The Fair Packaging and Labeling Act is set to be amended at some time in the future. This amendment would allow metric-only labeling of products in the US. Any idea what is the status of this amendment? The most current news about it are 1-2 years old.

No, I have no idea.

The last news I've seen is the minutes from the conference in Nov 2003. They decided NOT to introduce it in 2004, with election going on -- probably wise. The plan was to introduce it in 2005.

As far as I can tell, it hasn't been introduced yet, and Congress is about to go on August recess. Since little is done in December either, they basically have three months when Congress returns.

Since they have been screwing with it since 1999 or before, it's a little disappointing. The UPLR which governs labeling regulated at the state level was amended in 1999 and has been adopted by 45 States, while the Federal government continues to "fiddle."

The clock is ticking towards 2010, and manufacturers can't introduce instant change. They will need a strategy for change to "metric only" that doesn't get people up in arms.

You might post the question at the USMA board and see if anyone knows anything.

If it progresses as swiftly as metrication up to date, it will be when Chinese merchants outsource work to Americans sometime in 22 nd century.

No, the Chinese can't afford to do business in the US. The dual labeling is compulsary on imports and they can't afford to maintain two inventories. :)


Obviously they can. The issue is bigger than metric/Imperial. Due to language requirements, differing nutrition label requirements, etc, I don't think it is really possible to design a single international label, and started a thread to that effect a while ago. It got little response. But I see very few labels in the US that would also meet requirements for even Canada and Mexico, yet I know we export. I suspect new labels are slapped on as required, but I haven't been to grocery stores in either country.


Most of the "big name" US food producers simply have factories in Europe (and elsewhere) that produce packaged food locally with whatever labels are required.

I just posted this page to the USMA list. I don't think you will get an answer as most of the regular posters from the US don't say much.

Re: Status of the FPLA amendment? July 28 2005, 1:42 PM

JS
Obviously they can. The issue is bigger than metric/Imperial. Due to language requirements, differing nutrition label requirements, etc, I don't think it is really possible to design a single international label, and started a thread to that effect a while ago. It got little response. But I see very few labels in the US that would also meet requirements for even Canada and Mexico, yet I know we export. I suspect new labels are slapped on as required, but I haven't been to grocery stores in either country.

metre
Trust an engineer to take matters so seriously, it was a tongue in cheek statement with a slight possibility that
it may happen when China assumes super power status, if it ever does?

"Engineer humor" either isn't funny or is way too subtle. I thought my "proof" that China couldn't afford to export to the US had some mild sarcastic value.

However, reality is that labeling is much more complex than just english/metric and metric FPLA won't be a trade panacea. Cost effective multi-labeling will be a business requirement into the foreseeable future.

It is still a good "next step" for US metrication so I should just shut up, but engineers like to see all the facts (they are aware of) on the table.

I don't think there would be any cost savings in printing the same label for multiple countries, except in the case of very small countries. But I have seen a small number of products with labels that were obviously designed for another country, and they seem to sell in the US just fine.

Bud,

A number of British clothing manufacturers have the prrices on their products in both pounds and euros, the latter being for the Irish market.

So the "dual label costs" argument is invalid then.

I thought so.

<<So the "dual label costs" argument is invalid then?>>

I don't claim to have PROVEN that. I've just raised some questions about its validity. I'd be glad for someone to disprove me. But they have to show me how to ALSO meet language and nutrition info requirements which differ by country.

Martin points out an excellent example: the price is listed in pounds for the British market and euros for the Irish market. The same label will do in both countries. By printing the information required by both countries on the same label, manufacturers can use the same label in both places.
So why can't this be done for food as well? It can right now, but apparently in 2010 the European Union will step in and put an end to common sense by prohibiting manufacturers from doing this. As if the English units alongside metric are going to cause a lot of confusion to European consumers.

Bud,
It appears to work for produce, which requires less information.

However, language and nutrition requirements also differ by country
Mexico requires all info in Spanish, Canada requires dual English/French.
The US requires "per serving" nutrition info with a stated serving size, other countries require it stated "per 100 g." Some seem to require both per serving and per 100 g, and in the language they specify.

There may be specific country combos that work out, but in general it seems intractable to get all that, in all those languages on one label.

But show us a design, and let's test its marketing appeal. First you have find all the requirements. I found Canada, Mexico, and a couple of other countries in a thread on international labels, but I certainly didn't find them all, or any web site that summarizes and compares across countries. At best, I found some pair-wise comparisons.

Bud,
Here is my prior thread about "common labeling"
http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=101350&messageid=1114484095&lp=1114484775

It didn't trigger the debate I had hoped. You were the only person who responded. But it has the requirements I did manage to find.

<<As if the English units alongside metric are going to cause a lot of confusion to European consumers>>

Outside "Tesco" the times I've seen dual labelling on prepacked stuff have tended to be in (mainland) europe.

JS
It didn't trigger the debate I had hoped. You were the only person who responded. But it has the requirements I did manage to find.

metre
Frankly, ther whole labelling and metrication process together with nearly everything else we do reminds me of children arguing. Let's face it grown ups haven't progressed much further. Common sense has little to do with anything it seems, otherwise we wouldn't be in the mess we are.
What the hell is wrong with agreeing on identical nutrition labels world wide? Everything, considering that Europe failed dismally to standardise bloody simple powerpoints in 30 years. Or America's insistence to use medieval measurements and for the sake of being different writes its date back to front. To have a different metric value for a nautical mile seems to be Britain's pride. And the saga goes on and on. That whole shamozzle is euphemistically called the human condition instead of what it honestly should be, madness.

<<
What the hell is wrong with agreeing on identical nutrition labels world wide?
>>
Because people in different countries have different needs. The information that is needed by a typical American, who is overweight and inactive, will be useless to a malnourished farm worker in Russia, for example.

I'm not going to bother responding to the other junk in your post, because I've done it before.

...and he succeeded in almost turning this place into a discussion wasteground.

I said it before - I'll say it again "Leopard/spots".



"power points"? LOL!

<<Because people in different countries have different needs. The information that is needed by a typical American, who is overweight and inactive, will be useless to a malnourished farm worker in Russia, for example.>>

I think their nutritional needs are quite different. As to the info, how much can you deviate from the basic calories (or kilojoules), protein, carbs, fats, fiber, sodium, summary of vitamins and minerals? What are the secret info needs of these Russian peasants. Since Russia is metric, can they only be met in metric -- oh, our nutritional info is metric too. (serving size is given in both Customary and metric)

The basic difference is "per serving" or "per 100 g". I know our serving sizes are misleading, but 100 g of salt would kill me, and 100 g of orange juice isn't enough, so what does that tell me. To me at least, per rational size serving is more useful, even if I decide to have, for example, 1.5 servings.

Bud
Because people in different countries have different needs. The information that is needed by a typical American, who is overweight and inactive, will be useless to a malnourished farm workers in Russia, for example.I'm not going to bother responding to the other junk in your post, because I've done it before.

metre
What has your answer to do with identical nutrition labels? All bodies have the same nutritional needs. Unfortunately, malnourished Indian farm hands can do without that information, but overweight and properly fed Indians need it as much as obese and normal Americans. Nutrition labels give quantitative information relating to health, they do not tell you how much, or little you should eat.
You are of course entitled to your biased definition of junk.

John - I think Bud's comment ('americans being obese' etc) was talking ironically/sarcastically about the anti-american trash that eric ('metre') once posted on the "front board" along with a metric extremist.

Hence my "leapard/spots" comment regarding his apparent recent softening of his rabid anti-US stance. Sometimes certain comments slip through though.

Personally I love americans

Specifically the ones who talk loudly about how much they earned in the previous year whilst chanting "OOH ESS AYY - OOH ESS AYY" and how America is the grayduss coundree in the world

;-)

(...as I jestly play the stereotype card and head off in the distance hell bent on sh*gging a sh**p)

Like Bud, I was ignoring part of another post.

But I did want to see what the mysterious nutritional needs of Russian peasants are, vitamin R or something?

I understand your leopards/spots analogy, we tend to use tigers and stripes. After a remark about tigers/stripes, an engineer in my department who was an amateur cartoonist drew me a great cartoon of an axially striped tiger. I almost laughed myself unconscious. Unfortunately over the years, as I changed assignments, it got lost somewhere.

<<
As to the info, how much can you deviate from the basic calories (or kilojoules), protein, carbs, fats, fiber, sodium, summary of vitamins and minerals? ...The basic difference is "per serving" or "per 100 g".
>>
If you look at the percentages of daily value, you will see "based on a 2000 calorie diet". (That is kilocalories, by the way.) Most Americans get 2000 calories. Most people in many countries do not, so all the percentages would have to be adjusted.



