Boy, this is post I've been waiting all day to see! Great job Michael! Nat
> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-usma@;colostate.edu]On > Behalf Of Michael Payne > Sent: Monday, 2002 October 07 18.51 > To: U.S. Metric Association > Subject: [USMA:23161] Metric Forum > > > Just got home from the Washington DC Metric Forum on changes to the Fair > Packaging and Labeling Act (FPLA) to allow voluntary Metric only labeling > in lieu of the present requirement that both inch pound and metric have to > be listed. > > Did not hear any anti proposal statements, a couple of manufactures > (Proctor and Gamble and Georgia Pacific) stated emphatically that the > present restriction to metric plus foot pound will cost them money and > trade come 2010 when the EU implements metric only labeling requirements. > This was brought up numerous times. Lorelle Young and Jim Frysinger gave a > great talk, some trade organizations asked questions, mostly where is this > amendment to the FPLA in the legislation process? Apparently > waiting in the > White house for action by the administration, NIST has moved it > thru the US > Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, etc. > It has to > be passed by congress before it becomes law; we all know how long that > might take. Interesting to know that when two values (Inch/Pound > and Grams) > are placed on a package, the larger one is what controls the net content, > if we have something that lists 1 LB / 450 g, the pound net mass > is the one > that governs as it's the larger. If they had listed 1 Quart / 1 Liter, the > liter would have governed as it is the larger quantity > declaration. Proctor > and Gamble had good examples of net content labels required, when also > stated in Spanish and French as well as English the current law > states that > all listed units (fluid ounces, pints, milliliters, etc.) have to > be listed > in each language, this leads to an incredible mess in the content > declaration part of the package, and takes up an large amount of > space that > on small packages can be better used for safety information. > > One of the handouts was a letter from the Food Marketing > Institute based in > DC that listed numerous objections to the proposed amendment. Most of it > the familiar verbiage by people who are anti metric. Example: The majority > of consumers do not understand metric measurement. Moreover, consumers are > not demanding that their food products be packaged and labeled using the > metric system. This can be quickly refuted; I intend to send them an email > doing this. > > What I learnt is that companies note consumer comments made to their > customer comment numbers both pro and negative. What this means > is that for > 5 minutes a day each of us needs to call these (free) numbers and express > our agreement with manufactures who lead the pack and market metric sized > product packages (e.g. Proctor and Gamble). And also to companies who > don't, to tell them this is what you want. One person, cannot recall what > company said they had not heard from consumers wanting metric labeling, > obviously I did not have their number. > > > > --- Michael Payne > --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --- EarthLink: The #1 provider of the Real Internet. > > > >
