De

2037. Adulteration of tomato puree. U. S. v. 317 Cases of Tomato Puree. fault decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 4694. Sample No. 47965-E.)

On May 12, 1941, the United States attorney for the Northern District of Illinois filed a libel against 317 cases of tomato puree at Chicago, Ill., alleging that the article had been shipped on or about March 12, 1941, by Knox Pickle & Preserving Works from Sidney, Ind.; and charging that it was adulterated in that it consisted wholly or in part of a decomposed substance. The article was labeled in part: (Cans) "Net Weight 6 Lbs. 9 Oz. Genesee Brand Tomato Puree."

On June 30, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.

2038. Adulteration of tomato puree. U. S. v. 280 Cases and 260 Cases of Tomato Puree. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 4212. Sample Nos. 47249 E, 47250-E.)

On April 10, 1941, the United States attorney for the Northern District of Illinois filed a libel against 540 cases of tomato puree at Chicago, Ill., alleging that the article had been shipped on or about February 26 and March 3, 1941, by Ladoga Canning Co. from Lebanon, Ind. ; and charging that it was adulterated in that it consisted wholly or in part of a decomposed substance. The article was labeled in part: (Cans) "Barco Brand Tomato Puree Contents 6 Lbs. 8 Oz."

*

On June 30, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.

2039. Adulteration of tomato puree. U. S. v. 2,490 Cartons of Tomato Puree. Decree of condemnation. Product released under bond for segregation and destruction of unfit portion. (F. D. C. No. 3639. Sample No. 11207-E.) On or about January 8, 1941, the United States attorney for the Southern District of Texas filed a libel against 2.490 cartons, each containing 6 No. 10 cans, of tomato puree at Sugarland, Tex., alleging that the article had been shipped on or about September 19, 1940, by Marshall Canning Co. from Matthews, Ind.; and charging that it was adulterated in that it consisted wholly or in part of a decomposed substance.

On June 2, 1941, Marshall Canning Co., claimant, having admitted the allegations of the libel, judgment of condemnation was entered and it was ordered that the product be released to the claimant under bond conditioned that the unfit portion be segregated and destroyed under the supervision of the Food and Drug Administration.

2040. Adulteration of tomato puree.

sent decree of condemnation.

U. S. v. 997 Cases of Tomato Puree. ConProduct released under bond for segregation and destruction of unfit portion. (F. D. C. No. 4051. Sample No. 22405-E.)

This product was sour and decomposed.

On March 27, 1941, the United States attorney for the Southern District of New York filed a libel against 997 cases, each containing 6 cans, of tomato puree at New York, N. Y., alleging that the article had been shipped on or about February 17, 1941, by Parrott & Co. from Alameda, 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) "Lodi Brand Tomato Puree Net Weight 6 Lb. 8 Oz."

On July 18, 1941, Parrott & Co., claimant, having admitted the allegations of the libel, judgment of condemnation was entered and it was ordered that the product be released to the claimant under bond conditioned that it be sorted under the supervision of the Food and Drug Administration, and that the unfit portion be segregated and destroyed.

2041. Adulteration and misbranding of tomato puree. U. S. v. 104 Cases of Tomato Puree. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 3486. Sample No. 35617-E.)

This product not only contained excessive mold, but also added artificial color; and it failed to conform to the definition and standard of identity for tomato puree.

On December 9, 1940, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Louisiana filed a libel against 104 cases, each containing 100 cans, of tomato puree at New Iberia, La.. alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about August 21, 1940, by Uddo Taormina

Corporation from Crystal Springs, Miss.; and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded. It was labeled in part: (Cans) "Net Contents 44 Oz. Avoir. Baby Brand Tomato Puree."

The article was alleged to be adulterated (1) in that it consisted in whole or in part of a decomposed substance; (2) in that inferiority had been concealed by the addition of artificial color; and (3) in that artificial color had been added thereto or mixed or packed therewith so as to make it appear better or of greater value than it was.

It was alleged to be misbranded in that it purported to be tomato puree, a food for which a definition and standard of identity had been prescribed by regulations as provided by law, and it did not conform to such definition and standard in that it contained less than 8.37 percent of salt-free solids, and artificial color.

On March 17, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.

