I agree, Paul. All fifty states supporting UPLR is desired first, then amendment of the FPLA (a Federal requirement) follows in *logical* order.
However, if Rosado (Rosodo was my previous spelling error) can be persuaded to champion metric-only labeling before all fifty states endorse UPLR; Great! My more immediate goal is to see the metric provisions of NIST Handbooks 44, 130, and 133 *separated* from the non-metric entanglements; to enable abandonment of the non-metric content with minimum delay, after the FPLA is amended to *permit* metric-only labeling . If ASTM can publish separate metric, and non-metric versions of the "same" standard so can the NCWM (via NIST). Why perpetuate these confusions? Gene. ---- Original message ---- >Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 01:09:03 -0500 >From: "Paul Trusten" <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [USMA:50380] Re: new director of government relations at Food >Marketing Institute >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> > >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 >...
