the
Chairs Group Meeting held in Geneva in November 2013, and participants agreed toestablish a Unit Pricing Task Group to produce a report for the ISO COPOLCO May 2014
meeting. The report would recommend support for a NWI to develop an ISO guidance
standard on unit pricing.
John Furbank (CFA/SA Australia) was appointed Task Group Leader.

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank the Unit Price Task Group, Ian Jarratt, Queensland Consumers
Association and Bill Dee, Coordinator Protection in the Global Marketplace Working
Group for their assistance provided in putting this document together
John Furbank Task Group Leader

283

ANNEX 4 to COPOLCO 18/2014

Executive Summary and recommendations

Unit Pricing means displaying the price of a prepacked commodity as a standard unit ofmeasurement adjacent to its selling price. For example for a 500ml carton of milk offered
at $2.00 the unit price would be $4 per litre.
The focus of this report is in relation to goods sold in retail stores. A unit pricing standard
could assist consumers in many different retail sectors where consumers are offeredpre-packed items including such diverse items as hardware stores selling pre-packed
nails, screws, paint or similar
There is a need for unit pricing because the multitude of pack sizes for commodities
makes it difficult for consumers (particularly young, elderly, disabled and non native
speaking or non- reading consumers) to compare the quantity in relation to the price withsimilar commodities.
The market share of pre-packed food and non-food products is very high in many
counties and is increasing very rapidly in many others.
Unit pricing provides consumers with a base price with which to compare like items ofdifferent sizes and brands and consider an alternative item (e.g. frozen, canned or loose
vegetables). Unit pricing would assist consumers to obtain the best value for theirmoney.
In countries that do not have unit pricing the level of economic risk to consumers is highbecause of their inability to determine which item is the best value for money. Howevereven in countries that have unit price legislation (EU countries, USA, Australia) a
standard could also be beneficial as parts of the standard could be voluntarily adopted
by retailers to improve the quality of unit pricing and could act as a catalyst for changes
to improve any legislation/guidelines.
Discussion at COPOLCO indicated that unit pricing is an international issue. Aninternational standard/guide would assist consumers in deciding which item is the bestvalue for money. An international standard could be used by many counties where prepackaged goods are sold.
Many retail chains operate across national boundaries and use the same system formarking prices in all their stores. An international standard will promote the alignment of
future regulatory requirements for unit pricing, which will be of benefit to both consumers
and suppliers.
Even where legislation is in force surveys show that weaknesses occur in thepresentation of the information or the use of different quantity formats. Weaknesses also
occur in educating consumers in the use of unit pricing. These weaknesses could be
addressed through the establishment of an international standard which would also
highlight the global need for consumer awareness and education.

284

ANNEX 4 to COPOLCO 18/2014
The proposed standard would provide principles and guidance in designing, developing,
implementing, maintaining and improving a flexible, responsive and effective andmeasurable regime for small to large traders by:•••

Establishing best practice for informing consumers of the unit price of goods
including what unit prices are and how they can be used.
Defining a unit price scheme and types of products to which it may apply e.g.
shelf labelling, package labelling, printed catalogues and in-store promotional
material and non-print advertising.
Assisting organisations and legislators identify and remedy any deficiencies intheir current unit price schemes.

It is proposed the standard would:• Provide for different manner in which quantity is expressed including weight,
measure, count and area..
• Stipulate the prominence and legibility of unit prices.
• Indicate where unit prices should be displayed• Specify how the unit price should be expressed – e.g. one unit of measure for all
sizes of a specific product or one unit per store/district;• Specify exemptions for some stores, products or prices
Recommendation:
That COPOLCO supports a New Work Item (NWI) to develop a guidance standard onunit pricing.

285

ANNEX 4 to COPOLCO 18/2014

Definitions

Pre-packed means a single item that consists of the product and packing material made up
ready for retail sale.
Unit price means the price based on a standard unit of quantity including weight, volume,
length, area, number or a unit of quantity which is widely and customarily used in the marketingof specific products (e.g. ‘number of washes’).
Unit pricing means displaying the unit price of an item adjacent to the selling price. The unit
price may be marked on the shelf adjacent to the goods or, where the selling price is on the
package, on the package. Unit pricing also includes stating the unit price in printed catalogues,
in-store promotional material and on-line advertising.
UNIT PRICE = PRICE OF ARTICLEQUANTITY

Shelf label from New York State, USA.

