P. & D.  No.  3446.
I. S. Nos. 14283-c, 14284-c, 14285-c.	
Issued February 8, 1913.
United States Department of Agriculture,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY.
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 1906.
(Given pursuant to section 4 of the Pood and Drugs Act.)
ADULTERATION AND MISBRANDING OF STRAWBERRY FLATOR, PEAR?
FLAYOR, AND PINEAPPLE FLAYOR.
On July 6, 1912, the United States Attorney for the Eastern Dis??
trict of Missouri, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agricul??
ture; filed in the District Court of the United States for said district?
an information in six counts against the F. T. Kuehne Flavoring?
Extract Co., a corporation, St. Louis, Mo., alleging shipment by?
said company, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on or about?
February 14, 1911, from the State of Missouri into the State of?
Iowa?
(1) Of a quantity of strawberry flavor which was adulterated and?
misbranded. The product was labeled: " Pure Flavoring Straw??
berry." (Cut of dish containing ripe fruit.) "For Flavoring-?
Ice Creams, Jellies, Custards, Sauces, &c. Compound OiJ?Arti??
ficial color?Serial ip7238?F. T. Kuehne Flavoring Extract Co.,?
St. Louis, Mo." Analysis of a sample of the product by the Bureau?
of Chemistry of this Department showed the following results:?
Esters as amyl acetate per 100 cc, 30.55 G; esters as ethyl acetate?
per 100 cc, 20.68 G; color, coal tar, reacts like amaranth; alcoholic?
solution. Adulteration of the product was alleged in the informa??
tion for the reason that a substance, to wit, an imitation flavor of?
strawberry, had been mixed and packed with it in such a manner?
as to reduce, lower, and injuriously affect its quality and strength,?
and further, in that a substance, to wit, an imitation flavor of straw??
berry, had been substituted wholly or in large part for the genuine?
article, namely, flavor of strawberry, and further, in that the product?
was colored with an artificial coloring, to wit, coal-tar dye, in a man??
ner whereby its inferiority was concealed. Misbranding was alleged?
for the reason that the statement contained on the label, namely,?
u Pure Flavoring Strawberry," was false and misleading because
66565??No. 1906?13
it misled and deceived the purchaser into the belief that the product?
was strawberry flavor, made from strawberry fruit, whereas, in?
truth and in fact, it was an imitation strawberry flavor, and the?
statements " Compound oil " and "Artificial color," which were also?
borne upon the label, were insufficient to correct the deception cre??
ated by the statement "Pure Flavoring Strawberry," and that the?
product was further misbranded in that it was labeled and branded?
so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, in that the words " Pure?
Flavoring Strawberry" purported and created the belief that the?
product was strawberry flavor, made from the strawberry fruit,?
whereas, in truth and in fact, it was an imitation strawberry flavor,?
and the statements " Compound oil " and "Artificial color," which?
were also borne upon the label, were not sufficient to correct the de??
ception created by the statement " Pure Flavoring Strawberry."
(2)?Of a quantity of pear flavor, which was adulterated and mis-?
branded. The product was labeled: " Compound Oil?Artificial?
color-?Serial #7238?Pear?F. T. Kuehne Flavoring Extract Co.,?
St. Louis, Mo." Analysis of a sample of this product by the Bureau?
of Chemistry of this Department showed the following results:?
Esters as amyl acetate per 100 cc, 15.60 G; esters as ethyl acetate?
per 100 cc, 10.56 G; color, coal tar, reactions like fast yellow (B)?
as given by Allen; contains unsaponifiable oil (terpenes?) having?
odor of orange oil; alcoholic solution. Adulteration of this product?
was alleged for the reason that a substance, to wit, an imitation?
pear flavor, had been mixed and packed with the product in such a?
manner as to reduce, lower, and injuriously affect its quality and?
strength, and further, in that a substance, to wit, an imitation pear?
flavor, had been substituted wholly or in large part for genuine pear?
flavor, and further, in that the product was artificially colored with?
a coal-tar dye in a manner whereby its inferiority was concealed.?
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statement " Pear,"?
borne upon the label, was false and misleading because it misled?
and deceived the purchaser into the belief that the product was a?
pear flavor, made from pear fruit, whereas, in truth and in fact, it?
was an imitation pear flavor, and the statements " Compound oil"?
and "Artificial color," which appeared upon the label, were insuffi??
cient to correct the deception created by the word " Pear " and to?
correctly inform the purchaser thereof of the true nature and?
character of the product.
(3)?Of a quantity of pineapple flavor which was adulterated and?
misbranded. This product was labeled: "Pure Flavoring of Pine??
apple. Compound Oil?Artificial Color?Serial #7238?F. T.?
Kuehne Flavoring Extract Co., 323 North Main Street, St. Louis,?
Mo."   Analysis of a sample of this product by the Bureau of Chem-
1906
istry of this Department showed the following results: Esters as?
amyl acetate per 100 cc, 26.65 G; esters as ethyl acetate per 100 cc,?
18.04 G; color, coal tar, orange color, not Orange I. Reactions like?
Orange G, as given by Allen. Alcoholic solution. Adulteration of?
this product was alleged in the information for the reason that a?
substance, to wit, an imitation flavor of pineapple, had been mixed?
and packed with it in such manner as to reduce, lower, and inju??
riously affect its quality and strength, and further in that a sub??
stance, to wit, an imitation flavor of pineapple, had been substituted?
wholly or in large part for the genuine article, namely, flavor of?
pineapple, and further, in that the product was colored with an?
artificial coloring, to wit, coal-tar dye, in a manner whereby its in??
feriority was concealed. Misbranding was alleged for the reason?
that the statement " Pure Flavoring of Pineapple," borne upon the?
label, was false and misleading because it misled and deceived the?
purchaser into the belief that the product was a pineapple flavor,?
mad ?> from the pineapple fruit, whereas, in truth and in fact, it was?
an imitation pineapple flavor, and the statements " Compound oil"?
and "Artificial color," which also appeared upon the label, were in??
sufficient to correct the deception created by the words " Pure Flavor??
ing of Pineapple " and correctly to inform the purchaser thereof of?
the true nature and character of said product.
On July 29, 1912, the defendant company entered a plea of guilty?
to the information and the court imposed a fine of $5 on each count?
thereof, making a total of $30.
W. M. HAYS,?
Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C, November 7, 1912.
1906