S383. Adulteration and. misbranding- of vinegar. V. S. v. The Ohio Cider?
Vinegar Co. Plea of guilty. Fine, $50 and costs. (F. & D. No. 5565.?
I.  S. No.   7356-e.)
On March 24, 1914, the United States attorney for the Southern District of?
Ohio, acting upon a report of the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District?
Court of the United States for said district an information against the Ohio?
Cider Vinegar Co., a corporation, Cincinnati, Ohio, alleging shipment by said?
company in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on or about January 22, 1913,?
from the State of Ohio into the State of Indiana, of a quantity of vinegar which?
was adulterated and misbranded. The product was labeled: "CO-BA Brand?
Fermented Apple Vinegar Apple Product Cincinnati."
Analysis of a sample of the product by the Bureau of Chemistry of this?
department showed the following results:
Alcohol (grams per 100 cc)?
    0.27
Glycerol (grams per 100 cc)?
    0.09
Solids  (grams per 100 cc)?
    2.08
Nonsugar solids (grams per 100 cc)?
   1.05
Reducing sugar after evaporation (grams per 100 cc)?
   1.03
Sugar in solids  (per cent)?
<? 49.51
Polarization   (?V.)?
?2. 6
Ash (grams per 100 cc)?
   0.27
Alkalinity soluble ash (cc N/10 acid per 100 *cc)?
    16.8
Total phosphoric acid (mg per 100 cc)?
     8.4
Acid as acetic (grams per 100 cc)?
    3.53
Ash in nonsugar solids (per cent)?
   25. 7
Supplement.]   SERVICE AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS.	589
The analysis shows this product to be a mixture of cider vinegar, with a?
dilute solution of acetic acid, or distilled vinegar, with foreign mineral matter,?
and with a substance high in reducing sugar.
Adulteration of the product was alleged in the information for the reason?
that a substance other than fermented apple vinegar, that is to say, a sub??
stance composed wholly or in part of distilled vinegar or dilute acetic acid, and?
a product high in reducing sugars had been substituted wholly or in part for?
fermented apple vinegar which the article was represented by its label to be,?
and for the further reason that a substance, namely, water, had been mixed?
and packed with the article so as to reduce and lower and injuriously affect its?
quality and strength. Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the state??
ment " Fermented Apple Vinegar Apple Product," borne on the packages in?
which said article was shipped and delivered for shipment, -as aforesaid, was?
false and misleading because said statement was calculated to deceive and mis??
lead purchasers into the belief that said article was composed wholly of fer??
mented cider made from apples, whereas, in truth and in fact, said article was?
not composed wholly of fermented cider made from apples, but was an article?
consisting in whole, or in part, of distilled vinegar or dilute acetic acid, and a?
product high in reducing sugars.
On April 2, 1914, the defendant company entered a plea of guilty to the infor??
mation and the court imposed a fine of $50 and costs of $15.20.
D. F. HOUSTON, Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C, September 24, 1914.