Introduction

The purpose of a unit price is to allow consumers to quickly assess the value of products
when compared with similar products packaged in a different size and/or a different
brand.
Consumers have an enormous number of choices to make when deciding what to buy.
These choices are influenced by a range of factors including taste, food preferences,
health, social or environmental impact considerations, but also and especially, price.
These choices are made more difficult by the number and variety of items or stock
keeping units (SKUs) which confront consumers in supermarkets and other retail stores.
It is difficult to establish the average number items or SKUs in supermarkets. However
an indication of the numbers involved is provided by recent Canadian and Australianindustry reports. In 2012 the average number of items carried in a Canadiansupermarket was 42,686 1 and in Australia a major supermarket chain carried 55,000
items 2. These figures show consumers have an enormous number of choices to makewhen deciding what to buy.
1

2

Canadian food marketing instituteDeloitte Access Economics Analysis of the Grocery Industry 2012286

ANNEX 4 to COPOLCO 18/2014

History of unit pricing

Ancient artefacts and paintings of the Egyptian and Sumerian civilisations showing earlyforms of weighing and measuring equipment demonstrate that the concept of a unit ofmeasure to be used in trade transactions has been known for centuries. An early legal
consumer protection measure ‘There shall be but one Measure throughout the Realm""One measure of Wine shall be through our Realm, and one measure of Ale, and one
measure of ......... " was introduced under the English Magna Carta 3.
In 1812 the French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte passed legislation introducing
traditional units of measurement for retail trade which laid the foundations for thedefinitive introduction of the metric system across Europe in the middle of the 19th
century.
During the 20th century with the introduction of goods already pre-packed for salespecific goods were required to be sold at a price per unit of measure under national
weights and measures legislation (legal metrology). Weights and measures regulations
contained requirements that pre-packed goods be sold in prescribed quantities e.g.
250g, 500g and 1kg. Sellers were permitted to sell pre-packed items in non-prescribed
quantities (e.g. 350g) providing the goods were accompanied by a sign stating the unit
price.
Since the 1980’s many countries have reduced or removed the requirement for specificgoods to be sold in prescribed quantities and, packers and retailers focussing oncompetitive price points and methods of production, moved to non-uniform package
sizes. This resulted in a huge number of package sizes which made it difficult for
consumers to compare prices of many consumer items.
As a result of campaigning by consumers and to help consumers compare values,
retailers decided to voluntarily, or were required in some states of the U.S.A, to display
the unit price of pre-packed goods in addition to the selling price.
Subsequently, the provision of unit prices for grocery products became compulsory inseveral Nordic countries and the European Union which made the provision of unit
pricing for grocery, and other, products compulsory in all member countries by Directive
98/6/EC passed in 1998.
In Canada, Quebec province introduced compulsory unit pricing in 2001. In Australia,
since December 2009, after a very long campaign by consumers, grocery retailers withlarge stores or selling on the internet have been required to provide unit prices for mostproducts sold.

Current legal and voluntary requirements

In countries that have introduced legislation the legislation varies in relation torequirements for manner of display, categories of goods or businesses and/or size ofbusinesses required to display unit prices. Other legislation provides for a broader rangeof goods and/or businesses. In other countries, for example New Zealand grocery
3

English Magna Carta (1215)

287

ANNEX 4 to COPOLCO 18/2014
retailers provide unit pricing on a voluntary basis. In South Africa two of the many national
supermarket chains provide unit pricing on shelf prices (not in advertising) on a voluntarybasis.
Some South American countries including Argentina, Chile and Costa Rica havemandatory schemes.
United States
The cities, counties and states of the North-eastern United States implemented unit
pricing systems in the late 1960s. Regulations requiring display of unit prices in the U.S.
has been promulgated primarily through regional governments (cities and states) and,
consequently, it has developed a diversity of approaches with no common basis. 4
Today, twenty states and three territories have laws or regulations on unit pricing. Of
these, eleven require mandatory display: Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, Vermont,
Washington DC and the Virgin Islands. 5
Model unit price requirements are published in the National Institute of Standards (NIST)
and Technology Handbook 130, “Uniform Laws and Regulations by the US National
Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM).
The handbook specifies:•

The metrological terms to be expressed for weight, volume, count and area.

