NOTICE  OF JUDGMENT  NO. 2093.
(Given pursuant to section 4 of the Pood and Drugs Act.)
ADULTERATION  AND MISBRANDING  OF VINEGAR.
On June 8, 1912, the United States Attorney for the Northern 
District of Iowa, acting upon reports by the Secretary of Agriculture, 
filed in the District Court of the United States for said district an 
information in six counts against the Haarmann Vinegar & Pickle 
Co., a corporation, Sioux City, Iowa, alleging shipment by said com- 
pany, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act—
(1) On or about November 9, 1910,. from the State of Iowa into 
the State of South Dakota of a quantity of vinegar which was adul- 
terated and misbranded. The product was labeled: "Haarmann Vine- 
gar & Pickling Co. 4J% Acetic Acid. Cider Vinegar 48 gals. Sioux 
City, Iowa."
Analysis of a sample of this product by the Bureau of Chemistry 
of this Department showed the following results: Alcohol by volume, 
0.27 per cent; total solids (grams per 100 cc), 2.39; reducing sugars 
direct (grams per 100 cc), 0.99; reducing sugars after evaporation 
(grams per 100 cc), 0.96; non-sugars (grams per 100 cc), 1.43; per 
cent pf sugar in solids, 41.00; glycerol (grams per 100 cc), 0.09; 
polarization direct at 20° C, —2.0° V,; ash (grams per 100 cc), 
0.25; alkalinity soluble ash (cc N/10 alkali per 100 cc), 14.0; total 
acids (grams per 100 cc), 4.79; fixed acids, as malic (grams per 100 
cc), 0.04; total color, 6.0° on brewer's scale; lead precipitate, very 
heavy; P205 water soluble (mg per 100 cc), 30.99; P205 water insol- 
uble (mg per 100 cc), 23.8; alcohol precipitate (grams per 100 cc), 
0.10; per cent of ash in non-sugars, 17.5.
(2) On or about April 7, 1911, from the State of Iowa into the 
State of South Dakota of a quantity of vinegar which was adulterated 
and misbranded. This product was labeled: "Jewetts High Grade 
Brand 4£ acetic 48 gals. Pure Cider Vinegar. Mfg. for Jewett Bros. & 
Jewett, Sioux Falls, S. D."
Analysis of a sample of this product by the Bureau of Chemisttr- 
of this Department showed the following results: Alcohol, per cent
715788—No. 2093—13
by volume, 2.07; glycerol, 0.06 per cent; solids (grams per 100 cc;, 
2.34; nonsugar solids (grams per 100 cc), 1.70; reducing sugar invert 
before inversion after evaporation (grams per 100 cc), 0.64; per cent 
sugar in solids, 27.3; polarization direct at 22° C, —1.4° V.; ash 
(grams per 100 cc), 0.30; ash, insoluble in water (grams per 100 cc), 
0.09; alkalinity soluble ash (cc N/10 acid per 100 cc), 11.8; total 
phosphoric acid (mg per 100 cc), 80.1; acid, as acetic (grams per 
100 cc), 4.46; volatile acid, as acetic (grams per 100 cc), 4.41; fixed 
acid, as malic (grams per 100 cc), 0.05; lead precipitate', heavy; 
color, degrees, brewer's scale 0.5 in., 5 of 52 series; 3 of 50 series; 
pentosans, 0.07; ratio ash to nonsugar solids, 1:5.7. Adulteration 
of the product was alleged in the information for the reason that it 
consisted of cider vinegar and the same had been adulterated by rea- 
son of the fact that other substances, to wit, a dilute solution of acetic 
acid or distilled vinegar and a product high in reducing sugars and 
certain: mineral matter, had been mixed with the product so as to 
reduce and lower or injuriously affect its quality and strength, and for 
the further reason that other substances, to wit, a dilute solution of 
acetic acid or distilled vinegar and a product high in reducing sugars, 
and the certain mineral matter, had been substituted wholly or in part 
for cider vinegar. Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the 
product bore the label set forth above regarding it or the substances 
contained therein, which said label, brand, and statement was false 
and misleading, in that the product was not cider vinegar but, on the 
contrary, consisted in whole or in part of a dilute solution of acetic 
acid or distilled vinegar, and a product high in reducing sugars and 
added mineral matter.
On October 18, 1912, the defendant company entered a plea of 
guilty to counts 1 and 4 of the information charging adulteration and 
the court imposed a fine of $25 upon each of said counts with costs. 
Counts 2, 3, 5, and 6 of the information charging adulteration and 
Misbranding of the product were dismissed.
W. M. HAYS, 
Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C, December 11, 1912.
2093
o