NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 2258.
(Given pursuant to section 4 of the Food and Drugs Act.)
MISBRANDING OF MALT EXTRACT.
On February 14, 1912, the United States Attorney for the Western 
District of Missouri, 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 Kansas City Breweries Co., a corpo- 
ration, Kansas City, Mo., alleging shipment by said company, on or 
about February 7, 1910, from the State of Missouri into the State of 
Nebraska, of a quantity of so-called Bavarian malt extract which was 
misbranded. The product was labeled: " Bavarian Malt Extract. An 
unequalled health giving medical tonic. An excellent recuperant for 
weak physical energy, with the nourishing qualities of a pure extract 
of Malt & Hops. Prepared & Bottled under the supervision of the 
Government. None genuine without this signature. Ford Heim 
Brewing Co." (Blown in bottle) "Imperial Brewing Co., Kansas 
City, Mo."
Analysis of a sample of the product by the Bureau of Chemistry 
of this Department showed the following results: Alcohol (per cent 
by volume), 5.80; solids, 7.43 per cent; reducing sugar as maltose, 
2.53 per cent; polarization direct (20° C.), +58.5° V.; polarization 
invert (20° C), +57.8° V.; ash, 0.22 per cent. Misbranding of the 
product was alleged in the information for the reason that it was 
labeled as set forth above, which said label was false and misleading 
in that it tended to deceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief 
that he was purchasing a product of foreign manufacture known as 
malt extract, whereas it was of domestic make and origin instead of 
a malt extract as stated on the label, and contained and consisted of 
a fermented malt beverage similar to beer, containing the substances
77869°—No. 2258—13
as shown by the chemical analysis above set forth. Misbranding 
was alleged for the further reason that the label on the product was 
false and misleading in that it tended to deceive and mislead the 
purchaser into the belief that he was purchasing a product known 
as malt extract, whereas, in truth and in fact, it was not a malt ex- 
tract, but a fermented malt beverage similar to beer and containing 
the substances as shown by the chemical analysis above set forth.
On November 14, 1912, the defendant company entered a plea of 
guilty to the information and the court imposed a fine of $100 and 
costs.
W. M. HAYS, 
Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C., January 27,1913.
2258
o