Scott, Your answer really didn't answer the question.
If I'm not mistaken, the set-up of the nutritional label is covered under a different law. The FPLA amendment would only affect contents declarations. All it would do would allow a producer to freely drop the English units of the contents declaration and leave the metric only. I have a couple of items in front of me that all have serving sizes stated in both English and metric. None are English only. On two of the items, the serving size is 1 oz/28 g. The other is 8 oz (240 mL). The funny thing is, the one with the 8 oz (240 mL) on it is a 1 liter water bottle that is labeled as 1 LITER (1 QT 1.8 FL OZ) 33.8 FL OZ. Here is a perfect example of what amending the FPLA would mean. It would mean that the double English units would be removed and the label would only read 1 LITRE or simply 1 L. Much of the extra clutter can be removed. If you have a problem with the set-up of the nutritional label, then you need to bring this up with the appropriate department. Jerry ________________________________ From: Scott Hudnall <[email protected]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2009 1:37:35 PM Subject: [USMA:43163] Re: true metrication is systemic Well, for starters, the nutritional information panel is in metric only, the serving size information is in imperial, and energy content is labeled in calories (when the value shown is actually kCal). So if you are trying to keep your fat intake to <10% of your diet ... you need to bring a calculator along to make comparisons in the grocery aisle. Product A 12 g saturated fat Serving Size: 1 cup Is this a good choice? You do the math Product B 8 g saturated fat Serving Size: 100 g Is this a good choice? Oh you betcha! On 2009-02 -21, at 09:22 , Jeremiah MacGregor wrote: How? Can you show me an example? How is a package that states 1 pint 473 mL more deceptive then one showing 473 mL only? How is 473 mL any more simple, clear and less deceptive then having the word 1 pint included on the label? Jerry ________________________________ From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: U.S.. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2009 11:46:56 AM Subject: [USMA:43148] Re: true metrication is systemic Respect rather than contempt for the EU Metric Directive (80-181) would be gained. Presently the FPLA requires duality while, if enforced, the EU Directive requires metric-only labeling after 2010 Jan 1. Simplicity, clarity, and less deceptive marketing would be gained by metric-only labeling. ---- Original message ---- >Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 19:10:13 -0800 (PST) >From: Jeremiah MacGregor <[email protected]> >Subject: [USMA:43111] Re: true metrication is systemic >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> > > Every package that I encounter has a metric > description on it. Isn't that sufficient? If by > chance the English units were removed, what would be > gained? > > Jerry > > ------------------------------------------------ > > From: STANLEY DOORE <[email protected]> > To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 4:50:01 PM > Subject: [USMA:43041] Re: true metrication is > systemic > Paul et al: > Absolutely metrication needs a decision from the > top; however, visibility and use is essential to > make it work. Packaging and road signs are > visible and used by most people and this would make > people familiar with and learn metric. Those are > two highly visible and useful applications which > confront people daily and which would stimulate and > maintain the conversion process. > Yes, a procedure is necessary and packaging and > road signs would be an excellent way for people to > learn metric in an every day environment. Metric is > already used extensively below the public surface in > the US, however, most people don't know it or are > not concerned about it. The SI and metric needs to > be brought into the open. > Stan Doore > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Paul Trusten > To: U.S. Metric Association > Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 9:04 AM > Subject: [USMA:43032] true metrication is systemic > Stan et al., this is about procedure. Metrication > is not a bottoms-up process; it is systemic. > Victory for metrication is to be found among our > leaders, who have to get together and set it in > motion. Road signs cannot function as > mere billboards for metrication, but rather, as > the results of metrication. Once the starting > gun for real metrication is fired, and the race is > on for the 10-year transition period, we shall > have an ever-increasing number of visible and > audible signs of it, as weather reports report > wind speeds in kilometers per hour and > temperatures in degrees Celsius, available office > space is advertised in square meters on signs, and > those pesky media style guides are revised to > specify the use of metric units only, so that > every measurement we read about is stated in SI > metric units. > > Metric "will win" when metrication starts in > earnest. I think that, for those of us who want a > metric America, real metrication will be very > satisfying, because it will be truly ubiquitous. > We will eventually get to that point where > refrigerator magnets that happen to be > thermometers will be Celsius-only thermometers, > and when you go into a dollar store looking for a > ruler, it will be have millimeter scales on both > edges. With true metrication, U.S. customary > units will go the way of the 33-1/3 > RPM long-playing record. > > Paul > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: STANLEY DOORE > To: U.S. Metric Association > Sent: 16 February, 2009 07:27 > Subject: [USMA:43031] Re: More companies primed > to pounce on metric-only labeling > Road signs are an integral part of changing > to metric because they are so visible and an > integral part of all our lives. change them, > weather reporting and product display in > grocery stores and metric will win. > Stan Doore > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Brian J White > To: U.S. Metric Association > Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2009 11:53 PM > Subject: [USMA:43022] Re: More companies > primed to pounce on metric-only labeling > You know me Paul...I wasn't disputing > anything.. It just made me think. > > Did the DOT rules relax over the past few > years on the speedo km/h requirement? > > At 20:47 2009-02-15, Paul Trusten wrote: > > Changing road signs can only be a small part > of metrication. What about the speedometers, > odometers, driver training, federal and > state traffic regulations, statements of the > heights of tractor trailers in meters so the > drivers will understand the meters-only > clearance signs that will replaces the ones > that now read in feet? If there are jobs to > be held for metrication, they will be > created in many areas of our lives, and each > metric transition must be coordinated with > the others. There will be jobs in signage, > sure, but there will also be jobs in writing > new regulations, jobs providing metric > training, jobs in designing new products or > changes in old products. Once the Nation's > leadership makes the decision to go metric, > all of these things will follow, e.g., there > would be a DOT requirement that, by a > certain date, all vehicles made in the U.S. > will display speedometers that read in > kilometers per hour only, and odometers that > accumulate kilometers only. Metrication is > all or nothing. It's a life process; a > living thing. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Brian J White > To: U.S. Metric Association > Sent: 15 February, 2009 22:29 > Subject: [USMA:43020] Re: More > companies primed to pounce on > metric-only labeling > > What gets me about sign changing, > is....whatever happened to the DOT > requirement that cars must be sold > with both km/h and mph on the > speedo? > Mercedes over the past 3-4 years > seems to be getting away without > it...they are mph only it looks > like. > > I know GM has numbers only with a > legend that switches between mph and > km/h, but the Mercedes cars look to > be mph only all the time. Makes > for a suck time when driving to > Canada I'm sure. > > My wife's old Honda Civic (I hated > that car.) had both mph and km/h > markings, but only MPH illuminated > at night. Talk about a bozo design > feature right there..... I tried to > talk you out of the Honda again Nat, > but to no avail. :) > > At 19:36 2009-02-15, STANLEY DOORE > wrote: > >  > The NIST has drafted legislation > to provide for metric only product > labeling. If Congress would pass it > and the President sign it, there > would be a great move to go all > metric. > If ALL people would contact > their Congressional > representatives, then perhaps > something would happen. No single > organization can do it alone. > However, most companies want to go > metric and many already have gone > metric like the auto industry has. > With the current stimulus bill > recently passed and it's called a > jobs bill, it would be appropriate > to have all road signs changed to > metric very quickly. > Stan Doore
