Bernard, I don't agree on some of your speculations. See below.
Gene Mechtly. ---- Original message ---- >Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 15:34:42 -0700 >From: "Bernard Rachtmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: [USMA:37370] Re: Interesting document on the NIST metric page >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> >... >I suspect a compromise will ultimately be struck. Perhaps. >... , its clear both sides would lose if neither yielded. Agreed. >Also if only one were to yield there would still be trade >dilemas. How so? If all international trade were in SI only there would be complete harmony of measured values of products and their specifications. >My guess is that this particular EU directive will be >suspended indefinitely,... The provisions of the Directive are already written into the laws of the Member States of the EU. I doubt that the States will repeal those laws after ten more years of grace. >...while FPLA will be amended. Let's hope that is done before 2010! >Lets be honest here, many American consumers are familiar >with >certaininch-pound sizes (I can't see milk exclusively >marked "3.79 L." ...) Of course not. Milk is already sold in 1 liter, 2 liter, 3 liter, and even 4 liter containers. >Besides, doesn't this directive also ban inch/pound from >advertisements, >brochures and even websites? This >realistically would cause too much >commotion in commerce. International traders have already had much more than ten years to adopt the SI. That is more than sufficient! >Perhaps they haven't amended it yet so it could be used as >a potential >bargaining chip. Preoccupation with other matters and opposition from some lobbies (e.g. the Food Marketing Institute) is the reason the FPLA has not yet been amended to *permit* metric-only labeling.
