United States Department of Agriculture, Board of Food and Dairy Inspection. The facts of the Notice of Judgment 94-100. (Artificially Lithiated Water Labeled as a Natural Product.) The facts of the case were as follows: On May 23, 1908, an inspector of the Department of Agriculture purchased from the Arlington Bottling Company, Washington, D. C., samples of water labeled "Rock Spring Lithia, Chas. Jacobsen, Sole Distributor, Washington, D. C.," and in addition there was on each label a pictorial representation of a woman drawing water from a spring. Previous to the purchase of these samples on May 23, 1908, an inspector visited the establishment of the Arlington Bottling Company and ascertained that the water contained in bottles bearing the label above set forth was manufactured in said establishment and was a distilled water artificially lithiated. It was evident that the water was misbranded in violation of section 8 of the act in that the label thereon clearly conveyed the impression that the article was a natural lithia water. Accordingly, on September 29, 1908, the facts were reported by the Secretary of Agriculture to the Attorney-General and the case referred to the United States attorney for the District of Columbia, who forthwith filed an information against the said Charles Jacobsen, with the result that a fine of $75.00 for the first offense and $25.00 for the second has been imposed. (N. J. 95.) MISBRANDING OF CANNED CORN. The facts in this case were as follows: On or about January 30, 1909, an inspector of the Department of Agriculture found in the possession of the F. T. Gunther Grocery Company, Owensboro, Ky., 800 cases (each containing 2 dozen cans) of corn labeled "2 dozen 2 lbs. Dana's Luscious Sugar Corn, packed by the Carthage Cannery, Carthage, Ind." The corn had been shipped the F. T. Gunther Company by the Henry Coburn Storage and Warehouse Company, a corporation, of Indianapolis, Ind., for account of J. M. Paver and Company, and were invoiced by the Dana Canned Goods Company, a corporation doing business at Belpre, Ohio. A number of cans were weighed by the inspector and the average gross weight of each was found to be 23 ounces. The corn was, therefore, misbranded within the meaning of section 8 of the act, and on February 1, 1909, the facts were reported by the Secretary of Agriculture to the United States attorney for the western district of Kentucky, and libel for seizure and condemnation was duly filed with the result that the cost and a $500.00 bond be paid by the defendant company. (N. J. 96.) MISBRANDING OF A CEREAL. (As to Quality and Digestive Properties.) The facts in the case were as follows: On March 16, 1908, an inspector of the Department of Agriculture purchased from the Henry Siegel Company, Boston, Mass., samples of a food product labeled as above stated. The goods were a part of a shipment made by the manufacturers, the New England Food Company, South Norwalk, Conn., to Henry Siegel Company, on or about September 10, 1907. A sample of the product was subjected to analysis in the Bureau of Chemistry of the Department of Agriculture, and the following results obtained and stated: Water (per cent) Fat (per cent) Protein (per cent) Crude fiber (per cent) Carbohydrates by difference (per cent) Fuel value (calories per gram) 3.78 1.70 .11 12.31 1.07 81.03 3,977.72 It was evident that the article was not a rich concentrated food, and had not property of assisting in the digestion of other foods, and was therefore misbranded within the meaning of section 8 of the act, because the statements on the label that "Nivara is a rich concentrated food" and "a wonderful property of Nivara is that it helps to digest other foods" were false, misleading, and deceptive. The Secretary of Agriculture having, on August 11, 1908, afforded the dealer and manufacturer a hearing, and the dealer having established a guaranty, and the manufacturers having failed to show any fault or error in the aforesaid analysis, the facts were reported on January 29, 1909, to the Attorney-General, and the case referred to the United States attorney for the district of Conneticut, who fled an information against the New England Food Company, with the result J at the Court imposed a $10.00 fine upon the defending Co. (N. J. 97.) MISBRANDING OF CANNED TOMATOES. (Underweight.) The facts in the case were as follows: On or about January 30, 1909, an inspector of the Department of Agriculture found in the possession of the Henkel-Duke Mercantile Company, Pueblo, Colo., 135 cases (each containing 24 cans) of tomatoes and labeled "2 doz. 21⁄2 lb. Cans Tomatoes from Riverdale Canning Company, Packers of Choice Utah Tomatoes, Riverdale, Utah." These goods had been shipped to the Henkel-Duke