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' lo