**[John Barker, 03:24 PM 10/17/02 +1300, Public Forum on Metric Unit Use
on Product Labels]{.underline}**

X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2

From: John Barker \<John.Barker@mca.govt.nz\>

To: \'\"NIST Metric Program\"\' \<metric-prg@nislgov\>

Subject Public Forum on Metric Unit Use on Product Labels

Date: Thu, 17 Oct 200215:24:07 +1300

X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)

«International relations - general correspondence.DOC»

Attention: James McCracken

Hi James

Attached is the draft paper. Please let me know if it is helpful/ what
you expected. If so please treat it as a final. Otherwise I can amend if
you would like me to address something particular to issues in the USA
that I have not considered.

John Barker

Manager Trade Measurement

Ministry of Consumer Affairs

PO Box 1473

Wellington

New Zealand

Phone: 64 4474 2823

Fax: 64 4473 9400

Visit our Website: [www.consumeraffairs.govt.nz]{.underline} It's worth
a visit!

Any opinions expressed in this message are not necessarily those of the
Ministry of Economic Development This message and any files transmitted
with it are confidential and solely for the use of the intended
recipient If you are not the intended recipient or the person
responsible for delivery to the intended recipient, be advised that you
have received this message in error and that any use is strictly
prohibited. Please contact the sender and delete the message and any
attachment from your computer.

![](media/image1.png){width="0.3645833333333333in"
height="0.34375in"}[International relations - general
correspondence.DOC]{.underline}

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Printed for NIST Metric Program \<metric-prg@nist.gov\> 1

# SUBMISSION TO NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY

**(NIST)**

**Voluntary labeling of Packages with Only Metric Units**

From John Barker, Manager Trade Measurement, Ministry of Consumer
Affairs New Zealand and Chair Asia Pacific Legal Metrology Forum working
group on Goods Packed by Measure

Thank you for inviting me to attend the public forum on the efforts to
update Federal and State packaging and labeling laws and regulations in
the USA to give manufacturers the option to voluntarily label packages
with only metric units. I am sorry that I am unable to attend, you will
appreciate that it is a long way from New Zealand. I hope the following
comments on the experience in New Zealand and the work we are doing in
the Asia Pacific rim to harmonize the regulatory environment will be
helpful.

# New Zealand

Is an independent member of the British Commonwealth situated in the
South Pacific. New Zealand has a population of 4 million made up
predominately of 88% European (Pakeha), 12% Maori and Polynesian. New
Zealand has a single chamber national Parliament based on the
Westminster system. Although we have a system of local government it
does not enforce weights and measures legislation. This is administered
and enforced by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, a central government
agency.

The GDP of New Zealand is US\$85 billion. Our major industries are food
processing, wood and paper products, wool, textiles, dairy products,
iron and steel. Our major trading partners are Australia, Japan and the
USA.

# The New Zealand experience 

New Zealand made a decision to go metric in 1970. The change was a
progressive change mostly done on a voluntary basis. In 1976/7
amendments to the weights and measures legislation provided that all non
metric weighing and measuring devices would not be accepted for trade
use and that marking on packaged goods must be in metric only units. One
exception to this rule was that dual marked packages could be authorized
for sale. Interestingly from an American viewpoint the legislation
talked about allowing dual marking with \'imperial\' units. Subsequently
it was realized that dual marking metric with \'American\' units (e.g.
US pint) was not allowed.

The weights and measures legislation was reviewed and re-written in
1987. We still provide that dual marking is acceptable including
\'American\' units. The conditions on the use of dual marking are:

-   that the non metric unit is additional to the metric marking, and

-   the figures the non metric unit is marked in are no larger than the
    metric marking, and

-   the packages have been imported into New Zealand, or

-   the packages are part of a production originally designated for
    export to a country requiring the non metric marking.

