Well, as times get tougher and costs rise, they may feel the urge to downsize the 1.136 L to a 1 L. Also if they produce both a 1.136 L and a 1 L they can cut costs by dropping the 1.136 L. If I understand Ken correctly, this size has already disappeared in his town. It is just a matter of time before it disappears completely from all regions.
Jerry ________________________________ From: John Frewen-Lord <j...@frewston.plus.com> To: jeremiahmacgre...@rocketmail.com; U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu> Sent: Saturday, May 2, 2009 4:09:03 AM Subject: Re: [USMA:44976] RE: FPLA 2010 There is no reason why it shouldn't disappear, now that prescribed quantities are gone.. Depends I suppose on whether manufacturers still think they have an economic advantage to produce packaging in both metric and imperial sizes. ----- Original Message ----- From: Jeremiah MacGregor To: U.S. Metric Association Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 11:57 PM Subject: [USMA:44976] RE: FPLA 2010 Do you feel that the 1.136 L size is destine to disappear completely in the near future? Jerry ________________________________ From: Ken Cooper <k_cooper1...@yahoo.com> To: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu>; jeremiahmacgre...@rocketmail.com Sent: Friday, May 1, 2009 3:46:55 PM Subject: Re: [USMA:44946] RE: FPLA 2010 Because (until last month) the UK used a system of prescribed quantities. Milk in non-returnable containers had to be sold in prescribed metric measures (which could also bear a supplementary indication). The prescribed measures included 1 litre & 1.136 litres. They didn't include 1.1 litres --- On Fri, 1/5/09, Jeremiah MacGregor <jeremiahmacgre...@rocketmail.com> wrote: From: Jeremiah MacGregor <jeremiahmacgre...@rocketmail.com> Subject: [USMA:44946] RE: FPLA 2010 To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu> Date: Friday, 1 May, 2009, 3:38 AM Is there really a need to mark a non-returnable milk carton as 1.136 L? Why not just mark it as 1.1 L and make that the average? Jerry ________________________________ From: "k_cooper1...@yahoo.com" <k_cooper1...@yahoo.com> To: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 7:14:15 PM Subject: [USMA:44935] RE: FPLA 2010 The bottles aren't filled to an exact anything. The requirement is that the average of a batch is equal to or greater than the nominal quantity. The nominal quantity used is metric, of course (unless it's those oh-so-common "milk in returnable containers") --- On Wed, 29/4/09, Jeremiah MacGregor <jeremiahmacgre...@rocketmail.com> wrote: From: Jeremiah MacGregor <jeremiahmacgre...@rocketmail.com> Subject: [USMA:44909] RE: FPLA 2010 To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu> Date: Wednesday, 29 April, 2009, 3:17 AM This brings to mind a question as to how these milk bottles are filled in the factory. Do the machines that fill them use pints or litres? I would assume litres, and if I'm correct, then what excellent machines they must be to measure the contents to the accuracy of 1 mL without any variance. A perfect fill for each container. Since they are able to accurately fill the bottle to a 1 mL accuracy, then why doesn't the pint declaration also contain the same level of accuracy? Why is it labeled as 2 pints and not 2..000 pints in order to have the same level of accuracy. With that in mind, those milk bottles that are in rounded litres, why don't they mark the amount as 1.000 L instead of just 1 L to show that the accuracy of the fill is to 1 mL? Jerry ________________________________ From: Martin Vlietstra <vliets...@btinternet.com> To: U.S.. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 1:12:08 AM Subject: [USMA:44894] RE: FPLA 2010 I have just checked a plastic milk ”bottle” in out fridge. It says “1.136 litres 2 pints”. This is almost universal. If the “1.136 litres” was missing, then the buyer should take the empty bottle back once finished so that the seller could reuse it. Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:07:58 -0700 From: jeremiahmacgre...@rocketmail.com Subject: [USMA:44890] RE: FPLA 2010 To: usma@colostate.edu But isn't the requirement for milk in pints (568 mL) limited to those glass bottles delivered only at ones door? Do you know approximately how many people still purchase milk from a milkman? Jerry ________________________________ From:Martin Vlietstra < vliets...@btinternet.com > To: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 5:00:24 PM Subject: [USMA:44886] RE: FPLA 2010 The UK is a member state of the EU and in theory the packaging requirements of all states is identical, except for a few items such as milk that is served in returnable containers which, in the UK , may be in pints. -----Original Message----- From: owner-u...@colostate.edu [mailto:owner-u...@colostate.edu] On Behalf Of mech...@illinois.edu Sent: 27 April 2009 18:06 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:44885] FPLA 2010 Mike, The date the European Union *requires* metric units as primary indications of amount of contents in packages and on labels and in documentation of packages is 2010 January 1. However, Member States of the EU are anticipated to *permit* but not require non-metric units as "supplementary indications" beyond January 1, as does the UK now. Since "2010 January 1" is a "transition" date it seems appropriate as the target date for a new FPLA; "FPLA 2010" with time for new legislation in the United States . The present FPLA *requires both* metric and inch-pound units. This requirement for duality *does not* conform with the EU Metric Directive which requires metric units and merely permits non-metric units, even beyond January 1 ---- Original message ---- >Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 11:18:24 +0000 >From: mholm...@bellsouth.net >Subject: Re: [USMA:44855] FPLA 2010 as FPLA-4-24.pdf >To: mech...@illinois.edu, "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu> >Cc: <mech...@illinois.edu> > > Why 2010? It should be 2009! > > Mike Holmes > > -------------- Original message from > <mech...@illinois.edu>: -------------- > > > Public Law 100-418 designates the metric system > of measurements as preferred for > > United States trade and commerce... It is not > 481. > > > > Attached is Draft FPLA-4-24.pdf which makes that > correction. > > ________________________________ Share your photos with Windows Live Photos – Free. Try it Now! ________________________________
