2002-10-11 The one question that comes to mind, if this ......is being "sold" as a further reduction in federal regulation......., what about those who would say that they want the right to package in FFU only? That adding metric is a nuisance and unnecessary and they want the right to label there products in FFU only?
Freedom to business can work both ways. Did anybody bring up the argument about allowing FFU only on the labels? I'd hate to think that our call for SI only will in fact backfire and instead we will eventually have some products in SI, some in FFU/SI and some if not most in FFU only. then what would we have gained? How do we prevent this? The only thing that will prevent a company from removing FFU is if the products are exported from the US with the same label as sold in the US and removing SI would violate some law elsewhere, thus the SI would have to stay. But, in cases where products are sold only in the USA or a different label is affixed to the export product, then the desire might be to label the product destined only for US shelves in FFU only. This can happen. John ----- Original Message ----- From: "James R. Frysinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, 2002-11-10 14:59 Subject: [USMA:23232] RE: Implentation of metric packaging > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > Mike Joy wrote: > > >So as I understand it, no-one was *told* what to do in the > > >UK re packaging - it just happened through necessity. > > > > The short answer is: UK producers are sometimes told what sizes to use. > > > > The longer answer is: > > > > All countries fix sizes. For example, the US does not permit the sale of > > 700 ml bottles of spirits but this is the standard size of spirit bottle > > in the EU. ... > > One of the points raised in the forum was that there is absolutely no > intention of requiring the hard-sizing of products, much to the relief > of producers. > > Many product size restrictions (e.g., butter, milk, etc) were removed > in the early 90s. Unfortunately, I did not write down the date and I > don't see it in my notes, but I think it was in 1994. I do remember > Louis Straub commenting on that this passed unanimously through the > states (as a UPLR function) except that one old-codger in the Maryland > legislature refused to go along with the requirement that flour be sold > in 5 pound bags. Thus, only in Maryland, it must be packaged in that > size; in other states, other sizes are permitted. > > To make the FPLA amendment more palatable to businesses, it is being > "sold" as a further reduction in federal regulation. "Let the > marketplace tell the producers what works best" is the rallying cry. > Guay of P&G emphasized this point. Even if the amendment were to pass > tomorrow, P&G would move to metric-only labeling in a deliberate manner, > on a product by product basis, and only after marketing surveys > demonstrated that this was the economical thing to do. But his main > thrust was that going to metric-only labeling was seen by P&G as a > cost-saving strategy. They want that option! > > Due to the nature of our society and governments, we must support this > freedom being given to the businesses. This should not be a scary thing, > though. We have already documented on this list that market forces will > support and in fact prompt large-scale movement to metric-only labeling. > Heck, look what happened to beverage containers for soda pop, drinking > water, and now fruit juices! Absolutely no government action took part > in that. > > I reiterate: Vote early and vote often. Vote via 800 numbers, email, > and snail mail. The business community members at the forum gave strong > evidence that they count "ballots". > > Jim > > -- > Metric Methods(SM) "Don't be late to metricate!" > James R. Frysinger, LCAMS http://www.metricmethods.com/ > 10 Captiva Row e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Charleston, SC 29407 phone: 843.225.6789 >
