It's trash like this below that makes me absolutely fume! I'd really like to know who is(are) the(se) guy(s) who came up with this garbage???
My strongest most vehement concern is with this stupid statement below: "At the same time, we strongly oppose efforts - such as the EU effort on metric-only labeling - that would institute a protectionist agenda in the name of harmonization." There are, obviously, many wrong things about it. First of all, the EU's directive is NOT, I repeat, N-O-T a 'protectionist agenda' (a huge SIC power to n!). It's rather a legitimate approach to harmonize the purchase of products around a global system of units that is recognized by the overwhelming majority of countries. And, yes, 'in the name of harmonization' a LOT more should be done, especially by US industries, to cooperate with this all-important/vital initiative. Having said that I believe that it would be strongly recommended for us to contact BOTH your 'US Trade Representative' AND the AAMA to show our opposition in the strongest language possible to this appalling letter. What do these idiots expect? That the world would accept their 'universal (ARGH/SIC) care labeling system' based on stupid inches??? Finally, when they talk about a 'consensual process' they are evidently shooting themselves in their own feet because there would be no chance in the world that such 'consensus' would be built around Fred Flintstone units!!! !#$@#%$#$ If someone can share with me e-mail addresses to both these organizations' folks behind this unfortunate initiative I'd really appreciate it. Thanks. Marcus On Wed, 25 Sep 2002 19:52:35 metric wrote: >http://www.americanapparel.org/data/News_FTR_USTR.html > >[begin quote] >Statement of the >American Apparel Manufacturers Association > >Submitted to the >Office of the >US Trade Representative > >Stephen Lamar >Director of Government Relations > >October 1998 >[...] >III. Labeling > >AAMA members support the harmonization of garment labeling requirements >- on such issues as care, fabric content, size, and rule of origin - and >believe attention in this area can greatly facilitate international >trade in garments. Our members often ship virtually identical garments >to more than one country. The need to produce separate labels for >different countries creates additional burdens that retard trade >expansion. A system of recognizable symbols or accepted abbreviations >could drastically simplify language requirements while providing >customers the basic information they need to make informed choices. The >United States has already developed a universal care labeling system to >denote how to care for apparel. We believe this initiative should be >adopted by all WTO countries as the first step in a process that will >lead to more uniform labeling requirements for apparel. > >At the same time, we strongly oppose efforts - such as the EU effort on >metric-only labeling - that would institute a protectionist agenda in >the name of harmonization. We believe harmonization efforts can only be >sustained if they reflect a consensual process that provides sufficient >phase-in periods to minimize disruption to the market and confusion to >the customer. >[end quote] >-- >Terry Simpson >Human Factors Consultant >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >www.connected-systems.com >Phone: +44 7850 511794 > > Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail. Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com
