2889. Adulteration and misbranding of so-called apple cider.   U. S. v. National Fruit Products?
Co.   Plea of guilty.   Fine S25 and costs.   (F. & D. No. 4334.   I. S. No. 5764-c.)
On August 13, 1913, the United States attorney for the Western District of Tennes??
see, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District Court of?
the United States for said district an information against the National Fruit Products?
Co., a corporation, Memphis, Tenn., alleging shipment by said company in violation?
of the Food and Drugs Act, on or about January 19, 1911, from the State of Tennessee?
into the State of Texas, of a quantity of so-called apple cider which was adulterated?
and misbranded. The product was labeled: "Apple Cider?Guaranteed. The con??
tents of this package, as originally filled, are guaranteed to be made from apple juice?
fortified with sugar. (No distilled spirits, wine, fermented juice of grapes or other?
small fruits or alcoholic liquors being added.) Contains 1/10 of 1? benzoate of soda?
and artificial sweeting matter and conforms to the provisions of the Food and Drugs?
Act of June 30, 1906. We also guarantee the contents of this package, as originally?
filled, to be exempt from Internal Revenue Tax, National Fruit Products Co.,?
Memphis, Tenn "
Analysis of a sample of the product by the Bureau of Chemistry of this department?
showed the following results:
Specific gravity (20?C./4?C.)?
  1. 0374
Alcohol (per cent by volume)?
      7.72
Solids, by refractometer (after removal of alcohol) (grams per 100 cc)?    12. 48
Nonsugar solids (grams per 100 cc)?
      4. 44
Sucrose, by reduction (grams per 100 cc)?
      0. 21
Reducing sugars (direct as invert sugar) (grams per 100 cc)?
      7. 81
Polarizations (undiluted):
Direct, 20? C. (?V.)?
 +44.5
Invert, 20? C. (?V.)?
  +47. 0
Invert, 87? C. (?V.)?
  +46. 2
Total ash (grams per 100 cc)?
      0.34
Alkalinity soluble ash (cc N/10 acid per 100 cc)?
      20.0
Soluble phosphoric acid (mg per 100 cc)?
       2.4
Insoluble phosphoric acid (mg per 100 cc)?
       6. 6
Acid, as acetic (grams per 100 cc)?
      0. 59
Volatile acid, as acetic (grams per 100 cc)?
      0. 30
Fixed acid, as malic (grams per 100 cc)?
      0. 30
Commercial glucose (factor 163) (grams per 100 cc)?
       7.1
Erythrodextrus test?
 Positive.
Saccharin?
 Present.
Coal-tar color: None detected.
Benzoic acid, calculated as sodium benzoate (approximately) (per cent)?      0. 09
Added vegetable color: Caramel.
1914.]	SERVICE AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS.	123
Adulteration of the product was alleged in the information for the reason that a com??
pound alcoholic beverage prepared from apple juice, starch sugar, saccharin, and ben-?
zoate of soda had been mixed and added to the said article of food so as to reduce, lower,?
and injuriously affect its quality and strength, and for the further reason that said sub??
stance had been substituted wholly or in part for the pure apple cider the article pur??
ported to be. Misbranding was alleged for the following reasons: (1) In that the state??
ment contained on the label, "Apple Cider," was false and misleading, as it conveyed?
and was calculated and intended to convey the impression to the purchaser or pur??
chasers thereof that the product was a pure apple cider, whereas it was a compound?
alcoholic beverage prepared from apple juice, starch sugar, saccharin, and benzoate of?
soda; (2) in that the statement on said label, "Fortified with sugar," was false and mis??
leading, as it conveyed the impression and was calculated and intended to convey the?
impression that the product was fortified with cane sugar, whereas, in truth and in?
fact, it was fortified with starch sugar and not with cane sugar; (3) in that the statement?
contained on said label, "Conforms to the provisions of the Food and Drugs Act as?
passed by Congress of June 30, 1906," was false and misleading and it conveyed and?
was calculated and intended to convey the impression that the product was not adul??
terated or misbranded, whereas, in fact, the product was both adulterated and mis-?
branded, and that it was represented as a pure apple cider, when, in fact, it was a com??
pound alcoholic beverage prepared in whole or in part from the ingredients above?
stated; (4) in that it was labeled and branded so as to deceive and mislead the pur??
chaser or purchasers into the belief that the same was pure apple cider, fortified with?
cane sugar, whereas the same was a compound alcoholic beverage, prepared from apple?
juice, fortified with starch sugar, and contained saccharin and benzoate of soda; (5) in?
that the label aforesaid contained the statement "No distilled spirits, wine, fermented?
juice of grapes or other small fruits or alcoholic liquors being added," whereas, in fact,?
the article contained approximately 7.72 per cent by volume of alcohol; (6) in that?
the label did not disclose the presence or percentage of alcohol contained in said article?
as required by said act of Congress.
On November 13, 1913, the defendant company entered a plea of guilty to the in??
formation and the court imposed a fine of $25, with costs of $15.85. When the case was?
reported for prosecution no charge of misbranding was made because the label of the?
product failed to bear a statement showing the quantity or proportion of alcohol con??
tained therein.?
B. T. GALLOWAY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. 0., February 18, 1914.