2002-05-03 Han,
It is up to you to contact you local weights and measures department and inquire if the TABD is in fact obeying the law, or flaunting the law. You have nothing to lose by finding out for sure. John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Han Maenen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, 2002-04-29 03:35 Subject: [USMA:19785] RE: Metric Standards and the USMA > If the EU were ever to buy a proposal from the TABD cs, after they > introduced soft metric sizes, to change to rational sizes like 1 gallon, 1 > oz, etc, then they really would be beyond saving. Any such proposal would > prove without any doubt that, in spite of TABD's claim that it does not want > to subvert metric, that such subversion was their real target. I still think > that this is what the TABD is really up to, in spite of denying it. TABD > does not just want 10 year delays, it wants the cancellation of the > directive, period. And if the EU would ever be stupid and yellow enough to > cancel the directive then....... > And such proposal should open the eyes of rationally thinking people and > make them: 1. reject it, 2. ban hidden ifp sizes on packages and insist on > rational metric sizes, and 3. apply the directive at once, even if it means > a trade war! We should not relax existing hard metric sizing regulations. > Down with soft metric, ifp's trojan horse! > > Han > Historian of Dutch Metrication, Nijmegen, The Netherlands > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "kilopascal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2002 5:09 PM > Subject: [USMA:19737] RE: Metric Standards and the USMA > > > > 2002-04-28 > > > > American businesses too favour some type of standardisation of products, > but > > where they chose the sizes and not the government. If the EU ever relaxes > > its regulations on standards, it may be a backlash in the standardisation > of > > sizes based on rational metric. We have to look at Canada as an example. > > > > When Canada first went metric there were some products, such as paint that > > were packaged in rational metric sizes. Then the Americans started to > sell > > paint in Canada in rational FFU sizes, even if they are labelled only in > > metric. I'm sure the Americans themselves don't care how they are > labelled > > elsewhere, as long as they are rational FFU sizes. > > > > What we would hate to see is the introduction into Europe of sizes like > 946 > > mL, or 3.78 L, or 28.3 g, 454 g or 25.4 mm. Eventually, consumers might > get > > upset at seeing these weird numbers. Then the US suppliers and their > > European "supporters", such as EU members of the TABD, can casually > > introduce FFU numbering. Claiming that if you change the 946 mL to 1 > quart > > and 3.78 L to 1 gallon, you have a rational labelling system. > > > > How a package is sized is how comfortable the consumer will be with the > > units used. Metric acceptance in newly metricated countries (English > > speaking world) can sway either way depending on how easy it is to work > with > > the product labels. Gallons divided into equal quarts and ounces is a lot > > easier to work with then odd metric numbers, no matter how easy the metric > > system itself may be. > > > > I would be against totally relaxing any type of standard size laws. If > some > > type of relaxing is to be done, it should still require preferred series > of > > numbers rather than a free for all. For example, sizes in 100 mL or g > > increments. This would prevent sizes like 946 or 3.75 L or 454 g, etc. > We > > can't support any effort that will give FFU a chance to gain ground. > > > > John > > > > >
