Isn't there any way to ammend the Packaging regulations while maintaining the FPLA
duality requirement but making the SI mandatory and "other" units in brackets?
I am convinced that this may be a small change but which will create a big shift in
the population's perception on metric. It will make them start getting used with the
idea that ifp is slowly on its way out.
Again, like I said sometime ago let's start make the FPLA fair for the non-metric
consumers!
Can't this be achieved ahead of the metric only allowance? It will have a greater
impact on the population. Metric only might irritate while mandatory metric (and in
first place) will send a more subliminal (if you want) message.
After all, we do not want to shock the population, this turns it against metrication.
A>
------Original Message------
From: "James R. Frysinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: April 8, 2001 5:05:31 PM GMT
Subject: [USMA:12090] Re: FPLA & UPLR
Gene Mechtly wrote:
>
> On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, James R. Frysinger wrote:
> > ...
> > The bigger issue, in my mind, is the FPLR amendment.
> Jim, I believe you mean the FPLA (an Act of Congress).
> FPLA = Fair Packaging and Labeling Act.
>
> > ..."tip" the remaining states into UPLR amendment adoption.
> The UPLR is a model "regulation" recommended by the NCWM,
> *not* an act of Congress in need of amendment.
> UPLR = Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation.
Say what you will about the powers you consider the NCWM to have. But
they felt empowered to call their change to the UPLR an amendment. See
NIST SP 942 (1999), p. L&R 9. If you feel that they have reached too
high in using that term then perhaps you can correct them at the summer
conference.
Yes, indeed, I made a typographic error in my message but I'm sure that
almost everyone here knew what I meant. I'm glad you were able to figure
it out, too, Gene. Your hunches were correct.
> > ... push for FPLR amendment.
> Once again, the FPLA (an Act) needs amendment by Congress, but
> the UPLR (a model created by the NCWM) aims to achieve uniformity
> among the Fifty States in interpretation and application of the FPLA.
>
> The UPLR, could, of course, be more favorable to SI, but is
> presently constrained by the duality requirement of the FPLA.
...which was one of my points.
> The identities of the FPLA and the UPLR are distinctly different
> and should not be confused. (I suspect fatigue when you write FPLR.)
Yes, I had just returned home at nearly 2300 following an evening lab
session. Some "days" on my "day job" are longer than others.
Jim
--
Metric Methods(SM) "Don't be late to metricate!"
James R. Frysinger, CAMS http://www.metricmethods.com/
10 Captiva Row e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Charleston, SC 29407 phone/FAX: 843.225.6789
______________________________________________
FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com
Sign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
