And I would agree there is no real concern in changing food labels. However, some legislative groundworks remains. Metric-only labels are currently illegal for items regulated under FPLA.
Because of FMI opposition, the Department of Commerce has been reluctant to take their proposed amendment to Congress. It has been in stasis since (at least) 2004. For items regulated under the UPLR, metric-only would be legal, but we still have two "hold-out" states where the items could not be sold. However, for items already sold in rounded metric sizes (soda, bottled water, olive oil, fine vinegars) the Customary units look really silly. I wonder if FMI would be opposed to dropping the Customary there. To show I can use stealth too, perhaps the exemption could also apply to any product which moves to a round metric size. (I don't know if that would make FMI madder or less mad.) Another area of legislative concern is that wine and spirits require metric measure but beer requires Customary, and allows metric as supplemental. That is an example where the non-preferred system of measurement is required and the preferred is, at best, tolerated as supplemental. --- On Mon, 3/2/09, Victor Jockin <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Victor Jockin <[email protected]> > Subject: [USMA:43326] Re: true metrification is systemic > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> > Date: Monday, March 2, 2009, 12:52 PM > I don't disagree with any of what you said. I guess > what I mean by stealth is, for example, if conventional > units started to disappear from packaging, and if store unit > pricing labels started to use metric units, would it even > make the local news? Most people would scarcely notice. > But still, metric units would increasing creep into public > language and thought as a result. For that kind of change, a > big public education initiative would be counterproductive > and needlessly create resistance. > > For road signs, of course you're right about truckers > and clearance, that's critical, and we don't want to > completely blind side the public. But neither do you want > to give them a big public education initiative and a 10 year > conversion window. Just think of Americans who drive to > Canada and vice versa. Is there chaos and confusion? That > tells you right there how much notice and how much public > education would be necessary ... virtually none. It's > the protracted discussion of conversion, and dual unit > signage, that helped sink road sign conversion in the 70s. > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "John M. Steele" > <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 5:50 AM > To: "U.S. Metric Association" > <[email protected]> > Subject: [USMA:43325] Re: true metrification is systemic > > > > > I think stealth will simply increase resistance. In > some cases, it will be dangerous as well. Public > "buy-in" isn't a requirement (although > Congresscritters would have to show a lot of backbone to > pass something the public doesn't approve of), but on > some things prior notification, planning and education is > essential. > > > > Relative to speed limits, FMVSS101 needs to be > modified to require, not just permit, km/h marking and have > legibility standards for it. My car has virtually > unreadable km/h markings, and some cars have none as it is > currently optional. > > > > Second the public would need to understand change is > coming, when it is coming, and the relationship between MPH > and km/h. Some Americans who regularly visit Canada and > Mexico have some familiarity with it, many don't. > > > > > > Clearance heights for bridges are also extremely > important (mostly to truckers, as we have few of the VERY > low clearances common in the UK). For these, I would support > mandatory dual marking for a few years. > > > > Some road signs, if not understood, only inconvenience > the driver, e.g. distance to a (fairly distant) city. > Others can make the driver who doesn't understand be a > hazard to others, such as speed limits, clearance heights, > load limits. > > > > Changing these without adequate education is > irresponsible and dangerous.
