F. & D. Nos. 318, 334, and 341.
I. S. Nos. 4995, 1323-a, and 4997.	
Issued June 4, 1910.
United States Department of Agriculture,
OFFICE  OF THE  SECRETARY.
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 339, FOOD AND DRUGS ACT.
ADULTERATION AND MISBRANDING OF FLAVORING EXTRACTS.
On or about August 16 and September T, 1907, the Forbes Bros.?
Tea & Spice Company, of St. Louis, Mo., shipped from the State of?
Missouri to the State of Mississippi and the State of Texas consign??
ments of products labeled, respectively: " Forbes Elegant Flavoring?
Extract, Highly Concentrated Lemon Flavor for flavoring Sauces,?
Custards, Jellies, Ice Cream, etc. Prepared by Forbes Bros., St.?
Louis, Mo;" "Forbes Elegant Flavoring Extracts, Highly Concen??
trated Strawberry, for flavoring Sauces, Custards, Jellies, Ice Cream,?
etc. Prepared by Forbes Bros. & Co., St. Louis, Mo.; " and " Pure?
Concentrated Extract of Lemon Flavor, Imperial Extract Company,?
of St. Louis, Mo."
Samples of these shipments were procured and analyzed by the?
Bureau of Chemistry, United States Department of Agriculture, and?
as it appeared from the findings of the analysts and the reports made?
that the said shipments were made in violation of the Food and?
Drugs Act of June 30, 1906, the Secretary of Agriculture afforded the?
Forbes Bros. Tea & Spice Company, and the dealers from whom the?
samples were purchased, opportunities for hearings. As it appeared?
after hearings held that the said products were adulterated and mis-?
branded, the Secretary of Agriculture reported the facts to the?
Attorney General, with statements of the evidence upon which to?
base prosecutions. In due course criminal informations were filed?
against the Forbes Bros. Tea & Spice Company in the District Court?
of the United States for the Eastern District of Missouri, charging?
the above shipments and alleging that the product labeled " Forbes?
Elegant Flavoring Extract, Highly Concentrated Lemon Flavor,"
43554?No. 339?10
was adulterated, in that a highly dilute alcohol solution of citral had?
been substituted in whole or in part for the genuine food product,?
and had been mixed and packed with it so as to reduce, lower, and?
injuriously affect its quality and strength, and was misbranded, in?
that the form of label was false, misleading, and deceptive, because?
it represented the product to be a highly concentrated lemon extract,?
whereas, in truth, it wras not a lemon extract, contained no lemon?
flavor, and was not highly concentrated, but consisted of a highly?
dilute alcohol solution of citral; the product labeled " Forbes Ele??
gant Flavoring Extracts, Highly Concentrated Strawberry," was?
adulterated, in that an artificial compound, made out of alcohol and?
other chemicals to imitate the flavor of strawberry, had been substi??
tuted wholly for the genuine article, and was artificially colored in?
a manner to conceal its inferiority, and was misbranded, in that the?
form of label was false, misleading, and deceptive, because the prod??
uct was not highly concentrated extract of strawberry, but an imita??
tion extract of strawberry, prepared from alcohol and other chem??
icals, artificially colored to conceal its inferiority, and artificially fla??
vored ; and the product labeled " Pure Concentrated Extract of?
Lemon Flavor " was adulterated, in that an artificial compound con??
taining no oil of lemon, and artificially colored in a manner to con??
ceal its inferiority, had been substituted in whole or in part for the?
genuine food product, and, further, in that the product contained a?
poisonous and deleterious ingredient, to wit, methyl alcohol (wood?
alcohol), and was misbranded, in that the label represented it to be?
an extract of lemon, which form of labeling was false, misleading,?
and deceptive, as it was not an extract of lemon, but a liquid artifi??
cially compounded and containing no oil of lemon, and artificially?
colored in a manner to conceal its inferiority, and, further, in that?
said article was an imitation of and offered for sale under the dis??
tinctive name of another article.
These informations were consolidated and tried as one case, and, a?
jury having been demanded by the defendants, on November 15,?
1909, the jury, after hearing the testimony and argument of counsel,?
rendered a verdict of guilty, and the court imposed upon the de??
fendant a fine of $400.
This notice is given pursuant to section 4 of the Food and Drugs?
Act of June 30, 1906.
JAMES WILSON,?
Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C, May 10, 1910.
339