S363. Adulteration and misbranding of concentrated milk. V. S. v. M. & O.?
Milk Co. Plea of guilty. Fine, $10 and costs. (F. & D. No. 5445.?
I.  S. Nos.   186-e,  187-e,  188-e,  189-e,  190-e.)
On February 17, 1914, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of?
Illinois, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the Dis??
trict Court of the United States for said district an information against the?
M. & O. Milk Co., a corporation, "Waterloo, 111., alleging shipment by said com??
pany in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on or about October 30, 1912, from?
the State of Illinois into the State of Missouri, of a quantity of so-called con??
centrated milk which was adulterated and misbranded. The product was?
labeled: (On tops and necks of cans) " M. & O. Milk Co., Waterloo, 111." (On?
tags attached to cans) " Full Cream Concentrated Milk. From M. & O. Milk Co.?
Waterloo, Illinois. For M. & O. Milk Co. 2338 Olive St. St. Louis, Mo. No.?
Cans.       No. Gals.       Date Oct. 29, 1912."
Microscopical examination of samples of the product by the Bureau of Chem??
istry of this department showed the five samples examined to be identical in?
appearance. In each case the fat globules were very small, usually running?
about 0.001 mm. in diameter, a few ranging up to 0.005 mm. in diameter. These?
results indicated that the product had been passed through a homogenizer.
Adulteration of the product was alleged in the information for the reason?
that other substances, namely, dried skimmed milk, water, and butter oil, had?
been substituted in part for full-cream concentrated milk. Misbranding was?
alleged for the reason that the statement " Full Cream Concentrated Milk,"?
borne on said labels attached to the cans in which said article was shipped and?
delivered for shipment, was false and misleading, because, as a matter of fact,?
the contents of the cans were not full-cream concentrated milk, as represented?
by said statement, but said cans in fact contained a mixture composed in part?
of dried skimmed milk, water, and butter oil; and, further, in that said article?
was labeled and branded so as to mislead and deceive the purchaser thereof into?
the belief that it was full-cream concentrated milk, whereas, in truth and in?
fact, said article was not full-cream concentrated milk, but was a mixture in?
part of dried skimmed milk, water, and butter oil.
On April 8, 1914, the defendant company entered a plea of guilty to the infor??
mation and the court imposed a fine of $10 and costs.
D. F. HOUSTON, Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C, September 24, 1914.
Supplement]   SERVICE AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS.	573