To all, I was reviewing some USMA messages I had saved.
I have noticed that nearly every Mexican bottled beer I have ever bought here in Atlanta, GA shows only 12 fluid ounces. Never do they have 355 mL shown also. Norm ----- Original Message ----- From: "kilopascal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 17:18 Subject: [USMA:25622] Re: metric-only labels for beer in the US > 2003-04-29 > > I find the comments on beer interesting. If my memory serves me correctly, > a few years back, the state of Florida was given permission to sell foreign > beer products in their original metric sizes. It seems that elsewhere in > the US, beer must not only be sold with FFU labelling, there is also a > requirement for specific sizes. > > If there wasn't, then a foreign exporter to the US could continue to sell > his product in the original containers, with just a label showing the FFU > amounts. > > Does anyone remember the action Florida took? If someone is looking for an > example of the effects and what the importers and distributors think, > couldn't they just go to Florida and see for themselves? > > John > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Terry Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, 2003-04-29 12:24 > Subject: [USMA:25619] metric-only labels for beer in the US > > > This message is sent to the UKMA list and the USMA list. > > Background > ---------- > There are proposals to update the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (FPLA) to > permit metric-only labels on pre-packed groceries in the USA. A forum was > held on 7 Nov 2002. The presentations given at the forum and the attendee > list are available at: > http://ts.nist.gov/ts/htdocs/200/202/forum/forumdir.htm > > > Beer > ---- > Prepacked beer is not covered by the FPLA. It is covered by laws managed by > the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (was BATF). The current FPLA > mandates dual units but beer laws only mandate non-metric units. > > Some officers of the Bureau attended the FPLA forum but that in no way gives > an indication of Bureau policy. It merely indicates that the individuals > concerned wanted to go to the forum. It is a complicated story but I have > received an authoritative email response from the Bureau (enclosed below). > It is negative but leaves open the possibility for formal lobby pressure. > > I think that the next step is for write to the Bureau and ask them to > consider monitoring the FPLA proposals and inviting industry comments. What > do you all think? > > > > Email response follows: > ************************************************************************ > Mr. Simpson: > > I hope that I can respond to your inquiry about the possibility of metric > beer labels for use in the United States. > > Although we require wine and distilled spirits to be packaged in true metric > size containers and labeled accordingly in metric units, the United States > does not require metric labeling for malt beverages or beer. In fact, our > regulations require that malt beverages be labeled in customary U.S. measure > of ounces, pints, quarts, and gallons. Many containers display optional > metric contents, but they must still bear the mandatory content statement in > U.S. measure. > > During the 1970's both the wine and distilled spirits industries petitioned > the-then Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) to change the rules > with regard to labeling. ATF proposed metric labeling of these commodities > and ultimately adopted the current rules after public hearings and comment > on the subject. As I recall there was no substantial opposition to the > proposals as both the wine and spirits industries solidly backed them. > > Neither the United States brewing industry nor the import industry have > expressed any interest to us in labeling malt beverage containers in metric > units. While ATF was willing to propose metric labeling for wine and > spirits, without the active support of the brewing industry, there simply > was no incentive to propose metric labeling for malt beverages. > > Today in 2003 the climate may have changed for metric labeling of malt > beverages. However, I am unaware of any pending Federal legislation that > would permit metric only labeling for consumer products. > > The alcohol functions of ATF have been assumed by a new bureau, the Alcohol > and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB). We welcome petitions from industry > members, trade organizations, consumers, and consumer organizations to > change our regulations. We would certainly consider a petition to amend our > 27 CFR Part 7, Labeling and Advertising of Malt Beverages, regulations to > require metric labeling. [As a practical matter I do not believe we would > consider a rule to permit, but not require, malt beverages to be labelled > with only metric net contents]. > > A petition to amend regulations must be addressed to the Administrator, TTB, > cite the regulatory section involved, 27 CFR 7.27, and must give sufficient > justification to support the regulations change. TTB is also interested in > receiving information about the economic or trade impact of any proposed > regulations change. Petitions should be addressed to: <address> > > You may access our malt beverage labeling regulations at: > www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_02/27cfr7_02.html > >
