Download Metrication in the United States: 200 Years

Notice: This material may be protected by © law, (Title 17 US Code)
Do Not Copy
2009 Honorable Mention Research Paper
Metrication in the United States: 200 Years Overdue
$125 million lost in a matter of seconds. On September 30, 1999, the Mars Climate Orbiter spacecraft
entered too close to the atmosphere of Mars, where it was destroyed upon impact with the planet. In a press
release from NASA regarding the crash, the culprit was identified. The mission had two command centers using
different measurement systems, one in California, and one in Colorado. The failure to convert between metric
units and English units left the spacecraft in pieces on Mars’s surface instead of in a safe orbit. As a science
major, I’m familiar with the metric system because it is the standard that all scientists use worldwide. All
measurements that scientists make are done with the metric system, making the communication and sharing of
data much simpler. As the metric system has swept the world, the United States has made attempts to adopt the
system, through the Treaty of Meter, the Metric Conversion Act, and the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness
Act. However, the U.S. still uses the English imperial system for weights and measures. The metric system is
part of the daily lives of all American citizens, and can even be found on some highways because of the
National Highway System Designation Act. State agencies have expressed the importance of learning the
system, and the benefits and profits which build year after year. Using evidentiary support from past
experiences as a basis for lawmaking, it is clear that the United States must adopt the metric system and join the
rest of the industrialized world.
In his first address to Congress, President George Washington stated that, “uniformity in the currency,
weights, and measures of the United States is an object of great importance, and will, I am persuaded, be duly
attended to” (Smith 420). The metric system provides the uniformity that George Washington was searching
for. Created in France in the late eighteenth-century, the metric system is a decimal based measurement.
Relying on a base unit, additional units are created by simple increase or decrease by a factor of 10. The meter
is the base unit for measuring length and distance, and the gram is the base unit for mass. This simple system
swept the world in almost two centuries, with every industrialized nation in the world using it, with the
exception of the United States, Liberia, and Burma (“Weights”).
Government Action
Treaty of the Meter
Held in France in the 1870s, the Convention of the Meter set out to establish a universal system of
weights and measures with 15 nations in attendance, including the United States. In the subsequent Treaty of
the Meter of 1875, an International Bureau of Weights and Measures was established (Donovan 45). The
signing of the treaty was the first step towards metrication for the United States. The metric system had
previously been acknowledged and accepted by the United States as the international measurement system.
Though the intentions of the United States were correct in supporting the international system of measurements,
the system never carried over in effect to the States. The government had given support to a system that wasn’t
even going to be used in their own nation.
Metric Conversion Act
After the United States’ failure to adopt the metric system following the signing of the Treaty of the
Meter, the United States began reconsidering the switch a century later. Starting in 1968, the U.S. National
Bureau of Standards of the Department of Commerce conducted an in-depth three-year study to determine the
impact of increasing worldwide use of the metric system on the United States. In July 1971 the secretary of
commerce sent his report on the study to the Congress, and included his recommendations. He posed that “the
United States change to the International Metric System deliberately and carefully through a ten-year
coordinated national program” (Bartlett 5).This recommendation however, received neither swift nor forceful
action. Following this report, in 1975 the Metric Conversion Act was presented to Congress. The act sought to
make the metric system the preferred measurement system for all U.S. trade and commerce and the U.S. Metric
Board was formed. However, this law gave no timetable for action to be taken, making the switch to the metric
system voluntary, not mandatory (Bartlett 5). Given the switch was optional and not mandatory, few adopted
this policy.
Those who made the switch found the results worthwhile. In a 1977 case study done by Stanley Mallen,
Metrication Planning Manager for the Ford Motor Company, the simple switch from parts measured by the
English imperial system to parts measured by the metric system proved to be not only economically feasible,
but profitable. He said, “Optimized metric fasteners can be the basis for direct and administrative savings of
hundreds of millions of dollars, not just one time, but repeated each and every year” (qtd. in Bartlett 52).
Conversion is a one-time expense; the savings from conversion will continue year after year. Citing a purely
hypothetical example, Mallen said that if it cost $1 billion a year over a 10-year period to convert and savings of
one-half that amount were realized the conversion would be paid for in 20 years and thereafter the savings
would be clear profit (Donovan 162-163).
Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act
As the debate waged on, another law was passed in 1988. The Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act
required federal agencies to transition to using the metric system by the end of 1992 (Smith 427). This forceful
action taken by the government was the first major step in the past century to actually recognize and use the
metric system. Now, by law, federal agencies would be required to use the metric system.
Yet, the transition for industry still remained voluntary; the need for the change was expressed in a
report to Congress in 1990. The report states that “The rest of the developed world conducts most of its business
in metric. The U.S. has not adopted metric measurement, and other countries are beginning to reject our
products. Our customary system of measurement is a subtle, but very real trade barrier” ( Metric Conversion 4).
The government came to the realization that the rest of the world uses the metric system, and their failure to use
the metric system was beginning to take a toll. International trade is limited because of failure to adopt the
metric system; one economist claims that the United States is losing $10 billion a year in exports because of
non-metric usage. An estimate of $25 billion annual loss was expressed on the Senate floor (Donovan 163).
