I posted this earlier, and I'm not sure it ever went. I share this skepticism....
Nat ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I agree with Ezra's skepticism. Support for policy #1 (below) should be inextricably tied to support for policy #2. Withdrawal or cancellation of policy #2 should be immediately tied to withdrawal or cancellation of policy #1. The phrase "continue to make progress" in policy #2 should be replaced by "allow the options" in policy #1. The "Policy Goal" headline should include phrasing from both policys #1 and #2. It's too one-sided as is. We've been down this road before. Nat ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- Our Policy Goal: Change the EU "Metric-Only" Requirement to "Metric-plus" Allowing the options of either metric-only or dual-unit labeling serves the interests of producers and consumers. Labels can be adapted to consumers' needs and preferences, and production and marketing costs can be reduced to help keep prices down. The EU should permanently change 80/181/EEC so that producers have the flexibility to use either metric-only or dual units on product labels depending on end-user needs. Similarly, the U.S. should continue to make progress at both the State and Federal level to approve "metric-only" as an option at all levels of commerce, including through an amendment to the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act that will allow producers of federally regulated products the option to label packages only in metric units. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ezra Steinberg Sent: Sunday, 2006 February 19 23:03 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:36063] Re: National Association of Manufacturers I think one other way to "vet" the sincerity of the NAM is to learn to what extent they are willing to engage the FMA (Food Marketing Association) to persuade them to drop their opposition to voluntary metric-only labeling. Ezra -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stephen Gallagher Sent: Monday, 2006 February 20 13:36 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:36071] Re: NAM - Merda de Tauro > "As you may know by now, the National Association of Manufacturers > (the NAM) has issued a fact sheet in which it says it would support > amending the Fair Labeling and Packaging Act to allow metric-only > labeling in the U.S. > > But their support of the amendment is contingent upon the European > Union's cancellation of the 2009-12-31 deadline for that country's > metric-only labeling requirements." > > ---Paul Trusten, R.Ph. > > When I read the first part of this I was elated, but when I read the > second part, I went to "Red Alert". > > If the NAM is sincere in it's support of any metrication, why place > the condition of support for it on removal of the EU deadline? Maybe it's because they're afraid that they won't get another extension by the EU. If NAM gets what they're asking for then the companies that don't want to manufacture metric labelled products won't have to do so. > The deadline is still over four years away. The NAM (and others) have > also had the benefit of the EU extending it three times already. In > each case the NAM has failed to make use of the borrowed time to do > it's part to effect for metrication. Because by not doing anything then when the deadline approaches they simply come back and say that they're not ready. > I think that this is just a ploy to garner support for pressuring the > EU to forgo it's own deadline. Which given the EU's track record for > sticking by it's guns in this area, has a very real possibility of > happening. At which point the NAM will continue in a business as usual > manner. Until the next deadline when they still wouldn't be ready. > With one possible > exception: Laughing up their sleeves at those "metrication folk" who > bought their bill of goods; hook, line and sinker. > > The benefits of metrication to all segments of society will be too > great to "bargain" over. Especially when the promise of this deal > looks to be so self-serving. If you sit back and look at the deal, what benefit will the EU derive from it? They probably don't care that much if US goods can't be labelled in metric only, so why should the EU even want to change their deadline? > > It is my sincere hope that the USMA will see this offer exactly for > what it is and not support this "deal".