2042. Adulteration of tomato sauce. U. S. v. 195 Cases of Tomato Sauce. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 3906. Sample No. 32887-E.)

This product contained worm and insect fragments.

On or about March 7, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Arizona filed a libel against 195 cases of tomato sauce at Phoenix, Ariz., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about October 26, 1940, by the Santa Anita Food Corporation from Orange, 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: (Cans) "Gala Brand * * * Spanish Style Tomato Sauce."

On March 24, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.

2043. Adulteration of tomato sauce. U. S. v. 825 Cartons of Tomato Sauce.

Con

sent decree of condemnation. Product released under bond for segregation and destruction of unfit portion. (F. D. C. No. 4054. Sample No. 32762-E.)

This product contained worm and insect fragments in addition to mold. On March 27, 1941, the United States attorney for the Southern District of New York filed a libel against 825 cartons, each containing 48 cans, of tomato sauce at New York, N. Y., alleging that the article had been shipped on or about February 10, 1941, by Empire Freight Co. from Los Angeles, Calif.; and charging that it was adulterated in that it consisted wholly or in part of a filthy and decomposed substance. The article was labeled in part: (Cans) "Premier Tomato Sauce Contents 74 oz. Avoir."

On July 18, 1941, Parrott & Co., San Francisco, Calif., having admitted the allegations of the libel, judgment of condemnation was entered and it was ordered that the product be released to the claimant under bond conditioned that it be sorted under the supervision of the Food and Drug Administration, and that the unfit portion be segregated and destroyed.

2044. Adulteration of tomato sauce. U. S. v. 14 Cases of Tomato Sauce. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 4847. Sample No. 62305-E.)

This product contained worm and insect fragments in addition to mold. On June 3, 1941, the United States attorney for the Northern District of Illinois filed a libel against 14 cases, each containing 48 cans, of tomato sauce at Chicago, Ill., alleging that the article had been shipped on January 10, 1941, by Parrott & Co. from San Francisco, Calif.; and charging that it was adulterated in that it consisted wholly or in part of a filthy and decomposed substance. The article was labeled in part: "Premier Tomato Sauce Contents 7 Oz. Avoir.”

On August 25, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.

2045. Adulteration of chili sauce. U. S. v. 45 Cases and 20 Cases of Chili Sauce. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 4903, 4904. Sample Nos. 69522-E, 69523-E.)

On June 13, 1941, the United States attorney for the Southern District of New York filed libels against 65 cases, each containing 6 cans, of chili sauce at New York, N. Y., alleging that the article had been shipped from Los Angeles, Calif., by Kern Food Products, Inc., on or about October 24, 1940, and

March 19, 1941; 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: "Kern's Fancy Chili Sauce Net Weight 7 Lbs."

On July 24, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgments of condemnation were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.

2046. Adulteration of hot sauce. U. S. v. 24 Cases of Hot Sauce, Default decree of forfeiture and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 4825. Sample No. 22557-E.) On May 24, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Idaho filed a libel against 24 cases, each containing 72 cans, of hot sauce at Boise, Idaho, alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about May 3, 1941, by Stockton Food Products, Inc., from Stockton, Calif.; and charging that it was adulterated in that it consisted wholly or in part of a decomposed substance. The article was labeled in part: "Real-Red Brand Net Weight 74 Oz. Hot Sauce."

On July 24, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of forfeiture was entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.

2047. Adulteration of hot sauce. U. S. v. 38 Cases of Hot Sauce.

Default decree

of destruction. (F. D. C. No. 4245. Sample No. 44377-E.) On April 7, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Utah filed a libel against 38 cases, each containing 72 cans, of hot sauce at Salt Lake City, Utah, alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about January 31, 1941, by Sutter Packing Co. from Palo Alto, Calif.; and charging that it was adulterated in that it consisted wholly or in part of a decomposed substance. The article was labeled in part: (Cans) "Gardenside Hot Sauce."

On May 31, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment was entered ordering that the product be destroyed.

2048. Adulteration of tomato soup.

U. S. v. 5 Cases of Tomato Soup. Default

decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 3580. Sample No. 34702-E.)

On December 26, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of Connecticut filed a libel against 5 cases, each containing 48 cans, of tomato soup at Hartford, Conn., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about November 21, 1940, by Bruder & Zweil, Inc., from Providence, R. I.; and charging that it was adulterated in that it consisted in whole or in part of a decomposed substance. It was labeled in part: (Cans) "Contents 10% Oz. Avoir McGrath's Condensed Tomato Soup."