Mercantile Company by the Riverdale Canning Company from Ogden, Utah, on October 7, 1907. A number of the cans were weighed by the inspector and the average gross weight of each was found to be 2 pound 3 ounces. The cases were, therefore, misbranded within the meaning of section 8 of the act, and on January 30, 1909, the facts were reported by the Secretary of Agriculture to the United States attorney for the district of Colorado and libel for seizure and condemnation was duly filed with the results that the cost of this proceeding be paid by the defending Co., and a thousand dollar bond be filed with the court to insure proper labeling of the confiscated tomatoes. (N. J. 98.) ADULTERATION AND MISBRANDING OF SYRUP. (As to Presence of Maple Sugar) The facts in the case were as follows: On March 20, 1908, an inspector of the Department of Agriculture purchased from Jas. Carson and Company, Springfield, Ohio, a sample of a syrup labeled "Belle Isle Pure Vermont Syrup. Formula, Maple Sugar 40%, Cane Sugar 60%. Put up by E. A. Charbonneau Co., Detroit, Michigan," which sample was part of a shipment made by the E. A. Charbonneau Company from Detroit, Mich.,. to Springfield, Ohio, on or about December 20, 1907. This sample was subjected to analysis in the Bureau of Chemistry of the Department of Agriculture and the following results obtained and stated: It was apparent that the article was adulterated and misbranded; adulterated because of the substitution of cane sugar for maple sugar and misbranded because it was labeled "Maple Sugar 40%, Cane Sugar 60%," when, as a matter of fact, it contained no maple sugar. The Secretary of Agriculture having, on September 30, 1908, afforded the manufacturers an opportunity to show any fault or error in the aforesaid analysis and they having failed to do so, the facts were reported to the Attorney-General on February 20, 1909, and the case referred to the United States attorney for the eastern district of Michigan, who filed an information against the said E. A. Charbonneau Company, with the result that the court imposed a $10.00 fine. (N, J. 99.) MISBRANDING OF SYRUP. (As to Place of Manufacture and Amount of Maple Sugar Present.) The facts in the case were as follows: On January 18, 1908, an inspector of the Department of Agriculture purchased from John Ghiotto, Yuma, Ariz., a sample of a food product labeled "Strictly Pure Canada Maple and White Sugar Blended Syrup. Pacific Coast Syrup Co. San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, Portland." This sample was a part of a shipment made by the Pacific Coast Syrup Company from Los Angeles, Cal., to John Ghiotto, Yuma, Ariz., on or about November 7, 1907. The sample was subjected to analysis in the Bureau of Chemistry of the United States Department of Agriculture, and was found to contain but a very small amount of maple syrup. It was apparent that the syrup was misbranded within the meaning of section 8 of the act in that the label "Strictly Pure Canada Maple and White Sugar Blended Syrup" represented that the syrup was composed for the greater part of maple syrup and that its source of origin was the Dominion of Canada, whereas it contained but a very small amount of maple syrup and was produced and manufactured in California. The Secretary of Agriculture having, on August 5, 1908, afforded the manufacturers an opportunity to show any fault or error in the aforesaid analysis and they having failed to do so, the facts were duly reported to the Attorney-General on December 17, 1908, and the case referred to the United States Attorney for the southern district of California, who filed an information against the said Pacific Coast Syrup Company, with the result that the court imposed upon it a fine of $10.00 and costs of prosecution. (N. J. 100.) MISBRANDING OF SYRUP. (As to Place of Manufacture and Manufacturer. The facts in the case were as follows: On or about January 5, 1909, an inspector of the Department of Agriculture found in the possession of George Bubb and Sons, Williamsport, Pa., 20 barrels and 8 half barrels of sirup labeled "George Bubb and Sons, Haleeka Club Sirup, Compound 90 per cent Corn Sirup, 10 per cent Refiners Sirup, Williamsport, Pa." The sirup had been shipped by the Corn Products Refining Company from Granite City, Ill., to George Bubb and Sons, Williamsport, Pa., on December 14, 1908. It was misbranded in violation of section 8 of the act because the label thereon represented that it had been manufactured by George Bubb and Sons, at Williamsport, Pa., when, in fact, it had been manufactured by the Corn Products Refining Company at Granite City, Ill. On January 6, 1909, the facts were reported by the Secretary of Agriculture to the United States attorney for the middle