3016'. Adulteration and misbranding of vanilla extract.   U. S. v. Blanke-Baer Chemical Co.?
Plea of nolo contendere.   Fine, $20 and costs.   (F. & D. No. 4940.   I. S. No. 36^26-e.)
On November 4, 1913, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Mis??
souri, 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 Blanke-Baer Chemical?
Co., a corporation, St. Louis, Mo., alleging shipment by said company, in violation of?
the Food and Drugs Act, on or about August 2, 1912, from the State of Missouri into?
the State of Ohio, of a quantity of alleged vanilla extract which was adulterated and?
misbranded. The product was labeled: "10 Gal. Blanke-Baer Company. Vanilla?
Extract. Imit. St. Louis, Mo." "Excelsior Candy Co., Cleveland, Ohio. 104 Wood??
land Ave."
Analysis of a sample of the product by the Bureau of Chemistry of this department?
showed the following results:
Ethyl alcohol (per cent by volume)?
?16. 20
Methyl alcohol?
 None.
Coloring matter: No caramel; vanilla color present.
Vanillin (per cent by weight)?
?0.30
Coumarin (per cent by weight)?
?0.30
Vanilla resins by dealcoholizing: Very slight.
Winton lead number?
?0.18
Adulteration of the product was alleged in the information for the reason that a?
dilute solution of alcohol, artificially colored and containing artificial vanillin and?
coumarin, had been mixed and packed with it so as to reduce, lower, and injuriously?
affect its quality and strength; and further in that a dilute solution of alcohol, arti??
ficially colored and containing artificial vanillin and coumarin, had been substituted?
wholly or in large part for the vanilla extract, which the product purported to be;?
and further in that said product was colored in a manner whereby its inferiority was?
concealed. Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statement "Vanilla?
Extract" borne on the label aforesaid was false and misleading, because it conveyed?
the impression that the product was genuine vanilla extract, conforming to the com??
mercial standard for such article, whereas, in truth and in fact, the product was not?
genuine vanilla extract, but was a dilute solution of alcohol, artificially colored and?
containing artificial vanillin and coumarin, prepared in imitation of vanilla extract,?
and said statement or abbreviation "Imit." which also appeared on the label was?
insufficient to correct and overcome the false impression conveyed by the said state??
ment "Vanilla Extract"; and further in that the product was labeled and branded?
so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, being labeled "Vanilla Extract," thereby
250	
BUREAU  OE  CHEMISTRY.	
[April, 1914.
creating the impression that the product was genuine vanilla extract, whereas, in?
truth and in fact, it was not genuine vanilla extract, but was a dilute solu??
tion of alcohol artificially colored and containing artificial vanillin and coumarin?
prepared in imitation of vanilla extract, and said statement or abbreviation "Imit."?
which appeared on the label as aforesaid was insufficient to correct the false impression?
conveyed by the statement "Vanilla Extract."
On December 12,1913, the defendant company entered a plea of nolo contendere to?
the information, and the court imposed a fine of $20 and costs.
B. T. GALLOWAY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C, May 6, 1914.