Simon, New York State might have joined the UPLR matter very late in the game.
I think they have to do these things now for reasons the rest of us don't see.
We supporters of U.S. metrication are interested only in the adoption of the
rule, while New York officials have to be concerned with how the rule will
actually affect New York interests.
So far, 54 out of the 56 U.S.-related weights-and-measures jurisdictions (that
include states and territories) have adopted the UPLR metric-only option. I
don't think that dislike of metric units would be the first concern of
manufacturers; I believe they would go along with whatever sells their products
or at least does not impede the sale of their products.
Measurement is an activity that everyone does, so a standard of measurement
must be uniform throughout the Nation. Our goal is to get all
weights-and-measures departments to agree that metric units can stand alone on
packaging within their jurisdictions. A majority doesn't cut it; only
unanimity does. Once we get total local approval in the U.S., the case for
amending the federal Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (FPLA) to provide the same
labeing option on all U.S. product labeling will be very strong.
Paul T.
----- Original Message -----
From: Simon_Meng
To: U.S. Metric Association
Sent: 09 August, 2009 08:17
Subject: [USMA:45561] Re: Fw: UPLR and the metric option
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
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Trusten [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2009 5:16 PM
To: Ross Andersen
Subject: UPLR and the metric option
Dear Mr. Andersen,
What progress, if any, has been made regarding New York State's
consideration of the provisions of NIST Handbook 130, which contains the UPLR
metric-only labeling option?
Sincerely,
Paul Trusten, R.Ph.
Public Relations Director
U.S. Metric Association, Inc.
www.metric.org
3609 Caldera Blvd. Apt. 122
Midland, Texas 79707-2872 US
+1(432)528-7724
[email protected]
