Often we see on this site suggestions as to what pro-metric proponents can do to help spread the use of the SI Metric System in the USA. Might I suggest we all get behind one effort, to allow metric-only package labeling through and update of the FPLA? If there are a hundred people on the list server, and each of them write their two Senators and also write their Congressman about this one topic, that would be 300 letters to Congressmen and Senators around the country about one specific piece of legislation. That many letters might actually have an effect. Mark Henschel
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 9:12 PM, mechtly, eugene a <[email protected]> wrote: > Carol, > > 1. Where can we read the NIST recommendation to the FTC to allow the > option of metric-only labeling? > > 2. Where can we read the NCWM recommendation to the FTC to allow the > option of metric-only labeling? > > 3. What are the Internet links (URLs) to these recommendations? > > Eugene Mechtly. > > On Jun 27, 2014, at 1:58 PM, Hockert, Carol <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Dear Mr. Mechtly, > > > > While we cannot predict when changes to the FPLA law might occur, we are > hopeful that the FTC will consider our recommendation and the > recommendation of the NCWM to allow the option of metric only labeling > during their current review of the regulations. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Carol > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: mechtly, eugene a [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 2:00 PM > > To: Hockert, Carol; Crown, Linda D. > > Cc: Butcher, Kenneth S.; Warfield, Lisa; [email protected]; Gentry, > Elizabeth > > Subject: RE: Legal Metrology Connection, Volume 5 Issue 5 > > > > Carol, > > > > Granted, the current FPLA does not require that declarations of net > amounts inside packages must be stated *first* in units of measurement from > the SI, and that supplementary indications, if any, "may" be stated in > second place in units from outside the SI. > > > > However, the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 does, in > fact, designate SI as the *preferred* system of units of measurement for > trade and commerce in the United States! > > > > The word "preferred" means "in first place" "second to none". > > > > Therefore, the current FPLA must be interpreted to harmonize with the > the Act of 1988, placing SI Declarations in *first* place. > > > > Still better would be passage of the amended FPLA to permit SI-Only > labels on consumer commodities, as they are already permitted by State > authorities for items not burdened by the duality of the current FPLA? > This would assist export trade! > > > > When do you anticipate that SI-Only labels will be legally accepted > under federal legislation? > > > > > > Eugene Mechtly > > > > ________________________________________ > > From: Hockert, Carol [[email protected]] > > Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 9:52 AM > > To: mechtly, eugene a; Crown, Linda D. > > Cc: Butcher, Kenneth S.; Warfield, Lisa; [email protected]; Gentry, > Elizabeth > > Subject: RE: Legal Metrology Connection, Volume 5 Issue 5 > > > > Dear Mr. Mechtley, > > > > While the metric system is preferred under the Metric Conversion Act, it > is the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (FPLA) that governs most packages > and that law is neutral on the question of which unit must be primary. > Also, it is the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Food and Drug > Administration (FDA) that have responsibility for interpreting FPLA. > Neither agency has interpreted FPLA as requiring or expressing any > preference for which units are to be shown in the primary position. That > decision is left to the packager. For these reasons, NIST cannot express > any preference for which units must appear in the primary position in its > training and technical advice to packagers. > > > > The intent of the Metric Conversion Act was to increase the use of the > metric system. One step towards that goal was achieved in 1992 when the > FPLA was amended to include the use of the metric units on most packages > (e.g., dual units). NIST proposes the further expansion of metric use by > offering packers the option to use either dual units or metric units alone > on package labels in the future ( > http://www.nist.gov/pml/wmd/metric/upload/Voluntary-Metric-Labeling-Dec2009.pdf > ). > > > > With regard to unit terminology in the NIST Handbooks, we are in the > process of editorially changing all references to "inch-pound" so that in > all instances these units will be referred to as "U.S. Customary". > > > > With best regards, > > > > Carol Hockert > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: mechtly, eugene a [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 5:29 PM > > To: Crown, Linda D. > > Cc: Butcher, Kenneth S.; Hockert, Carol; Warfield, Lisa; > [email protected] > > Subject: RE: Legal Metrology Connection, Volume 5 Issue 5 > > > > Linda, > > > > Thank you for your reply to my two recent questions. > > > > Although NIST does not have the authority to directly regulate the > labeling and sale of consumer commodities, NIST is the *trainer* of State. > Regional, and Local Officials who do have the authority to remove products > from sale if they do not meet requirements of the FPLA, e.g. requirements > for both declarations. by SI Units , and by units from outside the SI. > > > > Since SI is *preferred* by Federal Laws, 94-168 of1975,100-418 of 1988, > and 110-69 of 2007, there is sufficient "justification" to assure that SI > is