40S5. Adulteration, and misbranding of evaporated apples. TJ, S. < * * -*?
v. R. E. Fnnsten Dried Fruit & Nat Co., a corporation. Plea of?
guilty. Fine, $110. (P. & D. No. 5780. I. S. Nos. 11349-k, 11868-*,?
11873-k, 11876-k, 12496-k.)
On September 13, 1916, the United States attorney for the Eastern District?
of Missouri, 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 li. E. Funsten Dried Fruit & Nut Co., a corporation, St. Louis, Mo., alleging?
shipment by said company,  in violation of the Food and Drugs Act:
(1)?On or about August 22, 1914, from the State of Missouri into the State?
of Minnesota, of a quantity of evaporated apples which were adulterated.?
The article was labeled: " Lillie Brand (out of ripe apples) Evaporated Apples?
Sulphur Bleached."
Analysis of a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this de??
partment showed that it contained 29.31 per cent of moisture.
Adulteration of this article (and of the evaporated apples shipped October?
30, 1914 and November 5, 1914 into the States of Mississippi and Wisconsin,?
respectively, hereinafter referred to) was alleged in the information for the?
reason that a substance, to wit, water, had been mixed and packed therewith?
so as to lower or reduce and injuriously affect its quality and strength, and?
had been substituted in part for evaporated apples, which the article purported?
to be.
(2)?On or about October 29, 1914, from the State of Missouri into the State?
of Mississippi, of a quantity of evaporated apples which were nrisbranded.?
The article was labeled, in part: " Crown Brand Evaporated Apples. * * *?
Net Weight 9 oz.    *    *    *."
Examination of a sample of the article by said Bureau of Chemistry showed?
an average shortage in weight of 6 packages of 1.30 ounces or 14.5 per cent.
Misbranding of the article was alleged in the information for the reason?
fhat the statement, to wit, " 9 oz.", borne on the package, was false and mis??
leading in that it represented that the package contained not less than 9?
ounces of the article, and for the further reason that it was labeled " 9 oz."?
so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief that said package?
contained not less than 9 ounces of the article, whereas, in truth and in fact,?
it did not, but contained a less amount. Misbranding was alleged for the?
further reason that the article was in package form, and the quantity of the?
contents was not plainly and conspicuously marked on the outside of the?
package.
(3)?On or about October 30, 1914. from the State of Missouri into the State?
of Mississippi, of a quantity of evaporated apples which were adulterated and?
misbranded. The article was labeled in part: " Majestic Brand Funsten?
Evaporated Apples Net weight 15 oz.    *    *    * ".
Analysis of a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry showed?
28.38 per cent of moisture, and an average shortage in weight of 6 packages?
of 0.90 ounce, or 6 per cent.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements, to wit, " Evapo??
rated Apples," and " 15 oz.," borne on the package, were false and misleading?
In that they represented that said article was evaporated apples, and that the?
package contained 15 ounces, and for the further reason that the article was?
labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief?
tfcat it was evaporated apples, and that the said package contained 15 ounces,?
whereas, in truth and in fact, it was not, but was a partially dried apple?
product containing an-excessive amount of water, and the said package did not
4389??18?4
6&0	
BXJKEAU  OF  CHEMISTBY,	
{Supplement 30.
contain 15 ounces, but contained a less amount. Misbranding was alleged for?
the further reason that the article was in package form, and the quantity of the?
contents was not plainly and conspicuously marked on the outside of the?
package.
(4)?On or about November 5, 1914, from the State of Missouri into the?
State of Wisconsin, of a quantity of evaporated apples which were adulterated?
and misbranded. The article was labeled; " Puck Brand Evaporated Apples?
Sulphur  Bleached."
Analysis of a sample of the article by said Bureau of Chemistry showed?
that it contained 28.68 per cent of moisture.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statement, to wit, " Evapo??
rated Apples," borne on the package, was false and misleading in that it?
represented that the article was evaporated apples, and for the further reason?
that the article was labeled as aforesaid so as to mislead and deceive the pur??
chaser into the belief that it was evaporated apples, whereas, in truth and iu?
fact, it was not, but was a partially dried apple product containing an excesshe?
amount of moisture. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the?
article was- in package form, and the quantity of the contents was not plainly?
and conspicuously marked on the outside of the package.
(5)?On or about November 2, 1914, from the State of Missouri into the State?
of Mississippi, of a quantity of evaporated apples which were misbranded. The?
article was labeled in part: ''Grown Brand Evaporated Apples. *? * * Net?
Aveight 9 oz     *    ??    V
Examination of a sample of the article by said Bureau of Chemistry showed?
an average shortage of six packages of 8 ounces, or 9 per cent.
Misbranding of the article was alleged in the information for the reason that?
the statement, to wit, " 9 oz.," borne on the package, was false and misleading?
in that it represented that the package contained not less than 9 ounces of the?
article, and for the further reason that it was labeled " 9 oz." so as to deceive?
and mislead the purchaser into the belief that said package contained not less?
than 9 ounces of the article, whereas, in truth and in fact, it did not, but con??
tained a less amount. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the?
article was in package form, and the quantity of the contents was not plainly?
and conspicuously marked on the outside of the package.
On September 22, 1916, the defendant company entered a plea of guilty to the?
information, and the court imposed a fine of $110.
GAEL VBOOMAN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
&. J. 4951^500©.]       SERVICE ASTD jRE&TJL/AgWF AJOTOUE'CEMEN'TS.        1&5JL