I can only say "read the law." Under the current FPLA, selling random weight packages in kilograms is illegal, they must be sold in pounds or ounces (supplemental marking in metric is allowed, not required). The amendment allows either Customary or metric or both for random weight.
As for actually dropping metric, it is probably true that those who already use rounded metric sizes would be the first to drop Customary. The 67.6 fl oz adds very little value on a 2 L soda. Someone who produces 1 lb packages will still have to mark 453 g, but is unlikely to drop the 1 lb. At some point in the future, he might change to a rounded metric size. The law isn't everything we want. It is a step forward. It may not require what we want, but it allows it instead of forbidding it. I think it is a good start, but at some point, the government would have to "man up" and require metric-only, discontinuing use of Customary in trade. ________________________________ From: Kilopascal <[email protected]> To: [email protected]; U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Fri, April 22, 2011 7:56:31 AM Subject: [USMA:50386] Re: new director of government relations at Food Marketing Institute I fail to see what effect, if any getting the UPLR completed or the FPLA amended will do for metrication. Since it would only give permission for labels to be metric only, there is no force to make them metric only. With this in mind, wouldn't it be logical to expect that if companies were interested in putting out metric only labels in the US they themselves would campaign for a change to the laws? Obviously if they don't intend to drop USC from their labels, they see no need to drop the requirement to have it. On the other hand, since it would force no one to drop USC I don't see why the FMI opposes it so fiercely. It makes no sense. Even if metric only labeling is allowed, they could internally work with their companies to keep USC there. Only foreign imported products might find it useful. I personally feel the USMA should concentrate their efforts on getting gas pumps, shop scales and weather reporting to change. These should cost nothing to do so. Pumps & scales are already metric friendly and the users need only flip a switch or change a software code for it to happen. Worrying about the UPLR or FPLA is really a waste of time and effort especially if anti-metric forces monitoring USMA conversations are working silently behind the scenes to undo any efforts you may be making. [USMA:50387] Re: UPLR and FPLA amendments allow metric-only OPTIONS mechtly Thu, 21 Apr 2011 09:09:06 -0700 Understood. UPLR is state regulation. FPLA is Federal regulation. All we ask now for the USA is legal *permission* (the *option*) to label all consumer products (whether under UPLR or FPLA jurisdiction) in metric-only units of measurement. ---- Original message ---- >Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 01:29:40 -0500 >From: "Paul Trusten" <[email protected]> >Subject: [USMA:50384] UPLR and FPLA amendments allow metric-only OPTIONS >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> > > Just to clarify once more: the UPLR model state > regulation and the proposed amendment to the FPLA > establish options for U.S. manufacturers to drop the > non-metric units from their product labels. These > measures do not REQUIRE that they do so. > > Paul > > Paul R. Trusten > Registered Pharmacist > Vice President and Public Relations Director > U.S. Metric Association, Inc. > www.metric.org > [email protected] > +1(432)528-7724 >
