If I recall correctly, dairy is exempted from FPLA because it is regulated by a different agency, USDA. This also applies to meat products even in standard weight packages. I would observe many producers dual label voluntarily. All the milk sold here is dual labelled.
Alcohol is another product regulated by a different agency (as is tobacco). Wine and spirits have to be labelled in metric, beer has to be labelled in Customary. Makes perfect sense. While these products are probably regulated by the most appropriate agency, it makes little sense to carve up net content regulations into a variety of opinions and rules. Net contents labelling should fall under a single agency, or other agencies should be obligated to follow the lead of the primary agency. Another silly example is seeds. Up to 7 g, the packages have to be labelled in metric, above that, in Customary. Since permissive metric-only still hasn't gone anywhere, it might be a bad idea to load it up with additional changes, but all these silly cases should be rounded up and rectified. It is embarassing that the non-preferred, disorganized array of weights and measures is required, in some cases exclusively, for net contents labels. ________________________________ From: Edward Schlesinger <[email protected]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Cc: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Sat, January 19, 2013 10:07:59 PM Subject: [USMA:52201] RE: SI-Only Labeling Hi James and everyone: After reading the site: http://www.nist.gov/pml/wmd/metric/pricing-laws.cfm- I understood NY State to keep consistent in not only packaging but transportation, following Handbook 130-2013 as far as requireing dual labeling and dual unit defination in transport and highway. And as far as stores have a choice to voluntarily provide unit pricing information. What bothers me is California Weight and Measures Law and grandfathered clause which allows the Dairy industry to not sell dairy products in SI measure but only in pints, quarts and gallons and exempted from UPLR and NIST Handbook 130. On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 3:29 PM, James Frysinger <[email protected]> wrote: It's not quite as simple as that, Ed. > >There are three categories of labeling in the retail market place: >1. Those regulated by the federal government -- FPLA, FDA regulations, USDA >regulations, etc. >2. Those ignored by the federal government but regulated by the various states >and territories -- set by those governments and generally following the >recommendations of the Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation (UPLR) put >forth by the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM). >3. Everything else -- no regulations (2 scoops of raisins). > >The FPLA pertains to the first category. The issue on this thread relates to >the >second category. NY state is now, apparently, the last holdout on adopting or >adapting the 2000 version of the UPLR. > >Jim > > >-- >James R. Frysinger >632 Stony Point Mountain Road >Doyle, TN 38559-3030 > >(C) 931.212.0267 >(H) 931.657.3107 >(F) 931.657.3108 > > >On 2013-01-19 12:43, Edward Schlesinger wrote: > > >> >>On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 12:17 PM, <[email protected] >> >><mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> I do hope the amendment will be presented to congress. The FPLA I >> believe has mostly been the same since 1994. It's time for it to be >> updated. >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From: * mechtly, eugene a <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>>; >> *To: * U.S. Metric Association <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>>; >> *Subject: * [USMA:52197] SI-Only Labeling >> *Sent: * Fri, Jan 18, 2013 5:45:03 PM >> >> >> I just learned from an employee at NIST that: >> >> 1. The State of New York is the single only remaining state that >> does not permit SI-only labeling. >> You may recall that Alabama *was* the second to last state to permit >> SI-only labeling. >> >> 2. NIST is still *actively* promoting revision of the FPLA to >> *permit* SI-only labeling on consumer products regulated by Federal >> Laws as opposed to products regulated only by state laws. >> >> Eugene Mechtly >> >> >>Hi all! >>The matter of FPLA update is important and I think NY State follows >>Federal Law on labeling and packaging. >> >>-- >>Sincerely, >>Edward B. >> -- Sincerely, Edward B.