•

Exemptions including small packages, single Items, infant formula and variety
and combination packages•

That the unit price may be displayed by means of a sticker, stamp, sign, label, or
tag affixed to the shelf upon which the commodity is displayed, or by means of a
sticker, stamp, sign, label, or tag affixed to the consumer commodity.

•

Where a sign providing unit price information for one or more sizes or brands of agiven commodity is used, that sign shall be displayed clearly and in a nondeceptive manner in a central location as close as practical to all items to which
the sign refers.

•

That a sign or tag shall contain the identity and the brand name of the commodity,
the quantity of the packaged commodity, the total retail sales price; and the priceper unit.

•

Where different brands or package sizes of the same consumer commodity are
expressed in more than one unit of measure (e.g., soft drinks are offered for sale

4

Unit pricing: An effective tool? Report conducted by Option consommateurs and presented to the Industry Canada’s Office ofConsumer Affairs , Canada June 20105

National Conference on Weights and Measures. No date. A Guide to U.S. Retail Pricing Laws and Regulations [ (Consulted

March 3, 2010 Research Report Option consommateurs ).

288

ANNEX 4 to COPOLCO 18/2014
in 2 L bottles and 12 fl oz cans), the retail establishment shall unit price the items
consistently. 6
Since 2012 NIST, in collaboration with NCWM and a broad based working group, hasbeen working to develop a guide to best practices expected to be completed in 2014.
In addition to the states and territories cited above the City of Seattle Municipal Code onunit pricing states that in grocery stores and grocery departments –‘It is unlawful for any grocery store, grocery department, or seller
therein, who or which sells, offers for sale, or displays for saleconsumer commodities designated in Section 7.12.030 to fail todisclose to the consumer the appropriate unit price for suchcommodities as provided by this chapter. The price disclosed shall be
the price at which the consumer commodity is being sold at the time ofpurchase, and shall be referred to in any advertising or other display as the unit
price.. 7
CanadaIn Canada, the federal food labelling standards apply to all provinces and territories.
Every province has the right to regulate commerce carried out on its territory and,
therefore, food labelling is a jurisdiction shared between the federal and provincial
governments.
Quebec is the only province that has regulations on displaying the unit price of packaged
goods. Retailers in other provinces do so only on a voluntary basis. The Quebec
Consumer Protection Act and Regulation covering unit pricing requires the trader to post
a price on each item offered in his establishment.
Unit prices in Quebec are prescribed in the Consumer Protection Act and Regulation
which states, in effect: 8
A merchant must indicate the sale price clearly and legibly on all the goods or, if
the goods are wrapped, on the wrapping of all the goods offered for sale in theestablishment.
A label containing the price per unit of measurement in addition to the price of
the item shall be affixed to each item of food sold in an establishment. Where theitem is sold on a shelf, the label prescribed under the first paragraph shall beaffixed next to the product on the shelf.
In all cases, the price on the label must be in at least 28-point bold type print andthe other information in at least 10-point type print. Where the item is sold on a6
Précis of Unit Pricing requirements stated in Unit pricing: An effective tool? Report conducted by Option consommateurs andpresented to the Industry Canada’s Office of Consumer Affairs , Canada June 2010

7

8

City of Seattle Legislative Information Service December 2013
Summarised from Option consommateurs IBID

289

ANNEX 4 to COPOLCO 18/2014
shelf, the label prescribed under the first paragraph shall be affixed next to the
product on the shelf and measure.

