This is a good example of a couple of important things: One, Congress serves special interests (e.g., brewers) rather than the public interest (i.e., general metrication). That, in a nutshell, is why US is the only significant non-metric economy in the world. Our use of medieval measurement units is just one symptom of a much more fundamental problem (the current Congress, despite a wave of optimism surrounding the last presidential election, is as bad as any we've had in this respect).
And two, yes, Al is right, if someone were to organize the many interests (perhaps brewers today are a good example) that would at least not oppose metrication and may in some ways benefit, those forces collectively could have influence even under the broken American political system. Al is also right that the increasing globalization of many aspects of American business has potentially changed the landscape for metrication, at least in some areas. Serving as a central organizing force for these interests would seem like a useful function for USMA. But that would take some money and the hiring of professional political organizers (obviously letters from our current members will not accomplish this, nor should it be expected to). USMA could attempt to fund the hiring of such professional strategists and organizers through targeted fund raising efforts with specific philanthropists and foundations, many of whom may also side with us. But to the best of my knowledge, they have elected not to do this. From: Al Lawrence Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 4:21 PM To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:45059] A proposal for another step towards metrication In 1979 and 1980 wine and distilled spirits converted to metric, and, in fact, currently only use metric unit labeling, they do not use supplemental units. This was not done as a result of pro metric groups or by fiat, it was done because the industry requested it. Beer and malt beverages did not go metric because the industry “showed no interest in doing so” according to the BATF. Wine and distilled spirits were widely exported at that time, beer was not. This is a good example showing that if industry does not actively support a metrification proposal it is unlikely anything will happen. However, things have changed. Anheuser-Busch is now owned by InBev (headquartered in Belgium), Miller brands is owned by a SABMiller, a South African company and Coors has merged with Molson (Canadian) and SABMiller also has an interest in the new company. Eight of the top ten selling brands of beer in the US are made by those companies. The other two brands in the top ten are Heineken (Dutch) and Corona (Mexican). Malt Beverages in the US are currently labeled in US units only. They are regulated by the BATF, and unlike most other products, no metric units are required on the labels and are seldom used. On a recent trip to a nearby supermarket I saw Foster’s cans (Australian) labeled 25.4 fl oz, bottles of Stella Artois (Belgium) labeled 11.2 fl oz and Newcastle bottles (British) labeled 18.6 fl oz. The Foster’s was obviously a 750 ml can relabeled for the US. .330 liters is a common glass size in parts of Germany and Belgium, so the Stella bottles were probably a standard European size relabeled for the US, and the Newcastle bottle was presumably a relabeled Imperial pint, although someone was a little off on the math with that one. I have also seen a lot of half liter bottles relabeled as 16.9 fl oz sold at stores that carry a lot of imported beer. If InBev and SABMiller are interested in converting beer sold in the US to metric units they would have the power to do it. Since, unlike 30 years ago, a lot of beer is now both imported and exported, the conversion would save relabeling costs in both directions. Package sizes do not have to be changed. The vast majority of beer in the US would still be sold in 12 oz cans and bottles, they would just be marked 355 ml instead. No costs would have to be incurred by changing package sizes, there would only be cost savings due to fewer label changes and by simplifying inventory control. All that is required is ruling by BAFT that malt beverages be labeled in metric, like wine and distilled spirits. If InBev, SABMiller and a few other companies are interested in this it could be done virtually overnight. What is the position of InBev and SABMiller on this? What can USMA act as a catalyst or intermediary to help accomplish this? Alan Lawrence -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hotmail® has ever-growing storage! Don’t worry about storage limits. Check it out.
