On 2007 Jan 23 , at 10:52 AM, Mike Millet wrote:
I agree, which is why the 2010 EU deadline is so important because it's not something that the US can just ignore like the previous ones. It looks like the EU is going ahead without altering it which is good which means either US busineesses wake up in 2010 and find out it's going to cost a lot more to ship product until they can go and get the change in law passed or they're going to change it before and everyone will be happy with the US one step closer to full metrication and businesses saving money
Relevant to comments by Mike (above) and others, there is an interesting quote in the recent edition of Metric Today (2007 Jan- Feb) stating "the strategy suggested by NAM" (The National Association of Manufacturers) regarding that EU directive and quoting the NAM as follows:
"The key element of the strategy of the strategy is to encourage the EU to permit the continuation of dual labeling among the 25 EU members states on the condition that the U.S. Congress would change would change the current mandatory requirement to have dual labeling for consumer products and allow metric-only labeling when there is a consumer acceptance and other health and safety requirements are met (i.e. 'permissible metric-only labeling'). EU and U.S. labeling requirements would then be broadly harmonized."
My commentary - yes, they would be "harmonized", but only by the EU surrendering totally to the American NAM. Even the "gracious" permitting of metric-only would presumably take place ONLY with the acceptance of the American consumer and when certain mysterious and unspecified "health and safety" requirements are met. What garbage!
The NAM has not given up the fight yet. And if they don't get their concession from the EU, they'll have a disincentive to allow metric- only in the U.S., namely, "if they won't budge, why should we?"
Regards, Bill Hooper Fernandina Beach, Florida, USA ========================== SImplification Begins With SI. ==========================
