On April 24, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Maryland filed a libel against 524 cases, each containing 24 cans, of sauerkraut at Baltimore, Md., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce from Philadelphia, Pa., on or about January 28, 1941, by Union Premier Food Stores and that it remained in interstate commerce on the premises of A. J. Harris, Baltimore, Md.; and charging that it was misbranded in that the statement "Fancy Quality" was false and misleading as applied to an article that was not Fancy because of off-color, odor, and flavor. It was labeled in part: "Net weight 1 lb. 11 oz."

On May 15, 1941, A. J. Harris & Co., Baltimore, Md., claimant, having admitted the allegations of the libel, judgment of condemnation was entered and the product was ordered released under bond conditioned that it be relabeled under the supervision of the Food and Drug Administration.

2000. Misbranding of canned succotash. U. S. v. 66 Cases of Canned Succotash. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 4211. Sample No. 47427–E.)

This product was represented to be of Fancy quality, but examination disclosed that it was made from corn and lima beans both of which were too mature to warrant such designation.

On April 4, 1941, the United States attorney for the Northern District of Illinois filed a libel against 66 cases, each containing 36 cans, of succotash at Chicago, Ill., alleging that the article had been shipped by the Marshall Canning Co. from Marshalltown, Iowa, on or about January 10, 1941; and charging that it was misbranded. It was labeled in part: "Uncle William Fancy Succotash Contents 1 Lb. 1 Oz."

The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements "Prepared From Fancy Fresh Green Baby Lima Beans" and "Prepared From Green Lima Beans and Golden Bantam Corn" and the term "Fancy" were false and misleading as applied to an article that was yellow corn, but not Golden Bantam, and mixed green and white lima beans which were too old to qualify as Fancy.

On May 13, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.

TOMATOES AND TOMATO PRODUCTS

2001. Adulteration of canned tomatoes and tomato puree. U. S. v. Associated Canneries, Ine. Plea of guilty. Fine, $28. (F. D. C. No. 2939. Sample

Nos. 97237-D, 6427-E, 6428-E, 13123-E.)

On July 23, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Utah filed an information against Associated Canneries, Inc., a corporation, Ogden, Utah, alleging that on or about September 27 and December 29, 1939, and January 26, 1940, the defendant delivered for introduction in interstate commerce into the States of Colorado and Washington quantities of tomato puree which was adulterated and that on or about February 12, 1940, the defendant introduced and delivered for introduction in interstate commerce into the State of Colorado, a quantity of canned tomatoes which were adulterated. The canned tomatoes were unlabeled but were invoiced as "Rusty Tomatoes." The tomato puree was labeled in part: (Cans) "6 Pounds 8 Ounces Roundup Brand * * Fancy Whole Tomato Puree Packed for Roundup Grocery Co. Spokane Washington"; (cases) “6 No. 10 cans Tomato Puree Odgen, Utah"; or “6 No. 10 cans Perfection Brand Tomato Puree H. D. Olson & Sons Ogden-Utah." The articles were alleged to be adulterated in that they consisted in whole or in part of decomposed substances.

On August 9, 1941, a plea of guilty having been entered on behalf of the defendant, the court imposed a fine of $25 on the first count and $1 on each additional count, totaling $28.

2002. Adulteration of tomato catsup and tomato puree. U. S. v. Perry Canning Co. Plea of guilty. Fine, $52. (F. D. C. No. 4185. Sample Nos. 6764-E, 44636-E, 44649-E.)

On September 8, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Utah filed an information against the Perry Canning Co., a corporation at Perry, Utah, alleging introduction and delivery for introduction in interstate commerce on or about September 23 and October 9, 1940, from the State of Utah into the States of Idaho and Colorado of quantities of tomato catsup and tomato puree that were adulterated in that they consisted in whole or in part of decomposed substances. They were labeled in part: "Golden 'A' Brand Extra Standard

Quality Tomato Catsup"; or "Gateway Brand Tomato Puree 8 Ozs."

6 lb.

On September 27, 1941, a plea of guilty having been entered on behalf of the defendant, the court imposed a fine of $50 on the first count and $2 on the second, totaling $52.

2003. Misbranding of tomato catsup. U. S. v. Pleasant Grove Canning Co. Plea of guilty. Fine, $25. (F. D. C. No. 4158. Sample Nos. 6284-E, 6285-E.) The product involved in this case was found to be short of the declared weight.

On July 15, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Utah filed an information against Pleasant Grove Canning Co., a corporation, Pleasant Grove, Utah, alleging shipment on or about March 1, 1940, from the State of Utah into the State of Kansas, of a quantity of tomato catsup that was misbranded. It was labeled in part: "Pleasant Grove Brand * * * Tomato Catsup."