<<
What has your answer to do with identical nutrition labels? All bodies have the same nutritional needs.
>>
Nutritional needs depend on lifestyle and several other factors, including race/ethnicity. If you are active, you need more sugar than if you are sedentary. If you are thin, you need more fat than if you are fat (or whatever the politically correct word is). All bodies do not have the same nutritional needs.


<<
Nutrition labels give quantitative information relating to health, they do not tell you how much, or little you should eat.
>>
Yes they do. Read the percent daily values. I think they are present on the labels in most countries.

Bud wrote

<<
Yes they do. Read the percent daily values. I think they are present on the labels in most countries.
>>

... apart from the 25 countries that comprise the EU (and probably a few others).

martin - you haven't seen the RDA% stuff on the side of most foodstuffs and 'health tablets' etc?

<<I understand your leopards/spots analogy, we tend to use tigers and stripes>>

"Divided by a common language" - woah, I didn't realise that 'leapard' had switched to 'tiger' by the time it got to the USA!

You'll be telling me that "lift" has become "elevator" next!
Tcha.

<<"Divided by a common language" - woah, I didn't realise that 'leapard' had switched to 'tiger' by the time it got to the USA!>>


"It's like comparing tigers and leopards."
A good way to compare the US and UK. Related, but distinct.

It's a bit like the way the French are good at making CHEESE and the dover cliffs are made of CHALK.

Heh.

Bud wrote



... apart from the 25 countries that comprise the EU (and probably a few others).

Thanks Martin.

<<Nutritional needs depend on lifestyle and several other factors, including race/ethnicity. If you are active, you need more sugar than if you are sedentary. If you are thin, you need more fat than if you are fat (or whatever the politically correct word is). All bodies do not have the same nutritional needs. >>

Bud,
I'm not sure the vitamens and minerals change at all. The amounts of fat, protein, and carbs tend to be percentages of your total caloric intake, converted to grams. They can easily be recomputed for other caloric intakes, or just left as percentages.

However, if you are only getting 1000 calories per day, instead of 2000, your first priority is probably to get 1600 any way you can and not worry if it's "balanced." (For someone at a stable wight proportional to a long term diet at this caloric intake, not a grossly overweight person on very strict diet.)

Also, the "starving peasants" probably don't buy packaged/labelled food, and their "city folk" who do buy it are probably not so different from Americans and Europeans (who can't agree on how to label it).

<<
I'm not sure the vitamens and minerals change at all.
>>

Some of them do change. Dark-skinned Africans need less vitamin D than white Americans or Europeans, for example.

One question... how are the amounts of vitamins and minerals listed in Europe? I assume they must be in terms of IU? Does most of the general public know how many IU of each different vitamin and mineral they need?

<<
I'm not sure the vitamins and minerals change at all.
>>

<Some of them do change. Dark-skinned Africans need less vitamin D than white Americans or Europeans, for example.>

I can believe that one group or the other is more susceptible to deficiency. I've never had a carton of milk ask me if I was white or black before telling me what percent of my vitamin D I'm getting.

I assume they use some "average value" for RDA. I don't think "separate but equal" packaging with different ethnic nutritional requirements will fly here.

What is an IU and how do you measure it?

I found these definitions, but since an IU of different vitamins have an equivalent gram amount why can't the IU just be dropped and the amount expressed in grams?

If a product contains 15 000 IU of vitamin A, that is meaningless until it is restated as 4.5 g. So, just state the vitamin A amount as 4.5 g. By interjecting nonsense like IU into the picture, means someone has to know the milligram equivalent before the amount becomes meaningful.

This is as bad as using proof to define alcohol content. A certain Whisky may contain 50 % alcohol. I ask a person how much alcohol is in the whisky and they convert the 50% to proof. Then to make sense of the proof, I have to convert it back to percent. If i don't know the conversion, I either have to ask or go look it up. I would have been better served if I was just told percent in the first place. With percent, I know that a 750 mL bottle of whisky that is 50 % alcohol is 375 ml of alcohol and 375 mL of water. how much simpler does it get?

Another example I come across in a work environment are temperature classes of material. For over 30 years now it has been the standard practice to use degrees Celsius values, such as 90, 105, 130, 150 ,180, 200, 220, etc. In the old days it was common to associate random letters with these numbers. You still get people speaking in letters and it takes time and effort to look for a reference to convert those letters into numbers. Just tell me the numbers. I don't care if that is the way it was done in the age of the dinosaurs.


Definition of International unit (IU)

International unit (IU): An international unit (IU) is an internationally accepted amount of a substance. This type of measure is used for the fat-soluble vitamins (such as vitamins A, D and E) and certain hormones, enzymes, and biologicals (such as vaccines).

The definition of an international unit (IU) is generally arbitrary, technical, and eminently forgettable. For example, an IU of vitamin E is the specific biological activity of 0.671 milligrams of d-alpha-tocopherol. Nonetheless, most IUs are quite handy and helpful in use as a means of standardizing measures.

All international units are officially defined by the International Conference for Unification of Formulae.


Question:
What's the International Unit (IU) in pharmacology? How much is 1 IU?
alessandro brunelli

Answer:
Hi! it seems to me, Alessandro, that my last answer didn't satisfy
you. OK! I'll try to be clearer... When you deal with commom units,
let's say using the Metric System,you say 1 l of water, or 1 l of
milk, or 1 l of oil, all 3 volumes will be the same even though their
weights will be different due to density difference... The same applies
when you speak of 1 kg of sugar, 1 kg of salt or 1 kg of cheese...
But...when we speak of International Units (I U) in Pharmacology,
these units are determined based at the biological activities.
For ex. let's take some vitamins:
Vitamin A 1 IU all-trans retinol 0.300 micrograms
Vitamin D 1 IU Vitamin D crystalline 0.025 micrograms
Vitamin E 1 IU dl-alphatocopherol acetate(s.) 1 milligramm
The I U is analogous with the United States Pharmacopeia unit (USP)
that also is based on measured biological activities. See?
The use of IU is mostly connected with nutrition and nutritional
daily needs or requirements for human species and also for animals
and all kind of living organisms, aiming to provide one adequate diet
that will include the needed amount of a substance, mineral,factor,
essencial to life. So, if a specified factor is suspected of being
essential for the growth or maintenance of an organism, a systematic
series of procedures at the biological level must be used to determine
its function, effects of deprivation, and quantitative requirements in
various organisms. The results will then be expressed in terms of I U
of these factors...For extention the IUs are used to characterize the
amount of substances that are lethal, etc. Mabel

<<I found these definitions, but since an IU of different vitamins have an equivalent gram amount why can't the IU just be dropped and the amount expressed in grams?>>

There is a reason and the definitions you found avoided mentioning it.

For several vitamins, there are actually several different chemicals having different molecular weights and "activity levels" that fulfill the requirement for a particular vitamin. The IU's are a bit of a nuisance, but a way of equalizing these in tems of a biometric activity level. The equivalences you found are for a particular chemical, and certain amount is defined as an IU. But they fail to mention that different chemicals and amounts fulfill the definition as well.

Life isn't as simple as some would like it.

<<
I can believe that one group or the other is more susceptible to deficiency. I've never had a carton of milk ask me if I was white or black before telling me what percent of my vitamin D I'm getting.
I assume they use some "average value" for RDA. I don't think "separate but equal" packaging with different ethnic nutritional requirements will fly here.
>>
I never said that separate packaging was necessary. An average value is fine. But that average value will probably be different for an African country and a European country. In ethnically diverse countries, the labels will be slightly less useful, because less people will be "average".


Remember that an IU is not a measure of mass. There is a very good reason why vitamin content is not listed in terms of mass. Mass is meaningless, because you could take a large amount of a vitamin and it may not have any effect on your body. IU's directly measure the activity on your body, which is much more meaningful.
But wait.... did the BIPM approve this?

<<I never said that separate packaging was necessary. An average value is fine. But that average value will probably be different for an African country and a European country. In ethnically diverse countries, the labels will be slightly less useful, because less people will be "average". >>


Europe is pretty diverse, really.

Some African countries have sizable white minorities. Granted, they are "left over settlers," but they are there. Also, I wonder if they really have the government budget to establish separate nutrional requirements or just adopt values from developed countries.

