The Hidden Système International d'Unités and Hindrance to Full Metrication.

By Edward B. Schlesinger

The other day I was shopping for groceries when I overheard three young women talking loudly about which container of milk to buy for their metric cake school project. Their conversation consisted of how many litres of milk to buy when they needed six cups and milk is sold in quarts, half gallons, and gallon containers. I introduced myself and told them a cup is 250 millilitres and multiply the amount by six cups. Knowing this information, they went back and looked over the shelves. One young woman came running back and asked me how many millilitres are in a litre? I said one thousand millilitres in a litre. After a verbal expression of “Oh!” I perceived a light come over their faces as they quickly reached for their purchase and were off! As I think on this experience, I ask myself who is being aided by holding onto two systems of measurement, the SI international units and US customary units? By summarizing the current laws, I wish to show where we as a country are hindered in the process to full conversion to the International System of Units.

The United States Congress passed the Metric Act enacted 28 July 1866 and became a co-signer of the Metric Convention 20 May 1875. On 05 April 1893 T. C. Mendenhall,“made the meter and kilogram the fundamental standards of length and mass in the United States, this law is known as the Mendenhall Order.” ¹ Since 1960, with The General Conference on Weights and Measures (CGPM), U S Customary units have been pegged to and defined by the International System of Units. The Metric Conversion Act (Executive Order 12770) was singed into law 25 July 1991. This law affected the executive branch departments and agencies of the United States and was to have the “metric system of measurement for Federal Government procurements, grants, and other business-related activities, in agency programs and functions.”² To encourage the International System of Units in the United States of America, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) developed a Metric Program.

The NIST Metric Program provides leadership and assistance on SI use and conversion among federal agencies, state and local governments, businesses, trade associations, standards development organizations, educators, and the general public.”³ The Metric Program under the Metric Conversion Act besides “coordinating metric transition activities in the federal agencies, supports on progress made in trade commerce and industry's voluntary adoption of the SI.” ⁴ and “helps implement the national policy to establish the SI International System of Units as the preferred system of weights and measures. In the Executive Order Sec. 2. (Department and Agency Responsibilities) one notices a future point of impediment. The section while asking for the implementation, at the same time writes, in subsection, a-1 “metric usage shall not be required to the extent that such use is impractical or is likely to cause significant inefficiencies or loss of markets to United States firms.” ⁵ Was the fear that United States firms could not compete in less there was a domestic market for non-metric products?

In the Federal-Aid Highways Act of 1978, Chapter 1, one can see a hindrance. Subchapter I, Sec. 109 states “ The Secretary shall not require the States to expend any Federal or State funds to construct, erect, or otherwise place or to modify any sign relating to speed limit, distance, or other measurement on a highway … using the metric system.”⁶ This limits any federal funding needed, for states to complete conversion to S I units on highways. On 9 June 1998, the Transportation Equity Act of 1998, left metrication an option for each state. At present states, do not have the frequency of signage, showing kilometres per hour (km/h) or meter distance to be familiar to drivers who are citizens and useful to tourist.

The Fair Packaging and Labelling Act (FPLA) of 1967 enacted to “ensure that products were clearly labelled with information of the product inside the container.”⁷ The act requires all products to carry quantity information “in both customary (pound, ounce, gallon) and metric (kilogram, millilitre, litre) measurements. In 2005, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) introduced proposals to allow U.S. manufacturers to include only metric labelling. NIST “argued that allowing metric-only labelling means U.S. manufacturers would not have to produce different labels for foreign markets, which would have cut production costs.”⁸ Since then The EU Metric Directive (80/181/EEC), scheduled to go into effect 1 January 2010, was to exclude US products that did not meet EU standards in labelling and size of container. Thru compromise, the directive has been modified to “allow the continuation of both supplemental U.S. customary and metric units for consumer goods sold in the EU”. ⁹

