F. & D. No. 2910.
I. S. Nos. 4677 and 4678-0.	
Issued July 19,1912.
United States Department of Agriculture,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 1538.
(Given pursuant to section 4 of the Food and Drugs Act.)
ADULTERATION AND MISBRANDING OF BLACKBERRY FLAVOR AND
APPLE CIDER FLAVOR.
On February 29, 1912, the United States Attorney for the Eastern?
District of Missouri, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agri??
culture, filed in the District Court of the United States for said dis??
trict an information against the F. T. Kuehne Flavoring Extract Co.,?
a corporation, St. Louis, Mo., alleging shipment by it on or about?
April 12, 1911?
(1) From the State of Missouri into the State of Kansas of a con??
signment of blackberry flavor which was adulterated and misbranded?
in violation of the Food and Drugs Act. The product was labeled:?
"Concentrated Blackberry Flavor, F. T. Kuehne Flavoring Extract?
Co., 1627 Chestnut Street, St. Louis, Mo.    Serial No. 7238."
Examination of the product by the Bureau of Chemistry of this?
Department showed the following results: Alcohol (per cent by vol??
ume), 50.40; methyl alcohol (per cent by volume), none; solids?
evaporated (grams per 100 cc), 0.13: esters as amyl acetate (grams?
per 100 cc), 5.07; color, artificial, coal tar, reactions like amaranth.?
Adulteration was charged in the information for the reason that?
another substance, to wit, an imitation blackberry flavor, had been?
mixed and packed with said product so as to reduce, lower, and?
injuriously affect its quality and strength; and that an imitation?
blackberry flavor, artificially colored with coal-tar dye, had been?
substituted wholly or in part for genuine blackberry flavor, and that?
said product was colored in a manner whereby its inferiority was?
concealed. Misbranding was alleged for the reason fchat the label?
on the package containing the product, bearing the statement,?
design, and device, "Concentrated Blackberry Flavor," was false?
and misleading for the reason that said product was not concentrated?
blackberry flavor, but on the contrary was an imitation blackberry?
flavor artificially colored with coal-tar dye, and that the label repre??
sented and would deceive and mislead the purchaser thereof into the
44652??No. 1538?12
belief that said product was genuine blackberry flavor, whereas in?
truth and in fact it was an imitation blackberry flavor artificially?
colored, and said label was thereby false and misleading.
(2) Of a consignment of apple cider flavor, from the State of?
Missouri into the State of Kansas, which was adulterated and mis-?
branded in violation of the Food and Drugs Act. The product was?
labeled: ''Concentrated Apple Cider Flavor, F. T. Kuehne Flavoring?
Extract Co., 1627 Chestnut Street, St. Louis, Mo., Serial No. 7238."
Examination by the Bureau of Chemistry of this Department of?
this product showed the following results: Alcohol (per cent by vol??
ume), 50.13; methyl alcohol (per cent by volume), none; solids?
evaporated (grams per 100 cc), 0.12; esters as amyl acetate (grams?
per 100 cc), 3.12; color, artificial, coal tar, reactions similar to those?
of Orange G as given by Allen; odor shows presence of benzaldehyde.
Adulteration was charged in the information for the reason that?
the product was not genuine concentrated apple cider flavor, but on?
the contrary, an imitation apple cider flavor had been mixed and?
packed with said product in such a manner as to reduce, lower, and?
injuriously affect its quality and strength, and that said imitation?
apple cider flavor had been substituted wholly or in part for genuine?
apple cider flavor, and that the product was colored with coal-tar?
dye in a manner whereby its inferiority was concealed. Misbranding?
was alleged in the information for the reason that the label upon the?
package of the product was false and misleading in that said product?
was not concentrated apple cider flavor, as stated upon said package?
and label, and because the label would deceive and mislead the pur??
chaser thereof into the belief that the product was apple cider flavor,?
whereas, it was an imitation apple cider flavor artificially colored.
On March 21, 1912, the defendant entered a plea of guilty and the?
court imposed a fine of $10 each on the first and second counts?
alleging adulteration and misbranding of blackberry flavor, and?
fines of $1 and costs each on the third and fourth counts alleging?
adulteration and misbranding of apple cider flavor.
W. M. HATS,
Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C, May 10, 1912.
1638