True enough, Gene. The critical point was that member states are much more likely to ignore the issue than do anything about it. (Unless you have concrete evidence to the contrary ... )
Ezra ----- Original Message ----- From: mech...@illinois.edu To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu> Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 10:26:15 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific Subject: [USMA:46471] EU Metric Directives Ezra, Although member states are not *required* to demand that supplementary indications be "correct" (accurate within any certain limit). the EU Directives no not prohibit member states from rejecting products bearing secondary labels which fail to meet reasonable standards of accuracy. Gene. ---- Original message ---- >Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 06:05:13 +0000 (UTC) >From: ezra.steinb...@comcast.net >Subject: [USMA:46457] Re: NIST gobbledygook >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu> > > Some info from the Commission's consultation on > amending the EU directive (see > http://bit.ly/7pUgyO): > > "It should, however, be stressed that supplementary > markings need in no > way be correct. There is no base in the current > directive allowing > Member States to require that supplementary > indications be correct. > There is even no base for Member States to limit the > use of > supplementary markings in any way...
