F.  & D.  No.  2915.
S. No. 1055.	
Issued February 4, 1913.
United States Department of Agriculture,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY.
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 1890.
(Given pursuant to section 4 of the Food and Drugs Act.)
MISBRANDING?  AND  ALLEGED  ADULTERATION  OF  VINEGAR.
On September 16, 1911, the United States Attorney for the Dis??
trict of Indiana, 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 25 barrels of so-called cider?
vinegar, remaining unsold in the original unbroken packages and?
in possession of the Holt Ice & Cold Storage Co. (Inc.), Indianapolis,?
Ind., alleging that the product had been transported from the State?
of Illinois into the State of Indiana and charging adulteration and?
misbranding in violation of the Food and Drugs Act. The product?
was labeled: " Mfg for W. D. Huffman Co Strictly Pure Cider?
Vinegar Indianapolis, Ind. Guaranteed Cider Vinegar 6 per?
centum 3642."
Adulteration was charged in the libel for the reason that a sub??
stance consisting of a dilute solution of acetic acid, or distilled vine??
gar, a product high in reducing sugar, and foreign mineral matter,?
had been substituted wholly or in part for the product. Adulteration?
was alleged for the further reason that there had been mixed with?
the product a substance consisting of a dilute solution of acetic acid,?
or distilled vinegar, a product high in reducing sugar, and foreign?
mineral matter, so as to injuriously affect its quality. Misbranding?
was alleged for the reason that the statements on the brands and?
labels on the barrels containing the product, as to the ingredients and?
substances contained therein, were false and misleading in that in?
truth and in fact the product purporting to be cider vinegar was an?
imitation of cider vinegar and the statements contained on the brands
66289??No. 1890?13
and labels were calculated to deceive and mislead the purchasers?
thereof.
On June 8, 1912, decree of condemnation and forfeiture was en??
tered, the court finding the product misbranded. It was further?
ordered that the product should be sold by the United States marshal?
after the obliteration of the brands.
W. M. HAYS,?
Acting Secretary of Agriculture.?
WASHINGTON, D. C., October SO, 1912.
1890