Yet, the FMI keeps acting as if the amendment will make metric mandatory and lead to rounded metric sizing, which they oppose. Their opposition is based on the fear that rounded metric sizes would make comparisons too easy and they want comparisons to be difficult.
If they could be assured that metric only labels would be only conversions of present English sizes like 473 mL or 454 g and a change would never be made to 500 mL or 500 g then they would support the amendment only because these types of metric declarations would maintain the confusion. But they know that once metric only appears using the unrounded numbers there will be a pressure to change them to rounded numbers. So the question that needs to be asked is, how can the amendment be passed ignoring the FMI opposition? Jerry ________________________________ From: John M. Steele <[email protected]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2009 9:12:42 AM Subject: [USMA:43185] Re: FMI uses metric units Mr. Kelly is being disingenuous (that's "polite" for "lying"). If you read the literature on voluntary-metric-only at the NIST website, it is CLEAR that it is voluntary, not compulsory, and that it does NOT mandate round metric sizes. FMI KNOWS this. Nonetheless, FNI has opposed and blocked it since 2002. Clearly FMI prefers compulsory Customary, and compulsory dual is closer to it than voluntary metric only. NIST first delayed their plan to bring it to Congress until 2005 to be after the (previous) election, but then pulled it entirely due to FMI opposition, as they didn't think it would pass. It is now 2009. --- On Sun, 2/22/09, Jeremiah MacGregor <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Jeremiah MacGregor <[email protected]> > Subject: [USMA:43182] Re: FMI uses metric units > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> > Date: Sunday, February 22, 2009, 8:53 AM > If you read Ty Kelly's comment he seems to be hung up on > the possibility of Congress MANDATING metric only for > grocery items. Now since the change that is being proposed > is for VOLUNTARY metric only labels, then there would be no > conflict with the wishes of the FMI. This is what the USMA > and the NIST need to concentrate on. If the FPLA is > amended as proposed, then the FMI should have no opposition > as the amendment is for VOLUNTARY labeling in metric only. > The FMI is only opposed to MANDATORY metric labeling. > > Does anyone see the difference here? > > Jerry
