Stan, Where have you seen the draft proposed amendment legislation? Just curious I'd love to read it if you find it. I do agree that this is a good solution for now as far as getting SI adopted and moving along.
Any bets on how many companies would actually convert? I bet P&G as well as the soda companies will. One issue I've been thinking about is if the EU allows dual labels, does this mean that the companies could use a metric content description (500g weight etc) but continue to use Farenheit and the calorie on cooking instructions etc? I'd love to see the companies that deal in food and such use SI only but I have a nasty suspicion they might actually start doing something like that. It's also funny you should mention the 2 L bottle of soda thing. I had an older gentleman get quite irate at our local supermarket clerk because they advertised a 2L bottle of Pepsi and marked it as such on the sign w ithout putting the equivalent 67.7 fluid ounce label on there. He was a little upset and claimed that he had no idea what a liter was and that he wasn't sure if the store was robbing him of some of that soda because it wasn't a measure he understood. Fluid ounces were what he understood. It was quite entertaining to watch. Mike On 5/10/07, STANLEY DOORE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The draft FPLA legislation law and policy for the US is very good. It allows metric only labeling while also allowing dual labeling as well. That's flexibility which manufacturers and others need. It allows items and things to be stated in the originally designed units with a metric equivalent (not necessarily precise) while allowing those designed in metric to be stated explicitly in metric without dual labeling. The 2 L soft drink container is a good example of how the public adapts if given a chance. When was the last time you looked at or asked for the English equivalent of 2 L as shown on a soft drink container label? Stan Doore ----- Original Message ----- *From:* Carleton MacDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> *To:* U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 09, 2007 10:17 PM *Subject:* [USMA:38634] RE: EU metric plus-labelling I'm afraid that's not a fear, more like a guarantee. The US will do nothing – ever, unless and until there is a sea change in the political situation. cm ------------------------------ *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Bill Hooper *Sent:* Wednesday, May 09, 2007 17:23 *To:* U.S. Metric Association *Subject:* [USMA:38632] EU metric plus-labelling I can see the reason for the EU to relax its requirement (previously scheduled to start in 2010) that all goods be labelled in metric only (with no "supplementary units" such as those in Ye Olde English mix) PROVIDED that America rescinds its law (FPLA) that requires Ye Olde English units along with metric one. It's too bad we didn't get all that we would like to have seen, but its better than nothing. But why is the EU extending the present law (to allow English units) with JUST A PROMISE that the US will hold up its end of the bargain. Does anyone have any knowledge of why the EU didn't just say, "OK, we'll do it when you do it. As soon as your law changes to allow either metric-only or dual (metric+English), we will change ours to say the same thing. If you don't change your FPLA, then our original plan (to require metric-only labeling) will go into effect in 2010 as planned." My fear is that the EU will change and the US will forget about its commitment. Bill Hooper 73 kg body mass* (labeled in metric only) Fernandina Beach, Florida, USA * plus or minus a kilogram or two and down from the 56+ kg it had been.
-- "The boy is dangerous, they all sense it why can't you?"
