3428.?Misbranding of fruit puddine.     U.  S. v. Fruit  Puddine  Co.     Plea  of
guilty.    Fine, $50.     (F. & D. No. 3992.     I.  S. No. 926-d.)
On July 18, 1913, the United States attorney for the District of Maryland,?
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 Fruit Puddine?
Co. (Inc.), a body corporate, Baltimore, Md., alleging shipment by said com??
pany, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on May 8, 1911, from the State?
of Maryland into the State of Ohio, of a quantity of a certain article of food?
called "Fruit Puddine, Lemon," which was misbranded. The product was?
labeled: (On shipping case) "2 doz. Pkgs. Fruit Puddine Trade Mark Regis??
tered   A Compound (Picture of bowl of fruit)    Fruit Puddine Co., Baltimore,
Supplement]    SERVICE AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS.	659
Md. U. S. A." (On package) "Fruit Flavored Puddine Lemon Fruit Puddine?
Co., Baltimore, Md. U. S. A. Fruit Puddine (Picture of bowl of fruit) A?
mixture. The flavorings and colors used in the Mixture Fruit Puddine are?
pure and harmless, and are guaranteed by the Fruit Puddine Co. to comply?
with the Pure Food and Drugs Act, under Serial No. 4167."
Analysis of a sample of the product by the Bureau of Chemistry of this?
department showed the following results:
Reducing sugars: None.
Ether extract (per cent)?
?0.05
Taste: Like lemon.
Starch  (McGill method)   (percent)?
?86.5
Starch (acid conversion)   (percent)?
?80.3
Moisture (per cent)?
??7.99
Ash (per cent)?
?1.31
Alkalinity of ash (cc N/10 acid per 100 grams)?
?6.0
Sodium chlorid  (NaCl)   (per cent)?
?1.23
Phosphoric acid (P20B) : Slight trace.
Protein  (per cent)?
?0.47
Color: Naphthol Yellow S.
Misbranding of the product was alleged in the information for the reason?
that each of the packages containing said puddine bore a certain statement?
regarding it and the ingredients and substances contained therein, which said?
statement was false and misleading in that it was stated upon each of the?
packages that said puddine was a fruit-flavored puddine, which statement was?
false and misleading, in that said puddine was not a fruit-flavored puddine,?
but, on the contrary, was a puddine flavored with ordinary flavoring materials?
prepared from essential oils. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason?
that the product was labeled and branded so as to deceive and mislead the?
purchaser, in that each of the packages bore a certain statement regarding?
said puddine and the ingredients and substances contained therein, which?
said statement was false and misleading, in that each of the packages was?
labeled " Fruit Flavored Puddine," whereas, in truth and in fact, said puddine?
did not contain any fruit flavor, but, on the contrary, was flavored with ordinary?
flavoring materials prepared from essential oils. Misbranding was alleged for?
the further reason that each of the packages bore a certain design regarding?
said article and the ingredients and substances contained therein, to wit, a?
dish of fruit, and in that each of said packages bore, in addition, a certaiu?
statement regarding the said article and said ingredients and substances, which?
said statement was in substance and effect that the said puddine was a fruit-?
flavored puddine flavored with a lemon flavor, which said design and which said?
statement were false and misleading, in that they imported that said puddine?
contained fruit flavors, whereas, in truth and in fact, the said puddine did not?
contain any fruit flavors, but, on the contrary, contained merely ordinary?
flavoring material prepared from essential oils. Misbranding was alleged for?
the further reason that the product was labeled and branded so as to deceive?
and mislead the purchaser, in that each of the packages bore a certain design?
regarding the said puddine and the ingredients and substances contained?
therein, to wit, a dish of fruit, and in that each of said packages bore in addi??
tion a certain statement regarding said puddine and said ingredients and sub??
stances, which said statement was in effect and substance that said puddine?
was a fruit-flavored puddine, lemon, which said design and statement were?
false and misleading in that they imported that said puddine contained a fruit?
flavor, whereas, in truth and in fact, said puddine did not contain any fruit
660	
BUKEAU   OF   CHEMISTBY.	
[August, 1914.
flavor, but, on the contrary, contained merely ordinary flavoring material pre??
pared from essential oils.
On March 26, 1914, the defendant company entered a plea of guilty to the
information, and the court imposed a fine of $50.
D. F. HOUSTON, Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C, September 2-i, 1914.