27025. Adulteration of frozen eggs.

U. S. v. 260 Cans of Frozen Eggs. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. & D. no. 39056. Sample no. 8852-C.)

This product was represented to be frozen whole eggs. Examination showed that it consisted of a mixture of egg white and whole eggs and that it was decomposed and putrid.

On February 5, 1937, the United States attorney for the Southern District of New York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 260 cans of frozen eggs at New York, N. Y., alleging that they had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about October 16, 1936, by the Producers' Produce Co., Inc., from Springfield, Mo., and charging adulteration in violation of the Food and Drugs Act.

The article was alleged to be adulterated in that a mixture of egg white and whole eggs had been substituted wholly or in part for whole eggs, which it purported to be, and in that it consisted wholly or in part of a decomposed or putrid animal substance.

On February 25, 1937, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.

W. R. GREGG, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.

27026. Adulteration of canned sardines. U. S. v. 596 Cartons and 196 Cartons of Canned Sardines. Decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. & D. no. 30024. Samples nos. 39901-A, 39902—A.)

Samples taken from these lots of canned sardines were found to be decomposed.

On June 19, 1933, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of South Carolina, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 792 cartons of canned sardines at Charleston, S. C., alleging that they had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about May 8, 1933, by Van Camp Sea Food Co., Inc., from Terminal Island, Calif., and charging adulteration in violation of the Food and Drugs Act. The article was labeled in part: "Van Camp's Sardines in Tomato Paste * * * Packed by Van Camp Sea Food Co., Inc., Terminal Island, Calif."

The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it consisted in whole or in part of a decomposed animal substance.

On March 8, 1937, Van Camp Sea Food Co., Inc., having appeared as claimant, the following decree was entered:

"Whereas, it is alleged in the libel herein that the product described therein consists in whole or in part of a decomposed animal substance, and

"Whereas, it is agreed that the said product has now deteriorated to such an extent that it cannot be used for food, it is hereby

"Ordered, Adjudged, and Decreed, that the answer of the defendant in this case be withdrawn and that the sardines described in the libel herein be condemned, forfeited, and destroyed, and that the claimant, Van Camp Sea Food Company, Incorporated, pay the costs of this proceeding."

W. R. GREGG, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.

27027. Misbranding of vinegar. U. S. v. C. H. Musselman Co. Plea of guilty, Fine $1,500. (F. & D. no. 33971. Sample nos. 59670-A, 61758-A, 65143-A, 68002-A.)

This case involved vinegar that was short in volume.

On May 9, 1935, the United States attorney for the Northern District of West Virginia, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court an information against the C. H. Musselman Co., a corporation trading at Inwood, W. Va., alleging shipment by said company in violation of the Food and Drugs Act as amended, on or about August 31, October 3, October 5, 1933, and February 28, 1934, from the State of West Virginia into the States of Pennsylvania and Illinois of quantities of vinegar that was misbranded. A portion of the article was labeled: "Fox Brand Pure Apple Cider Contents One Pint * ** Vinegar Fox Grocery Company Charleroi, Pa. Uniontown, Pa." The remainder was labeled: "Contents Quart Rosemary Pure Apple Cider Vinegar Full Strength Samuel Kunin & Sons, Inc. Distributors Chicago, ILL"

2525-37-2

The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements "Contents One Pint" and "Contents 1 Quart", borne on the bottle labels, were false and misleading and in that the article was labeled so as to deccive and mislead the purchaser since they represented that the bottles contained 1 pint and 1 quart, respectively, of the article; whereas the bottles contained less than 1 pint and 1 quart, respectively, of the article. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that it was food in package form and the quantity of the contents was not plainly and conspicuously marked on the outside of the package, since the statement made was incorrect.

On March 23, 1937, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant and the court imposed a fine of $1,500.

W. R. GREGG, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.

27028. Misbranding of salad oil. U. S. v. Economu & Ritsos, Inc., Theodore Economu and George Economu. Pleas of guilty. Total fines, $1,500; $1,000 remitted. (F. & D. no. 35889. Sample nos. 25949-B, 44011-B, 44014-B.)

This case involved a product that consisted almost entirely of oils other than olive oil and which was labeled to convey the impression that it was olive oil.

