Bill Potts wrote (in part):
> I was also in Shoppers' Drug Mart. I bought some Head and Shoulders shampoo. > It's labeled "400 mL (13.5 FL OZ LIQ.)." That was a disappointment, as it's > made by Procter and Gamble, one of the more progressive companies with > respect to metrication. (The label also says "Imported for/Importé pour > Procter & Gamble, Inc., Toronto.") All the other shampoos I saw (and I > didn't look at them all), including L'Oréal, were marked in SI only. > > Bill Potts, CMS > Roseville, CA > http://metric1.org [SI Navigator] All the more reason to be optimistic about the nudging effect in the right direction of an amended FPLA that permits metric-only labels (while forbidding ifp-only labelling). It seems to me that for pre-packaged goods the market will shift pretty quickly to metric-only labels to cut packaging costs, and I suspect rational metric sizes at that. It can only add to the atmosphere of metrication in Canada (as well as move things along here in the States, of coursed!) Perhaps one of the biggest benefits in Canada will be the metrication of the English language text on NAFTA (trilingual) packaging, which I assume is the same in Canada, Mexico, and the US. In every instance that I've seen so far the English text has used ifp exclusively while the French and Spanish text has with only rare exceptions used only SI. This makes me wonder if anyone is "in the know" on how things are moving along on that front (amending the FPLA). And did I miss seeing any results from that meeting a few months ago that NIST (?) called in Washington, DC to discuss packaging and labeling? Can anyone out there shed light on these topics based on firm information (with sources, if that doesn't compromise the process)? Ezra