On April 7, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation and destruction was entered with provision for delivery of a sample to the Food and Drug Administration.

OTHER FRUIT PRODUCTS

2049. Adulteration of apple butter. U. S. v. 13 Cases of Apple Butter. Default decree of condemnation and forfeiture. (F. D. C. No. 3804. Sample No. 52207-E.)

This product contained worm and insect fragments.

On February 14, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Oregon filed a libel against 13 cases of apple butter at Portland, Oreg., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about January 21, 1941, by the Pacific Food Products Co. from Seattle, Wash.; and charging that it was adulterated in that it consisted in whole or in part of a filthy substance. It was labeled in part: "Sunny Jim Brand Apple Butter."

On April 17, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.

2050. Adulteration of raspberry jam and pineapple jam. U. S. v. 10 Cases and 10 Cases of Raspberry Jam and 15 Cases of Pineapple Jam. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 3756, 3886. Sample Nos. 36769–E, 36770–E, 36776-E.)

Examination of samples of these products showed the presence of rodent hairs, insects, and insect fragments. A portion of the product also contained worms, flakes of paint, and nondescript dirt.

On February 5 and 28, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Massachusetts filed libels against 10 cases each containing 6 No. 10 cans, and 10 cases each containing 12 cans of raspberry jam, and 15 cases each containing 24 jars of pineapple jam at Boston, Mass., alleging that the articles had been

shipped on or about December 27, 1940, by R. U. Delapenha & Co., Inc., from Poughkeepsie, N. Y.; and charging that they were adulterated. They were labeled in part: "Overland Brand Raspberry Jam * 8 Lbs. 8 Oz. [or

* *

"4 Lbs. 8 Oz."]"; and “Overland Pineapple Jam * * * 1 Lb."

The articles were alleged to be adulterated in that they consisted in whole or in part of filthy substances; and in that they had been prepared under insanitary conditions whereby they might have become contaminated with filth.

On March 3 and April 14, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgments of condemnation were entered and the products were ordered destroyed.

De

2051. Adulteration of Nu-Olive Spred. U. S. v. 5 Cases of Nu-Olive Spred. fault decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 4586. Sample No. 55468-E.)

Examination showed this product to be decomposed.

On May 1, 1941, the United States attorney for the Western District of Washington filed a libel against 5 cases of an article labeled in part "Nu-Olive Spred" alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about April 16, 1941, by the Merchants Wholesale Grocery Co. from Portland, Oreg.; 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: (Jars) "Nu-Olive Spred * * Nuspred Foods Co. Portland, Ore."

On June 30, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.

2052. Adulteration and misbranding of vinegar. U. S. v. 84 Cases of Vinegar. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 3809. Sample No. 29233-E.)

This article was not cider vinegar as represented but consisted of a mixture containing distilled vinegar or dilute acetic acid.

On February 12, 1941, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky filed a libel against 69 cases each containing 12 quart bottles, 8 cases each containing 24 ten-ounce bottles, and 7 cases each containing 6 half-gallon bottles of vinegar at Covington, Ky., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about November 26 and December 11, 1940, by the Ball Products Co. from Dayton, Ohio; and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded. The article was labeled in part: (Bottles) "Ball Brand Cider Vinegar."

The article was alleged to be adulterated in that distilled vinegar or dilute acetic acid had been substituted wholly or in part for cider vinegar and in that distilled vinegar or dilute acetic acid had been mixed or packed therewith so as to reduce its quality or strength.

It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements in the label "Superior Quality for pickling or Table Use Ball Brand Cider Vinegar Reduced to 4% Acidity," were false and misleading as applied to a mixture containing distilled vinegar or dilute acetic acid. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that it was offered for sale under the name of another food.

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

MISCELLANEOUS

2053. Adulteration of dried apricots. U. S. v. 1,062 Boxes of Dried Apricots. Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered released under bond for segregation and destruction of unfit portion. (F. D. C. No. 3492. Sample No. 46025-E.)

This product had been shipped in interstate commerce and was in interstate commerce at the time of examination at which time it was found to contain dirt and mold, and to be insect-infested.

