In preparing the new initiative to amend the FPLA to *permit* metric-only labeling, NIST has compiled an impressive list of products which *already* display metric-only labels; many imported items, and many items packaged in the USA.
We can be glad that there is no vigorous literal enforcement of the present FPLA; to demand the inclusion of non-SI units. Nevertheless, I asked my Illinois Senator Richard Durbin to cosponsor new legislation to amend the FPLA to permit metric-only labeling by official entry in the US Code. Gene Mechtly. ---- Original message ---- >Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 10:58:21 -0700 (PDT) >From: "John M. Steele" <jmsteele9...@sbcglobal.net> >Subject: [USMA:48414] Re: Trip to Canada >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu> > > The US fluid ounce is larger than the Imperial, but > the quart is smaller. While not allowed (alone) by > FPLA, the 40 oz delaration is true in Canada in the > "I gave you more than" sense. Had they said 1 QT 8 > OZ, that would have been untrue (and unlawful) in > Canada. > > Has NAFTA somehow exempted the US FPLA requirement > for largest units? I can't find anything in the FDA > rules that says it. I agree with you completely on > permissive metric only. However, with FMI > opposition and lackadaisical support from food > processors, I'm not optimistic, and one strategy is > to hold the manufacturers to every letter of the > rules regarding Customary. If they love Customary > so much and think the present rules are so good, > they should obey them scrupulously. (If Customary is > enough of a PITA, they'll change their position.) > > ------------------------------------------------ > > From: "ezra.steinb...@comcast.net" > <ezra.steinb...@comcast.net> > To: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu> > Sent: Sat, August 21, 2010 1:08:52 PM > Subject: [USMA:48413] Re: Trip to Canada > Here's where things get a little ugly, of course, > because the FPLA requires US fluid ounces, which are > not the ounce used in Canada. > > All the more reason for us to get the FPLA amended. > I have this obsessive conviction (no secret there > ;-) that rational metric sizes will abound once that > happens, which will have at least a partial positive > impact on the Canadian sense of "living metric". > > -- Ezra > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John M. Steele" <jmsteele9...@sbcglobal.net> > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu> > Cc: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu> > Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2010 4:23:42 AM > Subject: [USMA:48409] Re: Trip to Canada > > I have a 1.18 L bottle of shampoo, which would look > a little funny without its companion "40 oz." I > believe it is not strictly FPLA-compliant as I > believe 1QT 8OZ is mandatory, but 40 OZ may be > specified in addition. What is odder is that it > came in a bundle that included a smaller bottle, > which is an even metric size, 200 mL (6.8 FL OZ). A > more useful small size would be a 100 mL bottle that > I could take on an airplane. >...
