David The EU Directive can be considered to be an instruction to the member states to implement the directive into their own national legislation, It's up to the member states how they do this. Therefore, I can only speak as to my interpretation of how this is implemented in the UK. An "Imperial-only" package will be illegal (unless it's milk in a returnable container) A "USC-only" package will be illegal A package marked with metric & imperial weight will be legal as long as the imperial/USC indication is no more prominent than the metric. In addition, the marking must not be misleading. You could not mark a package "45.4 kg 1 cwt" You might get away with marking "45.4 kg 1 US cwt", but I'm not aware of this ever happening. Similarly, a package marked with metric & imperial measure will be legal as long as the imperial/USC indication is no more prominent than the metric. In addition, the marking must not be misleading. There are lots of products available in the UK (mainly cosmetics/perfumes) marked in metric & US fluid ounces. As the imperial is the secondary indication, US fluid ounces are close enough to the true metric quantity not to matter. However, US Gallons/Pints would have to be clearly identified as such, as a package labelled 470 ml 1 pint would be misleading (like the cwt example above)
--- On Sun, 15/3/09, David <[email protected]> wrote: From: David <[email protected]> Subject: [USMA:43892] RE: EU Metric Directive To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> Date: Sunday, 15 March, 2009, 4:23 PM I found this on the USMA website here: http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/eu-update.html "Various press reports in May 2007 indicate that the European Commission has dropped its opposition to “supplementary indications,” the EU measurement directive's term for dual units. According to a spokesperson, EU Industry Commissioner Günter Verheugen will introduce a proposal to eliminate the 1 January 2010 ban on supplementary indications. This proposal wouldn't eliminate the requirement to use metric units, of course; it would merely allow the option to also include other units. Perhaps paradoxically, this could benefit U.S. metrication efforts: By changing European law to permit U.S. dual-marked goods to be imported, rather than banning them in 2010, Europe increases pressure on the U.S. to return the favor by amending the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act to permit metric-only labels, allowing imports of European goods with metric-only labels. That, in turn, would give U.S. companies the option of dropping non-metric measurements from their labels." What are the current laws in Europe on the import of dual-marked goods. I mean, doesn't Europe already permit dual-labeled goods to be imported? --- On Sun, 3/15/09, Jeremiah MacGregor <[email protected]> wrote: From: Jeremiah MacGregor <[email protected]> Subject: [USMA:43889] RE: EU Metric Directive To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> Date: Sunday, March 15, 2009, 4:01 PM What reason will there be for the US to amend the FPLA if the EU will accept dual labels from the US? I don't agree with any directive that would prohibit a product from having an alternate unit of measure. I don't have a problem with metric only if that is the choice of the producer. I also don't agree with the requirement to require dual unit labels. I believe a producer should have the right to use one set of units. In order to have some harmony in the market I understand the need to declare a system of measure as standard and require it on all products. Thus I would have no problem with the EU banning a product that has no metric at all. But if a producer wants to include English (or Cinese, Japanese, Ancient Egyptian, etc.) units, then what is the harm? I would hope though that the EU does not amend their directive until the US amends theirs. Jerry From: David <[email protected]> To: U.S.. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 11:10:55 AM Subject: [USMA:43883] RE: EU Metric Directive So what happens if the amendments to the directive don't finish their path before the 2010 date? And correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the USMA want the amendments to the EU metric directive to pass, hoping that it will encourage America to amend the FPLA? --- On Sun, 3/15/09, Martin Vlietstra <[email protected]> wrote: From: Martin Vlietstra <[email protected]> Subject: [USMA:43867] RE: EU Metric Directive To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> Date: Sunday, March 15, 2009, 7:10 AM The amendments to the EU metric directive have not yet finished their path through the EU bureaucracy. Visit http://ec.europa..eu/enterprise/prepack/unitmeas/uni_ms_en.htm to see the full details and http://ec.europa.eu/prelex/detail_dossier_real.cfm?CL=en&DosId=196132 to see the progress being made. >From the EU Commission's point of view, this is a minor directive. The working papers were in English only, and as far as I could see, all the public responses were in English (including those from non-English countries). -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: 15 March 2009 02:34 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:43859] EU Metric Directive I just read the 2009 February update of a NIST summary of the EU Metric Directive. There is *no mention* of a delay of the requirement for metric-only labeling after 2010 Jan 1! Furthermore, I can find no evidence that any EU Member State has revised its laws requiring metric-only in response to any recommendation of the EU Parliament for indefinite delay. How soon will President Obama's attention be aroused when US exports are rejected by any one of the EU member states?
