NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 2200.
(Given pursuant to section 4 of the Food and Drugs Act.)
ADULTERATION AND MISBRANDING OF ORANGE FLAVOR.
On October 19, 1912, the United States Attorney for the Southern 
District of Ohio, 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 Clarence Mihalovitch and Albert Mihalovitch, 
copartners, trading and doing business under and by the firm name 
of The American Products Co., Cincinnati, Ohio, alleging shipment 
by them, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on June 6, 1911, 
from the State of Ohio into the State of Missouri of a quantity of 
orange flavor which was adulterated and misbranded. The product 
was labeled: (On cartons) "Zanol concentrated non-alcoholic Pure 
Food Flavors—Food Colors—Orange Flavor, Pure, Economical, 
Sanitary. American Products Co. * * * Cincinnati, * * * 
Serial No. 22115-a * * *." (On tubes) "Zand Concentrated 
Non-Alcoholic Food Flavors, Orange Flavor; composed of Oil of 
Orange, Glycerine, and a vegetable gum * * * American Prod- 
ucts Co., Cincinnati, * * * 4 Drops equal a teaspoonful of ordi- 
nary extract,    *    *    *    fourteen drops to equal an ounce,   *    *    *."
Analysis of a sample of the product by the Bureau of Chemistry of 
this Department showed the following results: Orange oil, 2.5 per 
cent; glycerin, present; gums, present. Adulteration of the product 
was alleged in the information for the reason that a dilute flavor of 
orange was mixed and packed as, for, and with said article, pur- 
porting to be orange flavor, so as to reduce, lower, and injuriously 
affect its quality and strength, and, further, in that a dilute flavor 
of orange, containing only one-half the required amount of oil of 
orange, was substitutedwhoUy for what said article purported to be. 
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the product was labeled 
and branded so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser thereof, in 
that the label and brand was calculated and intended to and did 
convey the impression and create the belief in the mind of the pur- 
chaser thereof that it was orange flavor or extract which conformed
70795°—No. 2200—13
to the known and recognized standards of quality and strength 
established therefor, whereas, in truth and in fact, it was not so, 
but was a dilute flavor of orange, containing only one-half the required 
amount of oil of orange, to wit, 2.5 per cent. Misbranding was 
alleged for the further reason that the label and brand bore state- 
ments regarding the product and the ingredients and substances 
contained therein which said statements, to wit, "Orange Flavor" 
and "4 Drops equal a teaspoonful of ordinary extract—fourteen 
drops to equal an ounce" were false, misleading, and deceptive in 
that said statements purported and represented the product to be 
a genuine and standard orange flavor or extract which conformed to 
the known and recognized standards of quality and strength estab- 
lished therefor, whereas, in truth and in fact, it was not such orange 
flavor, but was a dilute flavor of orange, containing only one-half 
the required amount of oil of orange, to wit, 2\ per cent, and 4 drops 
thereof were not equal to a teaspoonful of ordinary extract, nor would 
14 drops thereof equa) one ounce of the ordinary extract.
On November 8, 1912, a plea of nolo contendere was entered on 
behalf of defendants and the court imposed a fine of $25, with costs
of $14.75.
W. M. HAYS, 
Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C, January 11, 1913.
2200