8922. Adulteration and misbranding of jam.   U. S. v. William Numsen & Sons.  Plea of?
guilty.   Fine, SIO.   (F. & D. No. 4554.   I. S. No. 19636-d.)
On July 18, 1913, the United States attorney for the District of Maryland, acting?
upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District Court of the United?
States for said district an information against William Numsen & Sons, a corporation,?
Baltimore, Md., alleging shipment by said company, in violation of the Food and
1914.]	SERVICE AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS.	149
Drugs Act, on. September 9,1911, from the State of Maryland into the State of Florida,?
of a quantity of so-called damson jam which was adulterated and misbranded. The?
product was labeled: "Clipper Damson Jam (Trade Mark) Fresh Fruit Preserved?
in Granulated Sugar, Glucose and Apple Juice. Packed by Wm. Numsen & Sons,?
Incorporated. Baltimore, Md., U. S. A. Established 1847. Registered 1879."?
Analysis of a sample of the product by the Bureau of Chemistry of this department?
showed the following results:
Solids by drying (per cent)?
      63.1
Sucrose, Clerget (per cent)?
       1.0
Reducing sugars as invert before inversion (per cent)?
     43. 5
Commercial glucose (factor 163) (per cent)?
      30.0
Polarization, direct, at 28? C. (? V.)?
      47. 2
Polarization, invert, at 28? C, (? V.)?
      46.0
Polarization, invert, at 87? C. (? V.)?
  +48.8
Ash (per cent)?
      0. 52
Net weight (ounces)?
?14
Benzoic acid?
   None.
Salicylic acid?
   None.
Saccharin?
   None.
Boric acid?
 None.
Adulteration of the product was alleged in the information for the reason that a?
certain compound jam, to wit, a jam composed of damson fruit, granulated sugar,?
glucose, and apple juice, had been substituted for damson jam. Misbranding was?
alleged for the reason that the labels on each of the packages containing the product?
bore the statement in substance and effect that the article, was damson jam, which?
said statement was false and misleading because the article was not damson jam?
but was, in truth and in fact, a compound jam consisting of damson fruit, granulated?
sugar, glucose, and apple juice. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that?
the product was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, being labeled?
(in large type) "Damson Jam," when, in truth and in fact, it was a compound jam?
composed of damson fruit, granulated sugar, glucose, and apple juice. The statement?
also appeared on the labels that the product consisted of " Fresh Fruit Preserved in?
Granulated Sugar, Glucose and Apple Juice," being separate from and in much smaller?
type than the words "Damson Jam" and insufficient to correct the false impression?
created by the use of the words "Damson Jam."
On October 9, 1913, the defendant company entered a plea of guilty to the informa??
tion and the court imposed a fine of $10.
B. T. GALLOWAY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C, February 18, 1914.