The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement "14 Ozs. Net Weight," appearing on the bottle label, was false and misleading since each of the bottles did not contain 14 ounces of said article but did contain a smaller amount; and in that it was in package form and did not bear a label containing an accurate statement of the quantity of contents in terms of weight

or measure.

On July 15, 1941, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant and the court imposed a fine of $25.

2004. Adulteration of tomato catsup.

U. S. v. Seiters, Inc., and Edgar A. Seiter.

Tried to the court. Judgment of guilty. Corporation fined $4; Edgar A. Seiter fined $100. (F. D. C. No. 2907, Sample Nos. 13129-E, 13158-E, 13166-E, 13177-E, 26231-E.)

This product contained excessive mold indicating the presence of decomposed material.

On February 21, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Idaho filed an information against Seiters, Inc., Post Falls, Idaho, and Edgar A. Seiter; alleging shipment within the period from on or about November 8, 1939, to on or about March 3, 1940, from the State of Idaho into the State of Washington, of quantities of tomato catsup which was adulterated. The article was labeled in part variously: "Syringa Brand Tomato Catsup"; "Coeur D'Alene * Tomato Catsup"; "Tastewell *** Tomato Catsup * * National RetailerOwned Grocers, Inc. Distributors" or "Pheasant Tomato Catsup * * * Distributed by Wadhams & Company, Portland, Oregon."

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

On May 29, 1941, the defendants having entered pleas of not guilty, and having waived trial by jury, the case came on for trial before the court. Both de fendants were adjudged guilty, and the corporation was fined $1 on each of the four counts of the information and Edgar A. Seiter was fined $25 on each of the same four counts.

2005. Adulteration and misbranding of canned tomatoes with puree from trimmings. U. S. v. 170 Cases and 25 Cases of Canned Tomatoes with Puree from Trimmings. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos, 3547, 4198. Sample Nos. 55216-E, 55782-E.)

Examination showed that one lot of this product contained worms and worm and insect fragments. The labels of both lots failed to bear the common name of the optional ingredient, viz, "Added Strained Residual Tomato Material from Preparation for Canning." Furthermore, both lots fell below the standard of quality for canned tomatoes because the drained weight was less than 50 percent of the water required to fill the container.

On or about December 19., 1940, and April 7, 1941, the United States attorneys for the Western District of Washington and the Northern District of California filed libels against 170 cases, each containing 24 cans, of tomatoes with puree from trimmings at Tacoma, Wash., and 25 cases, each containing 24 cans, of the same product at Weed, Calif., alleging that the article had been shipped on or about September 10 and November 30, 1940, by Bagley Canning Co. from Ashland, Oreg.; and charging that a portion was adulterated and that both lots were misbranded. It was labeled in part: "Bagley's Rogue River Valley Tomatoes With Puree From Trimmings Net Contents 1 Lb. 3 Oz."

The portion of the article seized at Weed, Calif., was alleged to be adulterated in that it consisted wholly or in part of a filthy substance.

Both lots of the article were alleged to be misbranded (1) in that it purported to be a food for which a definition and standard of identity had been prescribed by law, but its label failed to bear the common name of the optional ingredient, viz, "Added Strained Residual Tomato Material from Preparation for Canning," present in such food; and (2) in that it purported to be a food for which a standard of quality had been prescribed by regulations as provided by law, but its quality fell below such standard, and its label failed to bear in such manner and form as the regulations specify, a statement that it fell below such standard.

On May 15 and 23, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgments of condemnation were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.

2006. Adulteration of canned tomatoes. U. S. v. 310 Cases of Canned Tomatoes. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 2700. Sample No. 7092-E.)

On September 4, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of Arizona filed a libel against 310 cases, each containing 24 cans, of tomatoes at Phoenix, Ariz., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about February 22, 1940, by Santa Anita Food Corporation from Anaheim, Calif.; and charging that it was adulterated in that it consisted in whole or in part of a decomposed substance. The article was labeled in part: (Cans) "Gala Brand Tomatoes With Puree From Trimmings Net Contents 1 Lb. 12 Ozs."

On May 29, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.

2007. Adulteration of canned tomatoes and tomato juice. U. S. v. 337 Cases and 430 Cases of Canned Tomatoes and 50 Cases of Tomato Juice. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 4850, 4851, 4875. Sample Nos. 60306-E, 60307-E, 60315-E.)

