I found the list of objections presented by the FMI to NIST back in 2002:
http://ts.nist.gov/WeightsAndMeasures/Metric/upload/fmicomments.pdf
It seems to me that most (if not all) of these objections are spurious. Some
seem to imply a change to "rational" metric sizes, which the amendment would
not require or even encourage in the law itself.
Since NIST cannot take a partisan view of the matter, I wonder if there is any
sort of think tank or university that could be funded to undertake an
independent study that would analyze these issues and present solid
counter-arguments from an "independent" source. (Not sure where the money for
this study would come from ..... maybe USMA can hold a bake sale or something
...)
Ezra
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Remek Kocz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I wonder if FMI is misinterpreting the "optional metric-only" part and
> opposing it in a knee-jerk fashion, or are they truly dead-set against any
> kind of "metric-only" labeling, even if just optional. As crazy as it
> sounds, perhaps we should write an email to each and every member of
> congress (all 535 of them) and ask them to a) amend the FPLA, and b) ignore
> FMI because they don't (or choose not to) understand the word "optional." I
> don't claim to know how many members of USMA are out there, but if every one
> of us did this, and maybe recruited a like-minded friend or two, perhaps
> this would get some notice on the Hill. Congressional aides read this
> stuff, and many of them are young, brought up in the more modern era where
> metric is more palatable. They talk to each other and their bosses. A
> firestorm of emails, faxes, and letters asking for the FPLA amendment during
> a quiet period could kick-start something. If we all committed...
>
> Remek
>
> On 6/4/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I agree with you, Paul. Having all 50 states allow metric-only labels
> > (although there's still potentially the issue of Puerto Rico, US Virgin
> > Islands, Guam, the Marianas, and any other overseas territories and
> > possessions I've left out) is indeed a powerful pyschological step forward
> > towards metrication.
> >
> > However, it seems that the critical (and long-standing) opposition to
> > (even voluntary) metric-only labelling comes from the food industry in the
> > form of the FMI (since it's the FPLR that regulates food packaging).
> >
> > I'm convinced we need to find a way to overcome (or at least neutralize)
> > the objections of the FMI if we're ever going to see the FPLA amended. :-(
> >
> > Ezra
> >
> > -------------- Original message ----------------------
> > From: "Paul Trusten, R.Ph." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Two more states, and there will be a powerful argument to be made: if
> > the
> > > "states united" permit a metric-only labeling option, why not the United
> > > States? To have all 50 states agree on the UPLR metric-only labeling
> > > regulation means that the metric system can be accepted as the everyday
> > system
> > > of measurement on a national basis. This could be quite a psychological
> > barrier
> > > to be breaking.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Paul Trusten, R.Ph.
> > > Public Relations Director
> > > U.S. Metric Association, Inc.
> > > Phone (432)528-7724
> > > www.metric.org
> > > 3609 Caldera Boulevard, Apartment 122
> > > Midland TX 79707-2872 USA
> > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > http://home.grandecom.net/~trusten
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
--- Begin Message ---
I wonder if FMI is misinterpreting the "optional metric-only" part and opposing it in a knee-jerk fashion, or are they truly dead-set against any kind of "metric-only" labeling, even if just optional. As crazy as it sounds, perhaps we should write an email to each and every member of congress (all 535 of them) and ask them to a) amend the FPLA, and b) ignore FMI because they don't (or choose not to) understand the word "optional." I don't claim to know how many members of USMA are out there, but if every one of us did this, and maybe recruited a like-minded friend or two, perhaps this would get some notice on the Hill. Congressional aides read this stuff, and many of them are young, brought up in the more modern era where metric is more palatable. They talk to each other and their bosses. A firestorm of emails, faxes, and letters asking for the FPLA amendment during a quiet period could kick-start something. If we all committed...
Remek
On 6/4/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:I agree with you, Paul. Having all 50 states allow metric-only labels (although there's still potentially the issue of Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, Guam, the Marianas, and any other overseas territories and possessions I've left out) is indeed a powerful pyschological step forward towards metrication.
However, it seems that the critical (and long-standing) opposition to (even voluntary) metric-only labelling comes from the food industry in the form of the FMI (since it's the FPLR that regulates food packaging).
I'm convinced we need to find a way to overcome (or at least neutralize) the objections of the FMI if we're ever going to see the FPLA amended. :-(
Ezra
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Paul Trusten, R.Ph." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Two more states, and there will be a powerful argument to be made: if the
> "states united" permit a metric-only labeling option, why not the United
> States? To have all 50 states agree on the UPLR metric-only labeling
> regulation means that the metric system can be accepted as the everyday system
> of measurement on a national basis. This could be quite a psychological barrier
> to be breaking.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Paul Trusten, R.Ph.
> Public Relations Director
> U.S. Metric Association, Inc.
> Phone (432)528-7724
>
www.metric.org
> 3609 Caldera Boulevard, Apartment 122
> Midland TX 79707-2872 USA
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
http://home.grandecom.net/~trusten
>
>
--- End Message ---
