Thanks for directing us to the EU (European Union) consultant's report
regarding metric only labeling. It has a nice list of issues which must be
addressed.
The report shows why the US Congress should adopt the metric only labeling
changes in legislation as drafted by the NIST. The draft legislation allows
great flexibility for the commercial sector to work with nationally and
internationally.
A case now can be made to adopt the use of kL (kilolitre) as the common
non-scientific public use term for cubic metre. Kilo is used in kilometre,
kilogram, kilopascal etc. So why not adopt kL for the cubic metre to be
consistent with other kilo uses. The kL is simple and understandable for
all to use, but it doesn't preclude the use of scientific notation by
scientists.
The kL/s would be particularly useful in stream flow and kL for lake volume
in hydrology, and for other applications in which large volumes are
involved. And, it does not preclude the use of L/s and L for smaller
volumes. Also, Nm3 (Normal metre cubed) and barrels used in oil and gas
reporting should be replaced with kL to make the SI volume unit universal
and consistent in the oil and gas industry.
Similarly the kJ should be used in nutrition labeling for food stuffs.
Adoption of the kL and the kJ would be another step in bringing the SI
together for general use worldwide.
Regards, Stan Doore
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Trusten, R.Ph." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Cc: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 8:15 PM
Subject: [USMA:38946] Re: Indefinite postponement of EU deadline getting
closer
Not to erase the SI units, but perhaps to redesign the "master" label for
a
product?
Quoting James R Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
A report has been released just now in the EU regarding ED 80/181/EEC.
This
is a staff report but it is leading to indefinite postponement of the
end-of-2009 deadline date for requiring SI-only labeling in the EU
marketplace. See
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/prepack/unitmeas/public_consultat_report_26jun07.pdf
I have not fully studied this, but I am amazed at some of the claimed
costs
that were asserted by various market groups should SI-only labeling be
required. Methinks someone is blowing smoke and using mirrors. Is it
really
going to cost $10 per package of cosmetics to drop the non-SI units?
Jim
--
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
