Gene (and all), I think that you have misunderstood what I mean. So I will try to clarify. Remarks preceded with *, See also USMA 12351. Han ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gene Mechtly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2001 7:36 PM Subject: [USMA:12357] Re: letter to Mrs Bernot on hold On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, Han Maenen wrote: ... So, please, have Estee Lauder change its labels to the format metric/ifp. * EL's label is: 5 FL.OZ/OZ.LIQ/150 mL. I want such labels out now! Also, Mrs Bernot does not only work for the TABD but she is also an Estee Lauder employee. ** To some members of the list. This is achievable. ... Han, Yes, "x grams (y fluid ounces)" is *already* legal in the US; but its widespread adoption in the EU does not seem probable, although also legal in the EU, at least until 2009. * I just want dual labels in the EU to be only metric/ifp, but I want them to go in 2010. I surely do not want to see metric-only labels replaced by dual ones! This is about a label from a specific company (Estee Lauder) that flaunts ifp as the primary system of units, even with an indication in French. Going for metric only at present is not. An amended FPLA to *allow* metric-only labels *is* achievable in the US in a year or two, although a new FPLA to *require* metric-only labels is much less probably in the near future. * Because the EU gave in to their demand or request or whatever it may be called, companies like EL will never label what they sell in the EU in metric-only until 2010. For this reason I go for the deletion of the oz.liq and for metric first, ifp second on their labels. **I want the offensive labels out now and ifp out in 2010. You already enjoy metric-only labels on almost all products sold in the EU. Why would you support inclusion of ifp until 2010 since ifp is already "out" of most labels in the EU, even though legal (but optional) in "supplementary indications" until 2010? * As I said above, I want *all metric-only* labels in the EU to remain as they are. I deem EL's present labels offensive. I want a change to metric/ifp labels from THAT position, which would be an improvement. There have been times, especially in the eighties, when our shops were crammed with dual labelled goods, even many labels in ifp first, and I have even seen them in the Dutch language! This has vastly improved. Most labels are metric-only now, but some industries like cosmetics use dual labels, some of them metric in the secondary position or worse, like those from EL and DonnaKaran. > Do you suspect that Ms. Bernot and the TABD are, in reality, seeking *mandatory* duality in the EU? I see no prospect for that. * No, they are not seeking mandatory duality, but they want us in the EU to tolerate it forever. Originally TABD wanted the EU to CANCEL the directive, but that was a bridge too far, so they settled for a 10 year delay. I am convinced that they will start campaigning for another delay when the new deadline approaches. Note that Ms. Bernot writes that TABD will support allowing metric-only labels in the US when appropriate legislation is drafted. What we need now is appropriate draft legislation. > Gene.
