F.  & D.  No.  3034.
S. No. 1108.	
Issued February 4, 1913.
United States Department of Agriculture,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY.
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 1879.
(Gifeii pursuant to section 4 of the Food and Drugs Act.)
MISBRANDING OF EYAPORATED MILK.
On October 21, 1911, the United States Attorney for the Southern?
District of California, 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 700 cases each?
containing 48 cans of so-called evaporated milk, remaining unsold in?
the original unbroken packages and in possession of M. A. Newmark?
& Co. (Inc.), Los Angeles, Cal., alleging that the product had been?
shipped on or about August 21, 1911, by the Cache Valley Condensed?
Milk Co., Logan, Utah, and transported from the State of Utah into?
the State of California and charging misbranding in violation of the?
Food and Drugs Act. The product was labeled: " Honeysuckle Brand?
Unsweetened Evaporated Milk Manufactured by the Cache Valley?
Condensed Milk Co., Logan, Utah. Contents not less than 26 per?
cent T. S., 7.5 per cent B. F. Directions: Use the Honeysuckle Brand?
Evaporated Milk for all purposes that you would fluid milk or?
cream keep the open can in a cool place. Guaranteed by Cache Valley?
Condensed Milk Co., under the National Food and Drugs Act, June?
30, 1906, serial no. 16144. Thoroughly sterilized and put up in sani??
tary cans."
Examination of samples of this product by the Bureau of Chem??
istry of this Department showed it to contain 25.0 to 25.8 per cent?
total solids and 7.4 to 7.6 per cent fat, and therefore that the product?
was not sufficiently evaporated to be entitled to the unqualified name?
evaporated milk. The case was certified to the United States Attor??
ney upon the charge of misbranding for the reason that the product?
was not sufficiently evaporated to entitle it to the name of evaporated?
milk and the statement on the labels used on the retail packages:?
" Contents not less than 26? T. S. 7.5? B. F." was not sufficient
66256??No. 1879?13
to convey to the average user that the goods were in any respect?
deficient, said label being therefore false and misleading.
Misbranding was alleged in the libel for the reason that the labels?
on the product bore certain statements and devices regarding it and?
the ingredients and substances composing it which statements and?
devices were false and misleading and intended and calculated to?
deceive the purchaser into believing that the product consisted of?
evaporated milk and contained 26 per cent total solids and 7.5 per??
cent butter fat when, in truth and in fact, the product consisted of?
and was a preparation of milk containing considerably less than 26?
per cent total solids and considerably less than 7.5 per cent butter?
fat and was not evaporated milk. Misbranding was alleged for the?
further reason that the statement contained in the label set forth?
above was false and misleading in that the label signified to the pur??
chaser that the product consisted of not less than 26 per cent total?
solids and not less than 7.5 per cent butter fat, and that the product?
was evaporated milk.
On November 8, 1911, the Cache Valley Condensed Milk Co. (Inc.),?
Logan, Utah, claimant, having admitted the truth of the allegations?
contained in the libel, judgment of condemnation and forfeiture was?
entered and it was further ordered that the product should be re??
leased and delivered to said claimant upon payment of all the costs of?
the proceedings, amounting to $88.95, and the execution of bond in?
conformity with section 10 of the Act, fixed by the court at $2,000.
W. M. HAYS,?
Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C, October 29,1912.
1879