It is indeed a double-speak. And it is the game of the most powerful. At this point US has the biggest internal market under a single currency. The Euro is too young to compete for now. If the situation in 2009 changes than the EU stand will change. Otherwise it may become a perpetuum mobile. Adrian ------Original Message------ From: "kilopascal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: April 18, 2001 4:00:39 AM GMT Subject: [USMA:12287] Re: Metric Labeling (fwd) 2001-04-17 What I get out of this double-speak is: We will push to amend our law to allow metric only if the EU amends their law to allow dual. If I'm not mistaken, Bernot wrote to us once before, and stated that even if the US gave in and amended the FPLA, her company still would not drop the FFU. I think this woman is doing everything in her power to make sure the FPLA is not amended. I think she wants another stand-off in 2009. I think she arrogantly feels that if the EU backed down twice already, they will do it a third time. And the third time will be the charm. The charm being, that the EU will agree to allow FFU forever. I don't think Bernot realises that the EU of 1989 and 1999 will not be the same EU of 2009. The EU of 2009 will be a bigger entity then it is now, and who knows, maybe in the early stages of a single federated state. Depending on how powerful the EU is in 2009, will effect the outcome Bernot's gamble. She will either hit the jackpot or go broke. Let's hope for the latter. John Keiner ist hoffnungsloser versklavt als derjenige, der irrtümlich glaubt frei zu sein. There are none more hopelessly enslaved then those who falsely believe they are free! Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gene Mechtly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, 2001-04-17 22:27 Subject: [USMA:12280] Re: Metric Labeling (fwd) > Ms. Bernot has not appended the (apparently pro forma) TABD restricted > distribution on her e-mail below. > Gene. > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 11:17:24 EDT > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Metric Labeling > > Lisa Schroeter has forwarded your inquiry concerning Mrs. Wagner's statements > at the TABD conferences and progress on metric in the US. > > Reference to progress in the US on metric labeling acknowledges the fact that > in July 1999, the National Conference on Weights and Measures, which is > composed of regulators from each of the 50 states, approved a proposal to > amend the Uniform Packaging and Labelling Regulation (UPLR) and allow > metric-only labelling as an option for products not subject to the > Fair Packaging and Labelling Act (FPLA) or under the jurisdiction of the Food > and Drug Administration or the Federal Trade Commission. Since then there has > been steady progress by the States in adopting this recommendation. > > As a result, 28 states now allow labeling using only metric units and the > remaining 25 must still adopt the provision into local law. > > The acceptance of metric-only labelling at the State and local level is > laying a crucially important foundation for successfully amending the Fair > Packaging and Labelling Act in Congress and achieving comprehensive > acceptance of metric-only as an option at the consumer level. > > TABD has called on the European Union to demonstrate similar regulatory > flexibility so that manufacturers have the option to use either metric only, > or metric plus a supplemental unit of measurement depending on the needs of > the end user. > > Regards, Marietta Bernot > ______________________________________________ FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com Sign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
