It is rarely used, but the FPLA does allow decimal quarts so 1.75 L / 1.84 QT would be acceptable.
Is that "Simply Orange?" They were the first orange juice to use that size, but I notice others have copied the 1.75 L size. ________________________________ From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, April 5, 2011 6:45:31 PM Subject: RE: [USMA:50302] Re: The FPLA amendment will likely make a difference I just emailed ol' Ty with an example. My orange juice comes in a rational metric size...labeled as 1.75 L. Ok, so far so good right? Well....next to it is the absolutely amazing (1 QT 1 PT 11 FL OZ). Wow. Seriously....1 quart, 1 pint and 11 fl oz. That's the size of my OJ bottle. hilarious. I asked simply..what's wrong with just 1.75 L? hah.. -------- Original Message -------- >Subject: [USMA:50302] Re: The FPLA amendment will likely make a >difference >From: "John M. Steele" <[email protected]> >Date: Tue, April 05, 2011 3:38 pm >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> > > >I, at first, wondered, lies or ignorance? Since learning of their 1992 >position, I'm pretty convinced that it is lies, and that they have been >remarkably consistent over the years. By the way, "67.6 metric fl. oz. (2 >litres)" would not be permitted under law regardless of what he wants: >*The word "metric" is an auxilliary word and is not permitted >*If spelled out, the law requires "liter" although the symbol, "L" is preferred >*"All-up" ounces are permitted as an additional option; however, 2 QT 3.6 OZ >is >required. I personally think "all-up" ounces are clearer than the largest >whole >number gallon/quart/pint/ounce breakdown, but the law disagrees. >*The "FL" qualification is optional as the context from QT and L is fluid, not >weight (I don't know if this is clear to real people, but it is clear under >law) >Legalities aside, I agree the fluid ounce is ultimately defined in cubic >inches >of (25.4 mm)³ > > > ________________________________ From: Pat Naughtin <[email protected]>; >To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> >Cc: USMA Metric Association <[email protected]>; UKMA Metric Association ><[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] >Sent: Tue, April 5, 2011 5:52:15 PM >Subject: [USMA:50301] Re: The FPLA amendment will likely make a difference > >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/ to subscribe. >