<<Some of them do change. Dark-skinned Africans need less vitamin D than white Americans or Europeans, for example.>>

Bud,
This whole argument may be backwards. Normally, vitamin D is formed from dietary precursors via UVB in sunlight. In high latitudes, those with black skin are less able to get sufficient UVB. However, too much UVB leads to sunburn, skin cancer, and short term destroys vitamin b. So the problem is getting a dose that's "just right." There are starting to be articles about excessive use of sunscreen. A few minutes of "high noon" sun are good for you.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/adapt/adapt_4.htm
<<. . . Nature has selected for people with darker skin in tropical latitudes, especially in nonforested regions, where ultraviolet radiation from the sun is usually the most intense. Melanin acts as a protective biological shield against ultraviolet radiation. By doing this, it helps to prevent sunburn damage that could result in DNA changes and, subsequently, melanoma --a cancer of the skin. Melanoma is a serious threat to life. In the United States, approximately 54,000 people get this aggressive type of cancer every year and nearly 8,000 of them die from it. Those at highest risk are European Americans. They have a 10 times higher risk than African Americans.

Ultraviolet radiation reaching the earth usually increases in summer and decreases in winter. The skin's ability to tan in summertime is an acclimatization to this seasonal change. Tanning is primarily an increase in the number and size of melanin granules due to the stimulation of ultraviolet radiation.

While skin tanning is often most noticeable on light complexioned people, even those with very dark brown skin can tan as a result of prolonged exposure to the sun. Some Northwest Europeans have substantially lost the ability to tan as a result of relaxed natural selection. Their skin burns and peels rather than tans. They are at a distinct disadvantage in tropical and subtropical environments. Not only do they suffer the discomfort of readily burning, but they are at a much higher risk for skin cancer. The same is true of albinos.

It would be harmful if melanin acted as a complete shield. A certain amount of shortwave ultraviolet radiation (UVB) must penetrate the outer skin layer in order for the body to produce vitamin D. Approximately 90% of this vitamin in people normally is synthesized in their skin and the kidneys from a cholesterol-like precursor chemical with the help of ultraviolet radiation. The remaining 10% comes from foods such as fatty fish and egg yolks. Simple vitamin D is converted by our bodies into two sequential forms. The last form, commonly referred to as vitamin D3, is needed for the intestines to absorb calcium and phosphorus from food for bone growth and repair. Calcium is also necessary in adults to maintain normal heart action, blood clotting, and a stable nervous system. However, too much ultraviolet radiation penetrating the skin may cause the break down of folic acid (or folate--one of the B vitamins) in the body, which can cause anemia. Pregnant women who are deficient in folic acid are at a higher risk of having babies with neural tube defects. Because folic acid is needed for DNA replication in dividing cells, its absence can have an effect on many body processes, including the production of sperm cells. It may be that the ability to produce melanin was selected for in our early human ancestors because it helped preserve the body's folic acid supply in addition to reducing the chances of developing skin cancer.

People who live in far northern latitudes, where solar radiation is relatively weak most of the year, have an advantage if their skin has little shielding pigmentation. Nature selects for less melanin when ultraviolet radiation is weak. In such an environment, very dark skin is a disadvantage because it can prevent people from producing enough vitamin D, potentially resulting in rickets disease in children and osteoporosis in adults. Contributing to the development of osteoporosis in older people is the fact that their skin generally loses some of its ability to produce vitamin D. Women who had prolonged vitamin D deficiencies as girls have a higher incidence of pelvic deformities that prevent normal delivery of babies.

The Inuit people of the American Subarctic are an exception. They have moderately heavy skin pigmentation despite the far northern latitude at which they live. While this is a disadvantage for vitamin D production, they apparently made up for it by eating fish and sea mammal blubber that are high in D. In addition, the Inuit have been in the far north for only about 5,000 years. This may not have been enough time for significantly lower melanin production to have been selected for by nature. . . . >>

Not much news, but at least a vague mention of the plan to amend FPLA in this article. Also some "guidelines" to help visualize metric quantities for the metrically-challenged. Note that the FDA needs authority from Congress for the change being considered.

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/local/12336366.htm
<<
Bridge the metric and inch-pound systems


If someone built a monument to U.S. metric conversion, it could take the shape of a 2-liter bottle of pop.

Funny, huh? Thirty years since the country went metric, and this is all we have?

In truth, metrics has seeped into the U.S. vernacular beyond the plastic soda bottle. It’s perfectly acceptable to speak of the 100-meter race in the Olympics or the local 5K run for cancer research. People happily buy 35-mm film and talk about the 3.6-liter engines in their cars.

Fat and fiber come in grams, sodium in milligrams. Computer speeds are in megahertz. Wine and spirits come in metric sizes only. Watts, volts and amperes are metric units. And, of course, the metric system is the language of science and medicine.

Coming up: The Food and Drug Administration is expected to consider a product labeling change that would allow — not require — manufacturers to list only metric sizes on products rather than listing both metric and inches-pounds.

STOP THE MADNESS

Confusion abounds when attempting complicated math to bridge the metric and inch-pound systems. Consider these ideas for “ballparking” instead.

Millimeter: the diameter of a paper clip wire, the thickness of a dime

Centimeter: the width of a paper clip, the width of the pinky finger, a little less than a half-inch

Meter: a little longer than a yard, about a yard and a tenth

Kilometer: a little farther than a half-mile, about six-tenths of a mile

Liter: a little more than a quart

Gram: a little more than the weight of a paper clip

Kilogram: about 2¼ pounds

Celsius: 0 degrees freezes water; 10 degrees is chilly; 20 degrees is perfectly nice; 30 degrees is getting hot; 37 degrees is average human body temperature
>>

<<Not much news, but at least a vague mention of the plan to amend FPLA in this article. Also some "guidelines" to help visualize metric quantities for the metrically-challenged. Note that the FDA needs authority from Congress for the change being considered.>>

So, hopefully we'll see something soon. The article is pretty good--nice, short, and to the point. It being from South Carolina reminds me that there was some initiative a while back by several southern states to convert their road speeds to metric. There was an article about that in The Detroit News, in the early 1990's. I wonder what happened to that initiative.

Sorry, I flipped it around, John. Thanks for clearing it up.

<<It being from South Carolina reminds me that there was some initiative a while back by several southern states to convert their road speeds to metric. There was an article about that in The Detroit News, in the early 1990's. I wonder what happened to that initiative.>>

It never went anywhere then. Metric speed may have been illegal for a while due to risk of confusion. However, starting in 1998 or 2000 (I've found conflicting info) the MUTCD has defined complete signage with metric and english content, including speed limits. So it is available and legal for any state who wants to.

A metric speed limit sign must:
*be a multiple of 10 km/h
*show the speed in a circle
*have "km/h" under the circle.

Since mile speed limits have to be multiples of 5 MPH, "dual" can't be legal as both requirements can't be met at the same velocity. Dual distances are fine. There's a link in another thread

<<
A metric speed limit sign must:
*be a multiple of 10 km/h
*show the speed in a circle
*have "km/h" under the circle.
>>

At least the US is ahead of the UK in this respect - a 50mph UK speed restriction sign is identical in appearance to a 50km/h French speed restriction sign.

Oh - and that's why people from the UK go mowing down little children in quaint French villages and French drivers come to Britain and cause major tailbacks on British roads.

Sheesh! [makes a 'slap to the forehead' jesture]






>>'Rulebook' != 'life'<<

An MPH limit must NOT be in a circle, but the MPH is optional, so it usually is just SPEED LIMIT XX.

On the km/h signs, we require the circle border to be black. Apparently other countries use red. If we ever actually used the km/h signs, I don't know whether that could be a minor issue.

When there is a unique night speed limit, color is reversed, white type on black background. (these are quite rare)

Poor Stimpy, he hates rules. Rules on how the state informs and treats its citizens are generally good. Sometimes, rules on how citizens must behave are a bit of a drag.

I was talking about the UK where speed limits are black on white circle with red border.

The US is different on signage

I was just pulling your chain. :)

Actually, it would be a problem for the UK if you ever metricate your roads. You've already assigned alternate meaning to the obvious signage.

If we have ever have a significant mix of signs in the US, I think we should consider requiring either:
*the metric sign
*or, adding the MPH to an MPH sign, so there is no ambiguity.

The metric signs are well identified as they should be, since there are rare. But if we ever have a near equal mix, both need to be unambiguous.

....might be best to leave "as-is"

<<
Actually, it would be a problem for the UK if you ever metricate your roads. You've already assigned alternate meaning to the obvious signage.
>>

... or adopt the Irish/Canadian solution - an overnight change with a "km/h" below the number.

