I imagine that the PEI producers and packers would be quite annoyed with
this if it limits them to a bag size other than one they customarily
use. If it does, the choice is then theirs:
Meet the economic pressure and yield or
buck it and do no business here.
Although that sounds cold hearted in this context, consider that this is
exactly the economic pressure I hope to see the EU exert on the US no
later than the end of 2009. I fervently hope they demand that all goods
sold in the EU be devoid of non-metric indications. Americans then have
a choice:
Meet the economic pressure and yield or
buck it and do no business there.
As for the fact that the U.S. couched its requirements in pounds rather
than kilograms, I see that as only the typical practice of a government
writing its own requirements in its own languages (English and American
Hodgepodge). It shows the typical US disregard for what the majority of
the world uses for measurement. But that's no surprise at all, is it?
So, why didn't negotiations of some sort change the upper limit to a 25
kg or 30 kg bag (or whatever PEI practice has been in the past)? Was
this a unilateral declaration by the US? Or did the agricultural
departments of both countries hammer out an agreement? I don't know the
answers to these questions. But if I hear that PEI producers and packers
refuse to reduce bag size to 50 pounds in order to meet US demands, I
say "good for them"! Heck, I wish they'ld refuse to mark the bags with
indications in pounds at all! Just use kilograms! In fact I wish that
Canada, Mexico, and the rest of the world would just tell the US....
I had better stop here.
Jim
Gregory Peterson wrote:
>
> If you were a shipper or a producer, would you voluntarily use a smaller box or bag
>size and increase your packaging cost, in this case, by 13%?
> If a Canadian producer must go through the expense of bagging or boxing entire
>truck-loads of potatoes rather than just loading them into a transport truck they
>will use the full 22.6 kg container that they have been allowed. Admittedly if we
>already had equipment set up for 20 kg bags then most likely the producer wouldn't go
>through the expense of retooling for a 2.6 kg increase.
>
> The point I want to raise here is that a US agency was using non-SI units in dealing
>with an international matter.
....
--
Metric Methods(SM) "Don't be late to metricate!"
James R. Frysinger, CAMS http://www.metricmethods.com/
10 Captiva Row e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Charleston, SC 29407 phone/FAX: 843.225.6789
