Well, our quart is really 946.35 mL, but lets go with your quart and our law: *Numbers over 1000 are contrary to law, so think 1.13 L or 1.14 L. (Numbers under 1 are also contrary to law, so the US quart must be declared in metric as 946 mL, not 0.946 L.) *If filled to exactly 1 Imperial quart (which isn't really legal here), it would HAVE to be rounded down to 1.13 L, OR it would have to be "overfilled" to a legitimate 1.14 L, and the dual claim could still be 1 (Imp) Qt. Either the metric or Customary fill may be the primary, and is expected to be correct. The other is expected to be rounded down, so as not to be overstated. The two claims will be compared with an exact conversion. Whichever is larger is the claim an inspector would test to. The FTC would have to amend its rules to allow any other solution. I suppose it would be easier than getting Congress to amend FPLA, but probably not by much.
--- On Fri, 5/8/09, Pat Naughtin <[email protected]> wrote: From: Pat Naughtin <[email protected]> Subject: [USMA:45040] Re: Metric Labelling Rogue's Gallery To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> Date: Friday, May 8, 2009, 10:23 PM Dear John, I suspect that the three digit requirement is a hangover from the 'Rule of 1000'. As such it might not always be appropriate. Consider the case of the quart (milk) bottle. If you need a metric indication then 1136 millilitres would be relatively accurate but what would be the legal value? My view is that preference should be given to whole number indications without fractions (vulgar or decimal) and that four digits should be allowed to provide for whole numbers. See http://www.metricationmatters.com/docs/WholeNumberRule.pdf This is how we did it in Australia. 1136 millilitres of milk was sold for a year or two during the upgrade to the metric system and then this size quietly disappeared in favor of 1 litre, 2 litre, and 3 litre milk containers. Cheers, Pat Naughtin Geelong, Australia On 2009/05/07, at 11:55 PM, John M. Steele wrote: I have noticed a few products in my home that should be covered under the FPLA or UPLR and don't appear to meet the labelling requirements. Given FMI's opposition to permissive metric only, I wonder if we do any good pushing manufacturers who presently have compliance issues, pushing them to comply, and making them aware of our preference for the the much simpler SI only labelling. It is a little difficult in some cases to determine whether FPLA or UPLR apply, and exactly which section of the law is not complied with, or whether an exemption complies. However, the laws are pretty well summarized on the USMA site, I will start the Rogue's Gallery with three noncompliant products and invite others to contribute: No SI declaration at all (does not comply with the FPLA, 15 CFR 1453(a)(2)) *Williams Mug Shaving Soap, Net Wt 4 oz. SI declaration uses more than three digits (does not comply with FTC rule supporting FPLA, 16 CFR 500.19(b), same requirement in UPLR if that is what actually applies) *Aquafresh Fluoride Toothpaste (Triple Protection Advanced), Net Wt. 5.6 oz / 158.8 g *Red Star Active Dry Yeast, 4 oz / 113.4 g I wrote the first two some time ago and did not get a response. I just noticed the Red Star, and the body of my e-mail to them follows: I recently bought a 4 oz bottle of Red Star Active Dry Yeast for use with my bread machine. First, let me say that it works just fine. I am writing to comment on the product labelling. The Net Contents of the bottle are labelled as 4 oz. / 113.4 g. The United States has required dual labelling of consumer goods in both Customary units and metric (SI) units since 1994 under the Fair Packaging and Labelling Act (FPLA). Your label meets the basic intent of labelling in both unit systems. However, the Federal Trade Commission has a set of detailed regulations applying to FPLA under 16 CFR 500. In particular, section 500.19(b) requires the SI value to be expressed in no more than 3 digits. Your 4 digit declaration, 113.4 g, would appear noncompliant, and the logical choices would be to claim 113 g at the present fill, or claim 114 g and fill accordingly. (Either declaration may be rounded down, the larger claim must be true.) Please note that I am neither a lawyer nor involved in FPLA compliance. I am an educated consumer who believes the US should go metric. I would prefer to see the FPLA amended to permit (not require) SI-only net content labels. In the meantime, I would prefer to see manufacturers comply with the existing requirements, particularly the metric requirements. Sections of the relevant laws are linked at the US Metric Association site, although you may prefer to get them from other sources. http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/laws/ 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.
