European units of measurement directives

• Directive 85/1/EEC of 18 December 1984[7] was a technical amendment to reflect the change in the definition of the metre and included other minor changes to the catalogue of allowable units.
• Directive 89/617/EEC of 27 November 1989[8] changed the cutoff dates for supplementary units to 31 December 1999 and cutoff dates for those imperial units that were previously allowed were extended to 31 December 1994 for some units and to 31 December 1999 for other units.
• Directive 1999/103/EC of 24 January 2000[9] included minor changes to the catalogue of allowable units. The cutoff date for the use of supplementary units was extended to 31 December 2009.
• Directive 2009/3/EC of 11 March 2009:[10] In 2006 it became apparent that the 2009 cut-off for the use of supplementary units could cause problems in US-EU trade. The EU Commission published a consultation document[11] and on the basis of responses received[12] proposed modifications of Directive 80/181/EEC which would continue the current practice by:[13]
  • Permitting indefinitely the use of supplementary indications. This will ensure a continued application of the current practice and will allow continuing flexibility as regards nonmetric units when no metric units exist, e.g. binary measurements in computing (bits, bytes).
  • Including the new SI unit for catalytic activity (the "katal"), adopted by the General Conference on Weights and Measures.
  • Allowing the United Kingdom and Ireland to continue the limited exemptions concerning specified uses of the pint, mile and the troy ounce, considering absence of impact of these exemptions on cross border trade and the principle of subsidiarity; whilst repealing the exemption for the use of acre for land registration which is no longer applied.
  • Clarifying the scope of the Directive to be fully in line with the existing Treaties by no longer mentioning specific fields to which the Directive is applicable

These amendments were published on 7 May 2009 and became effective on 1 January 2010.

The directive, or more precisely the British legislation amended to implement the directive,[14] 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[15] and half-litre, even though the law required the use of pints.[16] Some were convicted of offences under weights and measures legislation and became known as the "Metric Martyrs".

In spite of the extension till 2009, the provisions of this directive, in particular the provisions prohibiting dual labelling were a cause of serious concern in the United States. In 2005 there were informal consultations between the US and the EU.[17] 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.[18][19][20][21]

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.[22] The United States raised serious concerns concerning mutual trade and incompatibility with US legislation, such as the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act.[23] There was also concern as to how the directive would be interpreted.[24][25] Other organisations also voiced criticisms.[26] Many organisation, such as the AeA (formerly the American Electronics Association) advocated a continuation of "dual labelling".[27] Eurosceptic groups in the UK, such as the United Kingdom Independence Party also expressed concern.[28] Other US trade organisations pointed to incompatibilities with US legislation[29] and noted that the directive applies not just to labelling but also to advertising, instruction manuals, etc.[30] 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.[31] 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.[12]

The proposal met with measured approval by advocacy groups that had opposed the legislation.[32][33] 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.[34]