The above excerpt is from an article on entitled "You really need to drink up" by Robin Sommerfield and Jeani Read and run by the Canwest News Service , operators of Vancouver's Vancouver Sun and Vancouver Province newspapers. The story ran January 23, 2007.

My disdain for the quality of reporting by Canwest, both in print and broadcast media, is well known to those that have been reading this blog for any significant length of time. Their ability to do even rudimentary fact checking is non-existent which the highlighted bit in this article exemplifies.

BTW, Elaine's mother clipped the article for her, which is why I ended up reading it - I haven't picked up the Sun or Province in months.

Eight fluid ounces is a cup. That's the definition of a cup, not slightly less than one. 250 ml is nothing more than a convenient approximation of a cup used in baking because it is duce difficult to find a set of Imperial measuring cups since we went officially metric 30 years ago. Using Imperial ounces a cup does work out to 227 ml. It's 237 ml in American fluid ounces. More on that in a bit.

Now to be fair, Australia has defined a "metric cup" legally as 250 ml. Japan and the United States (FDA) have also defined "metric cups" of 200ml and 240 ml respectively. No such definition exists in Canada. Oddly enough, gallons, quarts, pints, gills and ounces are defined by Canadian law, though. 

Now lets consider, since we have been on the metric system for over 30 years, why the volume of water recommended is even being reported in cups and ounces. I presume because these recommendations are originating from American dietitians, frequently parroted on American television and other media that spills over the border, such that the mantra "six to eight eight-ounce glasses" is the recommendation the suburban HausFraus reading the Vancouver Surrey Province are already used to hearing. In that case would not the US fluid volume of 237 ml or the US-FDA standardized 240 ml "metric cup" be the volume to report?

Or, even better, since the precision of the volume of water is not critical, why not just dispense with the archaic and foreign measures and uselessly "precise" (yet incorrect) conversions altogether and say "approximately 1½ to 2 litres"?

And, yes, I have nothing better to rant about. Life is good.