Comments on: Will 2009 bring metric-only labelling to the USA?

By: Ezra Steinberg

Ezra Steinberg — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 01:22:39 +0000

It is true that only Congress can amend the FPLA. It is also true that certain items have their labeling regulated by the UPLR rather than the FPLA; it is the individual States in the USA that can adopt the provisions of the model UPLR as they see fit.

So far, 48 of the 50 states have adopted the provision of the latest UPLR that allows for voluntary metric-only labeling on those items governed by UPLR-based legislation.

By: John Steele

John Steele — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 14:21:26 +0000

Obviously, 2009 didn’t bring it. Perhaps 2010 will. NIST has released a press release advocating permissive metric only (manufacturer can still dual label if he prefers). The press release is starting to be used on some food industry related sites.
http://www.foodproductdesign.com/news/2010/06/nist–proposes-metric-only-labeling-for-some-products.aspx

I don’t know what NIST’s plan is for bringing it to Congress. As the law is quite clear in requiring dual at the moment, it would exceed the authority of any agency to grant permission for metric-only. Only Congress can amend the current law.

By: Marcus Berger

Marcus Berger — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 20:11:03 +0000

This is a very sad day for all of us. Everyone knows that once a deadline for a transition to metric-only is lifted US businesses will IMMEDIATELY start flooding global markets with “dual” labels! They just can’t care less, if the price for them to pay is dual labeling, they’ll be more than happy to oblige. When will people finally wake up to the fact that the REAL issue is the PRESENCE of Fred Flintstone units in labels?? We all know what happened with the Highway Departments transition fiasco in the US. Bottom line? Lift a requirement to standardize on a SINGLE set of units (metric, obviously) and NO progress will EVER emerge. This is reality check, folks. Therefore, the ONLY lasting solution would still be to insist on metric-only, period! The goal is to *eliminate* ancient units, not to legalize its being present in consumer product labels ad infinitum. How can anyone expect that this would be accomplished by *allowing* dual labels, please explain that??? Anyway, I’m sorry but I’m afraid to say that we, SI (metric) supporters, lost the war!!!

By: Dave Brown

Dave Brown — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 16:42:19 +0000

Since the American pint is a little less than 500 ml; and the imperial pint is a little more than 500 ml, perhaps a new “mid-Atlantic” pint could be devised for use in both the USA and the UK. This “pint” could be exactly 500 ml and would pave the way for full metrication in both countries. (Then perhaps the Americans would get the blame for reducing the size of a beer measure, rather than Europe for a change.)

By: Ezra Steinberg

Ezra Steinberg — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 02:10:45 +0000

Regarding the language used on packaging in North America, many such packages have used so-called “NAFTA” labeling for quite some time now where everything is printed in English, French, and Spanish.

As for the units used, typically the English text uses US Customary units while the French and Spanish parts usually (though not always) use metric (or dual units).

With the advent of voluntary metric-only labeling (once the FPLA is amended), I suspect many manufacturers will switch to metric-only (whether multi-lingual or English language-only). A number of US manufacturers have anticipated this development by changing their packaging to “rational” metric sizes and by placing the metric units in first position (with the US Customary units in parentheses). Years ago it was just the opposite.

Those products not regulated by the FPLA are regulated by the individual states, which all have regulations that conform mostly to the model UPLR (Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulations). The latest revision of the UPLR permits metric-only labeling and all but two states (New York and Alabama) have adopted this change (and New York is currently considering adopting the change).

With the FPLA amended and the UPLR adopted by all 50 states and US terroritories and possession, I suspect we will see a fairly swift transition to metric-only labeling for pre-packaged goods. What happens with items sold loose is a whole ‘nuther kettle o’ fish …. only time will tell!

By: Martin Vlietstra

Martin Vlietstra — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 09:58:39 +0000

dygituljunky says:

“January 2nd, 2009 at 00:06
Wait, am I reading this correctly?! Are large corporations blocking the FPLA modification in order to get the US to pressure the EU to remove the metric-only deadline?”

No, I believe that they are trying to restrict foreign competitors from entering the US marketplace.

By: John Frewen-Lord

John Frewen-Lord — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 09:11:48 +0000

At first, I thought this was looking like a retrenchment as far as the EU was concerned, in that metric-only labelling was now going to be changed to metric-only or dual labelling. But dual labelling actually exists anyway (legal or otherwise). Our local Lidl shop carries many products (food and non food) that are obviously intended for the European ‘home’ market, yet are dual labelled. These are products that will not be found in UK shops or supermarkets.

So I don’t actually see any change from a European perspective – but we will see a positive change from the US perspective. Although there has apparently been some resistance on the part of US manufacturers, some may welcome it, as it makes for a common package size between US and Canadian markets. But still not a common label – all Canadian packaging must carry French and English language labelling. I can’t see too many US consumers relishing learning the French wording on their morning cornflakes while having breakfast!

By: dygituljunky

dygituljunky — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 00:06:19 +0000

Wait, am I reading this correctly?! Are large corporations blocking the FPLA modification in order to get the US to pressure the EU to remove the metric-only deadline?

This sounds bizarre to me. I would think that large corporations would pressure the US to allow metric-only labeling so that the corporations could meet the EU metric-only deadline.

Well, then again, maybe this isn’t so bizarre. Corporations want to continue to be able to use the most confusing mix of measures possible so that consumers will stay confused about how much they are consuming.

We’ve seen enough corporate delay tactics on this and global warming. Why do we continue to allow corporations to run things in North America and in Europe?!

By: Philip Bladon/ SI Metric-Matters

Philip Bladon/ SI Metric-Matters — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 16:10:33 +0000

With the labelling of food and drinks, itâ€™s not just the units used for weight and volume that are important. Nutritional information is often shown on food and drink labels.
For energy values I hope these will be prominently shown in kilojoules (kJ). Itâ€™s probably far too optimistic to expect that calories (kilocalories) will be shed. The calorie is an obsolete and unnecessary unit, which should be phased out as quickly as possible.

Philip Bladon / SI Metric-Matters http://www.simetricmatters.com