The present law requires this. It is fairly prescriptive. **A maximum of 3 significant figures may be used (2 is permissible for amounts under 100 g, mL, etc. *There is a strict rule of 1000, numbers must be greater than or equal to one, and strictly less than 1000. The unit must be chosen accordingly. Any unneeded zeroes to the right of the decimal may be omitted. *The units are prescriptive, a list marked "these and no others." As an example that conflicts with EU marking centiliters and deciliters are not permitted for trade. Milliliters and liters must be used with 1 L following 999 mL. (When you are already using the smallest or largest permitted unit from the list, it is not clear what you do if the amount falls outside the 1-999 range.) Your example of spirits falls under other regulation but the permitted size (and marking) are on the USMA page. The most common size is 750 mL, then 1 L, 1.75 L. 1.5 L is not a permitted size for spirits but is for wine.
--- On Thu, 4/30/09, Pat Naughtin <[email protected]> wrote: From: Pat Naughtin <[email protected]> Subject: [USMA:44929] Re: FPLA 2010 To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> Cc: "USMA Metric Association" <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, April 30, 2009, 6:35 PM On 2009/05/01, at 2:54 AM, <[email protected]> <[email protected]> wrote: Pat, On your suggestions in red, many are *four* digits. This contradicts the limit of *three* significant digits for most "consumer" labels. How do you justify four? Dear Gene, Consider the 2-litre bottle. Are you thinking of insisting that this cannot be labelled as a 2000 mL bottle. Consider the litre bottle of spirituous liquor imported from Europe; would the importer have to change 1500 mL to 1.5 litres with a sticker because of a three digit limitation? I have to say that I must have been thinking about 'three significant figures' rather than 'three digits'. However, that said, let me support the four digits as a suitable standard for packaging. I can see several advantages: 1 There are no fractions + no common or vulgar fractions + no decimal fractions + no decimal points 2 All figures are in whole numbers + easy to comprehend at a glance + easy to calculate (say) for incorporating into recipes for cooking at home + See http://www.metricationmatters.com/docs/WholeNumberRule.pdf 3 Easy to calculate at the filling factory with fewer errors + easier statistical calculations + easier fill proportions from known batch sizes + easier quality control calculations in factory + easier training for factory workers + easier statistics for supermarkets These statements are, in part, based on the Australian experience of working in millimetres on all of our building sites. Workers, even those who were barely literate and numerate soon learned the simplicity of working solely with whole numbers. One of the strange things we learned when we decided to use millimetres in building construction in Australia was that by having building workers aiming for millimetre accuracy (that might rarely be achieved — but they often go close) the whole of our construction jobs became more accurate with fewer errors and savings estimated at about 10 % on each job. On the other hand, restricting product descriptions to three digits leaves the possibility that packers and fillers will use decilitres, centilitres and their mass and length equivalents. This would take the USA down the long slow pathway to the metric system that was used by France and in Europe. On a broader issue, I would like to state where my opinions are coming from. I sit on the other side of a paradigm shift in that I lived through the fast, smooth, money-saving upgrade to the metric system in Australia. In the 1970s I was actively involved in this metric transition as a trainer in the building industry. I have probably personally seen most of the metrication methods that work — and that work smoothly and quickly. I have also worked in the textile industry where I saw metrication pathways that were slow, bitterly fought, and so outrageously expensive that many companies went out of business as they fought over minor measuring issues internally. I have in my mind this line as I write: SHOW the COST The metric system is characterised by SHOW — Simple, Honest, Open, and Worldwide. All old methods are characterised by COST — Complicated, Obscure, Secret, and Territorial. Cheers, Pat Naughtin PO Box 305 Belmont 3216, Geelong, Australia Phone: 61 3 5241 2008 Metric system consultant, writer, and speaker, Pat Naughtin, has helped thousands of people and hundreds of companies upgrade to the modern metric system smoothly, quickly, and so economically that they now save thousands each year when buying, processing, or selling for their businesses. Pat provides services and resources for many different trades, crafts, and professions for commercial, industrial and government metrication leaders in Asia, Europe, and in the USA. Pat's clients include the Australian Government, Google, NASA, NIST, and the metric associations of Canada, the UK, and the USA. See http://www.metricationmatters.com for more metrication information, contact Pat at [email protected] or to get the free 'Metrication matters' newsletter go to: http://www.metricationmatters.com/newsletter to subscribe.
