---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 17:26:33 -0500 (CDT)
From: Gene Mechtly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Metric Labeling
Dear Ms. Bernot:
Now that vendors in the United Kingdom are required by law to
sell even loose produce in metric units and forbidden to use non-metric
units (note the recent high-profile conviction in the UK for a deliberate
violation), there is *no* end user need in the entire European Union for
non-metric supplementary indications.
Please give evidence supporting the TABD notion that supplementary
indications in non-metric units actually enhance export sales to the EU.
Your reply to my inquiry addressed to Ms. Schroeter tells of
adoptions by some States of the NCWM's UPLR to allow metric-only
labeling of products not controlled by the Federal FPLA.
But, what has the TABD done (by its member corporations) since
1999 to assure that the FPLA is amended to allow metric-only labeling?
Are corporate executives persuading members of Congress and
officials in the Department of Commerce that legalization of metric-only
labeling is a *necessary* improvement of the FPLA?
Sincerely,
Eugene A. Mechtly
...........................................
On Tue, 17 Apr 2001 Marietta Bernot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...
> TABD has called on the European Union to demonstrate similar regulatory
> flexibility so that manufacturers have the option to use either metric only,
> or metric plus a supplemental unit of measurement depending on the needs of
> the end user...