"ch- ching"

<<"ch- ching">>

If you set out to do it economically, I wonder if it is really that much.

When the US got rid of the much-hated 55 MPH Federal speed limit, every state in the country quickly found the money to change the speed limit signs back on the roads that previously had higher limits. In many cases, the sign remained, with a small "patch" of the same 3M reflective sign material applied over the number. Not sure if it was adhesive, or a small metal placard, or a mix of types. The "patched" nature was somewhat obvious, and stayed that way until the sign was due for replacement anyway.

No taxpayer complained; of course, we got to go FASTER!!!!!!!!!!.

<<<If you set out to do it economically, I wonder if it is really that much.>>>

I don't think it is that expensive. Even if it did come to £1 billion as claimed by pro-imperials - I bet if you compared it to some other things the governments has spent that much money on, it wouldn't look too unreasonable.

Of course what is currently preventing the British govt from going ahead is not the money. It is that the complete failure of successive governments to tell the public why metrication is good for Britain, has led to the public being sceptical about the need for the change.

John,

We have an awful lot of numbery type signs over here!

Which must be annoying to some ;-)

I've been there. In terms of distances to places, you do have more.

In terms of speed limits, you are not so different from us (except very rural areas, which have few signs).

My point is you don't change the whole sign, you just put little "pasties" over the old number. I don't know if you have an inventory of all signs so that you know what has to be changed.

<<
When the US got rid of the much-hated 55 MPH Federal speed limit, every state in the country quickly found the money to change the speed limit signs back on the roads that previously had higher limits. In many cases, the sign remained, with a small "patch" of the same 3M reflective sign material applied over the number......
No taxpayer complained; of course, we got to go FASTER!!!!!!!!!!.
>>

In the US, (or in California, at least), the speed limit signs are legally irrelevant. They serve as a reminder only. The speed limits are defined in law, and it is illegal to exceed them regardless of the signage. The law does require signs at regular intervals, but the lack of a sign is no excuse to break the law.

Put in other words, as soon as the 55 mph speed limit was repealed, it immediately became legal to drive at up to 65 mph, even if the sign had not yet been changed.

On another note, I don't think the change had much effect. Police never ticketed anyone for driving over 55 mph unless they were substantially over (I would say 70 has been the minimum to get a ticket, before and after the change). This was especially true in western states.

<<
If you set out to do it economically, I wonder if it [the cost] is really that much.
>>

Ireland adopted a gradualist approach, replacing road signs as tehy came to the ends of their useful lives. The cost in doing that is minimal. The only real expense that they had was in changing speed limit which cost 10.5 million Euros (or between £3 and £4 per registered vehicle). Such an expense could easily be funded in one year by an additional tax of 0.3p per litre of fuel. If the Chancellor were to put aside the addtional VAT that he has received as a result of the increase in the price of oil this year he could almost certainly fund that change.

But Martin - *WHO* wants to pay for it?

Hands up now.....



To John, speed signs are a big thing here due to "default speed limits"

I got done for doing 50 in a 30 zone.
The police oficer asked me what the limit was - I said "40".
He asked "is that what the sing said" - I said I thought so.
He said "There was no sign, so what's the limit?"
He asked me to look at the road lights.

I'd completely forgot that if a road has lamps on it at 100yd intervals the speed limit is automatically 30mph.

On fast roads 50, 60 or 70, if the lights are 100yds apart there has to be a small speed limit signs spaced out at (I guess) a qtr mile denoting what the limit is so as to stop people doing 30.

There is a similar rule to unlit roads when denoting an alternative to the "default" limit of 60.

<<<*WHO* wants to pay for it?>>>

Who wants to pay council tax? Who wants to pay VAT?

Well no-one, but if you said "I need to take more tax from you so that we can make the number '30' look like '50' and the number '60' look like '100'" I know what most people would probably say.

<<
But Martin - *WHO* wants to pay for it?
>>

OK, nobody likes paying tax. What I have shown is that yhose who use cost as an objection to metrication are exagerating their claims.

So suddenly you know the budgets involved before the budgets are even discussed.

Interesting.

Stimpy,

Had you read my earlier posts, you wuolkd have seen my assumptions:

1. All signs apaprt from speed restriction signs aer replaced when they reach the end of their useful life - therefore budget = zero.

2. The cost of speed restriction signs in both the UK and RoI is proportional to the population of the country concerned. The cost of the km/h conversion is RoI was 10.5 million Euros. The population is each country is easy to find out. It is a matter of simple arithmetic to calculate the cost her head of population and hence per vehicle or per litre of fuel.

<<1. All signs apaprt from speed restriction signs aer replaced when they reach the end of their useful life - therefore budget = zero.>>

So we get two types of "50" (for instance) with some words on one and not on the other (presuming the wordy bit hasn't fallen off, faded, got ignored etc)

<<2. The cost of speed restriction signs in both the UK and RoI is proportional to the population of the country concerned.>>

NO IT IS NOT!
We are a very "roady" country with loads of main roads. Outsoide Dublin there are very few main roads in Eire.

<< The cost of the km/h conversion is RoI was 10.5 million Euros. The population is each country is easy to find out. It is a matter of simple arithmetic to calculate the cost her head of population and hence per vehicle or per litre of fuel. >>

In a rule-book-world maybe (putting aside the collosal differences in the road networks of Eire and UK).

The same argument could be used against many failures.

It is not a question of how much it would cost, it is a question of what else would have to be given up in order to do it. Which is more important, changing signs to metric or fixing the potholes on the streets? When school funding is being cut and there are people without jobs, is changing the road signs to metric a good use of government funds?
Perhaps someday, when the government has too much money and doesn't know how to get rid of it, spending it on metrication will be justifiable.

<<Perhaps someday, when the government has too much money and doesn't know how to get rid of it, spending it on metrication will be justifiable>>

Yeah, I pretty much go with that. ;-)

<<<is changing the road signs to metric a good use of government funds?>>>

At the end of the day you have to ask yourself:

If it wasn't a good use of government funds, why have so many governments gone ahead with it?

Roads that got metricated existed in a time when very few roads existed or had signs. How many miles of road were in Australia when they changed? How many people?

Ireland is not a "roady" country either.

In a way it's "too late" for the UK and US with its gazillions of miles of roads and so many inhabitants.

It's a different kettle of sausages.

Obviously these countries have/had less road, but they are also much less densely populated than the UK.

Are there more road signs PER PERSON in the UK than in Ireland?

I'm not so sure...

Re: Status of the FPLA amendment? August 17 2005, 10:31 AM

<<<is changing the road signs to metric a good use of government funds?>>>

Metre,
That question implies that governments spend money only on worthwhile undertakings. Now tell me how much it costs to fly one man his wife limousine and entourage to Europe, or wherever. Probably hundred thousands of road signs? And that skips the question of how much the war in Iraq costs, not to talk of Iraqis.

<<Are there more road signs PER PERSON in the UK than in Ireland?>>

Depends on whether you count "horses"! I jest.

There are more than 10 times the number of people in the UK than in Eire and we are known to use the car a hell of a lot more. Add the total mileage of road and you see where my sausages are coming from.

There's prob more distance signs in NI than there are in Eire! (IMHO)

<<< and we are known to use the car a hell of a lot more.>>>

Not sure about that. There aint much public transport in Eire so people tend to drive everywhere.

<<<There's prob more distance signs in NI than there are in Eire! (IMHO)>>>

I remember you saying you've only been to Dublin in Ireland. Its not all horses and tractors outside Dublin you know!

Proportionally I don't think there is that big a difference.

Outsoide the big places like dublin and limertick i've been told its like west wales

Its developed a hell of a lot recently especially around places like Cork and Galway on the west coast

Oil have to take your word for it as I've only been to Dublin and Belfast.

Having flown into both it looks pretty rural outside dublin, although adimittedly most of that is water.

Like barbados I hope it doesn't develop too much and lose character.

There's a big drive in Bbdos to develop and develop - usually encouraged from outside sources. Personally I prefer palm trees, chattel houses and beaches to motorways, offices and McDonalds.

Ireland is in a class of its own, but most countries that converted their roads to metric did so during the days when only the rich could have automobiles. When India converted to metric, there were very few roads, and no road signs showing distances (there weren't until the large-scale highway project began in the last decade). In fact, besides Canada, South Africa and a few others, I don't think that countries had to formally convert their road signs to metric, because it was a local issue and people did not travel from city to city by car as often as they do today, so a mix of measurement units on the few road signs that existed wouldn't have been a problem.