On December 9, 1940, the United States attorney for the Southern District of New York filed a libel against 1,062 boxes of apricots at New York, N. Y., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about September 10, 1940, by C. L. Dick & Co. from San Jose, 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: "Azalea Brand Slabs Dried Blenheim Apricots."

On April 18, 1941, C. L. Dick & Co., claimant, having admitted the allegations of the libel, judgment of condemnation was entered and the product was ordered released under bond conditioned that 100 boxes be used for the man

ufacture of distilled spirits and the remainder held for further order of the court. On August 19, 1941, a supplemental decree was entered ordering that the 100 boxes be returned to the claimant because they could not be utilized as theretofore ordered and further ordering that the entire lot be sorted to separate the good from the bad and that the latter be destroyed.

2054. Misbranding of dates. U. S. v. 562 Cartons and 25 Cartons of Dates. Claim and answer filed. Claimant's petition for release for export denied. Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered released under bond to be repackaged. (F. D. C. No. 3631. Sample No. 28234–E.) This product was put up in packages containing 2 layers of dates and labeled “6 Oz." The top layer, which was visible through the cellophane wrapping, contained in 16 dates while the bottom layer contained on an average about 12 dates. Another package of the same size put out by the shipper and packer of this product contained 8 ounces of dates.

On January 4, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Columbia filed a libel against 562 cartons each containing 36 packages, and 25 cartons each containing 12 packages of dates at Washington, D. C., alleging that the article had been shipped by the Hills Bros. Co. on or about December 5, 6, 10, 11, and 12, 1940, from Brooklyn, N. Y.; and charging that it was misbranded in that its container was so made, formed, or filled as to be misleading. was labeled in part: "Camel Dates Pitted Net Wt. 6 Oz.”

It

On April 9, 1941, the Hills Bros. Co., Brooklyn, N. Y., claimant, having consented to the entry of a decree, but having petitioned release of the seized goods for export, the court after hearing and argument denied said petition without opinion. Thereupon the claimant having requested authority to repossess the goods to be disposed of in compliance with the law, judgment of condemnation was entered and the product was ordered released under bond Conditioned that it be repackaged under the supervision of the Food and Drug Administration.

2055. Adulteration of frozen huckleberries. U. S. v. 150 Boxes, 150 Cases, 37 Cases, and 57 Cases of Frozen Huckleberries. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 3653, 3662, 3668, 3709. Sample Nos. 32678-E, 32857-E, 32859-E, 32860-E.)

Examination showed that this product contained insect larvae.

Between January 8 and 23, 1941, the United States attorney for the Southern District of California filed libels against 150 25-pound boxes and 187 cases each containing 25 pounds of frozen huckleberries at Los Angeles, Calif., and cases each containing 10 pounds of huckleberries at Glendale, Calif., alleg ing that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce within the period from on or about October 7 to on or about December 26, 1940, by the S. A. Moffett Co. from Seattle and Mount Vernon, Wash.; and charging that it was adulterated in that it contained a filthy substance.

On February 25 and March 12, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgments of condemnation were entered and the product was ordered destroyed. 2056. Adulteration and misbranding of potatoes. U. S. v. 255 Sacks of Potatoes. Product ordered released under bond for relabeling or other lawful disposition. (F. D. C. No. 3698. Sample No. 32665-E.)

This product was labeled U. S. No. 1 grade but contained grade defects in excess of the amount permissible in that grade.

On January 23, 1941, the United States attorney for the Southern District of Texas filed a libel against 255 sacks of potatoes at Houston, Tex., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about January 4, 1941, by V. L. Adams from Mindon, Nev.; and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded. It was labeled in part: (Sack) "U. S. No. 1 Sound State Potatoes 100 Lbs. Net Weight."

The article was alleged to be adulterated in that potatoes below U. S. No. 1 grade had been substituted in whole or in part for U. S. No. 1 potatoes. It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement “U. S. No. 1" was false and misleading since it was incorrect.

On January 27, 1941, J. Craig Allen, claimant, having consented to the entry of a decree, judgment was entered ordering release of the product under bond conditioned that it be relabeled or disposed of otherwise in compliance with the law. It was relabeled by obliterating the statement "U. S. No. 1 Sound State."