Dear Carl, Dual labelling is rarely, if ever, seen on products manufactured in Australia. When it occurs it is on an imported product. Obviously, if the product comes from the UK or the USA we can expect random arrangements of contents information on the labels. There are also products that arrive here from Asia that are obviously meant for the USA market but any surplus production finds its way southwards.
It's more of a nuisance than a problem, but it does have the effect of continuing the existence of ifp units in an otherwise metric nation. Cheers, Pat Naughtin CAMS Geelong, Australia on 2002-08-19 14.32, Carl Sorenson at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> Here is the article some have requested: >> http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-08-14-1a-cover_x.htm >> >> John > > How ironic that Bush, who probably doesn't care for the metric system, may > actually do it a big favor. The anti-American sentiment could help kill an > effort to further postpone the Europeans' 2010 deadline for importing metric > only. (By the way, I just read today that American tourism in Europe is way > down--I bet there is a correlation.) > > I had an idea for amending the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act that might be > more politically safe. The government could make a new rule that > metric-only labeling will be allowed for certain types of products if two or > three producers request it. For example, suppose that whoever makes Scope > decides that there is no point in listing fluid ounces if the bottles are 1 > L. If several companies request the exemption, then mouthwash no longer > requires dual labeling. If *U.S. companies* are requesting the changes, how > many politicians would be against it? After a few years, so many products > would be labeled in metric only that the dual labeling would seem > unnecessary, at least for volume measures. Comments? > > Is there much dual labeling in Australia? England? > > Carl >
