I know the predecessor to the TTB did work with the beer industry in the 70's.
At the time, when wine and spirits converted, the brewers did not want to go to
metric, asked for an exemption, and got it. Back then most breweries were US
owned companies and very little beer was imported or exported. Things are much
different in 2015. I do not know how the brewers feel about it now. If they
are in favor, maybe the TTB would work with them again.
Al Lawrence
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 15:57:07 +0000
From: jmsteele9...@sbcglobal.net
To: alana...@hotmail.com; usma@colostate.edu
Subject: Re: [USMA:54828] RE: [Rep: Al Lawrence] U.S. Is Metricating Faster
than We Think
Al: On beer, TTB requires net contents in Customary. Metric is allowed, but
only as supplemental. It is the reverse of wine and spirits. TTB swings both
ways.
I believe TTB did work with industry rather than just declare wine and spirits
metric, beer Customary, but I can't find any details on why the split. FPLA
does not apply because beer is regulated by a different Federal agency. FPLA
only applies to products regulated by FDA or FTC. (Even meat in standard
weight packages is an exception because it is regulated by USDA.) Either net
contents should always be ruled by a single agency or different agencies MUST
coordinate their net contents standards.
From: Al Lawrence <alana...@hotmail.com>
To: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu>
Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2015 11:31 AM
Subject: [USMA:54828] RE: [Rep: Al Lawrence] U.S. Is Metricating Faster than
We Think
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
>
