Good clarification. It looks like the main problem is when the US unit is smaller (assuming metric IS present).
You are safe from our little hundredweight. It is not an acceptable-for-trade unit for consumer goods (it probably is business-to-business). So it would have to be labeled 100 LB. For small volumes, the fl oz is OK up to 16 fl oz in the US. After that, the largest whole unit (pint, quart, gallon) MUST be used, with remainder in fl. oz or decimal fraction. Total fl oz is permitted as a supplement here. So any liquid over 473 mL / 16 (US) fl oz could not meet US and UK law simultaneously and relabelling is required. Our bushel is smaller and I don't think the UK allows the bushel or its subdivisions anyway do they? --- On Sun, 3/15/09, Ken Cooper <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Ken Cooper <[email protected]> > Subject: [USMA:43925] RE: EU Metric Directive > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> > Date: Sunday, March 15, 2009, 6:15 PM > 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?