Bud wrote

<<
fact, besides Canada, South Africa and a few others, I don't think that countries had to formally convert their road signs to metric, because it was a local issue and people did not travel from city to city by car as often as they do today, so a mix of measurement units on the few road signs that existed wouldn't have been a problem.
>>

Bud, again you are talking about something of which you have no knowledge. In 1970's SOuth Africa it was not uncommon to drive from Johannesburg to Durban (600km), to Swaziland (400km) or to Lesotho (400km) fior a weekend. Also, the conversions were done over a period of a few months.

That's exactly why I specifically mentioned South Africa as an exception.

I lifted this from the USMA archive, and removed names, etc.
But it is an e-mail from a section head at NIST to a USMA poster.
The FPLA amendment is off the table for 2005, unfortunately.

<<[USMA:34071] Re: Federal metric only labeling
[ID REMOVED]
Here is the following email correspondance I had about the matter.

----- Original Message -----
From: [ID REMOVED]
To: [ID REMOVED]
Sent: Wednesday, 24 August, 2005 06:34
Subject: Re: status of "Metric-Only Labeling Amendment being Submitted to
Congress in 2005"


Mr. [ID REMOVED] -

Thank you for your interest in our proposal to modify the FPLA to permit
metric-only labeling.

Unfortunately, our proposal was not accepted by the administration for
consideration in 2005. We continue to work on generating support for the
amendment, particularly among large manufacturers and industry associations,
and still hope to introduce it at some point in the future.

Please feel free to contact me again if you have additional questions or of
I may be of further assistance.

Cordially,
[ID REMOVED]


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[ID REMOVED]
Coordinator
Laws and Metric Group

E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone: 301-975-3289
Fax: 301-948-1416
Mail: National Institute of Standards and Technology
Weights and Measures Division
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 2600
Gaithersburg, MD 20899
Web: www.nist.gov/owm


>>

Oops, anonymous was me.

I am profoundly disappointed that this administration, which supposedly favors free trade, continues a posture of inaction on this free trade issue.

Our manufacturers need time for an orderly and thought-out transition to metric-only labeling to be ready for the 2010 EU directive.

Metric-only is acceptable.
Imperial-only is banned.

How does that constitute "free trade"?

<<
Metric-only is acceptable.
Imperial-only is banned.

How does that constitute "free trade"?
>>

Because it allows the consumer to concentrate on the product itself and not the packaging.

A bit like having a war to ensure peace then.

<<Metric-only is acceptable.
Imperial-only is banned.

How does that constitute "free trade"?

>>

There is not a single nation on the face of the earth that accepts Imperial-only or Customary-only net contents, including us, we currently require dual. If we became the first, who would we trade with? (By the way, no other country uses US Customary, if they wanted anything, they'd want Imperial, but Imperial volume is not permitted by FPLA. For pounds, there is no difference.)

Every nation that requires net content marking requires metric, including us. Some allow supplemental Imperial, some forbid it (S.Korea for example) or are proposing to firbid it (the EU and others). Only one nation on the face of the earth requires it, and we actually require US Customary, which no one else has EVER used. No one else WANTS it, although some nations tolerate it as a favor to the US. However, we do demand that any other country seeking to sell here modify its metric-only labels to include US Customary (even from the UK, where they would use Imperial if they had dual marking)

Where's the fair trade in demanding everyone else do what we want? And why would it be a good idea to demand other nations shelve our stick marked in units their citizens don't comprehend? I don't think they actually sell. "Here, buy a mystery package, we haven't a clue how much is in it."

The NIST proposal, by the way, unlike other countries' legislation, does not ban Customary, it only makes it optional.

Particularly on volume (but also tons and hundredweights), exactly why should we expect other countries to accept US Customary, when we, by law (FPLA) don't even accept Imperial volumes, which were formerly used by several nations, not just one? How is that fair trade?

<<A bit like having a war to ensure peace then.
>>

No. no, that's "Peace through Strength."

Sometimes, the other guy tries to prove he's strong too, THEN you have a war. :)

Further information from the USMA archive server. I hope that the EU and Japan, who have been "gracious" about the time taken to amend FPLA will now recognize the US has no intention of changing and will be adamant in requiring metric labels and metric sizes, so that the food manufacturers "wake up" and provide public support for this change, instead of passively sitting by, claiming they don't care one way or the other. I hate to sound like Daniel, but they need "their ox gored" to wake them up. I'd like to see the EU pull ahead their 2010 phaseout of supplemental units.

<<[USMA:34082] FPLA Amendment Not To Be Introduced In Foreseeable Future
Fri, 26 Aug 2005 02:52:05 -0700

The following is being made available by permission of the author:


The proposal to amend FPLA has not been introduced through the Department of Commerce primarily because we have not been successful in persuading the Food Marketing Institute (FMI) to drop its opposition to voluntary metric only labeling. Because FMI is animate in its opposition (and it is very influential in D.C.) it is unlikely that we will be successful at getting the proposal submitted to Congress in the foreseeable future. I must add that we have not been successful in gaining widespread support for the proposal from other industrial organizations either.

We have met with several associations of manufacturers and have been in contact with the major standards organization and none has expressed a willingness to publicly support the proposed amendment. We have also met with several major retail and food corporations and while they responded that they do not oppose the amendment they are not willing to publicly support it. Except for Krogers, which has publicly opposed the amendment at the two forums we have held, the universal response from retailers is that they support voluntary metric only labeling but they do not want to provide letter or take any other "out-front" public position in support of a metric issue. While I fully respect industry's position you know and I know that Congress will not move forward on the basis of neutral "support." Since most of the companies we contact say they are neutral on the issue that should be taken as a positive sign. That alone however will not overcome the strength of FMI's opposition.

As you know, I have to work through the system since as a Federal employee I am forbidden from personally contacting or lobbying Congress however, I will continue to work on this effort everyday and will do so until we see FPLA amended. This is the only way it will happen unless a trade association or an individual approaches their Congressman or Senator and persuades them to introduce the amendment on their own.

I will continue to keep you informed of our efforts. Please contact me for further information or assistance.

Kenneth S. Butcher, Group Leader
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Weights and Measures Division
Laws and Metric Group
100 Bureau Drive - Mail Stop 2600
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-2600

>>

I don't understand why the EU is so anxious to forbid English units. If they are in brackets following the main metric value, what harm are they doing? I don't believe that the EU could seriously think that their consumers are harmed in any way by information that they don't understand, provided that it is supplemental. I think the EU is just trying to be difficult.

We forbid Imperial and require Customary for the simple reason that Imperial was never used here and would confuse people. (We also require metric.)

The UK requires metric, allows Imperial because they used to use it, and don't really want (perhaps disallow??) US Customary.

The Continent requires metric because, well, they are metric. Both Imperial and Customary are not wanted or allowed as of 2010.

Should we allow amphoras because the Romans were important once? No, because nobody knows what the hell they are. Why have meaningless crap on labels?

I don't agree with the need for dual labeling, but the argument for it is that we still use Customary in part. So we require the two measurement systems we use and disallow all others. The rest of the world wants to require what they use and disallow others -- why the surprise?

I use the word "imperial" to refer to US Customary. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

I don't think it's the rest of the world's business what units we use at home. As far as international trade is concerned, they should have a valid reason for asking us to change. From Europe's perspective, I can't think of a single reason they would want to prohibit English units from appearing as supplementary markings. Can anyone? Maybe they want to "protect" their citizens from harmful information.

John, remember that having too much information is preferable to having not enough.

<<I don't think it's the rest of the world's business what units we use at home. As far as international trade is concerned, they should have a valid reason for asking us to change.
. . .
From Europe's perspective, I can't think of a single reason they would want to prohibit English units from appearing as supplementary markings. >>


The UK is another matter. I'm not sure they are telling us what to use at home; the FPLA amendment was (to the best of my knowledge) a US proposal to deal with the issue.

Because almost everyone is metric, and you don't like my amphorae, I have few practical examples. However, the US does not allow supplemental Imperial volume on packages from the UK. The FDA rules in support of FPLA are very specific that they refer to a gallon of 231 cu in, a bushel of 2150.42 cu in, and their normal subdivisions. If we don't allow supplemental indicators that we don't use, why should the Continent. The US manufacturers demand the right to use US volumetric measure (Customary) not Imperial. If the Continent had familiarity with any "english" measure, it would have been Imperial.

They have been trying to force this change since 1980 (original law was 1979) so we can hardly use the "didn't give us enough time" argument.

Nonetheless, I think there are language and nutrition labeling issues that can't be met by a universal label either. This is more an issue like school prayer. We DEMAND the right to put US volumes on packages whether you, the customer, want them or not (foreign customers).

