F. & D. No. 3204.
S. No. 1177.	
Issued August 30, 1912.
United States Department of Agriculture,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY.
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 1603.
(Given pursuant to section 4 of the Food and Drugs Act.)
ADULTERATION AND MISBRANDING OF " FRUTENA."
On November 13, 1911, the United States Attorney for the District?
of New Jersey, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture,?
filed in the District Court of the United States for said district a?
libel for the seizure and condemnation of 6 cases, each containing 4?
dozen packages of " Frutena ", and 15 cases, each containing 24 pack??
ages of " Frutena ", remaining unsold and in the original unbroken?
packages, and in the possession of George R. Danenhower & Son,?
Camden, N. J., alleging that the product had been shipped on June?
2, 1911, and June 6, 1911, by the Frutena Co., a corporation, Balti??
more, Md., and transported from the State of Maryland into the?
State of New Jersey, and alleging adulteration and misbranding in?
violation of the Food and Drugs Act. The cases were labeled:" Doz.?
Hasty Dessert, Frutena, a Compound assorted. The Frutena Com??
pany of Baltimore, Md., U. S. A. Trade Mark." (An illustration?
of a dish of assorted fruit) "Patented November 15, 1900." The?
packages were labeled: "Hasty Frutena (illustration of basket?
assorted fruit) The Frutena Co., Baltimore, Md., U. S. A. A de??
licious compound. Frutena, a delicious combination of cereals and?
Fruits, with the following flavors: Vanilla, Chocolate, Lemon, and?
Orange. Prepared only by the Frutena Company, Baltimore, Md..?
U. S. A.", and the labels also contained the name of the flavor, in?
some cases "Lemon", in others "Vanilla", and in others "Choco??
late ".
Adulteration of the product was alleged in the libel for the reason?
that a substance had been substituted wholly for said product, and?
because it was mixed and colored in a manner whereby its inferiority
50695??No. 1603?12
was concealed. Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the?
labels on the product, and the inscriptions, delineations, and lan??
guage thereon were intended by their term and the style of display?
to indicate that said product was a mixture of pure fruits and cereals,?
when in truth and in fact it was not so, but there was substituted for?
fruit and cereal, a product consisting of con starch, the product in?
594 of the packages contained in said cases having been artificially?
colored in imitation of a mixture of fruits and cereals, and* the re??
maining 54 of the packages having been labeled " Chocolate ", none of?
said packages containing fruit. Misbranding was further alleged for?
the reason that the labels were intended and calculated to deceive?
and mislead the purchaser thereof, and because the product was an?
imitation offered for sale under the distinctive name of another?
article, and because the labels thereon bore false and misleading?
statements, designs, and devices regarding the- ingredients and sub??
stances contained therein.
On February 13, 1912, decree of condemnation and forfeiture was?
entered, and it was further ordered, upon presentation of a bond in?
conformity with section 10 of the Act, and payment of costs, that?
the shipments be released and delivered to claimants, name of claim??
ants not shown.
W. M. HATS,?
Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C, June 17, 1912.
1603