For a long time there has been nothing on the FMI website (what was there years ago had disappeared). However, a current search turns up the following link: http://www.fmi.org/gr/issues/gr_issues_display.cfm?id=156
It is a rehash of points they raised years ago. Most of the points are either outright lies or are inaccurate depending on whether you believe the author is deliberately trying to mislead people or is clueless. Certainly the FMI "reaction" has totally ignored recent clarifications and updates by NIST on the whole matter, and reflects knee-jerk, poorly thought-out reaction. Numbering the tic points under Grocery Industry Impact as 1-14: 1) Lie: Their food products are already labeled in metric, it's the law. What is up for discussion is whether Customary can be dropped. Do consumers understand 2 L better on a bottle of soda than the 67.6 fl oz? 2) Lie: Unit prices may already be given in either metric or Customary units. The packages that are not "metric only" will still have metric, allowing for unit pricing in metric. Alternatively, the software can convert to calculate a Customary unit price. 3) Lie: If grocers are consistent in their units (the law says they should be, but many aren't) across "like product," simply pick the lowest price. An aside, but inconsistent units are a pet peeve in unit pricing. Soda may be priced by the ounce or quart and different brands or different sizes use a different basis. The same occurs in many other aisles. It is clear grocers don't WANT customers comparing prices. 4) Lie: NIST is clear in the amendment that this is not a requirement. Imported products are already in those standard sizes with a token Customary label slapped on. Some manufacturers may introduce new sizes and rationalize their domestic and export products. However, that will be their decision and is not required by the law. In fact the law doesn't require anything, it ALLOWS dropping the Customary. 5) Misleading: True as written but no package changes are required. 6) Lie: The proposed amendment SPECIFICALLY allows random weight packages to be weighed in Customary-only. The change is that the law would allow, not require, metric-only or dual, in addition. 7) Lie: Metric-only will not require this. Package size changes probably would, but they are not required by the FPLA amendment, which SPECIFICALLY states they are not required. 8) Unclear: If the government approves metric-only, it would appear the government needs to fix this. It is possibly a point that needs to be addressed. Point 9 is just elaboration on point 8 10-14) Unclear: Internal store operations that I don't fully understand. However, the notion of labels frozen for 50 weeks is absurd. My store changes a large number of shelf-edge labels every week with specials. The product description is on that label along with unit price info. Some of these seem preposterous. I would note that price advertising on soda is normally on the basis of 2 L bottles not 67.6 fl oz bottles. I am sure the problems could be solved. Finally, I would note the law does NOT require Customary to be dropped, it ALLOWS the Customary to be dropped. I would expect manufacturers to consider and react to issues that grocers and customers may have to avoid drops in sales. I would further note that many products are already offered in rounded metric sizes; many are listed on the USMA website and grocers have accomodated. Some are individual manufacturers, some like soda, bottled water, olive oil, specialty vinegars, etc are essentially industry-wide. I have cc'd the author of the FMI position paper on this response. ________________________________ From: James R. Frysinger <[email protected]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, April 5, 2011 12:24:20 AM Subject: [USMA:50287] Re: The FPLA amendment will likely make a difference There is nothing that has been presented to Congress to revise the FPLA. As NIST has noted for a few years now, the Food Marketing Institute (FMI) has been a formidable opponent of an optional metric-only FPLA. They have posted some discussion of this on their website.* To present a suggested amendment now would definitely be futile. NIST continues to negotiate with the FMI on this matter and I think that some progress is being made. Jim * We were without electricity for several hours and got it back only in time for me to check essential mail, leaks, etc. before bedtime. I trust interested parties can look the matter up on their website. Metric Today (USMA's newsletter) has discussed this, too. On 2011-04-04 2004, [email protected] wrote: > I am working in one of the data centers run by the company I work for > and I noticed the bottle of Purell hand sanitizer placed in all of the > break rooms is marked thus: > > 67.6 FL OZ (2 L) > > The product is distributed by GOJO Industries in Akron, Ohio and is > bottled for commercial use only. > > If the FPLA were amended to allow metric-only labeling, I'm sure the > next batch of labels printed by GOJO would drop the floozies. And I'm > sure lots of companies would do the same for their retail packaging as well. > > Too bad we have an uninterested Congress now, especially in the House of > Representatives. > > Ezra -- James R. Frysinger 632 Stony Point Mountain Road Doyle, TN 38559-3030 (C) 931.212.0267 (H) 931.657.3107 (F) 931.657.3108
