F. & K>. Nes. 725, 846, and 876.
I. S. Nos. 12578-a, 19869-a, and 25527-a.	
Issued May 27, 1911.
United States Department of Agriculture,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY.
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 855, FOOD AND DRUGS ACT.
ADULTERATION AND MISBRANDING OF VINEGAR.
On July 27 and December 31, 1908, and May 6, 1909, the Price &?
Lucas Cider and Vinegar Company, a corporation, Louisville, Ky.,?
shipped three consignments of alleged vinegar, the first and last of said?
shipments being from the State of Connecticut into the State of Indiana,?
and the second shipment from the State of Connecticut into the State?
of Tennessee. The product contained in the first and last of these?
shipments was labeled: "Price & Lucas Cider and Vinegar Co. Old?
Homestead Colored. Blended Vinegar. Louisville, Ky., U. S. A.;"?
that contained in the second shipment was labeled "Price & Lucas?
Cider and Vinegar Co. Distributors Kentucky Belle Pure Apple Juice?
Vinegar. Serial No. 3390. Louisville, Ky., U. S. A." Samples from?
these shipments were procured and analyzed by the Bureau of Chem??
istry, United States Department of Agriculture, and the first of said?
shipments was found to be a dilute solution of acetic acid, artificially?
colored in imitation of cider vinegar; the second was found to be a?
mixture of dilute acetic acid and cider vinegar; and the third was?
found to be a distilled vinegar, artificially colored with caramel. As?
the findings of the analyst and report made indicated that the products?
were adulterated and mis branded within the meaning of the Food and?
Drugs Act of June 30, 1906, the said Price & Lucas Cider and Vinegar?
Company and the parties from whom the samples were procured were?
afforded opportunities for hearings. As it appeared after hearings?
held that said shipments were made in violation of the act, the Secre??
tary of Agriculture reported the facts to the Attorney-General with a?
statement of the evidence upon which to base a prosecution.
In due course two criminal informations were filed in the District?
Court of the United States for the Western District of Kentucky?
against the said Price & Lucas Cider and Vinegar Company, charging
93548??No. 865?11
the above shipments, and alleging the product contained in the first?
shipment to be adulterated because water and acetic acid had been?
mixed therewith in such a manner as to reduce, lower, and injuriously?
affect its quality, and had been substituted in part for vinegar, and?
because the product had been colored in a manner whereby its inferi??
ority was concealed; and to be misbranded because it was not a blend,?
viz, a mixture of like substances to vinegar, as represented by its?
label, but was a dilute solution of acetic acid, artificially colored. The?
product contained in the second of said shipments was alleged to be?
adulterated because either dilute acetic acid or distilled vinegar had?
been mixed therewith so as to injuriously affect its quality, and because?
other substances had been substituted in part for apple juice vinegar,?
and to be misbranded because in truth and in fact the product was not?
pure apple juice vinegar, but an adulterated product as previously?
stated. The product contained in the third of said shipments was?
alleged to be adulterated because a distilled product had been mixed?
therewith so as to reduce, lower, and injuriously affect its quality, and?
had been substituted in part for vinegar, and because the product had?
been colored in a manner whereby its inferiority was concealed, and?
to be misbranded, because it was not a blend, viz, a mixture of like sub??
stances to vinegar, as represented by its label, but was a distilled prod??
uct, artificially colored in imitation of cider vinegar, and the label in?
question, as used in said brand, without words of qualification as to the?
mode of production of said vinegar or the substances from which it was?
produced meant, and was understood by the public to mean, a mixture?
of vinegar made from apple cider, when in truth and in fact said article?
of food was not made or produced from apple cider.
On October 10, 1910, the defendant entered a plea of guilty as to?
the first of the counts above set forth, to wit, adulteration of the prod??
uct shipped on July 27, 1908, whereupon the court imposed a fine of?
$25 and costs, a nolle prosequi being entered as to the other counts.
This notice is given pursuant to section 4 of the Food and Drugs Act?
of June 30, 1906.
W. M. HAYS,?
Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C, April 29, 1911.
855