On or about May 31 and June 6, 1941, the United States attorneys for the District of Oregon and the Eastern District of Washington filed libels against 337 cases, each containing 24 cans, of tomatoes at La Grande, Oreg., 430 cases, each containing 24 cans, of tomatoes at Walla Walla, Wash., and 50 cases, each containing 12 cans, of tomato juice at La Grande, Oreg., alleging that the articles had been shipped on or about September 23 and November 18, 1940, by H. D. Olson from Ogden, Utah; and charging that they were adulterated in that they consisted wholly or in part of decomposed substances. The articles were labeled in part: (Cans) "Net Weight, 1 pound, 12 ounces, Pheasant Brand Tomatoes"; "Blue and White Brand Tomatoes contains 1 lb. 12 oz."; and "Wadhams Fancy

Tomato Juice Net Contents 1 Quart 14 fluid ounces."

On July 15 and August 2, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgments of condemnation were entered and the products were ordered destroyed.

2008. Misbranding of canned tomatoes. U. S. v. 646 Cases of Canned Tomatoes. Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered released under bond to be relabeled. (F. D. C. No. 5192. Sample No. 46379-E.)

This product was substandard because of excessive peel and blemishes. It also contained the optional ingredient added strained tomatoes which were not declared on the label.

On July 22, 1941, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of New York filed a libel against 646 cases, each containing 24 cans, of tomatoes at Brooklyn, N. Y., alleging that the article had been shipped on or about June 19, 1941, by Apte Bros. Canning Co., Terra Ceia, Fla.; and charging that it was misbranded. It was labeled in part: (Cans) "Park Lane Tomatoes Contents 1 Lb. 11 Oz."

The article was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that it purported to be a food for which a definition and standard of identity had been prescribed by regulations as provided by law, and its label failed to bear the common name of the optional ingredient present in such food, namely, "Added Strained Tomatoes"; and (2) in that it purported to be a food for which a standard of quality had been prescribed by regulations as provided by law, but its quality fell below such standard, and its label failed to bear in such manner and form as the regulations specify, a statement that it fell below such standard. On August 5, 1941, Apte Bros. Canning Co., claimant, having admitted the allegations of the libel, judgment of condemnation was entered and the product was ordered released under bond conditioned that it be relabeled under the supervision of the Food and Drug Administration.

2009. Misbranding of canned tomatoes. U. S. v. 268 Cases and 168 Cases of Canned Tomatoes. Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered released under bond for relabeling. (F. D. C. No. 3969. Sample Nos. 85587-E, 35588-E.)

This product was substandard because of low drained weight and excessive peel.

On or about March 14, 1941, the United States attorney for the Northern District of Mississippi filed a libel against 268 cases each containing 48 cans, and 168 cases each containing 24 cans, of tomatoes at Columbus, Miss., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about September 6, 1940, by the Humboldt Canning Co. from Humboldt, Tenn.; and charging that it was misbranded. It was labeled in part: "Forked Deer Brand * * * Tomatoes Contents 10 Ozs. Avoir. [or "1 Lb. 3 Ozs."]."

The article was alleged to be misbranded in that it purported to be a food for which a standard of quality had been prescribed by regulations as provided by law; but its quality fell below such standard, and its label did not bear in such manner and form as the regulations specify, a statement that it fell below such standard.

On April 24, 1941, Columbus Grocery Co. having appeared as claimant, judgment of condemnation was entered and the product was ordered released under bond conditioned that it be relabeled as required by law.

2010. Misbranding of canned tomatoes.

U. S. v. 596 Cases of Canned Tomatoes.

Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered released under bond to be relabeled. (F. D. C. No. 3637. Sample No. 16593-E.) Examination showed that this product was substandard because of excessive peel and excessive blemishes.

On January 9, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Nebraska filed a libel against 596 cases, each containing 24 cans, of tomatoes at Omaha, Nebr., alleging that the article had been shipped on or about September 3, 1940, by Ed McCormick Canning Co. from Reeds Spring, Mo.; and charging that it was misbranded. It was labeled in part: (Cans) "Big League Brand Tomatoes # * * Contents 1 Lb. 3 Oz."

The article was alleged to be misbranded in that it purported to be a food for which a standard of quality had been prescribed by regulations as provided by law; but its quality fell below such standard, and its label failed to bear in such manner and form as the regulations specify, a statement that it fell below such standard.

On April 4, 1941, Ed McCormick, trading as Ed McCormick Canning Co., claimant, having admitted the allegations of the libel, judgment of condemnation was entered and the product was ordered released under bond conditioned that it be relabeled under the supervision of the Food and Drug Administration. 2011. Misbranding of canned tomatoes. U. S. v. 87 Cases of Canned Tomatoes. Default decree of condemnation. Product ordered delivered to a charitable institution. (F. D. C. No. 4735. Sample No. 59000-E.)