EuropeIn the late seventies, an acute need for harmonisation of regulations was felt among themember States of the European Community with regards to labelling. Consequently, theEuropean Community implemented Directive 79/581/EEC on Consumer Protection in the
Indication of Prices of Foodstuffs. The creation of the European Union and the single
market heightened the need for harmonization. The fundamental objectives of Directive
79/581/EEC were to ensure consumers had access to all necessary factual informationand to protect consumers from misleading information. 9
The Community rules established the obligation for all foodstuffs sold to European
consumers to be accompanied by a label including information on a number ofcharacteristics of the foodstuff in question (including the name of the product,
ingredients, expiry date , etc.). 10
Directive 98/6/EC requires the selling price and price per unit of measurement of
products offered by traders. In the case of non-food products members may establish alist of products or product categories to which the unit price obligation applies. The unit
price is based on the final price including value added tax (VAT) and other taxes. The
unit of measure shall be in metric but may be in a unit which is widely and customarily
used. The obligation may be waived where it would not be useful or cause confusion.
For a transitional period the obligation exempted small businesses where to indicate theunit price would constitute an excessive burden. The exemption was based on thenumber of products on sale, nature of premises and where product was not directly
accessible. 11
The Directive also required that the selling price and unit price must be unambiguous,
easily identifiable and clearly legible. Member states may provide that the maximum
number of prices to be indicated be limited. 12
However some anomalies do occur. The EC Consumer Law Compendium regarding thetransposition of Directive 98/6 states in the United Kingdom the price for certain products
must be indicated by quantities which are different from the ones listed in Directive. The
price for products which are indicated in Schedule 1 of the UK Price Marking Order 2004
(e.g. food colouring, spices, coffee, fruit juices and soft drinks) must be indicated by aspecified amount of grams; concerning products sold by weight or for a specified amountof millilitres concerning products sold by volume. Furthermore, in respect of products
which are sold by number, the price must be indicated for an individual item of thatparticular product. Similar provisions exist in Cyprus. The Hungarian legislator limited thepossibility to indicate the price for one different unit of quantity so it could only be done
9

Option consommateurs IBID

10

Council Directive 79/112/EEC of December 18, 1978 on the harmonization of laws of member states regarding
the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs for the final consumer (, 1979), as amended Option
consommateurs IBID
11
12

Option consommateurs IBID
Option consommateurs IBID

290

ANNEX 4 to COPOLCO 18/2014
for products which are sold by number and where, therefore, the price can be indicatedindividually for each individual piece of that product. 13
In a media release issued in July 2013 UK consumer organisation ‘Which’ stated 14 thatfour of the UK’s biggest supermarkets had listened to the thousands of people who had
supported Which’s ‘Price it Right’ campaign for simpler, clearer and consistent pricing.
UK supermarket chains Aldi, The Co-operative and Waitrose committed to improve foodlabels in their stores to help shoppers compare the price of products more easily.
Morrisons publicly signed up to Which’s ‘Price it Right’ campaign when it was launchedin September last year and had introduced new labels in many of its shops.
New research from Which showed eight in ten (78%) people shopped around for the bestprice for their groceries and around four in ten (43%) compared prices when shopping insupermarkets, more than they were previously.
Of the six other UK major supermarkets, Sainsbury’s had been working on transparent
pricing over the last 18 months and Lidl and Tesco were making active steps towards
simpler pricing. Asda said it would look at improving its labelling but Iceland and Marksand Spencer had still yet to take any action.

Australia
Following a campaign by Australian consumer organisations since 1 December 2009
particular Australian supermarkets must provide consumers with the unit price of all
grocery items sold in constant measure packages, unless an item is exempt. The unit
price is provided in addition to the selling price.
The Australian Unit Pricing Code is a mandatory industry code under the Competition
and Consumer Act 2010 which applies to grocery retailers with a floor area of more than
1000 square metres and which sells a prescribed minimum of food items. The Code also
applies to online retailers who sell the minimum range of food-based grocery items.
The unit prices are based on the most appropriate unit of measurement, which is foundon the grocery item’s packaging.
Unit pricing must be displayed on all grocery items where a selling price is displayed
including labels and promotional signs, print advertisements where a selling price islisted and online store price lists. Information must be prominent, proximate (positioned
close to the selling price for the grocery item), legible and unambiguous.
Unit pricing doesn’t apply to non-print advertising, such as television, radio or online
audio or video advertising and does not include goods sold at a reduced price due todamage or their perishable nature, offered for sale as a bundle of different types of items
for a single price and discontinued items. 15

