The kcal is alive and well across the world. I frequently come across products from Europe and Asia, and the nutritional information is usually in kilocalories first, and in kilojoules second (if they're present at all). I think Australia and New Zealand are much further along.
FMI is pulling ridiculous reasons out of their hat to oppose metric. As if dual kcal/kJ nutritional couldn't be done. Remek On 6/4/07, Mike Millet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Mike, I think part of FMI's objection is that the SI unit of calorie (or in this case I believe it's the kilocalorie) is a depreciated unit, and all nutritional information in most other nations is done by the joule as the unit of energy. The milligrams and grams of serving would stay the same but instead of a 2000 calorie diet you would have 8368 joule diet. At least you would if Google calculator is at all accurate :). Still, the objection is relatively minor and shouldn't be a barrier but it will be until we can re-educate the FMI. Mike On 6/4/07, Michael Palumbo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thank you for the link, Ezra. > > What I find fascinating is the one bullet point that reads, "a metric > only option will impact nutrition information". > > Does anyone else realise that nutritional information is already > displayed in metric units?! > > I have in front of me a bag of baker's chocolate chips from my kitchen. > The size of the bag is listed as 12 oz (340 g), in that order. > However, when I flip it over to the back for the Nutritional Facts > table, I find the following: > Serving Size: 15g > Total Fat 4.5g > Sodium 10mg > Sugars 9g > > Even the daily caloric intake table is present in grams and milligrams > per 2000 and 2500 calorie diets. > > These are SI units, and they're the only units listed. In fact, a quick > look through a number of packages in my kitchen yielded the same result > time after time...the nutritional guide is listed only in SI measure, > regardless of how the product's total mass is listed. > > Additionally, I find their comments about obsolete dairy cases to be > laughable. A gallon of milk is only .22 litres away from an even 4; the > > 1 gallon container could easily be slightly shape-shifted around the cap > and handle area to hold 4 litres instead of 1 gallon. Additionally, I > visited two grocery stores this weekend, and noted that they kept the > orange juice & other mixed juices in the same cabinet racks as the milk. > However, the juice was largely in 1.75L containers, and the store > didn't seem to have any problem stocking them on shelved that were > arguably designed for SAE measure. > > The FMI should be told that their insistence on keeping SAE measure is > both confusing and inconsistent. I agree with the suggestion to debunk > these comments, as quickly and professionally as possible. > > Sorry for the length of my reply, these things get me a bit fired up. :) > > Regards, > Mike > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I found the list of objections presented by the FMI to NIST back in > > 2002: > > > > http://ts.nist.gov/WeightsAndMeasures/Metric/upload/fmicomments.pdf > > > > It seems to me that most (if not all) of these objections are > > spurious. Some seem to imply a change to "rational" metric sizes, > > which the amendment would not require or even encourage in the law > > itself. > > > > Since NIST cannot take a partisan view of the matter, I wonder if > > there is any sort of think tank or university that could be funded to > > undertake an independent study that would analyze these issues and > > present solid counter-arguments from an "independent" source. (Not > > sure where the money for this study would come from ..... maybe USMA > > can hold a bake sale or something ...) > > > > Ezra > > > > -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: "Remek > > Kocz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> I wonder if FMI is misinterpreting the "optional metric-only" part > >> and opposing it in a knee-jerk fashion, or are they truly dead-set > >> against any kind of "metric-only" labeling, even if just optional. > >> As crazy as it sounds, perhaps we should write an email to each and > >> every member of congress (all 535 of them) and ask them to a) amend > >> the FPLA, and b) ignore FMI because they don't (or choose not to) > >> understand the word "optional." I don't claim to know how many > >> members of USMA are out there, but if every one of us did this, and > >> maybe recruited a like-minded friend or two, perhaps this would get > >> some notice on the Hill. Congressional aides read this stuff, and > >> many of them are young, brought up in the more modern era where > >> metric is more palatable. They talk to each other and their > >> bosses. A firestorm of emails, faxes, and letters asking for the > >> FPLA amendment during a quiet period could kick-start something. > >> If we all committed... > >> > >> Remek > >> > >> On 6/4/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> wrote: > >>> I agree with you, Paul. Having all 50 states allow metric-only > >>> labels (although there's still potentially the issue of Puerto > >>> Rico, US Virgin Islands, Guam, the Marianas, and any other > >>> overseas territories and possessions I've left out) is indeed a > >>> powerful pyschological step forward towards metrication. > >>> > >>> However, it seems that the critical (and long-standing) > >>> opposition to (even voluntary) metric-only labelling comes from > >>> the food industry in the form of the FMI (since it's the FPLR > >>> that regulates food packaging). > >>> > >>> I'm convinced we need to find a way to overcome (or at least > >>> neutralize) the objections of the FMI if we're ever going to see > >>> the FPLA amended. :-( > >>> > >>> Ezra > >>> > >>> -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: > >>> "Paul Trusten, R.Ph." <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>>> Two more states, and there will be a powerful argument to be > >>>> made: if > >>> the > >>>> "states united" permit a metric-only labeling option, why not > >>>> the United States? To have all 50 states agree on the UPLR > >>>> metric-only labeling regulation means that the metric system > >>>> can be accepted as the everyday > >>> system > >>>> of measurement on a national basis. This could be quite a > >>>> psychological > >>> barrier > >>>> to be breaking. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- Paul Trusten, R.Ph. Public Relations Director U.S. Metric > >>>> Association, Inc. Phone (432)528-7724 www.metric.org 3609 > >>>> Caldera Boulevard, Apartment 122 Midland TX 79707-2872 USA > >>>> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.grandecom.net/~trusten<http://home.grandecom.net/%7Etrusten> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > > > > > > -- "The boy is dangerous, they all sense it why can't you?"
