5052. Adulteration and misbranding of " Pure Northern Ohio Sugar." U. S.?
* * * v. Northern Ohio Symp and Manufacturing: Co., a> cftrpwa-?
tion.     Plea of nolo contendere.     Fine, ?35 and  costs.     (F. & D. No,
7069.    I. S. No. 7398-h.)
On March; 8> 191?, the United States attorney for the Northern District of?
Ohio, 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 Northern?
Ohio Syrup and Manufacturing Co., a corporation, Cleveland, Ohio, alleging?
shipment by said company, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on or about?
March 25, 1914, from the State of Ohio into the State of Michigan, of a?
quantity of maple sugar which was adulterated and misbranded. The article?
was labeled in part: " Pride of Northern Ohio- Sugar. * x * " and " Pure?
Northern Ohio Sugar   Northern Ohio Syrup & Mfg. Co., Cleveland, O."
Analysis of a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this depart??
ment showed the followings results:
Solids by refraction (per cent)?
?94.16
Nonsugar solids (percent)?
?2.86
Sucrose, Clerget  (percent)?
?86.45
Reducing sugars as invert (per cent)?
?4.85
Commercial glucose (factor 163) : Absent.?
Polarizations;
Direct at 26? C?
?+84. 9? V
Invert at 2@? C__?
??27. 2? V
Invert at 87? C?
?0. 0
Total ash (per cent)?
?0. SO
Ash soluble in water (per cent)?
?0.76
Ash insoluble in water (per cent)?
?0.04
Ratio soluble to insoluble ash?
?19.
Alkalinity soluble ash (ee N/10 acid per 100 grams)??180.
Lead precipitate  (Winton number)?
?0.61
Organoleptic test: Taste unlike maple.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the information for the reason that?
a substance, to wit, brown sugar, had been mixed and packed therewith, so?
as to lower or reduce and injuriously affect its quality, and [had] been sub??
stituted, in whole or in part, for maple sugar, which the article purported to be.
Misbranding- was alleged for the reason that the statement, to wit, " Pure?
Northern Ohio Sugar," borne on the shipping package, and the statement, to?
wit, " Pride of Northern Ohio Sugar," borne on the package, were false and?
misleading in that they represented that said article was maple sugar; and for?
the further reason that the article was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive?
and mislead the purchasers into the belief that it was maple sugar, whereas, in?
truth and in fact, it was not, but was a product consisting, in whole OF in part,?
of brown sugar. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that it was?
an imitation of maple sugar and was not labeled, branded, or tagged so as?
plainly to indicate that it was an imitation, and the word, " imitation," was not?
plainly stated on the package in which it was sold.
On January 31, 1916, the defendant company entered a plea of nolo con??
tendere to the information, and the court imposed a fine of $35 ami costs.
CLABEisrcE QU&LEY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
S". J. 3051-6100]   SERVICE  AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS.	§1