Another economist was quoted saying “Unless we act now, about the year 2000 we will experience a depression
that will make the 30’s look like a Sunday School picnic” (qtd. in Donovan 150). Both statements are startling
especially if we look at the current economic crisis of the day. A trade deficit of $25 billion is nothing to balk at.
U.S. conversion to the metric system has taken on new importance because of growing concerns about the trade
deficit and our nation’s declining competitiveness. The United States remains the only major industrialized
nation with a non-metric measurement system and thus is severely disadvantaged when competing in global
markets (Metric Conversion 13).
Even in the 1990 report to Congress, the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology knew the
importance of converting to the metric system. The United States was becoming less of a competitor in the
world economy, and it could lead to serious problems. The main trading partners of the United States; Canada,
China, Great Britain, and Australia had all undergone the transition to the metric system (Carver 3). In the
1980s, the ratio of imports to exports for the United States was approximately 8.5:1, and in the 1990s,
approximately 2.6:1 (Hackmann 167). This difference in exports and imports can be attributed to the United
States refusal to use the metric system. We don’t have a problem importing goods that use metric units; in fact,
most Americans use the metric system on a daily basis. In his case for metrication, author Frank Donovan
argued that,
They [American citizens] buy medicines and drugs in metric measurements; they tune their radios to
frequencies expressed in meters; by act of Congress, S.I. units are the only legal unit for electricity and
illumination; the labels on over 40 percent of packaged food products show metrics as well as avoirdupois
weight; home movie makers buy film in metric widths. (Donovan 169)
National Highway Systems Designation Act
The metric system is an integral part of our lives, yet whenever Congress passes laws to push for a
metric conversion, it is hastily fought. The most recent and publicized example of this can be the highway
metrication action taken during the 1990s. In 1991, the Federal Highway Administration (FHA) created a fiveyear timetable for metric conversion for all highway signs. This was met with strong public and congressional
opposition, and the deadline was pushed back to the year 2000 as the National Highway System Designation
Act, signed by President Bill Clinton. In response, the Department of Transport (DOT) appropriations acts
prohibited the federal government from requiring states to expend either state or federal funds on metricating
highway signs (Smith 429). These actions fell under the duties of the FHA, and should have been carried out,
following the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act. This justification was never brought up however, and
the process of metricating highway signs halted.
While the idea of a major transition regarding measurement systems may seem intimidating to the
general public, the transition isn’t a difficult one. Many argue that the general public will have a difficult time
learning the new system, and more time will be wasted doing such. State education agencies say differently. In
a survey done by the General Accounting Office of the U.S. government, 32 state education agencies agree that
“the metric system is easier to teach and would allow more time to teach other things” while 17 disagreed. 49
agencies state that “the metric system is easier to learn and will result in fewer errors” while only 1 disagrees;
37 agencies point out that “the metric system will enhance students’ achievement in scientific, vocational, and
technical subjects,” but only 7 disagree (Getting 24-8). These surveys give a much different perspective than
those of anti-metric proponents. State education agencies feel that the metric system will not be a burden, but it
will be a benefit to the future generations. The metric system is the key to the future of the United States, both
economically, scientifically, and technologically.
Though this doesn’t seem like a dire issue facing the United States, metrication has been an outstanding
argument since the nation’s inception. Upon the founding of the United States, Thomas Jefferson wanted a
universal, decimal based measurement system (Smith 420). The solution to his desire was the metric system.
The metric system has swept the globe, except for in the United States, one of three nations that still doesn’t use
the system. The United States has made several attempts to adopt the metric system through the Treaty of
Meter, the Metric Conversion Act, and the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act. These attempts were futile
though.These laws were ignored, even though the metric system is part of the daily lives of all American
citizens. As a science major, I have seen the simplicity and ease that comes with this decimal based system, and
am frustrated with the stubbornness of the American population. State agencies have expressed the ease of
learning the system, and the benefits continue to build year after year. Using past experiences as a basis for
lawmaking, it is clear that the United States must adopt the metric system and end the century-long debate.
Works Cited
Bartlett, David. The Metric Debate. Boulder, Colorado: Colorado Associated University Press, 1980. Print.
Carver, G. P.. Metrication : An Economic Wake-Up Call for U.S. Industry. Gaithersburg, MD: U.S. Dept. of
Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 1993. Print.
Donovan, Frank Robert, 1906-. Prepare Now for a Metric Future. New York: Weybright and Talley, 1970.
Print.
Getting a Better Understanding of the Metric System : Implications if Adopted by the United States : Report to
the Congress. Washington: U.S. G.P.O., 1978. Print.
Hackmann, Rolf. U.S. Trade, Foreign Direct Investments, and Global Competitiveness. Binghamton, NY:
International Business Press, 1997. Print.
Metric Conversion Hearing before the Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Technology of the Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology,. Washington: U.S. G.P.O., 1990. Print.
Smith, Jeanette. “Take Me to Your Liter: A History of Metrication in the United States.” New
Mexico State
University Library. Vol. 25 No. 5. 1998. Print.
“Weights and Measures.” CIA World Factbook. 2009, Central Intelligence Agency. Web. 2 Nov 2009.