OK, that's a reach. But I'll back it up, really. I used to think they were misguided and we could reason with them. However, in our archives (over 21000 messages ago), I found a 2007 message which quotes their release about the current FPLA, as it took effect in 1994 (based on the text, it must date from about January, 1994):
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg28718.html "As originally amended by Congress in 1992, the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act would have required the metric system to be the primary means of specifying contents on packages, a rule that might have led many companies to make costly adjustments in package sizes. But intense lobbying, particularly by the Food Marketing Institute, a Washington organization representing food retailers and wholesalers, prompted Congress to lighten the impact on businesses. Under the rules that will be enforced beginning this month, the system of weights and measures customarily used in America can still be the basis for the first measurements presented on a label, with the metric equivalents displayed second. Also, foods that are packaged at the retail level--such as deli items and produce--are exempt from the metric labeling rules." It looks like the original law would have been metric-only or metric-primary if not for FMI, by their own admission. The law was passed in 1992 and took effect in 1994 so this lobbying greatly preceded other scuttling actions to US metrication such as undermining of metric highway construction and signage or Customary bricks and lighting fixtures in metric federal building. Had the original law passed, it is likely that the US would be substantially more metric than it is now and by their watering down of the bill, FMI represents the most successful and effective foe to US metrication ever encountered (at least since 1988, when Congress gave lip service to it being preferred). Thanks, FMI. You have opposed metrication and helped make the US uncompetitive in world markets (admittedly, high labor costs and excessive regulation have helped too). 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 ________________________________ 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
