V. & D. No. 3583.
S. No. 13076-c.	
Issued February 8,1913.
United States Department of Agriculture,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY.
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 1924.
(Given pursuant to section 4 of the Food and Drugs Act.)
ADULTERATION AND MISBRANDING  OF SYRUP  OF TAMARIND.
At a stated term of the District Court of the United States for the?
Northern District of California, begun and held at the city of San?
Francisco on the first Monday in March, 1912, the grand jurors of?
the United States within and for said district, acting upon a report?
by the Secretary of Agriculture, returned an indictment against?
Joseph Finora, also known as G. Finora, doing business under the?
name of Finora & Co., San Francisco, Cal., alleging the sale by him,?
under a written guaranty, on September 24, 1910, of a quantity of?
adulterated and misbranded syrup of tamarind, which was after??
wards, to wit, on February 7, 1911, without being changed in any?
particular, shipped by the purchaser from the State of California into?
the State of Arizona. The product was labeled: "Sciroppo Tama-?
rindo Perelli, Manifatturato Espressamente per D. DeBernardi & Co.,?
San Francisco, Cal."
Analysis of a sample of the product by the Bureau of Chemistry?
of this Department showed the following results: Solids by drying,?
60.35 per cent; nonsugar solids, 2.79 per cent; sucrose, Clerget, 2.26?
per cent; sucrose, by copper, 2.46 per cent; reducing sugars as invert?
before inversion, 55.30 per cent; commercial glucose, 2.94 per cent;?
polarization direct temperature 20?, ?9.0? V; polarization invert?
temperature 20?, -12.0? V; polarization 87? C. (invert), +4.80? V;?
ash, 0.135 per cent; P205 in ash, 10.3 per cent; tartaric acid, 0.84?
per cent; color removed by fuller's earth, 97.00 per cent; caramel,?
present; benzoates, absent; saccharin, absent; total acids as tartaric,?
1.2 per cent. Adulteration of the product was charged in the indict??
ment for the reason that an imitation tamarind syrup had been?
mixed and packed with the genuine tamarind syrup so as to reduce,?
lower, and injuriously affect its quality and strength; that an imita??
tion tamarind syrup had been substituted for the genuine tamarind?
syrup, in this, that a product containing glucose and colored with?
caramel, and containing little or no tamarind, had been substituted
67377??No. 1924?13
for the genuine tamarind syrup; that the product had been so colored?
with caramel as to simulate the color of pure syrup of tamarind?
and the inferiority of the product as an imitation syrup of tamarind?
had thereby been concealed. Misbranding was alleged for the rea??
son that the label on the product was false and misleading, in that?
the label and the words and impression thereon gave to the purchaser?
thereof the impression that the product was a foreign product and?
said labels were calculated to deceive and mislead the purchaser?
into the belief that the product was a foreign product, and by and?
through said labels and the words and impression the product pur??
ported to be a foreign product, whereas in truth and in fact it was?
not a foreign product but a domestic product and manufactured?
within the United States; that said label and the words and impres??
sion thereon gave to the purchaser thereof the impression that the?
product was the genuine syrup of tamarind, whereas in truth and in?
fact it was an imitation of syrup of tamarind artificially colored and?
flavored.
On July 10, 1912, the defendant company entered a plea of guilty?
to the indictment and the court imposed a fine of $50.
W. M. HATS,?
Acting Secretary of Agriculture
WASHINGTON, D. C, November 11,1912.
1924