The reason you suggest is a perfect summary of the Food Marketing Institute's irrational opposition to efforts at the Federal level to amend the FPLA to allow optional metric-only. However, I can think of a couple of other possible reasons: *He alludes to "massive changes." He may be changing a lot more in New York's W&M legislation and only wants to make one trip to the Legislature. I can see the logic of that. *When the last hold-out States incorporate it, manufacturers might actually use it. Right now, anyone who distributes to 50 States wants a 50-State solution if possible, so the metric-only provision is basically unused. Remember that UPLR (and all "uniform" legislation from NCWM) is just a model. States can pass it as written, modify it selectively, or completely write their own. I don't know what NY does. I have a theory on why "no one backs metric only." The real opposition comes from small manufacturers who hate it. The large manufacturers chuckle to themselves and regard the redundant labels as a competitive advantage because they can handle the costs of designing two labels and having two runs by spreading them over much larger volumes than small producers. The US dual labeling requirement also keeps small European producers out of the US market (but not big ones, who just create a second label). Remember, this is only a theory.
--- On Sun, 8/9/09, Simon_Meng <[email protected]> wrote: From: Simon_Meng <[email protected]> Subject: [USMA:45561] Re: Fw: UPLR and the metric option To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> Date: Sunday, August 9, 2009, 9:17 AM _filtered #yiv2007687309 { font-family:Tahoma;} _filtered #yiv2007687309 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;} #yiv2007687309 P.MsoNormal { MARGIN:0in 0in 0pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Times New Roman";FONT-SIZE:12pt;} #yiv2007687309 LI.MsoNormal { MARGIN:0in 0in 0pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Times New Roman";FONT-SIZE:12pt;} #yiv2007687309 DIV.MsoNormal { MARGIN:0in 0in 0pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Times New Roman";FONT-SIZE:12pt;} #yiv2007687309 A:link { COLOR:blue;TEXT-DECORATION:underline;} #yiv2007687309 SPAN.MsoHyperlink { COLOR:blue;TEXT-DECORATION:underline;} #yiv2007687309 A:visited { COLOR:blue;TEXT-DECORATION:underline;} #yiv2007687309 SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed { COLOR:blue;TEXT-DECORATION:underline;} #yiv2007687309 SPAN.EmailStyle17 { FONT-FAMILY:Arial;COLOR:navy;} #yiv2007687309 DIV.Section1 { } I am having a difficult time understanding the response of Mr. Andersen. If most states have already approved the UPLR with the metric option and it so far has not had any negative impact on their packagers, then why would New York need to conduct a survey? If all that the UPLR is doing is to allow the option of metric units by themselves I can't see where any problems would exist. If a packager would foresee a problem with metric only packaging then they need not change their present situation. Could it be though that some packagers who hate metric units and don't want them to be there in the first place let alone by themselves might oppose the change to the UPLR based on a possible trade advantage that their competitors may gain by going metric only and they want to stop others from having such an advantage? Simon From: Ezra Steinberg Sent: Saturday, 2009-08-08 12:52 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:45553] Re: Fw: UPLR and the metric option Paul, Yes, I guess I cansee what Ross is saying. Not sure what "a little while" means in government time. Maybe by US Thanksgiving? :-) Ezra ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Trusten To: U.S. Metric Association Sent: Saturday, August 08, 2009 2:15 AM Subject: [USMA:45552] Fw: UPLR and the metric option Ezra et al. Here is the latest communication I had with New York's W&M director. Alabama is an unknown quantity at this point. Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: Ross Andersen To: Paul Trusten Sent: 26 May, 2009 08:37 Subject: RE: UPLR and the metric option Paul, The project has been assigned to Counsel and we have been out in the marketplace surveying potential impact on packagers. We are moving forward in drafting a proposal. However, because we are making drastic changes to both the labeling side and methods of sale, I do think it will be a little while before a proposal gets published. Ross J Andersen, Director New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets Bureau of Weights and Measures 10B Airline Drive Albany , NY 12235 (518) 457-3146 or FAX (518) 457-5693
