3283.?Adulteration and misbranding; of cider. U. S. v. National Frnit Products Co. Plea of gruilty. Fine, $25 and costs. (F. & D. No. 2721. I. S. No. 10472-c.) On August 13, 1913, the United States attorney for the Western District of? Tennessee, 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 Decem?? ber 9, 1910, from the State of Tennessee into the State of Kentucky, of a? quantity of cider which was adulterated and misbranded. The product was? labeled: "Apple Base Cider. Guaranteed. The contents of this package as? originally filled are guaranteed to be made from apples fortified with sugar.? (No distilled spirits, wine, fermented juice of grapes or other small fruits or? alcoholic liquors being added) Flavored with artificial flavoring; colored with? vegetable color and contains 1/10 of 1? Benzoate of Soda. Sweetened with? artificial sweetening matter, and conforms to the provisions of the Food and? Drugs Act as passed by Congress of June 30, 1906. We also guarantee the con?? tents of this package as originally filled to be exempt from Internal Revenue? Tax. National Fruit Products Co., Memphis, Tenn." "Apple Base Cider.? Guarantee. Made from apples fortified with sugar. Flavored with artificial 468 BUREAU OF CHEMISTRY. [June, 1914. flavor; colored with vegetable color; 1/10 of 1? Benzoate of Soda. Sweetened? with artificial sweetening matter. (Lab. guarantee) Apricot Flavor." Analysis of a sample of the product by the Bureau of Chemistry of this de?? partment showed the following results: Specific gravity (20?C./4?C.)? 1.0536 Alcohol (per cent by volume)? 6.92 Solids (grams per 100 cc)? 16.59 Non-sugar solids (grams per 100 cc)? 6.56 Sucrose (grams per 100 cc)? 0.15 Reducing sugars (grams per 100 cc)? 9.88 Polarization, direct, 20? C. (?V.)? +20.0 Polarization, invert, 20? G. (?V.)? +19.8 Polarization, invert, 87? C. (?V.)? +19.1 Ash (grams per 100 cc)? __ 0.23 Alkalinity of water-soluble ash (cc N/10 acid per 100 cc)? 11. 8 Soluble P205 (mg per 100 cc)? 42.1 Insoluble P2O5 (mg per 100 cc)? 25. 6 Volatile acid, as acetic (grams per 100 cc)? 0.30 Fixed acid, as malic (grams per 100 cc)? 0.23 Color (degrees, brewer's scale, 0.5 inch cell)? 23.0 Sodium benzoate (approximately) (grams per 100 cc)?.? 0.16 Saccharin: Present,? lodin test for erythrodextrin: Positive.? Caramel (fuller's earth test) : Present.? Coal tar color: None detected. Adulteration of the product was alleged in the information for the reason? that it was not apple cider nor apple base cider, but was an imitation cider,? made in part by the fermentation of impure starch sugar containing a high? amount of dextrin, and being a highly alcoholic compound, and for the further? reason that it contained added phosphoric acid [and (?)] fermentation [prod?? ucts (?) ] of impure starch sugar and dextrin, which said substances had been? added wholly or in part for the article so as to reduce, lower, and injuriously? affect the quality of said article. Misbranding of the product was alleged for? the reason that the labeling and branding was calculated to cause the purchaser? or purchasers of the article to be deceived and to believe that it was apple? cider or apple base cider, whereas, in truth and in fact, the same was not apple? cider or apple base cider, but was a compound alcoholic liquor made wholly or .? in part from ingredients not normal to apple cider or apple base cider; for the? reason that the amount of benzoate of soda contained in the kegs or barrels? was stated by said labels to be one-tenth of 1 per cent, when, in fact, there was? contained in said product a larger amount of benzoate of soda than that stated? upon the label; for the further reason that the product was labeled conspicu?? ously "Apricot Flavor," when, in fact, the flavoring used was an imitation? flavoring, which fact was not plainly indicated on the principal label; for the? further reason that the label stated, " Fortified with sugar," when, in fact, it? was not fortified with sugar, but was prepared wholly or in part from com?? mercial starch sugar containing a considerable amount of dextrin; for the fur?? ther reason that said labels or "brands on the barrels or kegs were calculated? to deceive and mislead the purchaser or purchasers of the contents, in that the? label stated, " Guaranteed to be made from apples, fortified with sugar, (no dis?? tilled spirits, wine, fermented juice of grapes or other small fruits or alcoholic? liquors being added)," thus implying by inference that the product was non- Supplement.] SERVICE AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS. 469 alcoholic, when, in fact, it was an intoxicating alcoholic beverage, containing? nearly 7 per cent by volume of alcohol; and for the further reason that none? of the labels on the barrels aforesaid contained any statement of the presence? or quantity of alcohol in said product. On November 13, 1913, the defendant company entered a plea of guilty to the? information, and the court imposed a fine of $25, with costs of $15.85. When this case was reported for prosecution, no claim was made that the? product was misbranded in that the labels on the barrels did not contain a? statement of the presence or quantity of alcohol in said product. B. T. GALLOWAY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture. WASHINGTON, D. 0., June 8, 1914.