Oops, lets try again. I seem to have replied only to Jim not to all
True, but we should hone our counter-arguments and look for the flaws in the FMI position. The members of FMI might be interested in how erroneous (and stupid) the position of their central organization is. We just need to find a forum frequented by grocery retailers where we can make the argument. Any ideas on forums? One fallacy in the FMI argument is the gross over-estimation of the costs associated with metric-sized products. The USMA site has MANY product examples in round metric sizes (also dutifully labeled with Customary, because its the law). Lets ask grocers what the real costs of accomodating those products are, and whether the FMI position is a crock. Lets ask what the real cost to the operation is if 67.6 fl oz is omitted from a 2 L soda bottle. We have many examples where they have accomodated metric products and mostly likely, they hardly even noticed. ________________________________ From: James R. Frysinger <[email protected]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, April 5, 2011 1:42:58 PM Subject: [USMA:50294] Re: The FPLA amendment will likely make a difference I suspect that taking on FMI directly might not be very effective. They exist and thrive on the dues of their members and so the members' voices are the ones most likely to be heeded. I suggest that appealing to the members to lean on the FMI might work better. Convince them and let them convince FMI to change their minds. One of the things that really irks me is that one sector of our economy is holding companies and industries in the rest of the economy as hostages. The FPLA applies to many, many goods outside the purview of the FMI, yet those cannot take advantage of metric-only labeling when they might want to -- all due to FMI digging in its heals. Members of Congress are heavily lobbied by FMI, it seems. Otherwise they would not be able to be effective in preventing consideration of an FPLA amendment. Let your congressional representatives know that you oppose letting one industry bar progress by other industries. Jim On 2011-04-05 1201, [email protected] wrote: > John Steele, > > I read the FMI posting by Ms. Tansing, and continue to have the distinct >impression that the FMI *begins* with opposition to metric-only labeling, > and then searches for all imaginable excuses, however questionable, to oppose >metric-only labeling. > > The FMI continues to favor confusion rather than clarification of units of >measurement for the benefit of marketing deceptions, rather than for the >benefit >of unit price comparisons by consumers offered by metric-only labels. > > E. A. Mechtly > > ---- Original message ---- >> 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 > > > > -- James R. Frysinger 632 Stony Point Mountain Road Doyle, TN 38559-3030 (C) 931.212.0267 (H) 931.657.3107 (F) 931.657.3108
