f~9S9. Adulteration and misbranding of vanilla flavor.   U. S. v. The William Kaigh Co.   Plea?
of nolo contendere.   Fine, 95.   (F. & D. No. 4737.   I. S. No. 20260-d.)
Oft July 16, 1913, the United States attorney for the District of Maryland, acting?
$jx>n a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District Court of the United?
States for said district an information against William Haigh, doing business under the?
tome and style of The William Haigh Co., Baltimore, Md., alleging shipment by?
mid defendant, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on January 15, 1912, from?
iBe State of Maryland into the State of Ohio, of a quantity of vanilla flavor, which was?
adulterated and misbranded. The product was labeled: "Special XXXX Vanilla?
Flavor Special Flavoring for ice cream and candies Prepared from vanilla beans,?
sdded vanillin & coumarin. High concentrated Extracts, Fruit Juices, Etc. The?
William Haigh Co. Manufacturing Chemists 128 S. Calvert St. Baltimore, Md."?
Analysis of a sample of the product by the Bureau of Chemistry of this department?
stowed the following results:
Ckramarin (per cent)?
?0.10
Yanillin (per cent)?
?0. 20
TLead number?
?0. 23
f otal solids (per cent)?
?4. 64
Ash. (per cent)?
?0.21
Alkalinity of ash (cc N/10 potassium hydroxid per 100 grams)?
?28. 0
Extract neutral to litmus.
Jieducing sugars (per cent)?,?
?0. 23
Hacrose (per cent)?
?3.29
Adulteration of the product was alleged in the information for the reason that?
certain substances, to wit, vanillin and coumarin, had been mixed and packed there??
with so as to reduce, lower, and injuriously affect its quality and strength, and for
1914.]	SEEVICB AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS.	183
the further reason that certain substances, to wit, vanillin and coumarin, had been?
substituted in part for the article. Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the?
labels on the product bore the following statement regarding the article, to wit,?
(in large type) "XXXX Vanilla Flavor," which said statement was false and mis??
leading in that it conveyed to the purchaser thereof that the article was genuine?
vanilla flavor, whereas, in truth and in fact, it was not a genuine vanilla flavor, but?
an imitation vanilla flavor containing added vanillin and coumarin, the added statement?
appearing on the label, "Prepared from vanilla beans, added vanillin and coumarin,"?
being comparatively in very small type and insufficient to correct the impression?
created by the statement "XXXX Vanilla Flavor." Misbranding was alleged for the?
further reason that the product was labeled and branded so as to deceive and mislead?
the purchaser, being labeled (in large type)'' XXXX Vanilla Flavor,'' thereby creating?
the impression that the product was a genuine vanilla flavor, whereas in truth and in?
fact it was not a genuine vanilla flavor but an imitation vanilla flavor containing?
added vanillin and coumarin, the added statement appearing on the labels, "Pre??
pared from vanilla beans, added vanillin and coumarin," being comparatively in?
very small type and insufficient to correct the false and misleading impression created?
by the statement in large type, "XXXX Vanilla Flavor."
On October 9, 1913, the defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere to the informa??
tion, and the court imposed a fine of $5.
B. T. GALLOWAY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C., March SO, 19H-