In the US market, they don't like that we require US and metric measure. I don't know whether they could make a case there is a legal conflict between FPLA and the Metric Act of 1866, which makes metric legal for (all) trade. FPLA makes it illegal, by itself.

Bud
John, remember that having too much information is preferable to having not enough.


metre
All Europeans need are metric quantities to satisfy their information needs, everything else is useless clutter.

JS

In the US market, they don't like that we require US and metric measure. I don't know whether they could make a case there is a legal conflict between FPLA and the Metric Act of 1866, which makes metric legal for (all) trade. FPLA makes it illegal, by itself.

metre
I am surprised that USMA hasen't pointed that conflict out. Would be interesing to see how such an action would fare in US courts?

<<
If we don't allow supplemental indicators that we don't use, why should the Continent. The US manufacturers demand the right to use US volumetric measure (Customary) not Imperial.
>>
I have personally seen some products in the US that are labelled with UK ounces or gallons as supplementary measures. I don't think it is illegal as long as it says "UK" before the word gallons. Besides, the US can argue that having UK gallons would be confusing to customers who use American gallons as their primary unit, but the EU cannot argue that Europeans might mix up gallons and litres.


<<
All Europeans need are metric quantities to satisfy their information needs, everything else is useless clutter.
>>
All Americans need are English quantities to satisfy their information needs, everything else is useless clutter. Yet we still put up with all the metric units in parenthesis afterwards on most products, don't we? So why would it be so hard for Europeans?

It is the non-metric units on the American packages that is the useless clutter. Americans don't understand them at all and ignore them on the packages. They judge a package by other features and ignore completely the stated amounts.


Don't use the term "we" as "we" includes me and my measurement needs are not satisfied with units (non-metric) that I don't know or use. The metric information is what satisfies my needs and all other added numbers and letters is useless to me.

Re: Status of the FPLA amendment? August 29 2005, 4:23 AM
Bud
Yet we still put up with all the metric units in parenthesis afterwards on most products, don't we? So why would it be so hard for Europeans?

Metre
Europeans use only one measurement system, Americans use two.
Therefore they need to understand nutritional and medicinal information given in g, buying wine in ml, nuts and bolts for cars in mm and many other items.
.

<<
It is the non-metric units on the American packages that is the useless clutter. Americans don't understand them at all and ignore them on the packages. They judge a package by other features and ignore completely the stated amounts.
>>

Daniel, it is quite obvious from this quote that you have never been to America. If you don't know what you're talking about, I'd suggest you keep your mouth shut.

I apologize if this post sounds a little rude.

I live in the US mid-west. I watch people when I'm in the supermarket. I don't see anyone focusing on size. They know what they want ahead of time, grab it and drop it in the cart. I've never seen one shopper compare sizes from one brand to another.

<<Don't use the term "we" as "we" includes me and my measurement needs are not satisfied >>

Mate, take it from me, you are in a tiny minority!

BTW - while we're on to "useless clutter" shouldn't we be using just one language on the packaging in Europe?

P.S. To claim the all European packaging has only one unit on them is a plain lie (as anyone can testify if they've been to Europe or the UK).

But then again, since Welsh is "obsolete".......

sH
But then again, since Welsh is "obsolete".......

metre
Get your facts right habitual liar

<<I watch people when I'm in the supermarket. I don't see anyone focusing on size. They know what they want ahead of time, grab it and drop it in the cart. I've never seen one shopper compare sizes from one brand to another.>>

Most of the time, people know exactly what brand and size they want, and have bought it before.

Occasionally, people will be trying a new product, brand, or size. I have seen people comparing. However, at most, they do such comparisons for one or two items out of a shopping cart full. You'd spend all day in a store comparing if you basically didn't already know what you wanted.

As a marketer, you'd like the customer to be loyal to your brand, but disloyal to your competitor's.

Daniel, have you seen people comparing sizes of products of different brands in any other country besides the US? I am not questioning your observations in the US, because I agree that the size labellings are not as important as other things, but you seem to be implying that the metric is needed for some reason. In countries that use metric measurements, have you observed shoppers do anything different from what they do in the US?
In case Daniel hasn't been to many other countries, I would appreciate if anyone else who is not from the US could answer this question also.

BTW Daniel, what city do you live in?

<<All Americans need are English quantities to satisfy their information needs, everything else is useless clutter. Yet we still put up with all the metric units in parenthesis afterwards on most products, don't we? So why would it be so hard for Europeans? >>

Whether you agree with it, and despite the fact we aren't moving rapidly (if at all), we have set a national policy of converting from using the Customary system of measurement to the SI system. The dual labeling is a logical step in that plan. The Europeans have NOT embarked on a policy of converting from SI to Imperial (or Customary), so to them, dual labeling is stupid. One of these things is not like the other.

"In case Daniel hasn't been to many other countries, I would appreciate if anyone else who is not from the US could answer this question also."

I have been to some countries, other then the US, but when there a supermarket is not a top priority of a place to visit. But from what I understand the EU is the most regulated market requiring a greater number of standard sizes, making it less necessary to examine the contents label if one needed to know the size. The litre is very popular everywhere.





"BTW Daniel, what city do you live in?"


I don't give out specific information as to my home for reasons I don't trust strangers on the internet. I told you I'm from the US mid-west, so that should give you an idea of culturally what part of the country I'm in.

"I don't give out specific information as to my home for reasons I don't trust strangers on the internet"

A warning to all those to what happens when you end up on a "hate list" !

:-D

<<
The Europeans have NOT embarked on a policy of converting from SI to Imperial (or Customary), so to them, dual labeling is stupid. One of these things is not like the other.
>>

But I am asking why the European Union has a problem with American imports having dual labels. I agree that it would be stupid for them to require dual labelling, or even to ask their companies to label in both units, but I don't see why they want to forcefully prohibit it. It may be useless to them, but it's not doing any harm.

Bud

No probs in marking a authorised supplementary unit.

But what about US pints?

What would be marked on a an imported American 500ml bottle of beer - is that more or less than a pint in the UK?

<<
What would be marked on a an imported American 500ml bottle of beer - is that more or less than a pint in the UK?
>>

One pint is 564ml (I think).

Martin - go to a pub - you'll see lots of them there.

Berenger - perhaps the "authorities" should get UK and US companies to label with "UK" or "US" before the unit.

Stimpy/Steve

The legislation has been in place for years - the US pint may not be used for trade purposes in the UK. In theory, neither may the US floz be used for trade purposes in the UK, but I suspect that the TSO's turn a blind eye because the US floz is a little bigger than the UK floz so the consumer is not being duped.

<<What would be marked on a an imported American 500ml bottle of beer - is that more or less than a pint in the UK?>>

We don't have 500 mL bottles of beer. For some reason, there is not the proliferation of sizes that occured in the soda industry. The standard is 12 oz. Further, a metric declaration doesn't seem to be required (maybe not even allowed?). It is regulated by a different agency.

However, if there were, it would be something like 1 PT 0.9 OZ (16.9 OZ), 500 mL, where the 16.9 OZ is an optional declaration. Our pint is about 473 mL, vs your 568 mL pint.

Re: Status of the FPLA amendment? September 1 2005, 12:39 AM

Bud
But I am asking why the European Union has a problem with American imports having dual labels. I agree that it would be stupid for them to require dual labelling, or even to ask their companies to label in both units, but I don't see why they want to forcefully prohibit it. It may be useless to them, but it's not doing any harm

metre
Simple, it is unnecessary clutter that no European needs, nor wants to pay for.

Some years ago Florida changed their law allowing foreign importers of beer to bottle in the same bottle they do elsewhere and not have to include non-metric if they don't normally do it.

<<
Bud
But I am asking why the European Union has a problem with American imports having dual labels. I agree that it would be stupid for them to require dual labelling, or even to ask their companies to label in both units, but I don't see why they want to forcefully prohibit it. It may be useless to them, but it's not doing any harm

metre
Simple, it is unnecessary clutter that no European needs, nor wants to pay for.
>>
If Europe were to prohibit English units, they would probably have to pay to do it, because American companies would be forced to print separate packaging for the US and EU. The extra costs of this would be passed on to consumers on both sides.




<<
Some years ago Florida changed their law allowing foreign importers of beer to bottle in the same bottle they do elsewhere and not have to include non-metric if they don't normally do it.
>>
In the US, the individual states do not have the authority to regulate interstate or international commerce. So if this is in fact true, it would be a merely symbolic gesture.
Daniel, please give me a citation to the law if you have one, and I will look into it.

