4763. Adulteration and misbranding of vinegar, U. S. * * * v. 68 Barrels * + *" of?
Vinegar. Consent decree of condemnation and forfeiture. Product ordered released?
on bond.   (F. & D. No. 7275.   I. S. No. 11159-1.   S. No. C-463 )
On April 3, 1916, the United States attorney for the Northern District of Texas,?
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District Court of the?
United States for said district a libel for the seizure and condemnation of 68 barrels?
of vinegar, remaining unsold in the original unbroken packages at Amarillo, Tex.,?
alleging that the article had been shipped, on ox about February 18, 1916, by the?
Gist-Leo Vinegar Co., a corporation, Springfield, Mo., and transported from the State?
of Missouri into the State of Texas, and charging adulteration and misbranding in?
violation of the Food and Drugs Act. The article was labeled: "Gist-Leo Vinegar?
Company, Springfield, Mo.?Pure Apple Cider Vinegar."
The allegations in the libel were to the effect that analysis of samples of the vinegar?
by the United States Bureau of Chemistry, made under the direction of the Secretary?
of Agriculture, showed that it consisted in part of distilled vinegar or of dilute acetic?
acid; that said distilled vinegar or dilute acetic acid had been mixed and packed?
with the vinegar so as to reduce and lower and injuriously affect its quality and strength,?
wherefore, and by reason of which facts the vinegar was adulterated in violation of?
the Food and Drugs Act. Adulteration was alleged for the further reason that dis??
tilled vinegar or dilute acetic acid had been substituted in part for pure apple cider?
vinegar.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the article was an imitation of, and?
offered for sale under the distinctive name of, another article, and further, for the?
reason that it was labeled and branded so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser;?
that is to say, it was branded "Pure Apple Cider Vinegar," whereas, in truth and in?
fact, it was not pure apple cider vinegar, but contained distilled vinegar or dilute?
acetic acid.
On April 20, 1916, the said Gist-Leo Vinegar Co., claimant, having filed bond in?
conformity with section 10 of the act, which was approved by the court, and it appear??
ing that the vinegar was not unfit for food and might be rebranded and sold in com??
pliance with law, judgment of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was?
ordered by the court that the product should be delivered to said claimant company?
iipon payment of the costs of the proceedings. It was further directed by the court?
that the barrels containing the vinegar should be rebranded in such a manner as to?
show the true contents thereof.
CARL VKOOMAN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
336	
BUKEAU   OF   CHEMISTRY.	
[Supplement 26.