Congress delegated to FTC, as a rule-making agency, to develop the detailed
rules in support of FPLA (the law). However, FTC has to "color within the
lines." They can add detail; however, FPLA explicitly requires dual net
contents marking and FTC can't change that, Congress has to. NIST has said in
their papers on the matter that it has to be approved by Congress. FTC can
nopt (legally) create a rule that directly violates the law passed by Congress.
On the matter raised in one of the posts, Congress forbade misleading claims;
FTC "clarified" a few more things that were misleading and not allowed (an
example of "coloring within the lines").
On Monday, November 23, 2020, 05:19:27 PM EST, Al Lawrence
<[email protected]> wrote:
If you google "changes to the FPLA" you get various notices put out by the
FDA. One of the typical ones is copied below. I don't know for sure, but I
don't think Congress had to vote to eliminate the use of the terms "cents off",
"economy size", etc.
The Federal Trade Commission has amended its rules under the Fair Packaging and
Labeling Act (FPLA), which requires that certain products carry labels
identifying the contents, source, item quantity, and other information to help
consumers compare products.
In February 2015, the FTC sought public comment on proposed amendments. In
response to comments received, the Commission adopted all proposed amendments,
including modernizing the place-of-business listing requirement to incorporate
online resources, eliminating obsolete references to commodities advertised
using the terms “cents off,” “introductory offer” and “economy size,” and
incorporating a more comprehensive metric chart.
Product categories exempt from FTC regulations under the FPLA are meat
products, poultry, tobacco products, items under the Food and Drug
Administration’s jurisdiction, alcoholic beverages, commodities subject to the
Federal Seed Act, and any commodity subject to packaging or labeling
requirements imposed under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act, or certain provisions of the Virus-Serum-Toxin Act. In addition, the
notice specifically lists numerous products that are not subject to the FPLA.
The Commission vote approving the amendments was 4-0. The amended FPLA
regulations are available on the FTC’s website and will be published in the
Federal Register shortly.
Al Lawrence
From: Mark Henschel <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2020 2:06 PM
To: Al Lawrence <[email protected]>
Cc: Brian White <[email protected]>; USMA List Server <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [USMA 1606] Re: The SI and the new administration What we are
asking here in the FPLA update would be a metric only option. No company would
be required by law to label consumer products in metric-only labels.Present law
requires inch pound unit labeling even when the product being labeled was
designed and manufactured in metric units. Thus two-liter soda pop bottles are
required to be labeled in ounces or quarts even though the size of the
container is clearly metric.Thus if companies want to label in inch pound and
SI they can, but if they want to only use the metric size on the label, they
would be free to do so.Again, this metric only designation is illegal under
present law, and I do not see how to fix it without Congress getting involved.
Mark Henschel
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020, 3:29 PM Al Lawrence <[email protected]> wrote:
Mark,
You may be right, I do not know, which is why I asked, but there have been many
revisions to the FPLA since 1992. There are many changes made by other
regulatory agencies every year. If changes to the FPLA have to be approved by
Congress, it is probably a regular rubber stamp procedure. I am sure Congress
does not individually review every change that every regulatory agency makes,
every labelling or ingredients change, every fill rule, every decision on
tamper-proof caps and so on, they leave that to the regulatory agency.
I don't think NIST can change any rules, it is advisory, sets standards and so
on.
It would be nice if someone knows for sure.
Al Lawrence
From: Mark Henschel <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2020 1:07 PM
To: Al Lawrence <[email protected]>
Cc: Brian White <[email protected]>; USMA List Server <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [USMA 1606] Re: The SI and the new administration Al:With all due
respect, I think you are wrong on the facts. Any federal agency on it's own
does not have the power to change a law passed by Congress and signed into law
by the President. If changing the FPLA were this easy, NIST would have done
this a long time ago. The last time the FPLA was updated was in 1992, as a
stand alone law.I am willing to be corrected in this procedure, but my
understanding of the Constitution is that an agency which has the
responsibility of abiding by legislation does not have the power to alter that
legislation. Mark Henschel
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020, 2:05 PM Al Lawrence <[email protected]> wrote:
The general feeling of the group is that getting the government to enact the
metric only labelling option as a revision or amendment to the FPLA is
important. The FLPA can be changed by submitting a petition to them for the
change, as has already been done by NIST. Any organization or individual can
submit a proposal, the agency looks at it, and, if they feel it is a good idea,
must submit it for public comment as a proposed revision, and after public
comment, can then decide whether or not to enact it.
It is my understanding that if the petition is approved, it becomes law and
goes into the Federal Register. I do not believe Congress has to do anything.