On July 3, 1936, the United States attorney for the Southern District of New York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court an information against Economu & Ritsos, Inc., New York, N. Y., and Theodore Economu and George Economu, officers of the corporation, alleging shipment by said defendants in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on or about September 11, 1934, from the State of New York into the State of Massachusetts; and on or about December 4 and December 9, 1935, from the State of New York into the State of Rhode Island of quantities of salad oil that was misbranded. A portion of the article was labeled: "Prodotto Garantito Olio Finissimo La Gustosa Brand." The remainder was labeled: "Italian Product Extra Fine Oil Imported La Gusta Brand Lucca Italy."

The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, "Olio Finissimo. The Oil Contained In This Can Is * * Guaranteed To Be Of The Finest Quality, Extra Fine Oil, L'Olio Che Questa Latta Contiene E Di Qualita Extra Fine", with respect to the La Gustosa brand, and "Italian Product, Extra Fine Oil, Imported, Lucca, Italy, The Oil Contained In This Can Is

* Guaranteed To Be Of The Finest Quality, Imported From Italy", with respect to the La Gusta brand, together with the designs of olive branches bearing olives, borne on the cans, were false and misleading, and in that said statements and designs were borne on the cans so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since they represented that the article was olive oil and that the La Gusta brand had been imported from Italy, whereas the La Gustosa brand was composed almost wholly of oil other than olive oil and contained very little, if any, olive oil, and the La Gusta brand was a domestic product consisting almost entirely of cottonseed oil and contained very little, if any, olive oil. Misbranding was alleged with respect to the La Gusta brand for the further reason that it was an imitation of another article, namely, olive oil, and in that it was artificially flavored and colored with undeclared flavor and color.

On January 8, 1937, pleas of guilty were entered on behalf of the defendants and on January 11, 1937, the court imposed the following fines: George Economu, $150 with $100 remitted; Economu & Ritsos, Inc., $450 with $300 remitted; Theodore Economu, $900 with $600 remitted.

W. R. GREGG, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.

27029. Misbranding of dairy feed. U. S. v. The Chapman-Doake Co. Plea of guilty. Fine, $25. (F. & D. no. 35964. Sample no. 29776–B.)

This product contained less crude protein and less crude fat than was declared on the tag attached to the sack.

On August 31, 1936, the United States attorney for the Southern District of Illinois, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court an information against the Chapman-Doake Co., a corporation, Decatur, Ill., alleging shipment by said company in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on or about April 6, 1935, from the State of Illinois into the State of Indiana of a quantity of dairy feed that was misbranded. It was labeled in part: (Tag) "Special Milk Producer Dairy Feed Registered by The Chap

man-Doake Company, Decatur, Ill. Guaranteed Analysis Crude Protein, not less than 16.5% Crude Fat, not less than 3.0%."

The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, "Guaranteed Analysis Crude Protein, not less than 16.5%" and "Crude Fat, not less than 3.0%", borne on the tag, were false and misleading in that they represented that it had a crude protein content of not less than 16.5 percent, and a crude fat content of not less than 3.0 percent; whereas the article had a crude protein content and a crude fat content amounting to less than 16.5 percent and 3.0 percent, respectively; and in that the said statements were borne on the tags so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser.

On April 6, 1937, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant and the court imposed a fine of $25.

W. R. GREGG, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.

27030. Misbranding of cottonseed cake and meal. U. S. v. Warren Cotton Oil & Manufacturing Co. Plea of guilty. Fine, $10. (F. & D. no. 35965. Sample nos. 33006-B, 33012-B.)

This product contained a smaller proportion of protein than that declared on the label.

On September 30, 1935, the United States attorney for the Western District of Arkansas, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court an information against the Warren Cotton Oil & Manufacturing Co., a corporation, Warren, Ark., alleging shipment by said company in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on or about February 28, 1935, from the State of Arkansas into the State of Kansas, of quantities of cottonseed cake and meal which were misbranded. A portion of the article was labeled: "Chickasha Prime 43% Protein Cottonseed Cake or Meal Guaranteed Analysis Protein not less than 43.00% * Manufactured by or for Chickasha Cotton Oil Company Chickasha, Okla." The remainder was labeled: "Ama-Tex Brand 43% Protein Cotton Seed Cake and Meal Guaranteed Analysis Protein not less than 43% *

* Manufactured For C. R. Garner & Co. Amarillo, Texas." The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, "43% Protein" and "Guaranteed Analysis Protein, not less than 43.00% [or “43%"]," borne on the tags attached to the sacks containing the article, were false and misleading and were borne on said tags so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since the article contained less than 43 percent of protein, samples taken from each of the two consignments having been found to contain not more than 39.38 percent and 40.50 percent, respectively, of protein.

