I think that note is an attempt to put positive spin on it.
Am earlier EU directive was supposed to make metric-only effect at year end 1979. The original directive 80/181 was to be effective year end 1989, then extended to 1999, then 2009; now apparently forever. The US didn't even require metric (dual) until 1994, and still forbids metric only. The only people who possibly care, or oppose this are the US (not an EU member), the UK and Ireland. The US has not reacted to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th scare; why react now? Metric-only might fare better as a world trade issue (pushed by EU or WTO) than as a US metrication issue. --- On Sun, 3/15/09, David <totakeke...@yahoo.com> wrote: > From: David <totakeke...@yahoo.com> > Subject: [USMA:43892] RE: EU Metric Directive > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu> > Date: Sunday, March 15, 2009, 12:23 PM > I found this on the USMA website here: > http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/eu-update.html > > "Various press reports in May 2007 indicate that the > European > Commission has dropped its opposition to “supplementary > indications,” > the EU measurement directive's term for dual units. > According to a > spokesperson, EU Industry Commissioner Günter Verheugen > will introduce > a proposal to eliminate the 1 January 2010 ban on > supplementary > indications. > > This proposal wouldn't eliminate the requirement to use > metric > units, of course; it would merely allow the option to also > include > other units. Perhaps paradoxically, this could benefit U.S. > metrication > efforts: By changing European law to permit U.S. > dual-marked goods to > be imported, rather than banning them in 2010, Europe > increases > pressure on the U.S. to return the favor by amending the > Fair Packaging > and Labeling Act to permit metric-only labels, allowing > imports of > European goods with metric-only labels. That, in turn, > would give U.S. > companies the option of dropping non-metric measurements > from their > labels." > What are the current laws in Europe on the import of > dual-marked goods. I mean, doesn't Europe already permit > dual-labeled goods to be imported? > > --- On Sun, 3/15/09, Jeremiah MacGregor > <jeremiahmacgre...@rocketmail.com> wrote: > From: Jeremiah MacGregor > <jeremiahmacgre...@rocketmail.com> > Subject: [USMA:43889] RE: EU Metric Directive > To: "U.S. Metric Association" > <usma@colostate.edu> > Date: Sunday, March 15, 2009, 4:01 PM > > What reason will there be for the US to amend the FPLA if > the EU will accept dual labels from the US? > > I don't agree with any directive that would prohibit a > product from having an alternate unit of measure. I > don't have a problem with metric only if that is the > choice of the producer. I also don't agree with the > requirement to require dual unit labels. I believe a > producer should have the right to use one set of units. > > In order to have some harmony in the market I understand > the need to declare a system of measure as standard and > require it on all products. Thus I would have no problem > with the EU banning a product that has no metric at all. > But if a producer wants to include English (or Cinese, > Japanese, Ancient Egyptian, etc.) units, then what is the > harm? > > I would hope though that the EU does not amend their > directive until the US amends theirs. > > Jerry > > > > > > > > > > From: David <totakeke...@yahoo.com> > To: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu> > Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 11:10:55 AM > Subject: [USMA:43883] RE: EU Metric Directive > > > > > > So what happens if the amendments to the directive > don't finish their path before the 2010 date? And > correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the USMA want > the amendments to the EU metric directive to pass, hoping > that it will encourage America to amend the FPLA? > > --- On Sun, 3/15/09, Martin Vlietstra > <vliets...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > From: Martin Vlietstra <vliets...@btinternet.com> > Subject: [USMA:43867] RE: EU Metric Directive > To: "U.S. Metric Association" > <usma@colostate.edu> > Date: Sunday, March 15, 2009, 7:10 AM > > The amendments to the EU metric directive have not yet > finished their path > through the EU bureaucracy. Visit > http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/prepack/unitmeas/uni_ms_en.htm > to see > the > full details and > http://ec.europa.eu/prelex/detail_dossier_real.cfm?CL=en&DosId=196132 > to > see > the progress being made. > > >From the EU Commission's point of view, this is a > minor directive. The > working papers were in English only, and as far as I could > see, all the > public responses were in English (including those from > non-English > countries). > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-u...@colostate.edu > [mailto:owner-u...@colostate.edu] On Behalf > Of mech...@illinois.edu > Sent: 15 March 2009 02:34 > To: U.S. Metric Association > Subject: [USMA:43859] EU Metric Directive > > > I just read the 2009 February update of a NIST summary of > the EU Metric > Directive. There is *no mention* of a delay of the > requirement for > metric-only labeling after 2010 Jan 1! > > Furthermore, I can find no evidence that any EU Member > State > has revised its laws requiring metric-only in response to > any > recommendation > of the EU Parliament for indefinite delay. > > How soon will President Obama's attention be aroused > when US exports are > rejected by any one of the EU member states?
