Gene, Technically you are quite correct.
As a practical matter, however, all the indications I've gotten via other channels from overseas correspondents leads me to believe no member state will bother embargoing or otherwise penalizing the importation of US goods that happened to be labeled with SI in the secondary position. Ezra ----- Original Message ----- From: [email protected] To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2010 12:08:52 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific Subject: [USMA:46388] EU Metric Directives Ezra, The NIST posting fails to mention that EU Metric Directives still require that principal labels on packages must still be in SI units. Non-SI units may be used only as supplemetary indications. Let's see if any of the EU member states begin to reject imports which do not treat SI as primary. ---- Original message ---- >Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2010 05:01:28 +0000 (UTC) >From: [email protected] >Subject: [USMA:46385] Silver lining? >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> > > Here's what the NIST metric news page says: > > The EU Metric Directive (80/181/EEC), scheduled to > go into effect January 1, 2010, has been modified to > allow the continuation of both supplemental (U.S. > customary, inch-pound) and metric units for consumer > goods sold in the EU. The rule was published on May > 7, 2009 in the Official Journal of the European > Union. > The Directive instructs the European Commission to > produce a report to the Parliament and Council > regarding the smooth functioning of the internal > market and international acceptance of SI units by > December 31, 2019, including proposals where > appropriate. > > Demonstrated progress will be important for U.S. > stakeholders to achieve long-term acceptance of > supplemental units in the EU. Modifying the U.S. > Fair Package and Labeling Act (FPLA), which > currently requires dual labeling, to permit optional > metric labeling is an example where greater > international marketplace acceptance of SI units can > be achieved. > > So maybe the silver lining is that the issue is > being revisited over the next nine years and there > is more impetus to getting the FPLA amended. Let's > hope that's what happens at any rate. > > Ezra