The Food and Drug Administration applies FPLA “regulations to all products it regulates, which means everything typically found in a grocery store.”¹⁰. However, at state level the relationship between fair packaging and fair labelling breaks down. Under California Uniform Packaging and Labelling Regulation (Amended 1993), cubic decimetres or litres are recognized; nerver the less dairy products are exempt from using them for packaging. In the Uniform Packaging and Labelling Regulation section 11.9, (Fluid Dairy Products, Ice Cream, and Similar Frozen Desserts), one finds “when measured by and packaged in measure containers as defined in Measure Container Code of National Institute of Standards and Technology Handbook 44, are exempt from the requirements”. In addition, “milk and milk products when measured by and packaged in glass or plastic containers 1/2-pint, 1-pint, 1-quart, 1/2-gallon, and 1-gallon capacities, the required net quantity of contents declaration is exempt.”¹¹ Therefore, milk and milk products can only be sold in the above-mentioned quantities. Milk cannot be sold in one litre or four litre size cartons. Perhaps this is a reason why gallon size cartons are popular among shoppers. SI unit size containers meet the goals of The Fair Packaging and Labelling Act clearly since there is a direct relationship among metre length, volume and kilogram mass, determination of the container size, with information of the net weight of product, can easily be determined of the amount inside the container!

The voluntary process has served this country to some degree. However, the time is long past for full adoption of the international system of units! The metrication process can be done more rapidly by following the example done by the Australian government in the 1970’s. The conversion was done by education of the public and financial aid to provinces, as well as trade and commerce industry. The change can be done by updating the Transportation Equity Act of 1998, and the Federal-Aid Highways Act of 1978, removing restrictions on federal and state entities, and allowing federal government funding. Also to coordinate with states and industry removing US Customary unit restrictions, in selling agriculture goods allowing round SI units size containers. The completion to full metrication needs to be done more rapidly by mandatory not optional conversion among commerce and trade, federal and state agencies, and the public.

References

1. Brown G; United States Metric Assoc. Fort Collins, Colorado; Colorado State Univ; 2005 December 18;
Citation: 2012 April 25. Available from: http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/laws/mendenhall.html

2. Brown G; United States Metric Assoc. Fort Collins, Colorado; Colorado State University; 2005 December 18;
Citation: 2012 April 25. Available from: http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/laws/eo12770.html

3. National Institute of Standards and Technology NIST. Gaithersburg, MD; 2012 February 1;

Citation: 2012 May 2. Available from: http://www.nist.gov/pml/wmd/metric/metric-program.cfm

4. National Institute of Standards and Technology NIST. Gaithersburg, MD; 2012 February 1;

Citation: 2012 May 2. Available from: http://www.nist.gov/pml/wmd/metric/metric-program.cfm

5. Brown G; United States Metric Assoc. Fort Collins, Colorado; Colorado State University; 2005 December 18; Citation: 2012 April 25. Available from: http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/laws/eo12770.html

6. United States Metric Assoc. Fort Collins, Colorado; Colorado State University; 2005 December 18;
Citation: 2012 May 1. Available from: http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/laws/natl-highway.html

7. United States Metric Assoc. Fort Collins, Colorado; Colorado State University; 2005 December 18;
Citation: 2012 May 1. Available from: http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/laws/fpla.html

8. United States Metric Assoc. Fort Collins, Colorado; Colorado State University; 2005 December 18;
Citation: 2012 May 2. Available from: http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/laws/fpla.html

9. National Institute of Standards and Technology NIST. Gaithersburg, MD; 2010 October 05,
Citation: 2012 May 03 Available from: http://www.nist.gov/pml/wmd/metric/trade-comm.cfm

10. National Institute of Standards and Technology NIST. Gaithersburg, MD; 2012 April 24,
Citation: 2012 May 04 Available from: http://www.nist.gov/pml/wmd/metric/index.cfm

11. California Department of Food and Agriculture CDFA. Sacramento, CA; 2012 January 01,
Citation: 2012 May 08 Available from: http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/dms/programs/qc/qclabelingregs.pdf