3375. Adulteration and misbranding: of malt tonic. U. S. v. Eblingr Brew??
ing? Co. Plea of guilty. Fine, $50. (F. & D. No. 5503. I. S. No.?
1146-e.)
On March 25, 1914, the United States attorney for the Southern District of?
New York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the?
District Court of the United States for said district two informations against?
the Bbling Brewing Co., a corporation, New York, N. Y., alleging shipment by?
said company in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on September 6 and 7,?
1912, from the State of New York into the State of Massachusetts, of quantities?
of so-called malt tonic which was adulterated and misbranded. The product?
was labeled: " Malt-Tonic Concentrated Malt Extract Pure Malt German?
Hops Put up in Sterile bottles and Pasteurized with the utmost care For?
Medicinal Use?Not a Beverage Superior in quality to Extracts of Malt usually?
found on the market. In this Malt will be found sterling merit in Weakness,?
Chronic Debility, Dyspepsia, Nervous Exhaustion and Malnutrition. It is espe??
cially adapted to nursing mothers, supplying strength to meet the unusual de??
mand upon the system during the period of lactation, improving the quality?
and quantity of the milk in increasing the amount of Sugar and Phosphates?
thereby nourishing the infant and at the same time sustaining the mother. In?
sleeplessness it produces refreshing and natural rest. Directions?A wineglass-?
ful with each meal and on going to bed, or as may be directed by the physician.?
Children in proportion to age. This preparation contains from 3 to 4 per cent,?
alcohol naturally produced and guaranteed under the national pure food law?
enacted June 30, 1906 Serial No. 13149. Prepared for Haskell, Adams & Co.,?
New England Distributors   Boston, Mass.    Dover, N. H."
Analysis of a sample of the product by the Bureau of Chemistry of this?
department showed the following results:
Alcohol (per cent by volume)?
    5.40
Extract (per cent by weight)?
    7.35
Extract original wort (per cent by weight)?
15.99
Degree fermentation?
54.10
Volatile acid as acetic (grams per 100 cc)?
0.029
Total acid as lactic (grams per 100 cc)?
0.243
Maltose (per cent)?
    2.21
Dextrin   (per cent)?
   3 59
Ash   (per cent)?
0.202
Protein  (per cent)?
0.472
Undetermined (per cent)?
   0.88
P20B  (per cent)?
0.074
Polarization, undiluted  (?V.)?
    +50
Color (degrees in 1-inch cell, Lovibond)?
       32
Adulteration of the product was alleged in the information for the reason?
that it was sold under and by a name recognized in the United States Pharma??
copoeia, and differed from the standard of strength, quality, and purity as de??
termined by the test laid down in said Pharmacopoeia official at the time of?
investigation of the said article, in that said Pharmacopoeia specifies that malt?
extract should be made exclusively from malt, whereas, in truth and in fact,?
the said article of drugs was not made exclusively from malt, hut [in part]?
trom a cereal or cereal product other than malt. Misbranding was alleged in?
the informations for the reason that the statements, " Malt Tonic. Concen??
trated Malt Extract. Pure Malt?German Hops," borne on the label, were?
false and misleading in that they conveyed the impression that the product?
aforesaid was prepared exclusively from malt and hops, whereas, in truth and
584	
BUREAU   OF  CHEMISTRY.	
[July, 1914.
in fact, the same was not prepared exclusively from malt and hops, but was?
prepared in part from a cereal or cereal product other than malt.
On April 6, 1914, the defendant company withdrew its plea of not guilty pre??
viously entered and entered its plea of guilty to the informations, and the court?
imposed a fine of $25 on each information, or a total fine of $50.
D. P. HOUSTON, Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C, September 21f, 1914. ?