38S0* Adulteration of candy.   U. S. v. R. E. Rodda Candy Co.   Plea of nolo contendere.?
Fine, ?5.   (F. & D. No. 3423.   I. S. No. 17333-c.)
On April 10, 1912, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsyl??
vania, 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 K. E. Rodda Candy?
Co., a corporation, Lancaster, Pa., alleging shipment by said company, in violation of?
the Food and Drugs Act, on March 8, 1911, from the State of Pennsylvania into the?
State of Minnesota, of a quantity of confectionary, styled and designated as "Easter?
Joy," which was adulterated. The product was labeled: "Originality?Workman??
ship?Purity. Trade Mark. Rodda Candy. Easter Joy Guaranteed under the?
Pure Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 1906. Serial No. 22134. Originality?Work??
manship?Purity.    Trade Mark Rodda Candy."
Analysis of a sample of the product by the Bureau of Chemistry of this department?
showed the following resalts:
Ash (per cent)?
    0. 11
Ash in coating (per cent)?
    0.19
Ash in coating insoluble in water (per cent)?
    0.13
Ash in coating insoluble in 10 per cent HC1 (per cent)?
    0. 03
Separated mineral matter (per cent)?
    0. 02
Analysis of mineral matter (per cent):
Si02?
 65.03
Al2Oa and re2Os?
 28. 26
MgO?
    5. 23
Undetermined?
    1. 48
Physical examination showed separated mineral to have greasy feel.?
Microscopical examination showed mineral foliated or having a thin?
plate-like structure.
Adulteration of the product was alleged in the information for the reason that it?
contained talc, and, further, in that it contained a mineral substance consisting?
largely of aluminum and iron silicate.
On March 12, 1915, the defendant company entered a plea of nolo contendere to the?
information, and the court imposed a fine of $5.
CARL VROOMAN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C, May 28, 1915.
~470	
BUREAU OF CHEMISTRY,	
[Supplements.