F. & D. No. 3506.
I   S. No. 18361-c.	
Issued March 27, 1913.
United States Department of Agriculture,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY.
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 2062.
(Given pursuant to section 4 of the Food and Drugs Act.)
ADULTERATION AND MISBRANDING OF SO-CALLED GELATINE.
On July 8, 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 against the St. Louis Glue Manufacturing Co., a?
corporation, St. Louis, Mo., alleging shipment by said company, in?
violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on or about March 30, 1911,?
from the State of Missouri into the State of Indiana, of a quantity?
of alleged gelatine which was adulterated and misbranded. The?
product was labeled; "485-34-451 R. W. Furnas Ice Cream Co.,?
Indianapolis, Ind."
Analysis of a sample of the product by the Bureau of Chemistry?
of this Department showed the following results: Amount of ash,?
1.91 per cent; reaction of ash, alkaline; character of ash, nonfusible;?
constituents of ash, lime, sulphates, trace of phosphates, trace of iron,?
trace of alumina; decomposition of jelly after 48 hours, none; char??
acter of solution, cloudy, gluey; viscosity, 33 seconds; odor, normal.?
Strength of jelly compared with copper standards: First day, No. 1;?
second day, No. 1; third day, No. 1. This product is a hide glue and?
not a gelatine. Shows no signs of decomposition, or that it was made?
from putrefying stock.
Adulteration of the product was alleged in the information for?
the reason that it was invoiced and sold as gelatine, and another?
article, to wit, glue, had been mixed and packed with it so as to re??
duce, lower, and injuriously affect its quality and strength, and fur??
ther
 in that a substance, to wit, glue, had been substituted wholly or?
in large part for the product.    Misbranding was alleged for the
71290??No. 2062?13
reason that the product was an imitation of and offered for sale under?
the distinctive name of another article, to wit, gelatine, when in?
truth and in fact it was not a gelatine, but was glue.
On September 17, 1912, the defendant company entered a plea of?
guilty to the information and the court imposed a fine of $20 on the?
charge of adulteration and a fine of $20 on the charge of misbranding.
W. M. HAYS,?
Acting Secretary of Agriculture.?
WASHINGTON, D. C., December 4-, 1912.
2062