3370. Adulteration and misbranding of cider, tl. S. v. The Elk Bottling?
Co. Plea of grnilty. Fine, $20 and costs. (F. & D. No. 5480. 1. S. No.?
36274-e.)
On March 14, 1914, the United States attorney for the eastern district of?
Missouri, 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?
Elk Bottling Co., a corporation, St. Louis, Mo., alleging shipment by said com??
pany in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on or about July 15, 1912, from?
the State of Missouri into the State of Illinois, of a quantity of cider which?
was adulterated and misbranded. The product was labeled: " Sweet Cider?
Produced of Concentrated Pure Apple Juice, preserved with 1-1000 part of?
Benzoate of soda.    The Elk Bottling Co.   1440 Blair Ave.    St. Louis, Mo."
Analysis of a sample of the product by the Bureau of Chemistry of this?
department showed the following results:
Solids (grams per 100 ec)?
    1.16
Nonsugar solids (grams per 100 cc)?
    0.56
Reducing sugar after inversion (grams per 100 cc)?,.?
    0.61
Color (degrees, brewer's scale, i inch)?
       30
Ash (grams per 100 cc)?
   0.56
Alkalinity soluble ash (cc N/10 acid per 100 cc)?
     1.6
Saccharin (grams per 100 cc)?
0.011
The product is not a sweet cider, but is a very dilute apple-juice product, to?
which has been added artificial color and saccharin.
Adulteration of the product was alleged in the information for the reason,?
that water, artificially sweetened with saccharin and artificially colored with?
caramel, had been mixed and packed with the article, so as to reduce, lower,?
or injuriously affect its quality or strength; and, further, in that other sub??
stances, namely, water, saccharin, and caramel, had been substituted wholly?
or in part for sweet cider; and, further, in that said article had been colored?
with caramel in a manner whereby its inferiority was concealed; and, further,?
in that said article contained saccharin, an added poisonous or deleterious?
ingredient, which might render said article injurious to health. Misbranding?
was alleged for the reason that the statements " Sweet Cider " and " Produced?
of Concentrated Pure Apple Juice," borne on the labels of the bottles in which?
said article was shipped and delivered for shipment, were false and misleading,?
because said statements misled and deceived the purchaser into the belief that?
said article was genuine apple cider, whereas it was not genuine apple cider,?
but was a mixture or compound, composed of a dilute solution of apple product?
and water, artificially sweetened with saccharin and artificially colored with car-
578	
BUREAU  OP   CHEMISTEY.	
[July, 1914.
amel, and, further, in that said article was an imitation sweet cider prepared with?
a dilute solution of water and apple product, artificially sweetened with sac??
charin and artificially colored with caramel, and was offered for sale and sold?
under the distinctive name of sweet cider; and, further, for the reason that?
said article was labeled and branded so as to deceive and mislead the pur??
chaser thereof into the belief that it was genuine sweet cider when not so.
On April 1, 1914, the defendant company entered a plea of guilty to the?
information, and the court imposed a fine of $20, with costs of $18.83.
D. F. HOUSTON, Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C, September 21h 191Jf.