Gene I can only refer you to the LACORS guidance issued in April 1996 (Circular 8 96 1) which reported the views of the Metrication Monitoring Group regarding the acceptability of 'supplementary indications'. Whilst stressing that the advice was aimed at those seeking to comply with the requirements, and has no legally enforceable status, it was suggested that — (a) the metric statement of quantity should be placed before or above the supplementary indication; (b) the metric and supplementary indications should be in close proximity; (c) the metric and supplementary indications should be in similar size, colour and typeface. The supplementary indication must be expressed in characters no larger than those of the metric indication; and d) statements such as 'weight' or 'net weight' should precede the metric statement rather than follow the supplementary indication.
As stated above, these guidelines are just guidance and have no force of law. It is not an offence to breach those guidelines. However, whilst the guidelines exist, it would take a very brave authority to attempt to take a prosecution regarding a label reading "1 lb 454 g". In my opinion, the defendant would be found "not guilty" and the prosecuting authority exposed to ridicule. It would not be worth the risk or in the public interest. That probably explains why no authority has attempted to take such a prosecution in the last 15 years. --- On Mon, 16/3/09, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: [USMA:43963] RE: EU Metric Directive To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> Date: Monday, 16 March, 2009, 4:21 AM Yes, Ken. I consider the unit in first place as "more prominent" that the unit in second place even if the second place declaration is larger or bolder except, perhaps, in cases of extreme contrasts such as the examples that you illustrate. I have never observed such extreme contrasts on US labels. The fonts are usually *the same* for both declarations. Gene. ---- Original message ---- >Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 15:43:11 -0700 (PDT) >From: Ken Cooper <[email protected]> >Subject: [USMA:43931] RE: EU Metric Directive >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> > > Gene > > I would disagree with your interpretation. UK law only > states that an imperial supplementary indication must > be be no more prominent than the primary metric. > > Whether one indication is given first or second may > not be relevant to this > > To give an extreme example, > 1 lb 454 g > > would definitely be legal, and I cannot imagine any UK > enforcement authority taking action regarding "1 lb > 454 g" > > In those cases, I don't consider the "1 lb" to be more > prominent than the "454 g" > > Would you disagree?
