The FMI comments against metric labeling were written in 2002 by John J Motley, at least those are the only public comments from the FMI I could find. Things may have changed since 2002. Mr Motley has not been with the FMI since at least 2009. Is the FMI still opposed to the metric option?
Mr. Motley's comments, largely based on the "inconvenience" of dealing with different package sizes, were very disingenuous. Package sizes are constantly changing anyway. Companies are constantly coming out with different sizes, new and improved packaging with different shapes, new grips and handles for "easy pouring", larger economy sizes, smaller sizes sold at the same price, new "snack pack" sizes, new 100 calorie packages, packages claiming "an extra 20% free", and so on. Sizes change every week. Is the FMI still using his comments to justify their position, or are there more realistic people there now? What is FMI's current position and what is their justification? When was the issue last brought up with the FLPA? Al Lawrence Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 11:00:32 -0500 Subject: [USMA:54830] RE: [Rep: Al Lawrence] U.S. Is Metricating Faster than We Think From: mwhensch...@gmail.com To: usma@colostate.edu CC: usma@colostate.edu >From what I have heard, it is only the Food Marketing Institute preventing the >FPLA update coming up for a vote. I hope we can talk to individual members of >the board of directors of the FMI and perhaps the will help get policy changed >so FMI will no longer oppose this legislation. PS While 12 ounces might seem like a non- metric size 355 ml is actually part of the Renard R20 series. Mark Henschel. On Aug 23, 2015 10:33 AM, "Al Lawrence" <alana...@hotmail.com> wrote: We all like the idea of metric labeling and sizing in the drink industry. There has been some recent discussion here about this and what can USMA do about it. I spent some time in some markets recently with the objective of trying to figure out what could actually be done. There seems to be two different situations, one for beer, and one for everything else. From what I can see there is probably very little we can do about soft drinks, bottled water, juices, etc, but hopefully someone else has some ideas. There may be something the USMA can do about beer. Looking at soft drinks on the grocery market shelves I saw product in 2.5 liter, 2 liter, 1.25 liter, 1 liter, half liter, 20 oz, 12 oz and 7.5 oz. containers. The 20 oz container is actually the same as the 600 ml container, a popular size sold in many parts of the world, simply re-labeled (and with a small adjustment on the filling machine), so except for the ubiquitous 12 oz containers and a few small 7.5 oz cans the soft drink industry has essentially already gone to metric containers. Most bottled water is already sold in metric containers as well. I saw 3 liter bottles, 1.5 liter one liter, half liter, 700ml, 600 ml and 500 ml. The only US packaging I saw was 20 oz, which is also 600 ml, 12 oz and gallon containers. It appears bottled water is also already almost entirely in metric packaging. I was also surprised that orange juice containers are almost all metric. The most common size by far was 1.75 liters. There were also 15.2 oz / 450 ml containers, 11.5 oz / 340 ml containers, 10.2 oz /300 ml, an inexplicable 89 oz / 263 ml container, 3 liter containers and some half gallon and gallon cartons Other juice are a mixed bag and milk was essentially customary. Most olive oils are in metric containers, mouthwashes and shampoo containers are about 40% metric and 40% customary with a surprising number of containers which were not round in any units. Detergents, bleaches and sports drinks are mostly customary. The point is that American manufacturers seem to have no problem using metric containers. They do not need to be persuaded. If the labeling laws were changed American companies would probably finish converting liquid containers fairly quickly. That would certainly be true for soft drinks, juices and bottled water. It does not appear business is preventing metric labeling, it is the government, and I am not sure there is much the USMA can do about that. One possibility would be to maintain some kind of database showing how much or what percentage of liquid product in the grocery stores is already in metric containers. I think that would surprise a lot of people and the data could be presented to the appropriate government agencies or used by anyone promoting "metric only" or "metric optional" labeling. Beer containers are a different story. Most did not show any metric units on the label at all. Almost all were customary only, even the imported beers. Apparently the UPLR and FPLA rules do not apply to beer. It seems the TTB has it own set of rules. Presumably, that means the TTB can decide to allow a metric only option on their own, or, if they decide to, they could even require mandatory labeling in metric units only with no customary allowed, as is the case with wine and spirits. Does anyone know if this is true or how to find out? The sizes in fluid ounces were 8, 11.2 (330 ml), 12, 16.9 (500 ml), 18.6 for Newcastle (550 ml), 22 for Guinness (650 ml), 24, 24.5 for Fosters (725 ml), 25, 32, and 40 fluid ounces. The only beers using metric packaging were foreign beers, but even so, the majority of foreign beers were in customary packaging. The brewing industry is far behind when in comes to metric packaging. All of the top ten most popular beers in the US are now owned by foreign companies. Anheuser-Busch is now owned by InBev (headquartered in Belgium), Miller brands owned by a SABMiller, a South African company and Coors has merged with Molson (Canadian) and SABMiller also has an interest in the new company. The other two brands are Heineken (Dutch) and Corona (Mexican). Since the top ten beer brands are owed by international companies, it would seem like they would be in favor of metric only. What is stopping them? Are TTB regulations preventing them for doing it? Will the TTB change it if they ask as a united front? Can the USMA help co-ordinate this effort? Do they want do want to convert in the first place? Perhaps some brewers are reluctant to publicly come out in favor of metric because of PR conerns. If that is the case, can the USMA provide them with political cover by presenting their request to the TTB for them? First we need to find if the big brewers want to go to metric labeling. I wrote to several of them a few years ago and got no response at all other than a couple of form letters. Perhaps the USMA can get a better response and find out what their position on metric labeling is. Al Lawrence > From: howard.res...@dot.ny.gov > To: usma@colostate.edu > Subject: [USMA:54822] RE: [Rep: Al Lawrence] U.S. Is Metricating Faster than > We Think > Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 13:58:46 +0000 > > If anything lets go after the drink industry in general. It's a mess now, > consistent drink sizes would be better for everyone. > > Howard R. Ressel > Project Design Engineer > > New York State Department of Transportation > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-u...@colostate.edu [mailto:owner-u...@colostate.edu] On Behalf Of > c...@traditio.com > Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 11:34 PM > To: U.S. Metric Association > Subject: [USMA:54818] [Rep: Al Lawrence] U.S. Is Metricating Faster than We > Think > > Al-- Your suggestion for the USMA to push metric with businesses more than > government was well argued and is the kind of new direction that I think our > movement needs. We have limited resources, and if could get one other major > industry to go metric, that would be a significant accomplishment. > Beer and candy bars would be good possibilities to work with, as you have > argued. --Martin Morrison >
