Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 04:08:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: "John M. Steele"<[email protected]>
Subject: [USMA:50288] Re: The FPLA amendment will likely make a difference
To: "U.S. Metric Association"<[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
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