On October 31, 1936, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant and the court imposed a fine of $10 and costs.

W. R. GREGG, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.

27031. Adulteration of canned tomato paste. U. S. v. 100, 100, and 500 Cartons of Canned Tomato Paste. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction. (F. & D. nos. 36156, 36159, 36215. Sample nos. 15558-B, 16045-B, 16046-B.)

This product contained filth resulting from worm infestation.

On August 22 and 26, 1935, the United States attorney for the Southern District of New York, acting upon reports by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court libels praying seizure and condemnation of 700 cartons of canned tomato paste at New York, N. Y., alleging that it had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about July 13 and 19, 1935, by the Coast Fishing Co., from Wilmington, Calif., and charging adulteration in violation of the Food and Drugs Act. A portion of the article was labeled: "Campania Brand Tomato Paste * * Packed by [or "Exclusive Packers"] Italian Food Products Co., Inc., Long Beach, Calif." The remainder was labeled: "Reumberto Tomatine Concentrated Tomato Paste United Pure Food Co., N. Y., Distributors."

The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it consisted in whole or in part of a filthy vegetable substance.

On February 18 and March 25, 1937, orders of the court having been entered providing that the answers of the claimants be withdrawn and canceled, judgments of condemnation were entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed and that costs be assessed against the claimants, Domenico D'Angiola and the Anaheim Canning Co., Inc. of New York, N. Y.

W. R. GREGG, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.

27032. Adulteration of canned salmon. guilty. Fine, $50 and costs. 37897-B.)

U. S. v. Superior Packing Co. Plea of (F. & D. no. 36998. Sample nos. 37894–B,

This case involved canned salmon that was in part decomposed.

On May 15, 1936, the United States attorney for the Western District of Washington, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court an information against the Superior Packing Co., a corporation, Seattle, Wash., alleging shipment by said company in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on or about September 16, 1935, from the Territory of Alaska into the State of Washington, of a quantity of canned salmon which was adulterated.

The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it consisted in part of a decomposed and putrid animal substance.

On March 1, 1937, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant and the court imposed a fine of $50 and costs.

W. R. GREGG, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.

27033. Adulteration of canned salmon. U. S. v. Western Pacific Packing Co. Plea of guilty. Fine, $150 and costs. (F. & D. no. 37001. Sample nos. 53606-B, 53614-B, 53646-B, 64981-B.)

This case involved canned salmon that was in part decomposed. On November 16, 1936, the United States attorney for the Western District of Washington, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court an information against the Western Pacific Packing Co., a corporation, trading at Seattle, Wash., alleging shipment by said company in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on or about September 15, 1935, from the Territory of Alaska into the State of Washington, a quantity of canned salmon which was adulterated.

The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it consisted in part of a decomposed animal substance.

On January 11, 1937, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant and the court imposed a fine of $150 and costs.

W. R. GREGG, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.

27034. Misbranding of cottonseed cake. U. S. v. Rule-Jayton Cotton Oil Co. Plea of guilty. Fine, $50. (F. & D. no. 87056. Sample no. 49180-B.)

This case involved cottonseed cake that contained less protein than declared on the label.

On July 1, 1936, the United States attorney for the Northern District of Texas, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court an information against the Rule-Jayton Cotton Oil Co., a corporation, Stamford, Tex., alleging shipment by said company in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on or about November 28, 1935, from the State of Texas into the State of Kansas of a quantity of cottonseed cake that was misbranded. The article was labeled in part: (Tag) "Rule-Jayton Cotton Oil Company Manufacturers of Cottonseed Products Stamford, Texas

Guaranty Crude Protein, not less than 43%."

The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement "crude protein not less than 43%", borne on the tag, was false and misleading and in that it was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since it contained less than 43 percent of crude protein, namely, not more than 40.56 percent of crude protein.

