It certainly wouldn't bother me if it changed in the right direction. Given what Congress has done to other metric initiatives (highways), we might find all the nutrition info in pennyweights and grains.
I haven't tracked down all the laws yet, but this FDA guide to nutrition labels may be useful: http://www.fda.gov/ora/inspect_ref/igs/nleatxt.html#GUIDE%20FOR%20REVIEW%20OF%20NUTRITION In particular, note the requirements for serving size and number of servings including attached charts 5 and 6. A few options do exist for 1-2 servings of the "reference amount" but they are limited. --- On Sun, 2/22/09, Pierre Abbat <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Pierre Abbat <[email protected]> > Subject: [USMA:43183] Re: true metrication is systemic > This law needs to be changed. If the metric amount is > binding, it should be > outside the parentheses. And the milliliter ought to be > declared a familiar > unit, as it's on all the measuring cups I've seen. > > Food packagers should have a bit of leeway when declaring > the serving size, or > should be able to declare a non-integral number of servings > per package. On a > 1 liter bottle, I'd make the serving size 250 mL, not > 240. I would say "about > n servings per package" if the package contents vary. > > Pierre
