2001-03-25
Did they mean 0.2 oz (5 g) or 2 oz (50 g) or 2 oz (60 g)?
Some of their examples still favour too much FFU.
This reminds me again! What is happening with the revisions to the
FPLA/UPLR in all 50 states to allow metric only labelling? Is this a dead
issue? Or are we going to wait until 2009 and cry for another extension?
Those who have been following this, do you have any good news to report?
Any updated info? I know Jim was keeping tabs on his web site, but the last
time I looked a few weeks ago, there were no updates since he first did it.
I'm going to keep bring this subject up every now and then until someone
provides an answer.
John
Keiner ist hoffnungsloser versklavt als derjenige, der irrtümlich glaubt
frei zu sein.
There are none more hopelessly enslaved then those who falsely believe they
are free!
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nikolay O. Malyarov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, 2001-03-25 13:30
Subject: [USMA:11829] RE: FDA-CFSAN A Food Labelling Guide Chapter III--Net
Quantity of Contents Statement
> Look at item 10. "Net Wt. = 2 oz. (5 g)" Is something wrong with this or
I
> am not quite awake?
> Cheers,
> Nick
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of Nat Hager III
> Sent: 25 March 2001 10.29
> To: U.S. Metric Association
> Subject: [USMA:11826] FDA-CFSAN A Food Labeling Guide Chapter III--Net
> Quantity of Contents Statement
>
>
> Food labeling guide off an FDA server.
>
> http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/flg-3.html
>
> Does this mean FDA is now (at least) enforcing dual-labeling?
>
> Nat
>