district of Pennsylvania and libel for seizure and condemnation of the sirup, under section 10 of the act, was duly filed with the result that the costs of this proceeding be paid by the defending Co., and a thousand dollar bond be executed, delivered, until the 26 barrels of sirup are properly labeled. The facts in the case were as follows: On March 24, 1909, R. E. Stallings, State chemist of Georgia, acting under directions of Hon. T. G. Hudson, commissioner of agriculture of said State, in pursuance of the authorization of the Secretary of Agriculture of the United States, in accordance with regulation 3 of the rules and regulations for the enforcement of the Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 1906, found in Atlanta, Ga., a consignment of two carloads of grain purporting to be "No. 3 White Oats," samples of which were taken and analyzed, The oats had been shipped by the Interstate Warehouse and Elevator Company from St. Louis, Mo., on or about March 17, 1909, to Atlanta, Ga., with instructions to notify T. H. Brooke & Co., of the last named city. The analysis disclosed that the oats in one of the cars contained 19.25 per cent of barley and 8.55 per cent of other seeds not oats and chaff, and that the oats in the other car contained 23.98 per cent of barley and 5.86 per cent of chaff and other seeds not oats. The facts were reported by the Commissioner of Agriculture of Georgia to the United States attorney for the northern district of said State and libel for seizure and condemnation of the oats was duly filed under section 10 of the act, with the result that the defending Co. pay all cost of this proceeding and execute a $1000 bond with security of proper labeling of said goods. United States Department of Agriculture, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, BOARD OF FOOD AND DRUG INSPECTION. FOOD INSPECTION DECISION 110. SHELLFISH. The Department has investigated the preparation and shipment of oysters, clams, and other shellfish. A public hearing on this subject was held by the Board of Food and Drug Inspection on May 20, 1909. At this hearing, growers, packers, dealers, and the public were afforded an opportunity to be heard. It is unlawful to ship or to sell in interstate commerce oysters or other shellfish taken from insanitary or polluted beds. The pollution of oysters with sewage can readily be detected by bacteriological examination, and such polluted oysters or other shellfish are adulterated under section 7 of the Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 1906, in that they contain an added "poisonous or other added deleterious ingredients which may render such article injurious to health." Such articles are likewise adulterated under section 7, in the case of foods because they consist "in whole or in part of a filthy, decomposed, or putrid animal or vegetable substance." It is unlawful to ship or to sell in interstate commerce oysters or other shellfish which have become polluted because of packing under insanitary conditions or being placed in unclean receptacles. In order to prevent pollution during the packing or shipment of oysters, it is necessary to give proper attention to the sanitary conditions of the establishment in which they are packed and to use only receptacles which have been thoroughly cleansed as soon as emptied. In order to prevent the possibility of contamination, it is desirable that such containers be sterilized before using. It is unlawful to ship or to sell in interstate commerce oysters or other shellfish which have been subjected to "floating" or "drinking" in brackish water, or water containing less salt than that in which they are grown. Such food is adulterated under section 7 of the law because a substance "has been mixed and packed with it so as to reduce or lower or injuriously affect its quality or strength." There can be no objection to"drinking" shellfish in unpolluted water of the same salt content as that from which they have been removed. Attention is called, however, to the dangers resulting from "drinking" shellfish near polluted fresh water streams and near other sources of pollution. It is unlawful to ship or to sell in interstate commerce shucked oysters to which water has been added, either directly or in the form of melted ice. Such food is adulterated under section 7 of the act because a "substance has been mixed and packed with it so as to reduce or lower or injuriously affect its quality or strength," and also because a "substance has been substituted wholly or in part for the article." The packing of shellfish with ice in contact may lead to the absorption by the oyster of a portion of the water formed by the melting ice, thus leading to the adulteration of the oysters with water. |