Agreed totally. FMI almost certainly views this as the camel's nose under the tent.
Carleton -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stephen Gallagher Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 18:27 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:34095] Re: FPLA Amendment Not To Be Introduced In Foreseeable Future It sounds more like they're scared of further metrication, plain and simple. Note the points that they make: ? The majority of consumers do not understand metric measurements. Moreover, consumers are not demanding that their food products be packaged and labeled using the metric system. The amendment would allow manufacturers to continue to packaging and labelling exactly as they do today. If, as the FMI says consumers do not want products that are labelled only in metric, the consumers will buy the products that are labelled in US customary. Manufacturers won't have to resize products to hard metric sizes and they could still continue to dual label them as they currently do. Plus, the best way to learn to undrstand metric measurements is to begin using them. Who in the U.S. can't describe the size of a two liter bottle of soda pop? What about a 750 mL bottle of wine? There was no big industry collapse when those standards were adopted. ? Value-comparison between similar products of various sizes may be difficult to determine for consumers if some manufacturers use the metric-only option and others use inch/pound. Wouldn't the new amendment allow for products be labelled either in dual metric/customary units or only in metric units, but no labelling only in customary units? So consumers would be able to value compare products by comparing the metric units. Comparing two numbers wouldn't be affected by the unit being used. You're comparing the numbers, not the units. ? Retailers will be faced with consumer complaints when value-comparison cannot be determined. Manufacturers who choose to label solely in metric and who then receive many consumer complaints would be free to start labelling in dual units again, if they wished. Nobody would force them to label solely in metric. But if they did change and their customers didn't like it, then they'd realize they made a bad decision. It wouldn't be the first bad decision made by a company. ? International interpretations of metric requirements would likely result in package size changes. Huh? Sounds like they're trying to say that they'd be forced to manufacture in hard metric sizes. If hard metric sizes were required then a manufacturer would already be making them. Allowing metric only labelling would not force size changes. ? Changes in package sizes will make certain display cases, such as the dairy case and push-in display racks obsolete. True, but the amendment would not force package size changes. ? Metric will also impact other types of equipment in the grocery store, including bakery pans, scales, scanners, computers, and other types of measurement equipment, requiring costly conversion or replacement. They're scared, plain and simple. They see this as another step toward eventual metrication and they're digging in their heels. They're trying to twist a voluntary labelling change into a mandatory conversion. If the stores didn't want it, and the consumers didn't want it, then metric sizing won't happen. If they do, then you're giving the customer what the customer wants.
