Paul, I'm not saying your strategy is wrong, but it is a chicken-and-egg problem and could go either way. The original requirement for metric occurred first in the FPLA (Congress amended the law in 1992 and it took effect in 1994) and the UPLR was modified for consistency. On permissive-metric only, the UPLR has taken the lead because Congressional approval is not required.
48 of 50 States is a big majority, enough to pass Constitutional amendments. Amending the FPLA and convincing the two holdout states could occur in either order, and either action might help tip the balance on the other. Congressional action (FPLA) requires one or more sponsors in Congress who serious about the need for metrication. It probably also requires softening FMI opposition. The FPLA may need some organizations willing to stand up and lobby for it. The UPLR requires convincing two State legislatures which may not be that much easier than convincing Congress. The FMI page on metric declares it a State priority issue so they may be lobbying to holdout on the remaining States, as well as at the national level. They have plenty of local members and may be in far better position to lobby in those two States than we are. Finally, and this is a matter of opinion, the list of items regulated under UPLR seems a lot less impressive than the list of items covered under FPLA. Even if two remaining States agree on UPLR, as long as most items require dual under FPLA, would any manufacturer really "break ranks" and use the UPLR provision? The current issue of not being able to market in two holdout States is a barrier, but I think being out there alone on a minor list of products is a barrier too. Other than to show general State support, I'm not sure the UPLR is very important in the big picture. Broadly, there are three possible strategies. I think USMA should continually review which is best 1) Pursue 50-State UPLR first, then FPLA 2) Pursue FPLA first, then 2 holdout States on UPLR 3) Pursue both simultaneously, accept either order as "the chips fall" #3 requires some additional resources or dilutes available resources. Other than the resource issue, is there a credible case that pursuing both lowers the probability of either passing? Would it make sense for Alabama and New York USMA members to focus on their State legislature, and the rest of us on Congress, with USMA headquarters supporting both? ________________________________ From: Paul Trusten <[email protected]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Thu, April 21, 2011 2:09:03 AM Subject: [USMA:50383] Re: new director of government relations at Food Marketing Institute Gene, I read Mr. Rosodo's bio with the same reaction, but we can't jump on him just yet. I believe that the whole point of pushing for unanimity on UPLR is to lay the unimpeachable groundwork for the FPLA. Once all jurisdictions have adopted the UPLR metric-only amendment, THEN we can fight for the FPLA amendment on all fronts. I agree that Rosodo's background is good news for us and suggests that a change in attitude is at hand at FMI, but let's get those last two states first. Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> Cc: "Lorelle Young" <[email protected]>; "Don Hillger" <[email protected]>; "Valerie Antoine" <[email protected]>; "Gary Brown" <[email protected]>; "Chris Stone" <[email protected]>; "Don Jordan" <[email protected]>; "Mary Gerke" <[email protected]>; "Sandra Hanson" <[email protected]>; "Mark Henschel" <[email protected]> Sent: 2011-04-20 19:59 Subject: [USMA:50380] Re: new director of government relations at Food Marketing Institute > Paul, > > Given all of Rosodo's experience in the USDA with international trade of >agriculture products, this is a great opportunity to persuade the FMI to >support >rather than oppose metric-only labeling of food products! Let's do it! > > Gene. > ---- Original message ---- >> Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 18:55:40 -0500 >> From: "Paul Trusten" <[email protected]> >> Subject: [USMA:50379] new director of government relations at Food Marketing >>Institute >> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>... > > >
