Here is my email message regarding the UPLR, which I sent to the
governors and other state officials in the four states identified by
Paul Trusten.
(There were minor changes depending on what state I was writing to.
The copy below was for New Jersey.)
It may give you some ideas if you, too, wish to write. I hope many of
you are taking Paul's suggestion and contacting the people whose
contact info he supplied. I'm contacting all of them.
I think my message is too long but I couldn't decide what to leave
out or shorten. I hope I have all my references to UPLR correct,
unlike a couple of my other recent emails to this you on the metric
list.
Here's what I wrote:
================================
Governor John Corzine,
I should like to request your support for New Jersey's adoption of
the model regulation known as the Uniform Packaging and Labeling
Regulation (UPLR). Although I am not a resident of New Jersey, New
Jersey's adoption of the UPLR would benefit business in my state and
the other states in which the UPLR is in effect. Incidentally, it
would benefit businesses in New Jersey, too.
One of the things that the UPLR does is to permit the voluntary use
of metric-only labels on goods and products, except those otherwise
regulated by the federal FPLA. Many businesses would like to save
time and money by voluntarily adopting metric-only labels. However,
they are effectively prevented from doing so because not all states
have yet adopted the UPLR.
Suppliers in other states, including those in my state of Florida,
may wish to do business in New Jersey or one of the three other
states that currently do not allow metric-only labels. However, they
find it difficult to use metric-only labels where they are permitted,
because they would also need to produce different labels for the
states, like your own, which do not allow it.
Forty-six of the states have adopted the UPLR, allowing optional
metric-only labeling in those states. New Jersey is among the four
which have not. (The others are Hawaii, New York and Alabama.)
Optional metric-only labeling means that companies could, if they
wished, use metric-only labels, without the confusing and complicated
addition of one or more old English equivalents. It would be
optional, so that companies could decide for themselves whether their
customers would or would not be benefited by having old English
measures on the label as well. They could choose metric-only labels
if they viewed it as a positive business decision to do so.
There are many reasons why some companies would find it desirable to
opt for metric-only labels. Simplicity is certainly the best reason.
Simplicity saves time and money for all concerned. The amount of time
or money saved may be small for any one label but multiplies
enormously when applied to the huge amount of product labeling that
is involved. Another reason to use metric-only labeling is for
international trade. Many foreign countries discourage or prohibit
the old English quantity descriptions. (A full 95% of the world's
population uses and understands metric.) That forces US businesses
into the unnecessary complexity of dual labeling in order to do
business in other countries.
The one argument against optional metric-only labels is easily
refuted. That argument supposes that American consumers cannot
understand metric measures. That is clearly not a problem as
evidenced by such metrically packaged products as soft drinks which
are sold in litre and millilitre sized containers and have been
widely accepted by US consumers. Furthermore, if any individual
suppliers feel that their customers would indeed be less likely to
purchase their products because of metric-only labeling, they would
be free to add the old English designations if they wish.
I hope you will support and/or work for the adoption of the UPLR in
New Jersey. Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
William Hooper
