2002-03-31 If I would have written her, I would not have gone beyond the topic of the first paragraph. After 18 months, why hasn't she petitioned the US congress to amend the FPLA so that the US and not the EU would "...demonstrate similar regulatory flexibility so that manufacturers have the option to use either metric only..."
It is obvious from her statement that you have quoted here , that the EU is flexible in allowing metric only and metric/FFU at least for the next 7.75 years. It is the US that is not flexible. I think you need to dwell on this aspect as a priority. And as for the "once liquide" or what ever other FFU unit is placed on the label, why does it have to appear first? Why not in last place? Doesn't it strike her funny that FFU is inferior and nasty looking when you have to include a different language version of the same unit? What a clutter it adds to the label! If she is going to put the once liquide on her products, why not put the Spanish and Italian and German words for it too? And why not include the equivalent of floozy ozes in every language? I would think an intelligent person who see that there is something to metric when a term like 150 mL means the same thing in ALL LANGUAGES, and thus needs only be written once. Doesn't making the label less cluttered with all that FFU garble removed? On another note, telling her your going to boycott her products is more likely to make he trash your e-mail. And seeing that you are a man, she is less likely to think of you as a customer anyway, unless you have a secret life we don't know about? John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Han Maenen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, 2002-03-31 03:35 Subject: [USMA:19174] Another assault on the once liquide > As Estee Lauder has not changed its offensive labels I am sending this > letter to Mrs. Bernot, > > Han > Historian of Dutch metrication, The Netherlands > > > > Nijmegen, 2002-04-01 > > Dear Mrs. Bernot, > > About 18 months ago I wrote to you about the labels that Estee Lauder uses > on its products sold in the EU. I quote this from one of your letters: > > "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." > > I also found this triumphalist stuff on the TABD website: > "In December 1999, the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers > approved a 10-year deferral of the EU 'metric-only' directive. If > implemented, the EU directive would have required all products sold in the > EU to be labelled only in metric units, causing serious disruptions in > transatlantic trade. The decision is a victory for transatlantic business, > the TABD, and > particularly for the small business community, which had called for the > delay since 1997." > > I regarded and will ever regard this cave-in by the EU as cowardice, as > grovelling before a superpower. Moreover, many of these small American > businesses label their products in ifp-only and think that it is the > God-prescribed duty of everybody in the world to understand and use it. I > boycott any company which does this. Apart from everything else, these > quotations prove that the TABD wants metric countries to put up with ifp for > all eternity. > > The French, French Canadian or any other French speaking end-users do not > need the once liquide. > EL labels are still ifp English, ifp French, metric supplemental: 5 > FL.OZ/OZ.LIQ/150 mL > Labels like that which flaunt USC as the international system of units which > is not the case at all, are offensive to me. EL labeling is ifp + > supplemental and conflicts with the quote above: metric + supplemental. > > 1. Canada does not require ifp labeling, it ist just allowed. Her > requirements only cover pure *language* issues. Metric units and symbols are > the same in all languages. > 2. The 'French-American' unit once liquide is illegal in France and in > Canada; the latter country only recognizes the Imperial fluid ounce which > *may*, not *must* be placed on labels. > 3. The French authorities might decide sooner or later to ban the oz.liq on > anything imported in France. France is entitled to take such action and I > hope she will do it as soon as possible, in order to stamp out the once > liquide. Other US cosmetics companies have followed Estee Lauders example in > labelling with this 'French-American' unit. Donna Karan, for instance. > 4. Knowing that until 2010 'supplemental' units are allowed in the EU I > asked in my last message to you that Estee Lauder just practices what you > preach, meaning labelling its products metric + supplemental: 150 mL/5 > fl.oz. > > I loathe being confronted with USC in the shops where I go to. It would be > no issue if the USA kept her units to herself, however. But she won't do > that, she exports them to metric countries. The USA has been a signatory of > the Metric Convention since 1875. In the light of this fact I could ask: how > dare the USA force other countries to accommodate or even to accept ifp? > > So, please, have Estee Lauder change its labels to the format mL/fl.oz for > the time being. > > Yours sincerely, > > Han Maenen, The Netherlands > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