The rationale for this legislation is that goods produced in New Zealand
for New Zealand consumption must use metric only marking. However, we do
not wish to unreasonably limit goods imported into New Zealand nor do we
wish our regulations to be viewed as a Technical Barrier to Trade (TBT)
under the World Trade Organization\'s TBT rules. Therefore, we allow the
importation of dual marked packages that comply with the above criteria.

There will also be occasions when a New Zealand manufacturer cannot fill
an order for a specific market that required non metric marking or that
the costs of supplying goods to both metric and non metric markets does
not warrant separate production lines. In these cases if the product is
dual marked as set out in the legislation the packages can be accepted
for sale on the New Zealand market.

The New Zealand legislation on metric marking applies to all packages
supplied in trade whether they are consumer packages or supplied for
further processing or non-consumer use.

For the sake of this discussion I would like to place goods in 3
categories that operated at the time we switched to metric markings,
namely; unit priced goods, those packed in standard sizes and those
neither unit priced or standard sized.

## Unit priced packages 

This category included mostly \'catchweight\' products in supermarkets,
large grocery stores and meat markets. As these items were unit priced
there were no concerns over comparing value because of metric only
marking.

## Standard sized packages 

At the time that metric only marking came onto the shop shelves some
product was regulated in standard sizes (i.e. coffee, tea, butter,
margarine, milk, pasta, honey, pepper, rice, salt, sugar, paint, nails
and tobacco). Interestingly as we worked through developing new
regulated metric sizes for these products, the exercise led us to
consider whether regulating for standard sizes was appropriate. The
requirement to standard size listed products was revoked in 1987. It is
possible that by this time consumers became better educated on or able
to accept metric only marking.

## Packages neither unit priced or standard sized 

A large range of packages on sale at the time metric only marking was
introduced were neither unit priced or sold in regulated standard sizes.
Providing metric only marking for this category of packages appears not
to have been a problem for New Zealand consumers.

The issue of whether consumers were unable to make value comparisons
simply because the packages are only marked in metric units was not
raised at the time of metrication or at the time standard size
requirements were revoked. The issue of whether standard sizes enabled
consumers to make value judgements was an issue at the time deregulation
was considered but the prevailing view was that consumers and
manufacturers were more better placed than regulators to make marketing
decisions on sizes of packages.

## Other assistance for consumers 

The Government set up a Metric Advisory Board to make recommendations on
the changeover and oversee it. The Metric Advisory Board circulated a
considerable amount of information to assist in the metric changeover.
This included information to assist industry, traders and consumers and
I think included in this was literature (pamphlets and posters) on
conversion factors.

# Trade implications 

Access to the US market for New Zealand manufacturers is an objective
that all New Zealand regulators are keen to promote and fits well in the
overall objectives that the New Zealand Government has set. There is
discussion under way about a bilateral free trade agreement between the
USA and New Zealand, as there is between the USA and other countries.
The implications of such an agreement usually mean that goods that can
legally be sold in one economy can be legally sold in the other economy.
Obviously if regulatory requirements are reasonably harmonized the free
trade agreement will work much better and cause less \'local\'
difficulty.

New Zealand is a member of the Asia Pacific Legal Metrology Forum
(APLMF) and works in that forum with our colleagues from NIST. One of
the objectives for APLMF is to harmonize requirements on the OIML
recommendations. For a country the size of New Zealand harmonization of
regulatory requirements has major advantages. The Asia Pacific rim also
provides a substantial trading area even to an economy the size of the
USA. Moving towards metric only marking will be one small step in the
progress to harmonization. Such a major step by the USA will also assist
other economies in that it will remove the excuse to dual marked goods.
This will ensure that we complete the world-wide move to a metric
trading environment.

In summary New Zealand would support moves within the USA to voluntary
metric only labeling of packages. While no problems occurred in New
Zealand when metric only marking was introduced some goods were at the
time regulated in standard sizes. We are not able to ascertain whether
this was helpful to the move to metrics but no concern was evident with
non standard sized packages.