Dear John, It would appear that Ty Kelley, Director of Public Relations for the FMI, is still around as of mid 2011 February. See http://www.fmi.org/news_releases/index.cfm?fuseaction=mediatext&id=1213 for a recent output.
In the past Ty Kelley has shown himself to lack knowledge of honest measurement, to lack knowledge of measurement methods in the USA, and to be unaware of the way that the USA has led the world toward honest measurement since the 1780s; see http://metricationmatters.com/docs/USAMetricSystemHistory.pdf However, despite his ignorance Ty Kelley has developed an apparent hatred of the honest measurement currently used in the USA that is based on the metric system. For example, when he promotes the use of 67.6 fl. oz. he appears not to know that he is promoting metric fluid ounces as defined by and for the USA in 1893 and 1959. If he were honest he would insist on the more accurate and honest marking for the USA, "67.6 metric fl. oz. (2 litres)" on drink bottles. This is analogous to the way that Margaret Thatcher "saved the pint and the mile for Britain" to boost her electoral support in 1989; she used metric pints and metric miles but didn't tell the public that she was using metric system units. It sounds a good bit different as having "saved the metric pint and the metric mile for Britain". With these two words Margaret Thatcher effectively halted metrication progress toward simple honest measurement in the UK and condemned the UK to their current measurement muddle with all the dishonesty and cost that that has entailed from 1989 to now. By the way, she lost the election! I agree that the points you classify below as lies are indeed untrue. But is this deliberate lying or profound ignorance on the part of Ty Kelley and Elizabeth Tansing? If it is the former then the FMI is actively and deliberately sabotaging the entire economy of the USA; see http://www.metricationmatters.com/docs/CostOfNonMetrication.pdf If if is the latter then the FMI is simply and ignorantly supporting dishonesty in measurement of all household and grocery items when they choose not to specify which "inches, pounds, feet, yards, ounces, quarts and gallons, etc." that they are using (I suspect that they are referring to the "metric inches, metric pounds, metric feet, metric yards, metric ounces, metric quarts, metric gallons, etc." measuring words as defined by the National Institute for Standards and Technology NIST in Washington DC) in 1893 or 1959. As a side issue, I have no doubt that the FMI dishonesty has a profound effect on children. The FMI seems to be particularly effective in sabotaging the education of all children in the USA. Perhaps Ty Kelley and Elizabeth Tansing do not know that the whole of the USA in all activities totally and completely uses the metric system all day every day. My recent letter to all Members of Congress covers some of these points. See http://metricationmatters.com/docs/MemberOfCongressLong.pdf On 2011/04/05, at 21:08 , John M. Steele wrote: > 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 > accommodated. 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. Cheers, Pat Naughtin LCAMS Author of the ebook, Metrication Leaders Guide, see http://metricationmatters.com/MetricationLeadersGuideInfo.html Hear Pat speak at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lshRAPvPZY PO Box 305 Belmont 3216, Geelong, Australia Phone: 61 3 5241 2008 Metric system consultant, writer, and speaker, Pat Naughtin, has helped thousands of people and hundreds of companies upgrade to the modern metric system smoothly, quickly, and so economically that they now save thousands each year when buying, processing, or selling for their businesses. Pat provides services and resources for many different trades, crafts, and professions for commercial, industrial and government metrication leaders in Asia, Europe, and in the USA. Pat's clients include the Australian Government, Google, NASA, NIST, and the metric associations of Canada, the UK, and the USA. See http://www.metricationmatters.com for more metrication information, contact Pat at [email protected] or to get the free 'Metrication matters' newsletter go to: http://www.metricationmatters.com/newsletter to subscribe.