granted "first place" in the packaging and labeling instruction courses > that NIST offers to State and Local Regulators. > > > > Is this "first place" status of SI being implemented by all NIST > Instructors? > > > > SI Units, and units from outside the SI *are not of equal status* under > the federal laws cited above! > > > > Note that the NCWN can not even decide what to call units from outside > the SI; "U.S. customary" or "inch-pound" units? > > > > > > Eugene Mechtly > > > > > > ________________________________________ > > From: Crown, Linda D. [[email protected]] > > Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 12:48 PM > > To: mechtly, eugene a > > Cc: Butcher, Kenneth S.; Hockert, Carol; Warfield, Lisa; > [email protected] > > Subject: RE: Legal Metrology Connection, Volume 5 Issue 5 > > > > Dear Mr. Mechtly, > > > > Thank you for your query and the answers to your questions follow. > > > > In response to your question in 1: > > > > Be advised that NIST does not have any regulatory authority. Regulatory > responsibility for packaging and labeling is the responsibility of the > States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Federal Trade Commission > (FTC), the U.S. Department of Agriculture and other federal agencies. > When the SI revisions to the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (FPLA) were > incorporated into regulations in the early 1990s, the suggestion of > requiring that SI units be displayed first (i.e., primary position) in a > quantity declaration was considered. The proposal was not adopted for > several reasons including (1) the FPLA itself did not specify which units > had to be in the primary position in the quantity declaration, and (2) at > the time many packagers provided both customary and SI units on packages > with the SI in the secondary position and there was no justifiable reason > to render those packages unacceptable under FPLA. > > > > In response to your question in 2: > > > > The Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulations adopted by the National > Conference on Weights and Measures in 1993 and which is enforced by State > and Local Weights and Measures Officials was developed to specifically > promote the use of the SI. The method of displaying the quantity of > contents you mentioned is already permitted under Section 6.3.1 "Use of Net > Mass or Net Weight" which is shown below. > > > > 6.3.1. Use of "Net Mass" or "Net Weight." - A quantity declaration may > stand alone [e.g., "200 g (7 oz)" or "1 lb (453 g)"] or may include the > term "net mass" or "net weight" either preceding or following the > declaration. The term "net" by itself may be used on food labels. > However, the quantity of contents shall always declare the net quantity of > contents even when such terms are not used. > > (Amended 1993) > > > > Have a wonderful day. > > > > Linda > > > > Linda Crown > > Weights and Measures Coordinator > > Publications > > National Institute of Standards and Technology > > 100 Bureau Drive, M/S 2600 > > Bldg. 222, Room B250 > > Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600 > > E-mail: [email protected] > > Phone: (301) 975-3998 > > Fax: (301) 975-8091 > > URL: http://www.nist.gov/pml/wmd/ > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: mechtly, eugene a [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 12:54 PM > > To: Crown, Linda D.; Butcher, Kenneth S. > > Cc: Warfield, Lisa; Hockert, Carol; U.S. Metric Accociation > > Subject: Legal Metrology Connection, Volume 5 Issue 5 > > > > I completed a reading of *Legal Metrology Connection* 5-5, (aka W&M > Connection).and ask the following questions: > > > > 1. In view of the *fact*, that three federal laws declare that units of > measurement from the International System of Units (SI) are preferred for > trade and commerce in the Unites State, > > > > NIST has ample authority to *require* that declarations of net amounts > inside packages and containers be expressed In *first place* in Units from > the SI, and only in second place in units from outside the SI, as required > by the current FPLA, even though the NCWM has not yet arrived at this > forward-looking requirement. > > > > 2. Why does NIST not promote, if not require, declarations of amount > simply by a number and the SI Unit, with "NET" or "NET CONTENTS" or "NET > AMOUNT" as *optional* modifiers? > > > > Eugene Mechtly > > > > ________________________________________ > > From: Linda Crown [[email protected]] > > Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 12:11 AM > > To: mechtly, eugene a > > Subject: Weights and Measures Connection, Volume 5 Issue 5 > > > > Dear Readers, > > > > In this edition of the "Weights and Measures Connection," we introduce a > new member of the Office of Weights and Measures team, Mr. Clark Cooney. > Some of you may already know Clark; however, we have provided a brief > introduction for those who do not. There is also guidance on the use of > "Principal Display Panels on Random Packages" and an update on an > educational outreach effort conducted at a nearby middle school. > > > > Please remember to check out the updated "Calendar" to see what OWM is > offering in the training area as well as scheduled meetings. > > > > Online access is available to the newsletter at > http://www.nist.gov/pml/wmd/pubs/upload/WMConnections.pdf, and for your > convenience an Acrobat (.pdf) copy is attached. > > > > As always, we would be happy to get your feedback and ideas for future > articles. > > > > Happy reading, > > > > Linda > > Editor, "Weights and Measures Connection" > > [email protected] > > (301) 975-3998 > >