13

14
15

EC Consumer Law Compendium Comparative Analysis for Price Indication Directive (98/6) February 2008
Supermarkets commit to ‘Price it Right’ Which UK Media Release July 2013

Source: ACCC: Unit pricing: a guide for grocery retailers

291

ANNEX 4 to COPOLCO 18/2014
Is information provided by unit pricing is useful?
Unit pricing has been supported by consumer organisations and some retailers because
it reduces time spent comparing brands, eliminates confusion relating to pricecalculations and ultimately allows shoppers to save money at the checkout. Unit pricing
enables consumers to rationally evaluate the most economic package size andbrand.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_pricing - cite_note-10 The time spent determining themost economic purchase is shortened substantially, errors in product price comparisonsare significantly reduced and importantly, lower grocery shopping expenditure is
attained.
This view was neatly expressed by the then Australian Minister for Competition andConsumer Affairs, Dr. Craig Emerson introducing the mandatory Australian Unit Price
Code In 2009, when he declared: “Unit pricing is a valuable tool that enables consumers
to seek better value for money when shopping for groceries.
Surveys have shown there can be considerable price differences between similar
products and unit pricing assists consumers to make on informed choice.
In 2009/10 the Canadian Association Option consommateurs conducted a survey 16 to
establish whether there was a significant difference between the prices of similar
products. In a comparison of prices and sizes of orange juice advertised as being on
special offer in circulars distributed by major supermarkets Option consommateurs foundthe price difference of approximately 20% between two containers of orange juice. They
also found that the larger size of the same brand was more expensive than the smaller
sizes. The report also revealed that house brands were not automatically less expensive.
In a second exercise aimed at demonstrating the usefulness of unit pricing Option
consommateurs noted the difference between the prices and sizes of a dozen similarcommodities in order to check the variation in unit price. They found a large variation inunit price for different products including natural spring water prices of which ranged
from 3¢ to 40¢ per 100ml and raspberry jam where the price more than doubled.
In a recent independent Australian survey of the variation between tinned sardines onoffer in one supermarket the unit price of six brands in five different sizes varied from$6.32 to $29.53 per kilogram. See table 1 below:
Table 1
Brand
Size
Price
Price/Kg
A
125g
79c
$6.32
B
105g
$3.08
$29.53C
106g$1.58$14.91D
120g$1.54$12.87E
125g$1.45$11.60F
110g$2.49$22.64

16

Option consommateurs IBID

292

ANNEX 4 to COPOLCO 18/2014
The results of a survey of consumers conducted by Queensland Consumer Association,
Queensland shows examples of the savings possible when using unit prices to compare
the value of different products, brands and package sizes, as well as of packaged andunpackaged items and different types of packaging. 17 See Table 2 below:
Table 2
Product
Percent saving*
Supermarket unit
Type of comparisonby buying thepriceslowest unit priceGreen beans fresh
44% saving
Loose - $5.98 per kg
Between loose andvs. 375g pack -$10.61
prepack, for same
per kgproductCorn flakes
31% saving
Brand A 800g pack Between brand for
38c per 100g vs. Brand similar pack size andB 725g pack - 55c per
product
100g
White sugar - 2kg
44% saving
Brand C - 10c per 100g Between brand for samebagvs. Brand D - 18c per
pack size and product100g
Tasty Cheddar
83% saving
1 kg block - $6.70 per
Between pack size andCheese Brand E
kg vs. 100g pack of
packaging with somemini cubes - $40 per
processing, for samekg
product
Mushrooms fresh
50% saving
Loose - $5.98 per kg
Between loose
vs. 200g pack sliced unprocessed and$19.90 per kg
prepacked slightly
processed
Paracetamol tablets 79% saving
Brand F - 3c per tablet Between brand for same
- pack of 24
vs. Brand G - 14c per
pack size and producttabletAntacid liquid Brand 24% saving
500mL - $1.89 per
Between pack size forH
100mL vs. 200mL same product and brand$2.50 per 100mL* Saving is on the unit price not the selling price.

