That is true for the EU The European Union directive 80/181/EEC, passed in 1979 requires that only metric units be used on products after 1989, which means US products with labels which include inch-pound units could not have been sold in the European Union. Full implementation of this law has been delayed several times but was scheduled to be reviewed again in 2019. If fully implemented US alcoholic beverages could not be sold in Europe unless labeled in metric units only.
Al Lawrence ________________________________ From: USMA <[email protected]> on behalf of Martin Vlietstra <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 25, 2019 12:26 PM To: 'John Steele' <[email protected]>; 'USMA List Server' <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: [USMA 1224] Re: Change in Liquor Labeling to Optional Non-metric? Hi all, As I am not a US citizen, I cannot make a representation to the US authorities, but may I draw attention that the British Weights and Measures (Packaged Goods) Regulations 2006, Section 8(3) specifically prohibits any non-metric unit other than pounds, ounces, imperial gallons, quarts, pints and ounces (https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.legislation.gov.uk%2Fuksi%2F2006%2F659%2Fcontents%2Fmade&data=02%7C01%7Cusma%40lists.colostate.edu%7Cdd25a92fa8884e75143008d759880abf%7Cafb58802ff7a4bb1ab21367ff2ecfc8b%7C0%7C0%7C637076313144149519&sdata=ZUm0OdSYGtnPMqL7VfNempFiQLZcv%2FIFlLsLJ1D0oIc%3D&reserved=0<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.legislation.gov.uk%2Fuksi%2F2006%2F659%2Fcontents%2Fmade&data=02%7C01%7Cusma%40lists.colostate.edu%7Cdd25a92fa8884e75143008d759880abf%7Cafb58802ff7a4bb1ab21367ff2ecfc8b%7C0%7C0%7C637076313144149519&sdata=ZUm0OdSYGtnPMqL7VfNempFiQLZcv%2FIFlLsLJ1D0oIc%3D&reserved=0>) to be used on package labelling. The use of US gallons, quarts, pints or fluid ounces on the labels of alcoholic beverages might well render the product ineligible for export to the United Kingdom. Regards Martin Vlietstra From: USMA [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John Steele Sent: 25 October 2019 01:30 To: USMA List Server; [email protected] Subject: [USMA 1223] Re: Change in Liquor Labeling to Optional Non-metric? The rules for wine require metric net contents, but allow supplemental Customary at the moment (27 CFR 4.37b). TTB says in the proposals it allows supplemental Customary on spirits and supplemental metric on beer, but the rules don't explicitly say it. They would like to clarify. The rest of the proposal eliminates standard sizes and allows metric fill of any size for wine and spirits (any size Customary fill is currently allowed for beer.) I think the proliferation might get out of hand, but some of our standard sizes are not well coordinated with EU standard sizes (wines are better than spirits in this regard). At least a few additional sizes for better coordination with the EU may make sense. However, I'm not sure I care enough either way to submit comments. On Thursday, October 24, 2019, 6:39:49 PM EDT, [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: In the November-December 2020 "Metric Today," which will be disseminated shortly by our USMA President, it is reported: "The US Department of the Treasury, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (ATTB) is seeking public comment regarding the elimination of certain standards of fill for wine and distilled spirits as well as the amendment of malt beverage net contents labeling regulation. Under the proposals, wine and distilled spirits would require mandatory metric on all bottles and add optional US customary units." The change allows "optional US customary units" which are now prohibited. Did I get this right? Shouldn't we be pushing back hard on this backsliding proposal? Unfortunately, public comment ends very soon, on October 30, 2019. I have appended below the direct URL to get to the notice page. Once there, you can click the COMMENT NOW! button to enter your comment against this backsliding. Notice 182 and 183: https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.regulations.gov%2FsearchResults%3Frpp%3D25%26po%3D0%26s%3Dnotice%252B182%26fp%3Dtrue%26ns%3Dtrue&data=02%7C01%7Cusma%40lists.colostate.edu%7Cdd25a92fa8884e75143008d759880abf%7Cafb58802ff7a4bb1ab21367ff2ecfc8b%7C0%7C0%7C637076313144149519&sdata=jGRUcct9ipzfgopbsgK3J0DkNwTufpmMYRXNJiOxBRk%3D&reserved=0<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.regulations.gov%2FsearchResults%3Frpp%3D25%26po%3D0%26s%3Dnotice%252B182%26fp%3Dtrue%26ns%3Dtrue&data=02%7C01%7Cusma%40lists.colostate.edu%7Cdd25a92fa8884e75143008d759880abf%7Cafb58802ff7a4bb1ab21367ff2ecfc8b%7C0%7C0%7C637076313144149519&sdata=jGRUcct9ipzfgopbsgK3J0DkNwTufpmMYRXNJiOxBRk%3D&reserved=0> Could one of our knowledgeable writers could post here a brief template for a response that we each could modify for a personalized comment?. _______________________________________________ USMA mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.colostate.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usma
_______________________________________________ USMA mailing list [email protected] https://lists.colostate.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usma