Examination showed that this product was substandard because the peel, per pound of canned tomatoes in the container, covered an area of more than 1 square inch.

On May 9, 1941, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin filed a libel against 87 cases, each containing 24 cans, of tomatoes at Appleton, Wis., alleging that the article had been shipped on or about August 13. 1940, by National Retail Owned Grocers (National Retailer-Owned Grocers, Inc.) from Princess Anne, Md.; and charging that it was misbranded. It was labeled in part: "Smith Brand Tomatoes Contents 1 Lb 3 Ozs. Packed by E. Mace Smith Princess Anne Md."

The article was alleged to be misbranded in that it purported to be a food for which a standard of quality had been prescribed by regulations as provided by law, but its quality fell below such standard, and its label failed to bear, in such manner and form as the regulations specify, a statement that it fell below such standard.

On June 30, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was entered and the product was ordered delivered to a charitable institution. 2012. Misbranding of canned tomatoes. U. S. v. 241 Cases of Canned Tomatoes. Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered released under bond to be relabeled. (F. D. C. No. 3781. Sample No. 50738-E.)

This product was substandard because of low drained weight.

On February 12, 1941, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina filed a libel against 241 cases, each containing 24 cans, of toma

toes at Goldsboro, N. C., alleging that the article had been shipped on or about August 29, 1940, by C. C. Coles Canning Co., Hague, Va.; and charging that it was misbranded. It was labeled in part: (Cans) "Pine Cone Brand Tomatoes Contents 1 Lb. 3 Oz. Albert W. Sisk and Son Distributors."

The article was alleged to be misbranded in that it purported to be a food for which a standard of quality had been prescribed by regulations as provided by law; but its quality fell below such standard, and its label failed to bear in such manner and form as the regulations specify, a statement that it fell below such standard.

On April 15, 1941, Albert W. Sisk & Sons having appeared as claimant, judgment of condemnation was entered and the product was ordered released under bond conditioned that it be relabeled under the supervision of the Food and Drug Administration.

2013. Misbranding of canned tomatoes. U. S. v. 498 Cases and 100 Cases of Canned Tomatoes. Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered released under bond to be relabeled. (F. D. C. Nos. 4249, 4250. No. 22404-E.)

This product was substandard because of low drained weight.

Sample

On April 8, 1941, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of New York filed a libel against 498 cases, each containing 24 cans, of tomatoes at Brooklyn, N. Y., and 100 cases, each containing 24 cans, of the same product at Garden City, Long Island, N. Y., alleging that the article had been shipped on or about February 14. 1941, by Parrott & Co. from San Francisco, Calif.; and charging that it was misbranded. It was labeled in part: (Cans) "Lodi Brand Tomatoes Net Contents 1 Lb. 12 Oz."

* * *

The article was alleged to be misbranded in that it purported to be a food for which a standard of quality had been prescribed by regulations as provided by law; but its quality fell below such standard, and its label failed to bear in such manner and form as the regulations specify, a statement that it fell below such standard.

On May 6, 1941, Parrott & Co., claimant, having admitted the allegations of the libel, judgment of condemnation was entered and the product was ordered released under bond conditioned that it be relabeled under the supervision of the Food and Drug Administration.

U. S. v. 100 Cases of Canned Tomatoes. 2014. Misbranding of canned tomatoes. Product ordered delivered to a chariDefault decree of condemnation. table organization. (F. D. C. No. 4289. Sample No. 56393-E.) This product, which was labeled Grade A, was found to consist of Grade B tomatoes.

On April 10, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of New Jersey filed a libel against 100 cases, each containing 24 cans, of tomatoes at Newark, N. J., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about February 13, 1941, by Olney & Carpenter, Inc., from Wolcott, N. Y.; and charging that it was misbranded. It was labeled in part: (Cans) "Grade A A&P Vine Ripened Tomatoes Net Wt. 1 Lb. 12 Oz."

The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement "Grade A" was false and misleading as applied to Grade B tomatoes.

On August 15, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was entered and the product was ordered delivered to a charitable organization.

DeSample

2015. Adulteration of tomato catsup. ·U. S. v. 25 Cases of Tomato Catsup. fault decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 5164. No. 53224-E.) Examination showed that this product contained worm and insect fragments. On July 17, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Arizona filed a libel against 25 cases. each containing 24 bottles, of tomato catsup at Tucson, Ariz., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about May 20, 1941, by Kern Food Products, Inc., from Los Angeles, Calif.; and charging that it was adulterated in that it consisted in whole or in part of a filthy substance. The article was labeled in part: (Bottles) "California Club Brand Pure Tomato Catsup Net Weight 14 Oz."

*

On September 10, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.