| BWMA - campaigning for inch-pound industries and
consumer interests
Home
News in
brief
Consumer Affairs
Business Issues
The Political
Front The Legal
Campaign
Metric Transport and Signs
International
Trade
Join the Action
Metric Culprits
Discussion Forums |
Trans Atlantic
Business Dialogue
Opposition to the EC's requirement that all products sold in the EU
must be labelled in metric-only units from January 1st, 2000 led in 1997 to the
formation of a coalition by a hundred companies and associations from the USA
and Europe. The coalition was headed by the Trans Atlantic Business Dialogue
Group (TABD). The TABC stated:
"The incompatibility of the EU’s metric-only requirement with
the US dual labeling requirement for consumer packaging is a serious problem
for affected European and US companies because of the enormous non-value added
costs (separate packaging, labeling, warehousing and inventory systems), the
potential environmental impact, consumer safety issues, and the affect of
increased costs on global competitiveness. EU and US industry share the view
that the market should decide whether metric-only units provides sufficient
information for the end-user or whether dual units of measurement e.g. metric
and inch/pound should be used".
In
other words, the coalition opposed metric-only labelling because of the
duplicated processes and product lines that it would create; metric-only for
the EU, and dual customary-metric for the USA. During a meeting of Coalition
representatives and EC commissioners in Rome during November 1997, the
Coalition urged an amendment to the EC directive to make an indefinite
extension to the metric-only deadline. That the EC recognised the difficulties
caused by metric-only labelling was indicated by a message sent by Brussels to
US agencies summarising developments:
"Exporters, both European and American, have begun to focus on this
deadline and are now openly voicing their objections, citing the costs of
complying with conflicting EU metric-only and US mandatory dual-labelling
requirements. At least one European Commission official is admitting that the
trade implications of directive 80/181/EEC requiring metric-only labelling had
not been thoroughly measured, and is indicating a willingness on the part of
the Commission to reopen the issue to hear indsustry
grievances".
European members of the coalition included companies and associations
from Germany, France, Belgium, Italy, Ireland, the Netherlands, Finalnd, Greece
and Turkey. American companies that were part of the coalition included IBM,
Mobil Oil, Estée Lauder and Hewlett Packard. British members included
associations representing producers of food and drink, confectionery,
perfumery, cosmetics and tea.
The
TABD put forward the following reasons for opposition to metric-only labelling:
| Extent of Impact:
|
Annual bilateral trade of more
than $126 billion in consumer goods and $160 billion in capital goods would be
exposed to increased costs caused by the metric-only labeling
requirement. |
| Financial and Logistical
Burdens: |
Compliance with
the Directive would require many companies engaged in US-EU trade to create
separate packaging and labeling, manuals, product information inserts,
software, design and engineering drawings, as well as maintain separate
warehousing and inventory systems for metric and non-metric markets.
Significant and unnecessary costs would be imposed on manufacturers on both
sides of the Atlantic, for many exceeding tens of millions of dollars/Euros
annually, that will have to be passed on to consumers. The additional costs
could force some small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) out of the
transatlantic marketplace or discourage their entry.
|
| Environmental
Concerns: |
The metric-only labeling requirement could significantly
compromise packaging and waste reduction objectives in the EU. Metric-only
labeling, and other measures which restrict consumer information on packaging,
forces EU manufacturers who sell globally including to the US, to utilize more
packaging, eg one set for metric only and one set for dual units, whereas today
the same package can often be used for both. This increases the amount of
packaging that has to be produced and ultimately disposed of in the European
environment. Metric-only and similarly restrictive labeling requirements appear
at odds with provisions of the EU Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste
(No. 94/62) which encourage standards that prevent packaging waste.
|
| Consumer Safety: |
For some
industries there are serious safety concerns. The elimination of inch-pound
measurements in design and engineering drawings and instrumentation could
compromise product integrity and safety. Higher risks of human error are also
introduced if the end-user is not proficient in metric. Equipment manufacturers
point out that the conversion of inch/pound units to metric is not exact and
theirs is a sector where precision is vital. |
During 1998, the EC
made a number of proposals, including a 3 to 5 year delay on metric-only
labelling, with possible extensions for individual industries if they could
justify a need. After protests by TABC members that such a plan would cause
"serious disruptions" to business, the European Commission proposed in February
1999 a blanket delay of the metric-only labelling for 10 years ie until 31
December 2009. The proposal was sent to the European Parliament, which on
December 15th 1999, just two weeks before the cut-off point, approved the
proposal. The Council of Ministers confirmed this decision December 17th.
The EU Parliament
acknowledged the disadvantage to exporters that would result if only metric
units were permitted on all products as of January 1, 2000, while the TABD
described the ten-year delay as an "important safeguard to protect EU and US
industry from enormous additional costs and regulatory uncertainty".
|