You can’t argue both sides of the coin. You, yourself, say “The need for different labels for different markets should not be seen as a trade barrier.” Yet, you expect “color” to be corrected to “colour” for the British market, but the US is unreasonable in demanding Customary measure in addition to metric.

I’m not sure a common label is practical. The need to identify the importer/distributor is one difference (we have the same requirement on imports). Also US nutrition labelling is different as it is all based on defined serving sizes, not 100 mL or 100 g portions. A goal of common package sizes with labels unique to the market may be a more viable goal. Truly common labels will require more compromise by all parties.

Passing the metric-only FPLA would be an enormous boost to metrication in the US, and I have no problem with other countries “encouraging” us to take the step. However, the argument that the present requirement is a trade barrier requires willingness to negotiate other trade barriers that are similar. I would propose we could accept “colour” on Worcestershire sauce bottles if you could accept “color” on Tabasco sauce. However, I don’t know what to suggest on the nutrition label differences.

The UK labels of US products frequently contains the name and address of the importer, which would not appear on the US labels. There are spelling differences of certain words (e.g. US “color” versus UK “colour”) so different labels would be needed to accommodate UK and US differences in English usage. Different labels are often needed for different markets because of local language requirements.

The need for different labels for different markets should not be seen as a trade barrier. For example, bottles of Tabasco sauce, a US product, sold in the UK only show a metric quantity with no supplementary indication and also show the name and address of the importer.

There are also reasons against the use of supplementary indications that relate to the differences between the imperial and ‘English’/US Customary systems. British volume measurements cannot be used on product labels in the US because the US requires dual labelling in metric and US customary units, and all imperial volume measurements differ between UK and US even though the same unit names are used.

These measurement issues would not arise if the US allowed metric-only labelling as the metric system is the same all over the world. NIST proposed a change in US law to allow metric-only labels but it has not been adopted. The fact that the EU has allowed supplementary indications to be used indefinitely has reduced incentives for the US to adopt metric-only labelling laws. Instead of appeasing the US over their refusal to officially adopt the metric system, the British government should have stood firm with the rest of the EU and insisted that the US accept metric-only product labels.

It could be argued that the US, in not allowing metric-only is no different in principle from the EU not allowing USC only labelling. However, given that the SI is language independant and used world-wide (including within the US itself), USC only labelling would amount to a special concession foisted on foreign markets.

It may well be the case that language variants nullify the cost advantage of universal SI labelling in some cases. But by putting up a selfish artificial barrier to the use of a globally recognised system of units, the opportunity to economize is removed even in those cases where language would not be an issue.

“(5) It is appropriate that the Commission continue to strongly pursue, in the context of its third country trade relations, including the Transatlantic Economic Council, the acceptance in third country markets of products labelled only in the units of the International System of Units (SI).”

This would appear to commit the EU to strongly pursue the acceptance of products labelled only in SI units in the United States. It follows that they would be committed to lobbying for voluntary metric only labelling.

However, there would be other countries whose interests would be served by voluntary metric-only labelling in the US. It would certainly be in the interest of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and any other country where English is widely used to push for voluntary metric-only labelling in this important market.

Perhaps the Food Marketing Institute’s real concern is foreign competition. If so, their opposition to voluntary metric only labelling would be an informal trade barrier that is illegal under international law.

What about health warnings or nutritional information that may vary from country to country? Doesn’t this also destroy the argument that a company can produce a one size fits all label?

Due to NAFTA, some American products that sell in Canada and Mexico do include Spanish and French on the labels, but they are very few. Most labels on products are English only.

Thus there is no reason why the non-American world that can have labels in their own language can not have them in metric only.

The statement: “There is no question that supplementary “units” should “achieve long term acceptance” in the EU.” is strange. It sounds to me like there is some belief by the US that if you include USC on labels that EU citizens (or anyone else in the world) will see them and over time become use to them, then the long term effect is that they will prefer them over SI.

It seems that if a US manufacturer produces products in rounded USC with supplementary SI in awkward numbers, the EU citizen may then perceive that USC is simpler then metric. Is this why there is such an insistence by the US to force USC on the metric world?

Also, what determines if a unit is primary or supplementary? If an American product is labeled 1 lb 453.6 g, would this violate any EU laws? The US could insist that position does not determine which number is primary or secondary, but as long as the SI is there, the law is obeyed.

Isn’t the WTO basically a US run organization and wouldn’t they more likely favour actions or policies that promote US interests? It is a great idea to push the issue through such an organization if it can be proved that the organization is not biased in favour of the country whose policies have created the issue. But why would it have to be Europe alone? Why doesn’t the rest of the world get involved too? It is also in their interest.