<<
If Europe were to prohibit English units, they would probably have to pay to do it, because American companies would be forced to print separate packaging for the US and EU. The extra costs of this would be passed on to consumers on both sides.
>>

... alternatively European substitutes would be used, benefitting European jobs at the expense of American ones.

Could it be that Daniel is being "liberal" with truth once again? Surely not.

Bud

The law went into effect in 2001. It allows for any size container, thus allowing for a German to sell a 330 mL size that is normal, and not being forced to use an American 355 mL size.

From a post on the USMA site:

Law in the US does not constrain the size of beer containers. Non-metric units are mandatory on the label, metric units are not mandatory. As I understand it.

For example, Marstons brewery uses the same 500 ml bottles for their
'Pedigree' product in US and UK markets.
US label: "500 ml 1 PT. 0.9 US FL. OZ"
UK label: "500 ml"



Previous to the law change a 500 mL size would have been illegal and the British company would have had to market it in a 473 mL size.

If the poster to the USMA site is correct, then the law change in Florida has been extended to the entire US. Thus any foreign brewer can sell metric sizes in the US.




http://www.mail-archive.com/usma@colostate.edu/msg04597.html

ALCOHOL CONTAINER BILL OK'D BY SENATE
Tallahassee Democrat , Saturday, April 21, 2001
DEMOCRAT STAFF REPORT
Edition: TD , Section: B , Page: B6
TYPE: LOCAL & STATE

Liquor stores and restaurants would be able to sell beer in any size bottle
or can smaller than 32 ounces and alcoholic cider in any container less than
a gallon under a bill approved 37-2 by the Senate on Friday.

Retailers now can sell beer and cider only in containers of 8, 12, 16 and 32
ounces. That has prevented them from selling some imported beer in
metric-sized bottles and some American microbrews in larger bottles.
Unlike past years, the bill, SB 202, has not run afoul of beer wholesalers
or the big-name beer companies. Sens. Jim King, R-Jacksonville, and Daniel
Webster, R-Winter Garden, cast the only 'no' votes. The House version, HB
187, is ready to be voted on by the full chamber.

2001, Tallahassee Democrat

Tallahassee Democrat

That's the Florida Senate, note the size of the vote. The US Senate has 100 members and the total vote would be closer to 100. In Michigan, the imported beer I've seen is all in 12 oz. bottles.

<<
... alternatively European substitutes would be used, benefitting European jobs at the expense of American ones.
>>

It would go the other way too. European companies would no longer be able to ship the same products to America that they sell in Europe. American companies would have to fill the void. This would be a step backward for international trade.

In recent times, the general trend has been to remove trade barriers, not erect them. I don't see why the EU wants to change the law in 2010 to make it harder for companies to trade. Maybe the WTO has something to say about this.

"It would go the other way too. European companies would no longer be able to ship the same products to America that they sell in Europe. American companies would have to fill the void. This would be a step backward for international trade."



First of all, how many European products do you see on your supermarket shelves? I've seen some Canadian products with metric only, in which someone added an extra label showing non-metric equivalents. They only did it on the English side. The French side was still metric only. So if you turn the container around so the American shopper sees the French side, they see only the metric description.

I don't think the Canadian packager puts the add-on label on the package. It is done by the importer. The same can be done by the European importer too.

American companies wouldn't fill the void. Chinese ones would as they do already. Make it in metric and describe it both ways. Bud, where do you draw the line? If a product is to be labeled in non-metric, must it also be made that way too? Do you accept products made in metric and just labeled in non-metric? What criteria do you use to declare a product non-metric?




"In recent times, the general trend has been to remove trade barriers, not erect them. I don't see why the EU wants to change the law in 2010 to make it harder for companies to trade. Maybe the WTO has something to say about this."


Requiring a second product declaration when only one is necessary is a trade barrier. American laws requiring the inclusion of non-metric is the trade barrier. So if there is a fault here it is the fault of American laws. The EU sees no need to add clutter to packages just to satisfy one nations whims. Every country in the world, a whopping 6 gigapeople don't need or understand non-metric. So why do they need to see it? The WTO would surely see the US as being the source of the trade barrier.

<<First of all, how many European products do you see on your supermarket shelves? I've seen some Canadian products with metric only, in which someone added an extra label showing non-metric equivalents. They only did it on the English side. >>

I'll give you the same example as I've given Bud. In my supermarket, considerable shelf space is devoted to olive oil, herb-infused oil, balsamic vinegar, and wine vinegars which are mostly or entirely imported. They are in metric-round sizes, but net contents are dual labelled. language is English only, and nutrition info is in US format. The label contains nothing in the language of the country of origin (mostly Italy and France). They were made for the US market only. The labels appear to be professional, original labels. not "over-labels".

Meanwhile, other plain vegetable oils and vinegar are offered In round-Customary containers from US manufacturer. I also buy Mandarin oranges from Costco. They are imported from China - no Chinese on the label, so the can as I buy it at Costco can't be sold "as is" in China. However, when they recently switched brands, they went from a painted can that could ONLY be used (with decoration) in the US market, to a generic can with paper label. The label was crude and could have been applied by importer, although it wrapped all the way around the can.

Sometime ago, I started a thread that got minimal response. Language and nutrition labelling requirements differ greatly by country. I'm not so sure that metric net contents ALONE will really result in a label acceptable anywhere in the world. Except for produce, where less information is required, I'm not convinced universal labels are practical. For a large manufacturer, a common package size isn't so hard to label in multiple ways to satisfy different country requirements. I think only small manufacturers, or those with a small export business try to get "universal" labels.

Do they why the big fuss over the EU requiring metric only and the US requiring dual labels? The argument is that if the EU goes into effect and the US law is not changed, then companies would have to spend millions on a a double production line. Why was it necessary for a delay in 1999 to give the US 10 years to comply?

I agree with what you are saying as it makes most of sense. But I'm having a hard time grasping why the US and EU are fighting over this issue. It is like the US wants non-metric on international labels even if it isn't needed, just as a form of advertisement.

I am confused too. Please note I am not saying it with any real confidence, more raising the question. I thought perhaps I was missing something and was hoping for more response to my "International Labels" thread.

I am tossing out a tentative judgement based on European product I can see in US markets, and what few countries I can find requirements for on the web. While I've been in Europe on business, I've never grocery shopped there or seen an imported US product in a supermarket there.

However, I'm not convinced we have firmly established any product is sold in both EU and US with EXACTLY the same packaging and labelling. I think the nutrition either per serving or per 100 g may be the "dealbreaker."

<<
Language and nutrition labelling requirements differ greatly by country.
>>

Nutritional labelling requirements are standard across the EU apart from the language being used. It isd up tp the person concerend to know ehat he is looking for. FOr example, I am diabetic so I look at the sugar contents - OK I have to know that I have to look for zuiker in the Netherlands, sucre in France etc, but the figures ahve the same layout in all the countries concerned.

But that sugar content is per 100 g serving, isn't it?

In the US, it has to be for a stated serving size (in Customary and metric). For sugar, it would probably be per tablespoon (~20 g ?) and for salt, per teaspoon. For orange juice, it would probably be 1 cup / 240 mL.

I don't know the exact mechanics of finding the standard serving size, but there is an obligation to do so, and it has to make some sense.

I believe that is a fundamental difference in requirements.

Well, I checked,

sugar is per teaspoon, 4.2 g
salt is per teaspoon, 6 g.
I was right on orange juice.

<<
Bud, where do you draw the line? If a product is to be labeled in non-metric, must it also be made that way too? Do you accept products made in metric and just labeled in non-metric? What criteria do you use to declare a product non-metric?
>>
American law says nothing about non-metric made products being sold in the US. The criteria that you are asking about are very clearly spelled out in the FPLA.


<<
I agree with what you are saying as it makes most of sense. But I'm having a hard time grasping why the US and EU are fighting over this issue. It is like the US wants non-metric on international labels even if it isn't needed, just as a form of advertisement.
>>
It is needed, because the vast majority of Americans look at the imperial and don't understand the metric. You would probably not be confused if the imperial were removed, but most people in the US would be. That is not an opinion. I am sure that all but a handful of strong pro-metrics in the US would agree.

Bud
It is needed, because the vast majority of Americans look at the imperial and don't understand the metric. You would probably not be confused if the imperial were removed, but most people in the US would be. That is not an opinion. I am sure that all but a handful of strong pro-metrics in the US would agree.

metre
So why do US schools waste precious education time teaching metric since the late 70s?

"It is needed, because the vast majority of Americans look at the imperial and don't understand the metric. You would probably not be confused if the imperial were removed, but most people in the US would be. That is not an opinion. I am sure that all but a handful of strong pro-metrics in the US would agree. "


So how long will the Americans who do rely on size descriptions be confused? An hour? A day? A week? A year? Forever? Are they incapable of learning?

Why would the product description in non-metric be needed outside the US in the 98 % of the world that understands metric and the non-metric only tends to clutter? What purpose do US units have in areas that were formally imperial and the imperial units of the same name convey a different meaning? Of course one doesn't hear of complaints of USC/imperial confusion, because in most cases products around the world don't add non-metric and those that might, the declarations are ignored.

"a whopping 6 gigapeople"

ROTFL!!!! MORE! MORE!

Re: Status of the FPLA amendment? September 4 2005, 10:13 PM

JS
Well, I checked,

sugar is per teaspoon, 4.2 g
salt is per teaspoon, 6 g.
I was right on orange juice.

.metre
Some time ago, I posted an article on the main thread about nutritional information on US food products. According to it, fiercely anti metric food producers and purveyors had no problem agreeing on metric values. That seemingly bold step forward makes it difficult, if not altogether impossible for most Americans to glean how much sugar, salt, fat and other ingredients they ingest. Not advancement of metrication, but obfuscation of vital information was the real reason to go metric. Ignorance is used by companies to make money and the regulator nods in agreement. Not a very healthy system.

Your search for nutritional quantities confirms what that article says. Most Americans have no idea how much 45 g of sugar, or anything else is in gram. They are used to medicinal amounts and think it is very little.

I have to disagree. People add up the numbers on everything they eat, and compare to a target.

Sugar and salt are spices used in small amounts. The serving size for salt is probably more than you would put on something. For sugar, perhaps that is reasonable for a cup of coffee or tea, some people would use 2 teaspoons. Clearly no one would use 100 g of sugar in a cup of coffee, and 100 g of salt would kill you. Serving sizes relate (somewhat) to amounts people actually consume. Fruits and vegetables tend to be 1/2 cup, or occasionally 1 cup. Beverage servings are usually one cup, where the European practice of "per 100 g" clearly understates.

I'd like to see the US serving sizes made metric, but fundamentally, they make more sense than "per 10 g" labelling where 100 g may kill you, or leave you hungry.

Re: Status of the FPLA amendment? September 5 2005, 2:24 PM

JS
I have to disagree. People add up the numbers on everything they eat, and compare to a target.

metre
Maybe you shoukld have qualified that sentence by saying:
Health conscious people....

That article is buried in one of my threads, but can not find it. If my memory serves me right, he used among other items a popular 8 fl.oz.??? soft drink as example. It contained 45 or so gram of sugar, the eqivalent of 11 teaspoons ??? Few Americans would know that. Has the sale of this particular, or any other soft drink containing similar amounts of sugar, fallen? Please don't nail me on these figures, they are an approximation only.

metre
Maybe you shoukld have qualified that sentence by saying:
Health conscious people....

That article is buried in one of my threads, but can not find it. If my memory serves me right, he used among other items a popular 8 fl.oz.??? soft drink as example. It contained 45 or so gram of sugar, the eqivalent of 11 teaspoons ???

js
You are certainly right on the "health conscious people." I don't know on cola as I drink diet. It would show the amount per cup (240 mL) but I don't know what that is. But would a European really drink a 100 g (~100 mL) serving)?

If your 28 g serving of breakfast cereal has 20 g of sugar, even an Imperial-only rocket scientist should be able to figure out that's a problem.

The US "serving size" must (like everything else) be stated in both metric and customary, so if anyone WANTS to understand, bases are covered in either system. Nobody gets that excuse. The recommended daily amounts of protein, fat, and carbs are stated only in metric however.

<<
The US "serving size" must (like everything else) be stated in both metric and customary,
>>

In Europe, where there are different culinary habits, serving sizes vary from country to country and certainly between North and South Europe. For example, the Italians tend to drown everthing in olive oil whereas in the UK a people use a little olive oil on their salads. Therefore, what is a "serving" of olive oil?

Not to be a smartass, but it's a tablespoon (or 15 mL), at least as defined here. Of course you are right that the definition won't suit everyone. But it's a starting point, and people can estimate whether they use 1/2 that, or twice that. Rounding down from 100 g, I honestly wouldn't know where to start.

Random guess, hopefully not too far off: Oil has lower density than water, so guess that 100 g is about 120 mL, and to the degree 15 mL is right for a serving, divide by 8 to estimate.(??)

Bigger problem: People who drown their salad in oil and vinegar usually leave a lot on the plate or in the bowl. How much really gets consumed? Who knows.

Martin,
We probably see the serving size problem on something like pasta. The usual "official" serving size is 1/2 cup (cooked). If you have it as a side dish, with a main course, that might be correct. If served as a main mean in a restaurant you may get 2 cups or more.

John,

I spent nine months working in Italy which is why I picked their culinary habits as an example. A "average" serving of olive oil in Itlay is much more than in the UK so what should be on a botle of olive oil- an "Italian" average serving or a UK average serving? Also, if nobiody has defined what an "average" serving is, manufacturers are likely to "tune" their "average" servings to match marketing targets, not health targets. By using 100g frigures (or any other fixed weight fo rthat matter), manufacturers cannot "tune" their helping size.

Martin,
Good point that Europe is a very fragmented market. The US may have regional variation but also has one national policy. I don't know the mechanics of how serving sizes are chosen for these labels. It does not seem to be the Federal government, but everyone "magically" chooses the same value. On commodities, it does not vary by brand (it sometimes does on more "unique" products). I am guessing there are industry associations that agree on standards, but I don't know that for a fact. They also seem to line up with the "food unit" approaches in diabetic meal planning, especially for starches, fruits, etc, and other "point" systems used by weight loss clinics.

Obviously John serving size is ignored by our fellow citizens. We seem to have a lot more oversized people then in Europe. If people look at the fat and calories in only a teaspoon they might think it is OK to to have a greater number of helpings because the fat content would look really small. If we made the serving size equal to 100 g, some people may be frightened away from eating a large portion and thus reduce their intake and lose a few kilograms.

Our methods of describing nutritional information may be contributing to our nations obesity.

Sure, if you focus on things where a normal serving is small.

What about soda. 8 ounces (240 mL) is more like a normal serving than 100 g, yet some people drink 24 oz, which is 3 servings. But in Europe, it would be about 7 servings of 100 g. Now which is more misleading?

<<
If we made the serving size equal to 100 g, some people may be frightened away from eating a large portion and thus reduce their intake and lose a few kilograms.
>>

... and the food manufacturers wuould lose some of their profits.

Re: Status of the FPLA amendment? September 5 2005, 4:12 PM

js
You are certainly right on the "health conscious people." I don't know on cola as I drink diet. It would show the amount per cup (240 mL) but I don't know what that is. But would a European really drink a 100 g (~100 mL) serving)?


metre
I always understood that the amounts of nutritional ingredients are expressed in per 100 g. If 100 g of anything contains 10 g of sugar that is the amount you eat per hundred grams. Drinks likewise, if 100 ml contain 5 g of sugar 500 ml contain 25 g. That is why in my opinion grams are much better than servings because you know exactly how much you eat.

When reading nutritional labels, the units are irrelevant. You need a "feel" for how much is "a lot" or "a little" of something. 10 g of carbohydrate is not a lot, but 10 g of sodium is. Being able to understand the absolute amount would be of little use to anyone.

Re: Status of the FPLA amendment? September 7 2005, 8:03 AM


When reading nutritional labels, the units are irrelevant. You need a "feel" for how much is "a lot" or "a little" of something. 10 g of carbohydrate is not a lot, but 10 g of sodium is. Being able to understand the absolute amount would be of little use to anyone.


metre
I beg to differ. Most mothers learn very quickly whether 10 g of carbohydrates per 100 g, or ml, is little. acceptable, or too much. With many companies trying to convince mothers with babies to buy their over carbohydrated formulas it is essential for their babies health they do so. Health conscious people are also aware of the quantities they ingest. The average US punter has of course no idea because he/she does not understand grams at all.

1) He displays an absolute ignorance on carbohydrates (complex, non-complex, starch, suger?)
2) To think that mothers do what he thinks they do is pure fantasy.

Just because there were less labels when babies were born 20, 30, 40 years ago does not mean that the modern mother is a complete metric zealot composing baby food in scientific environments.

You'll be telling us Welsh mothers don't teach their kids Welsh next!