I don't think it will take a think-tank study. I would think that a good critical analysis paper that debunks FMI's claims point-by-point, would suffice. Many of FMI's claims in their opposition statement are fallacies that most students taking an introductory-level critical analysis course could easily spot.
Despite this, the paper would probably have more credibility with Congress if it came from an individual with the letters PhD after his/her name. (I believe there are a few people that match that description on this listserve). Scott On Monday, June 04, 2007, at 03:54PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >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 >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > >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... ><br><br>Remek<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 6/4/07, <b >class="gmail_sendername"><a href="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">[EMAIL >PROTECTED]</a></b> <<a href="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">[EMAIL PROTECTED] ></a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px >solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">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. ><br><br>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). ><br><br>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. :-(<br><br>Ezra<br><br> -------------- Original message >---------------------- ><br>From: "Paul Trusten, R.Ph." <<a href="mailto:[EMAIL >PROTECTED]">[EMAIL PROTECTED]</a>><br>> Two more states, and there will >be a powerful argument to be made: if the<br>> "states united" >permit a metric-only labeling option, why not the United ><br>> States? To have all 50 states agree on the UPLR >metric-only labeling<br>> regulation means that the metric system can be >accepted as the everyday system<br>> of measurement on a national basis. >This could be quite a psychological barrier ><br>> to be breaking.<br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> --<br>> >Paul Trusten, R.Ph.<br>> Public Relations Director<br>> U.S. Metric >Association, Inc.<br>> Phone (432)528-7724<br>> <a >href="http://www.metric.org";> >www.metric.org</a><br>> 3609 Caldera Boulevard, Apartment 122<br>> >Midland TX 79707-2872 USA<br>> mailto:<a href="mailto:[EMAIL >PROTECTED]">[EMAIL PROTECTED]</a><br>> <a >href="http://home.grandecom.net/~trusten";> >http://home.grandecom.net/~trusten</a><br>><br>><br><br></blockquote></div><br> >
