I figure the change to the FPLA could be buried in the fine print of an appropriations bill. Done all the time! 😏
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 2:26 PM John Nichols <[email protected]> wrote: > Volume is in ml on the web site of HEB, about as rural Texas as you can > get. > > > > > > > > *John Nichols* > Construction Science, College of Architecture | Texas A&M University > ph: 979.845.6541 | [email protected] > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > *https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tamu.edu%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cusma%40lists.colostate.edu%7C3699ab750bec4136842008d890078330%7Cafb58802ff7a4bb1ab21367ff2ecfc8b%7C0%7C0%7C637417709237080329%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=w3Y6A1Ej5NjViX7jWrPLraqrlFLegjGNI3GvrKRbe4E%3D&reserved=0* > <https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tamu.edu%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cusma%40lists.colostate.edu%7C3699ab750bec4136842008d890078330%7Cafb58802ff7a4bb1ab21367ff2ecfc8b%7C0%7C0%7C637417709237080329%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=w3Y6A1Ej5NjViX7jWrPLraqrlFLegjGNI3GvrKRbe4E%3D&reserved=0> > > > > *From:* USMA <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Al Lawrence > *Sent:* Monday, 23 November 2020 4:19 PM > *To:* Mark Henschel <[email protected]> > *Cc:* USMA List Server <[email protected]> > *Subject:* [USMA 1612] Re: The SI and the new administration > > > > 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 > <https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2Fnam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com%2F%3Furl%3Dhttps*3A*2F*2Fwww.ftc.gov*2Fenforcement*2Frules*2Frulemaking-regulatory-reform-proceedings*2Ffair-packaging-labeling-act%26data%3D04*7C01*7Cusma*40lists.colostate.edu*7C895f373ae287463e4cff08d88ffdd2c3*7Cafb58802ff7a4bb1ab21367ff2ecfc8b*7C0*7C0*7C637417667632241660*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C1000%26sdata%3DSgWKb6j*2B6xicBk5W*2Bkl*2FcPBiU1l74K4cOnomb2Je0ZY*3D%26reserved%3D0__%3BJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSU!!KwNVnqRv!U6_iD1vsy49CUrVPQDtpyh7v0t5MLopR8OCGVLrWh5gErInztephCqH6lvfQpqy25aQ%24&data=04%7C01%7Cusma%40lists.colostate.edu%7C3699ab750bec4136842008d890078330%7Cafb58802ff7a4bb1ab21367ff2ecfc8b%7C0%7C0%7C637417709237080329%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=Qlp4Bl4eHbrocBXPf0%2FZXidFywZtsK7kKX31HwCEjh0%3D&reserved=0> > (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 > <https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2Fnam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com%2F%3Furl%3Dhttps*3A*2F*2Fwww.ftc.gov*2Fpolicy*2Ffederal-register-notices*2F16-cfr-parts-550-502-rules-regulations-statements-general-policy-or%26data%3D04*7C01*7Cusma*40lists.colostate.edu*7C895f373ae287463e4cff08d88ffdd2c3*7Cafb58802ff7a4bb1ab21367ff2ecfc8b*7C0*7C0*7C637417667632251653*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C1000%26sdata%3D0JZP0WqZ*2BLK2Xyp6v7GmzyqV0vRW0XiTp*2Fgh89dn5gA*3D%26reserved%3D0__%3BJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUl!!KwNVnqRv!U6_iD1vsy49CUrVPQDtpyh7v0t5MLopR8OCGVLrWh5gErInztephCqH6lvfQDKUBLgc%24&data=04%7C01%7Cusma%40lists.colostate.edu%7C3699ab750bec4136842008d890078330%7Cafb58802ff7a4bb1ab21367ff2ecfc8b%7C0%7C0%7C637417709237080329%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=2XQzW1ZpuOMBb40DQ5A9WGSXEVUW4VKPCYZwMQ1ZqXg%3D&reserved=0> > 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 > <https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2Flists.colostate.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fusma__%3B!!KwNVnqRv!U6_iD1vsy49CUrVPQDtpyh7v0t5MLopR8OCGVLrWh5gErInztephCqH6lvfQ-kM0GkY%24&data=04%7C01%7Cusma%40lists.colostate.edu%7C3699ab750bec4136842008d890078330%7Cafb58802ff7a4bb1ab21367ff2ecfc8b%7C0%7C0%7C637417709237080329%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=dnp46PSI9I2qGAq0RJAu%2FWXJ0xz0mYE9unWfS%2Fyq4yA%3D&reserved=0> > > _______________________________________________ > USMA mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.colostate.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usma > <https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2Flists.colostate.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fusma__%3B!!KwNVnqRv!U6_iD1vsy49CUrVPQDtpyh7v0t5MLopR8OCGVLrWh5gErInztephCqH6lvfQ-kM0GkY%24&data=04%7C01%7Cusma%40lists.colostate.edu%7C3699ab750bec4136842008d890078330%7Cafb58802ff7a4bb1ab21367ff2ecfc8b%7C0%7C0%7C637417709237080329%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=dnp46PSI9I2qGAq0RJAu%2FWXJ0xz0mYE9unWfS%2Fyq4yA%3D&reserved=0> > > _______________________________________________ > USMA mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.colostate.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usma > <https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2Flists.colostate.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fusma__%3B!!KwNVnqRv!U6_iD1vsy49CUrVPQDtpyh7v0t5MLopR8OCGVLrWh5gErInztephCqH6lvfQ-kM0GkY%24&data=04%7C01%7Cusma%40lists.colostate.edu%7C3699ab750bec4136842008d890078330%7Cafb58802ff7a4bb1ab21367ff2ecfc8b%7C0%7C0%7C637417709237090282%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=w3JUt4gCMP3a3y7dpdVckx0m5q13x6Tn4qkPnmCdJxs%3D&reserved=0> > > _______________________________________________ > USMA mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.colostate.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usma > <https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2Flists.colostate.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fusma__%3B!!KwNVnqRv!U6_iD1vsy49CUrVPQDtpyh7v0t5MLopR8OCGVLrWh5gErInztephCqH6lvfQ-kM0GkY%24&data=04%7C01%7Cusma%40lists.colostate.edu%7C3699ab750bec4136842008d890078330%7Cafb58802ff7a4bb1ab21367ff2ecfc8b%7C0%7C0%7C637417709237090282%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=w3JUt4gCMP3a3y7dpdVckx0m5q13x6Tn4qkPnmCdJxs%3D&reserved=0> > > _______________________________________________ > USMA mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.colostate.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usma > <https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2Flists.colostate.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fusma__%3B!!KwNVnqRv!U6_iD1vsy49CUrVPQDtpyh7v0t5MLopR8OCGVLrWh5gErInztephCqH6lvfQ-kM0GkY%24&data=04%7C01%7Cusma%40lists.colostate.edu%7C3699ab750bec4136842008d890078330%7Cafb58802ff7a4bb1ab21367ff2ecfc8b%7C0%7C0%7C637417709237090282%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=w3JUt4gCMP3a3y7dpdVckx0m5q13x6Tn4qkPnmCdJxs%3D&reserved=0> > > _______________________________________________ > 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