Can anyone confirm that is correct?
It has also been suggested that the NIST proposal be submitted to Congressional
committee. That would be another way to make the metric only option law, but
it would have to go through committee, be approved, and then be passed by both
the Senate and House.
Trying to get Congress to pass the metric option as a law would be extremely
difficult. Submitting a petition to the FPLA has a better chance to succeed,
but will still likely take years. At least NIST submitted their petition some
time ago. Another problem is that it is even more difficult to influence a
regulatory agency than a Congressman. Even a Congressman would likely have
little influence over them.
No Congressman will publicly support moving towards SI, even if they do
personally, so that would make the possibility of a stand-alone law being
passed extremely remote, but if we can find one or two that personally support
the idea, it might possible that they could get the FDA to move the NIST
proposal along a little quicker. Maybe there are dozens of Congressmen who are
in favor of it who could quietly push the FDA. A desperate hope, but I do not
see anything else we can do. Maybe the USMA could find out how many privately
support the idea.
And don't forget about the similar petition submitted to the TTB. If the goal
is to get the general public used to SI, selling beer in metric units would be
a really good way to do it.
Al Lawrence
From: USMA <[email protected]> on behalf of Mark Henschel
<[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2020 9:40 AM
To: Brian White <[email protected]>
Cc: USMA List Server <[email protected]>
Subject: [USMA 1606] Re: The SI and the new administration Guys:Metrication has
never been a top priority. There are always other things more important. This
was even true back in 1975 when the MEtric Conversion Act went through
Congress. I remember when the economy was good, and people said "We can't go
metric not, the economy is doing great." Then when the economy was bad, people
said "We can't go metric now, the economy is terrible."There will always be
other priorities. We CAN do some things, and one of them is the FPLA update.
Changing math education is essential, since the kids in school today will be
the politicians of tomorrow. And maybe fixing the Post Office could involve
metrication. But never give up, simply because other things are also pressing
issues at the same time.MArk HEnschel
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 7:48 AM Brian White <[email protected]> wrote:
Exxxxactly...
On Nov 23, 2020, at 05:11, Ressel, Howard R (DOT) <[email protected]>
wrote:
Sadly with so much disagreement about so many things right now metric is not a
top priority. No need to give up just keep pushing on the grass roots level.
Howard
From: USMA <[email protected]>On Behalf Of Ezra Steinberg
Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2020 11:12 PM
To: Brian White <[email protected]>
Cc: USMA List Server <[email protected]>
Subject: [USMA 1602] Re: The SI and the new administration
|
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or
click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails.
|
Time to just give up, i guess.
🙄
On Sun, Nov 22, 2020, 8:06 PM Brian White <[email protected]> wrote:
If it's that easy, why wasn't it done 10 years ago, or 25, or 40?
Won't happen. And if it's brought up, then it's an "us vs them" political
fight which actually then sets us back.
On Nov 22, 2020, at 19:46, Ezra Steinberg <[email protected]> wrote:
The good news is that Bill Nye (The Science Guy) hosted Senator Chuck Schumer
of NY the other day to talk about the need to move aggressively to address the
climate crisis, which Schumer wholeheartedly agreed with.
At one point during the interview Nye implied how we finally need in the USA to
convert to metric by making a slightly snide remark about how archaic
Fahrenheit was, which gave me the strong impression he favors metrication. (He
may have even been more explicit in other appearances he has made on TV over
the years, which would not surprise me.)
So, if both Senate races in Georgia go to the Democrats, Schumer becomes
Majority Leader. At that point we can contact Nye to see if he can prevail on
Schumer to get legislation passed to at least allow metric only labels on
products and maybe pass other measures to start easing the USA into metric.
Ezra
On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 11:06 AM Robert Price <[email protected]> wrote:
Sad to say, but I agree. Obama wasn't too warm to metric and I don't see why
his former vice president will be any different.
On Thursday, November 19, 2020, 9:30:56 PM CST, Brian White <[email protected]>
wrote:
Not a chance anything will change. Sad to say but true.
On Nov 19, 2020, at 19:04, J McClellan <[email protected]> wrote:
So is anyone here at all even a bit more hopeful that there might be some
forward metric movement in the US with a new (purportedly more progressive)
administration?
I've already got a letter ready to send out on the 26th of January :P
Hope everybody here does the same!!
GO METRIC, AMERICA!
Because the kings' foot STINKS.
_______________________________________________
USMA mailing list
[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
_______________________________________________
USMA mailing list
[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
_______________________________________________
USMA mailing list
[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
_______________________________________________
USMA mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.colostate.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usma
