I think you give the government too much credit, Scott. I see nothing to prevent the ATF from specifying the container size in metric and the FDA specifying serving sizes in doofus units. Two labels, two policies. As for the number of servings per container, the rules apparently already allow "about n servings", where n is some approximate number.
Jim >-----Original Message----- >From: Scott Hudnall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Wednesday, August 1, 2007 06:54 PM >To: 'U.S. Metric Association' >Subject: [USMA:39230] Re: Metric only labeling > >So it would seem the FDA and ATF regulations are on a collision course - >unless, of course they harmonize them. Liquor and wine sales are regulated by >ATF, and are required to be sold in hard metric sizes. If the FDA is going to >slap a nutritional label on them, then the FDA will either have to define a >serving size in metric, or ATF will have to allow non-metric on the label. >(Unless, of course the FPLA gets ammended). > >On Wednesday, August 01, 2007, at 03:33PM, "James R Frysinger" <[EMAIL >PROTECTED]> wrote: >>Nutritional labeling of food is under the cognizance of the FDA. See: >>Food Labeling and Nutrition >>http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/label.html >> >>If nutritional labeling is going to be required on beer, wine, and spirits, >>it will almost certainly fall under existing guidelines, which use the food >>calorie (Cal = kcal). To get beer, wine, and spirits labeled in kilojoules >>would require changing this generic labeling guideline and that would apply >>to all foods. It's an admirable goal, but a long swim upstream will be >>needed in order to attain it. >> >>By the way, I doubt that "kilojoule" or "joule" would be spelled out on the >>cans and bottles. Americans would see "kJ" instead. No diving for diamonds is >>likely since most Americans won't know or recall what J is the symbol for. >>That won't come up until product reviews are written out textually, such as >>the recent Consumer Reports article on so-called "lite" beers. >> >>And I'll bet that those articles will tell their readers, "There are 4 >>kilojoules in a calorie" if they want to be helpful, or they will give at >>least a four-digit conversion factor if the authors would rather be snide. >> >>Jim >> >> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Scott Hudnall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>Sent: Wednesday, August 1, 2007 04:16 PM >>>To: 'U.S. Metric Association' >>>Subject: [USMA:39228] Re: Metric only labeling >>> >>> >>>I assumed that since the post mentioned the Treasury Department, they were >>>talking about ATF, which has metric-only label requirements. Beer, I believe >>>falls under FDA jurisdiction. >>> >>> >>>On Wednesday, August 01, 2007, at 09:35AM, "Bill Potts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>wrote: >>>>Wine and liquor are metric only and have been for many years. Beer is >>>>required to have U.S. Customary labeling, with optional metric in >>>>parentheses. >>>> >>>>I wasn't aware of the ATF having anything to do with the regulations on >>>>quantity labeling. However, I'll leave it to someone who actually knows, one >>>>way or the other, to address that issue. >>>> >>>>Bill Potts >>>>SI Navigator (http://metric1.org) >>>> >>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf >>>>Of Scott Hudnall >>>>Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 09:18 >>>>To: U.S. Metric Association >>>>Subject: [USMA:39221] Re: Metric only labeling >>>> >>>>Isn't ATF an all - metric shop? I haven't purchased alcohol in some time, >>>>but I seem to remember that hard liquor and wine are already labelled in >>>>metric-only. Beer may be a different story. >>>> >>>> >>>>On Wednesday, August 01, 2007, at 06:53AM, "STANLEY DOORE" >>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>> Newspapers are now reporting that the U.S. Treasury Department is >>>>considering a new rule that would require companies to put content labels >>>>for alcohol on all alcoholic-drink packaging. This would include beer cans >>>>to wine bottles. >>>>> >>>>> A major letter writing and contact campaign should begin now to allow >>>>these labels to carry metric only labels since there will be no or >>>>insignificant cost for metric only labeling to be added by if it is done in >>>>conjunction with the change to new labels. >>>>> >>>>> It an opportunity which should not be missed. >>>>> >>>>> Go Metric! >>>>> >>>>>Regards, Stan Doore >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > >
