Thank you for the link, Ezra.
What I find fascinating is the one bullet point that reads, "a metric
only option will impact nutrition information".
Does anyone else realise that nutritional information is already
displayed in metric units?!
I have in front of me a bag of baker's chocolate chips from my kitchen.
The size of the bag is listed as 12 oz (340 g), in that order.
However, when I flip it over to the back for the Nutritional Facts
table, I find the following:
Serving Size: 15g
Total Fat 4.5g
Sodium 10mg
Sugars 9g
Even the daily caloric intake table is present in grams and milligrams
per 2000 and 2500 calorie diets.
These are SI units, and they're the only units listed. In fact, a quick
look through a number of packages in my kitchen yielded the same result
time after time...the nutritional guide is listed only in SI measure,
regardless of how the product's total mass is listed.
Additionally, I find their comments about obsolete dairy cases to be
laughable. A gallon of milk is only .22 litres away from an even 4; the
1 gallon container could easily be slightly shape-shifted around the cap
and handle area to hold 4 litres instead of 1 gallon. Additionally, I
visited two grocery stores this weekend, and noted that they kept the
orange juice & other mixed juices in the same cabinet racks as the milk.
However, the juice was largely in 1.75L containers, and the store
didn't seem to have any problem stocking them on shelved that were
arguably designed for SAE measure.
The FMI should be told that their insistence on keeping SAE measure is
both confusing and inconsistent. I agree with the suggestion to debunk
these comments, as quickly and professionally as possible.
Sorry for the length of my reply, these things get me a bit fired up. :)
Regards,
Mike
[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
