Protests in the United Kingdom The directive, or more precisely the British legislation amended to implement the directive, was the subject of considerable
controversy in the United Kingdom. In particular, some food sellers refused to comply, selling vegetable by the
pound without a metric equivalent. Others used only non-metric
scales or sold beer or cider by the litre and half-litre, even though the law required the use of pints. In 2006, the US Department of Commerce made US companies aware of potential problems and lobbied for a further extension of dual labelling, which would be more consistent with United States legislation, in particular the Federal
Fair Packaging and Labeling Act.
Consultations in 2007 In the light of the impending termination of the acceptance of non-metric units as supplementary units in 2009 and in view of the extension of the SI system at an international level (especially in the United States), the
European Commission decided in 2007 to consider amendments to the directive and initiated consultations with interested parties, including the United States government. The United States raised serious concerns concerning mutual trade and incompatibility with US legislation, such as the
Fair Packaging and Labeling Act. There was also concern as to how the directive would be interpreted. Other organisations also voiced criticisms. Many organisation, such as the
AeA (formerly the American Electronics Association) advocated a continuation of "dual labelling".
Eurosceptic groups in the UK, such as the
United Kingdom Independence Party also expressed concern. Other US
trade organisations pointed to incompatibilities with US legislation and noted that the directive applies not just to labelling but also to advertising, instruction manuals, etc. The report on the consultations lists other problems in the United States. Many different groups and individuals contributed to the consultations on amendments to the directive carried out in 2007. The majority of private individuals who responded were in favour of ending the use of supplementary indications. However, without exception the European and American industry federations and individual firms who responded were in favour of retaining supplementary indications for another ten years or indefinitely. They pointed to conflicting federal law in the United States that would have necessitated relabelling. All member states who responded were also in favour of extending supplementary indications.
Response to the European Commission proposal The proposal met with measured approval by advocacy groups that had opposed the legislation. The Commission proposal was also welcomed, even before it was officially published, by metrication advocates in the United States, who hoped that it would help promote the cause of
metrication in the United States. ==See also==