Use of Unit Pricing

Option consommateurs also organised a survey 18 to show how well Canadian consumers
understood and used unit pricing. The survey found, while quality and taste of the
product was the factor that influenced the choice of 37% of Canadians, 23% were
influenced by price. They also found that cost consciousness increased dramatically inhouseholds with a family income of less than $25,000 (37%) compared to only 9% infamilies with incomes higher than $120,000.
With regard to the use of unit pricing in purchasing decisions Option consommateurs
found a high proportion of those consumers who had noticed unit pricing always (23%)
or usually (31%) use it. When consumers had access to unit pricing and understood it,they used it extensively. Only one in twenty stated that they had never consulted unit
17
18

Source :Queensland Consumers Association Aug 2013
Option consommateurs IBID

293

ANNEX 4 to COPOLCO 18/2014
pricing. The report concluded that this demonstrated the great popularity of unit pricing,once assimilated.
In Australia, where legislation requires that the unit price is provided in addition to theselling price, the Australian Consumers Association (CHOICE) and Ian Jarratt,Queensland Consumers Association, commissioned a market research company tosurvey consumers about their awareness, use, and requirements of grocery unit prices atColes/BiLo and Woolworths/Safeway supermarkets. 19
There were very few statistically significant differences between the separate results forColes/BiLo and Woolworths/Safeway supermarkets. The survey found 80% of all
respondents were using the unit prices. 15% had seen the unit prices but were not using
them and 5% had not seen the unit prices. 72% of all respondents found the unit prices
very helpful and 18% found the unit prices moderately helpful.
When analysed by reference to employment and age results showed significant
differences for sub groups of respondents where 19% of full time workers had seen theunit prices but were not using them and 10% of respondents aged 18-24 had not seen
the unit prices.

Deficiencies associated with current unit pricing practices

The two main areas of concern for consumers relating to current voluntary or mandatory
unit pricing is legibility and prominence and different values for displayed unit ofmeasurement.

Legibility and prominence
In the CHOICE/Queensland Consumers Association survey 61% of all respondents
either agreed or strongly agreed that unit prices on the shelf labels would be more
helpful to me if the unit prices stood out more and only 10% disagreed or strongly
disagreed. When asked if: ‘The unit prices on the shelf labels would be more helpful tome if the print size was bigger’ 60% of all respondents either agreed or strongly agreed
with the statement and only 11% disagreed or strongly disagreed with it. 20
The Canadian survey established that one in four respondents found the unit pricing
information very or somewhat unclear. The survey did not indicate the reason for this,but, the report states it ‘shows clearly that this information seems not to be understoodby everyone and it is not perceived as being very clearly presented’. Only 22% of
respondents said that the unit price labelling on most items was very clear. The reportconcluded that it was presumably due to the lack of clarity in unit pricing today that avast majority of Canadians surveyed want the government to make unit pricing
mandatory. 21
A problem area for consumers, particularly elderly or infirm consumers is the legibility
and prominence of labelling on the top or bottom shelf where goods are displayed. In an
exploratory study Queensland Consumers’ Association interviewed a cross section of
19
20
21

Unit pricing still has room for improvement Australian Consumers Association (Choice) Dec 11
Unit pricing still has room for improvement Australian Consumers Association (Choice) Dec 2011
Option consommateurs IBID

294

ANNEX 4 to COPOLCO 18/2014
consumers on price print height, print density, location of the unit price on label, andviewing angle of unit prices on shelf labels located 200mm from the ground.
The Survey found the legibility and prominence of the unit prices, measured by eachindicator of legibility and prominence, was substantially increased if the labels wereangled out rather than vertical to the shelf, and if the print height was 6mm rather than
4mm or 3mm. The Survey also found that prominence and legibility was increased if theunit price was under the selling price not among/under the product information. It also
found that prominence and legibility was increased if the unit price was under the selling
price not amongst or under the product information. 22

