F. & D. No. 3154.
I. S. No. 19439-c.	
Issued February 21, 1913.
United States Department of Agriculture,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY.
NOTICE  OF JUDGMENT  NO. 1945.
(GiTeu pursuant to section 4 of the Food and Drugs Act.)
ADULTERATION AND MISBRANDING OF SO-CALLED WURTZBURGER
MALT TONIC.
On June 3, 1912, the United States Attorney for the Northern?
District of Georgia, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agri??
culture, filed in the District Court of the United States for said dis??
trict an information against the Wurtzburger Malt Extract Co., a?
corporation, Atlanta, Ga., alleging shipment by said company, in?
violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on April 25, 1911, from the State?
of Georgia into the State of North Carolina, of a quantity of so-?
called Wurtzburger malt tonic which was adulterated and mis-?
branded. The product was labeled: "Wurtzburger Malt Tonic.?
Guaranteed by Wurtzburger Malt Extract Co. * * * Serial?
No. 1043. Contains 3i alcohol. Wurtzburger Malt Tonic A Food??
A Tonic?And an invigorator. A Concentrated Extract of Malt of?
acknowledged merit. Wurtburger?Wurtzburger Malt Extract Co.,?
Atlanta, Ga."
Analysis of a sample of the product by the Bureau of Chemistry of?
this Department showed the following results: Specific gravity,?
1.01260; alcohol by volume, 4.60 per cent; solids by specific gravity?
(grams per 100 cc), 5.09; reducing sugars as maltose (grams per 100?
cc), 1.48; dextrine by hydrolysis (grams per 100 cc), 2.35; ash (grams?
per 100 cc), 0.14; total P205, 31.8 mg per 100 cc; protein (grams per?
100 cc), 0.37. Adulteration of the product was alleged in the infor??
mation for the reason that the same as branded and labeled pur??
ported to be a malt tonic, whereas in truth and in fact said product?
was and is an alcoholic beverage and was not prepared entirely from?
malt, but was made in part from cereals and foreign starches and?
sugar and an alcoholic beverage of the nature of ordinary beer had?
been substituted for malt extract. Misbranding was alleged for the?
reason that the label on the product was false and misleading, the?
said product being labeled "concentrated extract of malt," whereas?
in truth and in fact the same was not a concentrated extract of malt,
67487??No. 1945?13
but was an alcoholic beverage of the nature of ordinary beer. The?
product "was further misbranded in that the label thereon was?
false and misleading, said product being labeled "contains 3{??
alcohol/' whereas in truth and in fact said product contained a?
greater amount of alcohol, to wit, 4.60 per cent. The product Was?
further misbranded in that it was labeled and branded so as to?
deceive and mislead the purchaser, it being labeled "concentrated?
extract of malt," whereas in truth and in fact it was not a concen??
trated extract of malt but was an alcoholic beverage of the nature of?
ordinary beer. Misbranding was further alleged for the reason that?
the product was labeled and branded so as to deceive and mislead?
the purchaser, said product being labeled "contains 2>\? of alcohol,"?
whereas in truth and in fact it contained a greater amount of alcohol,?
to wit, 4.60 per cent alcohol.
On September 16, 1912, the defendant company entered a plea of?
guilty to the information, and the court imposed a fine of $50 and?
costs.
W. M. HAYS,?
Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C, November l^, 1912.
1945