Would it be in their interest to do so?
Jerry
________________________________
From: Victor Jockin <vjoc...@hotmail.com>
To: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu>
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 11:45:31 PM
Subject: [USMA:43790] Re: USC units spread to the UK - and no-one notices!
If there was a central pro-metric group organizing those interests, like P&G,
importers, the EU and other foreign interests, etc., they collectively might
very well defeat FMI on this issue. I don't believe anyone is doing that at
the moment.
--------------------------------------------------
From: "John M. Steele" <jmsteele9...@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: 03/13/2009 7:50 PM
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu>
Subject: [USMA:43777] Re: USC units spread to the UK - and no-one notices!
>
>
> To be honest, I think it would be substantially easier for companies who
> favor metric-only (like Proctor & Gamble) to take a public stand and lobby
> for it. The main reason FMI can get support is that companies like P&G
> refuse to advocate for metric-only.
>
> Perhaps a foreign company or trade group could or a foreign government could
> appeal to WTO. However, I think that is unlikely. It could also backfire if
> the public is not prepared for it.
>
> The real problem is there is no leader who has standing on the issue of
> metric-only.
>
>
> --- On Fri, 3/13/09, Jeremiah MacGregor <jeremiahmacgre...@rocketmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> From: Jeremiah MacGregor <jeremiahmacgre...@rocketmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: [USMA:43749] Re: USC units spread to the UK - and no-one
>> notices!
>> To: jmsteele9...@sbcglobal.net, "U.S. Metric Association"
>> <usma@colostate.edu>
>> Date: Friday, March 13, 2009, 10:40 PM
>> Maybe it is time that someone deliberately break an
>> anti-metric law and site the 1866 law as their defense.
>> Maybe if the case can go to the supreme court, then the
>> court can rule in favor of metric, thus by-passing the
>> Congress and the FMI.
>>
>> Jerry
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: John M. Steele <jmsteele9...@sbcglobal.net>
>> To: U.S.. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu>
>> Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 8:35:16 PM
>> Subject: [USMA:43749] Re: USC units spread to the UK - and
>> no-one notices!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> It might make an interesting defense if anyone were charged
>> with metric-only labeling. I'm not sure either the
>> charge or the defense has ever occurred.
>>
>> On the fill, I believe milk falls under FPLA and no one has
>> located a law that says it doesn't. FPLA clearly
>> states it trumps state law. All the milk I see in my
>> supermarket is dual labeled; either unit may be foirst and
>> may be the round unit.
>>
>> --- On Fri, 3/13/09, Jeremiah MacGregor
>> <jeremiahmacgre...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > From: Jeremiah MacGregor
>> <jeremiahmacgre...@rocketmail.com>
>> > Subject: [USMA:43748] Re: USC units spread to the UK -
>> and no-one notices!
>> > To: "U.S. Metric Association"
>> <usma@colostate.edu>
>> > Date: Friday, March 13, 2009, 8:26 PM
>> > I believe the metric law of 1866 would give them the
>> right
>> > to despite local laws that may require gallon fills
>> only.
>> >
>> > Jerry
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ________________________________
>> > From: John M. Steele
>> <jmsteele9...@sbcglobal.net>
>> > To: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu>
>> > Sent: Monday, March 9, 2009 6:57:27 PM
>> > Subject: [USMA:43612] Re: USC units spread to the UK -
>> and
>> > no-one notices!
>> >
>> >
>> > I still believe they could fill to 4 L if they wanted
>> too.
>
>