Different values of unit of measurement
Due to historical or customary factors related to weights and measures legislation (legal
metrology) modern unit pricing codes may use different measurement values for different
products in the same store. These different values are detrimental to a consumer’s ability
to compare prices.
In supermarkets and street markets in the Netherlands very often the unit price isindicated per 500g. It is understood that this practice developed because consumers
were familiar with "a pound of ..." (where the historical term "pound", although not a legal
unit, is an approximate equivalent to 500g) and consumers are subtlety persuaded into
thinking the price of a product is not so high.
When the mandatory unit price code was initially discussed Australian consumer
advocates campaigned for one unit of measurement (e.g. price per kilogram and priceper litre) based on the current weights and measures legislation. However following
lobbying by the major grocery retailers Australia now has a mixed system where somepre-packed articles such as meat, fish, fruit and vegetables are unit priced at a price perkilogram and the majority of grocery items are displayed at a price per 100 gram or 100
millilitres.

Other deficiency issues
Surveys indicate that other issues of concern include consumer awareness andeducation, standardisation of format and rounding of the unit price displayed.
Consumer education and awareness are important in consumers, use of unit pricing. The
Option consommateurs report 23 stated with regard to consumer awareness that the
majority of Canadian consumers who were not familiar with unit pricing tended to choose
products on sale to get a better price in terms of quantity, while those familiar with thistool based their choice mainly on the better unit price. The report said the distinction interms of consumer behaviour was striking on account of the great difference between thetwo categories of consumers: those who are familiar with unit pricing and those who arenot.
The variety of layouts of and amount of information on shelf labels can affect consumers’ability to quickly indentify and compare unit prices.
22
23

Queensland Consumers Association January 2014 - forthcoming
Option consommateurs IBID

295

ANNEX 4 to COPOLCO 18/2014

Why develop an ISO Unit pricing Standard?

The purpose of unit pricing guidance standard will be to facilitate the clear, prominentand unambiguous display of the unit price of pre-packed food and general household
items in retail stores by showing the price per unit measure of like products. The
standard could also provide technical guidance and practical examples for interpreting
broad statements like ‘the unit price must be unambiguous, easily identifiable and clearly
legible’ .
A unit pricing standard would be of value to, and likely to be used by, consumers,
industry, market surveillance organisations and legislators.
This proposal is to develop a guidance standard providing principles for thedevelopment, implementation and maintenance of an effective unit price labelling
scheme for small and large retailers, and packers where a price is stated. The principles
would be intended to help organisations identify and remedy any deficiencies in their unit
price schemes.
The Standard would provide principles and guidance in providing a flexible, responsive
and effective and measurable regime for small to large businesses.
Without limiting or defining the proposed standard the Task Group recommend the scopeof the standard would:•

Establish best practice for informing consumers of the unit price of goods
including what unit prices are and how they can be used.

•

Define a unit price scheme and types of products to which it may apply e.g. shelflabelling, package labelling, printed catalogues and in-store promotional material
and electronic advertising.

It is proposed the standard would address:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Method in which quantity is expressed including weight, measure, count and area.
Prominence and legibility of unit prices.
Location of unit prices.
How the unit price should be expressed – e.g. one unit of measure for all sizes ofa specific product or one unit per geographical area.
Exemptions for some products, prices or practises.
Rounding of unit price (for example) $1.238 per 100g to $1.24 per 100g.
Consumer and staff education and awareness.

The guidance standard, for clarity and owing to the technical nature of the subject, islikely to contain some specific detail. Under each principle it could, for example, containsome essential activities/outcomes that an effective unit price regime should have in its
menu of activities and which an organisation could employ to satisfy the principle (The
Australian Standard on Compliance Program AS 3806 serves as a good template).

296

ANNEX 4 to COPOLCO 18/2014

Task Group membership
Ratna Devi Nadarajan - Malaysian Association of Standards Users
Moon, Eunsook - National Food Safety Information Service, Korea
Gabriela Fleischer - DIN Germany
Jay Jackson - SCC Canada
Clif Johnston - South African National Consumer Union
Willem KooL OIML
Ehud Peleg, Israel Consumer Council
Remi Reuss AFNOR, France
Kathleen Thuner, National Assoc. of Consumer Agency Administrators, USJohn Furbank, CFA/SA Australia (Task Group Leader)297