There is no reason why it shouldn't disappear, now that prescribed quantities
are gone. Depends I suppose on whether manufacturers still think they have an
economic advantage to produce packaging in both metric and imperial sizes.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jeremiah MacGregor
To: U.S. Metric Association
Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 11:57 PM
Subject: [USMA:44976] RE: FPLA 2010
Do you feel that the 1.136 L size is destine to disappear completely in the
near future?
Jerry
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ken Cooper <k_cooper1...@yahoo.com>
To: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu>;
jeremiahmacgre...@rocketmail.com
Sent: Friday, May 1, 2009 3:46:55 PM
Subject: Re: [USMA:44946] RE: FPLA 2010
Because (until last month) the UK used a system of prescribed
quantities.
Milk in non-returnable containers had to be sold in prescribed metric
measures (which could also bear a supplementary indication). The prescribed
measures included 1 litre & 1.136 litres. They didn't include 1.1 litres
--- On Fri, 1/5/09, Jeremiah MacGregor
<jeremiahmacgre...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
From: Jeremiah MacGregor <jeremiahmacgre...@rocketmail.com>
Subject: [USMA:44946] RE: FPLA 2010
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu>
Date: Friday, 1 May, 2009, 3:38 AM
Is there really a need to mark a non-returnable milk carton as 1.136
L? Why not just mark it as 1.1 L and make that the average?
Jerry
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "k_cooper1...@yahoo.com" <k_cooper1...@yahoo.com>
To: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu>
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 7:14:15 PM
Subject: [USMA:44935] RE: FPLA 2010
The bottles aren't filled to an exact anything. The requirement
is that the average of a batch is equal to or greater than the nominal quantity.
The nominal quantity used is metric, of course (unless it's
those oh-so-common "milk in returnable containers")
--- On Wed, 29/4/09, Jeremiah MacGregor
<jeremiahmacgre...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
From: Jeremiah MacGregor <jeremiahmacgre...@rocketmail.com>
Subject: [USMA:44909] RE: FPLA 2010
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu>
Date: Wednesday, 29 April, 2009, 3:17 AM
This brings to mind a question as to how these milk bottles
are filled in the factory. Do the machines that fill them use pints or litres?
I would assume litres, and if I'm correct, then what excellent machines they
must be to measure the contents to the accuracy of 1 mL without any variance. A
perfect fill for each container.
Since they are able to accurately fill the bottle to a 1 mL
accuracy, then why doesn't the pint declaration also contain the same level of
accuracy? Why is it labeled as 2 pints and not 2.000 pints in order to have
the same level of accuracy.
With that in mind, those milk bottles that are in rounded
litres, why don't they mark the amount as 1.000 L instead of just 1 L to show
that the accuracy of the fill is to 1 mL?
Jerry
--------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Vlietstra <vliets...@btinternet.com>
To: U.S.. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 1:12:08 AM
Subject: [USMA:44894] RE: FPLA 2010
I have just checked a plastic milk ”bottle” in out fridge.
It says “1.136 litres 2 pints”. This is almost universal. If the “1.136
litres” was missing, then the buyer should take the empty bottle back once
finished so that the seller could reuse it.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:07:58 -0700
From: jeremiahmacgre...@rocketmail.com
Subject: [USMA:44890] RE: FPLA 2010
To: usma@colostate.edu
But isn't the requirement for milk in pints (568 mL) limited to
those glass bottles delivered only at ones door?
Do you know approximately how many people still purchase milk
from a milkman?
Jerry
----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Vlietstra < vliets...@btinternet.com >
To: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu>
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 5:00:24 PM
Subject: [USMA:44886] RE: FPLA 2010
The UK is a member state of the EU and in theory the packaging
requirements
of all states is identical, except for a few items such as milk
that is
served in returnable containers which, in the UK , may be in
pints.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-u...@colostate.edu
[mailto:owner-u...@colostate.edu] On Behalf
Of mech...@illinois.edu
Sent: 27 April 2009 18:06
To: U.S. Metric Association
Subject: [USMA:44885] FPLA 2010
Mike,
The date the European Union *requires* metric units as primary
indications
of amount of contents in packages and on labels and in
documentation of
packages is 2010 January 1.
However, Member States of the EU are anticipated to *permit*
but not require
non-metric units as "supplementary indications" beyond January
1, as does
the UK now.
Since "2010 January 1" is a "transition" date it seems
appropriate as the
target date for a new FPLA; "FPLA 2010" with time for new
legislation in the
United States .
The present FPLA *requires both* metric and inch-pound units.
This requirement for duality *does not* conform with the EU
Metric Directive
which requires metric units and merely permits non-metric
units, even beyond
January 1
---- Original message ----
>Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 11:18:24 +0000
>From: mholm...@bellsouth.net
>Subject: Re: [USMA:44855] FPLA 2010 as FPLA-4-24.pdf
>To: mech...@illinois.edu, "U.S. Metric Association"
<usma@colostate.edu>
>Cc: <mech...@illinois.edu>
>
> Why 2010? It should be 2009!
>
> Mike Holmes
>
> -------------- Original message from
> <mech...@illinois.edu>: --------------
>
> > Public Law 100-418 designates the metric system
> of measurements as preferred for
> > United States trade and commerce... It is not
> 481.
> >
> > Attached is Draft FPLA-4-24.pdf which makes that
> correction.
> >
----------------------------------------------------------------
Share your photos with Windows Live Photos – Free. Try it Now!