On December 7, 1936, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant and the court imposed a fine of $50.

W. R. GREGG, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.

27035. Misbranding of maple sirup sugar cakes. U. (Alhambra Candy Co.). Plea of guilty. year under suspended sentence of $100 fine. nos. 40733-B, 65265-B.)

S. v. William H. Godfrey Placed on probation for 1 (F. & D. no. 87064. Sample

This product contained approximately 20 percent of maple sugar and was labeled to indicate that it consisted wholly of maple sugar.

On September 8, 1936, the United States attorney for the Southern District of California, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court an information against William H. Godfrey, trading as Alhambra Candy Co., Alhambra, Calif., alleging shipment by said defendant in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on or about January 28 and March 6, 1936, from the State of California into the State of Washington, of a quantity of maple

sirup sugar cakes that were misbranded. The article was labeled in part: (Crate) "Vermont Maple Syrup Sugar Cakes"; (wrapper) "Vermont Maple Syrup Sugar Cakes 100% Pure."

The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, "Vermont Maple Syrup Sugar Cakes", borne on the crates and wrappers, and "100% Pure", borne on the wrappers were false and misleading, and in that it was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since the said statements represented that it consisted wholly of maple sirup sugar; whereas it consisted in large part of a product other than maple sirup sugar.

On March 1, 1937, the defendant entered a plea of guilty and was placed on probation for 1 year under a suspended sentence of $100 fine.

W. R. GREGG, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.

27036. Adulteration and misbranding of whisky. U. S. v. 4 Cases of Alleged Whisky. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. & D. no. 37146. Sample no. 67426-B.)

This case involved imitation whisky that had been substituted for whisky. On February 3, 1936, the United States attorney for the District of Delaware, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court a libel praying seizure and condemnation of four cases of alleged whisky at Wilmington, Del., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about December 19, 1935, by the National Wholesale Liquor Co. from Baltimore, Md., and charging adulteration and misbranding in violation of the Food and Drugs Act. The article was labeled in part: "Seaboard Whiskey Bottled for Seaboard Distillers Products Baltimore, Md."

The article was alleged to be adulterated in that imitation whisky had been substituted for the article.

It was alleged to be misbranded in that the name "Whiskey" was false and misleading and tended to deceive and mislead the purchaser when applied to imitation whisky, and in that it was an imitation of and was offered for sale under the distinctive name of another article, namely, whisky.

On October 14, 1936, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.

W. R. GREGG, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.

27037. Adulteration and misbranding of olive oil. U. S. v. 16 Half-Gallon Cans, 15 Quart Cans, and 55 Gallon Cans of Olive Oil. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. & D. no. 37807. Sample nos. 55339-B, 55340-B.)

This case involved olive oil adulterated with tea-seed oil.

On June 11, 1936, the United States attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 86 cans of olive oil at Chicago, Ill., alleging that it had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about February 21 and April 27, 1936, by Moscahlades Bros., Inc., from New York, N. Y., and charging adulteration and misbranding in violation of the Food and Drugs Act. The article was labeled in part: "Elephant Brand Imported Virgin Olive Oil Embro Import Co. New York, N. Y. Sole

Distributors."

It was alleged to be adulterated in that tea-seed oil had been mixed and packed therewith so as to reduce and lower its quality or strength, and had been substituted in whole or in part for olive oil, which it purported to be.

*

The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements and designs appearing on the labels were false and misleading and tended to deceive and mislead the purchaser when applied to a product containing teaseed oil; "Imported Virgin Olive Oil Puro Olio d'Oliva Vergine [design of olive branch and olives] The olive oil contained in this can is pressed from fresh picked selected olives. It is guaranteed to be absolutely pure under chemical analysis and is highly recommended for table use and medicinal purposes"; L'Olio di oliva che questa latta contiene, e prodotto da olive accuratamente scelte, e garantito di essere assolutamente puro sotto qualunque analisi chemica. Esso e altamente raccomandato tanto per uso de tavola come per uso medicinale.”; “Imported Olive Oil”; “Imported from Italy.' It was alleged to be misbranded further in that it was offered for sale under the distinctive name of another article, namely, olive oil.

On March 25, 1937, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.

W. R. GREGG, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.