3891. Adulteration and misbranding of butter.   U. S. v. Albert ?. JOopez.   Plea of guilty.?
Fine, $10.   (F. & D. No. 4221.   L S. No. 13294-d.)
At the April, 1914, term of the District Court of the United States of America for the?
Southern District of New York, the jurors of the United States within and for the?
district aforesaid, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, upon present??
ment of the United States attorney, returned an indictment against Albert F. Lopez,?
New York, N. Y., charging shipment by said defendant, in violation of the Food?
and Drugs Act, on January 11, 1912, from the State of New York into the State of?
Georgia, of a quantity of butter which was adulterated and misbranded. The product?
was labeled: "V. Lopez & Co. New York-, U. S, A. Packers of the celebrated?
Blue Ribbon Brand Butter   Guaranteed absolutely Pure."
Analysis of a sample of the product by the Bureau of Chemistry of this department?
showed the following results:
Water (per cent)?
 23. 455
Fat, by indirect method (per cent)?
 71 845
Casein (per cent)?
   1,65
Ash (per cent)?-? -?
    3. 05
Total (percent)?
 100.00
Sodium chlorid (per cent)?
?2. 37
On the fat:
Reichert-Meissl number?
-.?27. 58
lodin number?
?35. 83
Refraction at 25? C?
?14577
Spoon test- Acts like a renovated butter.
Adulteration of the product was charged in the indictment for the reason that a?
substance, to wit, water, had been mixed and packed with said article in such quantity?
as to reduce and lower and injuriously affect its quality and strength, and, further,?
for the reason that a substance, to wit, water, in an -excessive amount, had been sub??
stituted in part for the article, to wit, butter. Misbranding was charged for the?
reason that the statement "Butter Guaranteed absolutely Pure," appearing on the?
label aforesaid regarding said article and the ingredients and substances contained?
therein, was false and misleading in that it indicated that the article was pure butter,?
conforming to the legal standard for pure butter, whereas, in truth and in fact, said?
article was not pure butter conforming to the legal standard for pure butter but was an?
adulterated butter, containing an excessive amount of water. Misbranding was?
charged for the further reason that the article was labeled and branded so as to deceive?
and mislead the purchaser, being labeled "Butter Guaranteed absolutely Pure,"?
thereby indicating that the article was pure butter, whereas, in truth and in fact, it?
was not pure butter, but was an adulterated butter, containing an excessive amount?
of water,
On February 18, 1915, the defendant, having withdrawn his plea of not guilty?
previously entered, entered a plea of guilty to the indictment, and the court imposed?
a fine of $10.
GARI YEOMAN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C, May ?9', 1915.
484	
BUREAU  OF  CHEMISTRY.	
[Supplement 8.