G369. Adulteration and miswrandins' of gelatin. U. S. * * * v. 3 Barrels?
* * * of * * * Gelatin. Consent decree of condemnation and?
forfeiture. Product ordered released en bond. (F. & D. No. 8386.?
I.  S. No. 9202-p.    S. No.  C-728.)
On August 0, 1917, the United States attorney for the District of Indiana,?
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 3 barrels of a product purporting to be gelatin, remaining unsold in the?
original unbroken packages at Indianapolis, Ind., alleging that the article had?
been received on or about May 16, 1917, the same having been shipped by T. M.?
Duche & Sons, Chicago, 111., and transported from the State of Illinois into the?
State of Indiana, and charging adulteration and misbranding in violation of?
the Food and Drugs Act. The product was labeled in part, "SB L," and was?
invoiced as gelatin.
It was alleged in substance in the libel that the article was adulterated for?
the reason that glue had been mixed and packed therewith and had been sub??
stituted in part for gelatin so as to reduce, lower, and injuriously affect its?
quality; and for the further reason that it had mixed and packed with it?
copper, arsenic, and zinc, and said substances, had been substituted in part for?
gelatin so as to reduce, lower, and injuriously affect its quality; and for the?
further reason that said copper, arsenic, and '/Anc may render the article?
injurious to health.
Misbranding of the article was alleged in substance for the reason that it was?
an imitation of, and was offered for sale under the distinctive name of, gelatin,?
when, in fact, it was not gelatin but was a product consisting in part of glue and?
in part of copper, arsenic, and zinc, which had been substituted in part for?
gelatin; and for the further reason that said product was labeled and branded?
so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser into believing that it was gelatin,?
when, in fact, it was not.
On October 10, 1918, Charles Townsend & Bro., copartners, New York, N. Y.,?
claimants, having admitted the allegations of the libel, judgment of condemna??
tion and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered by the court that the?
product should be delivered to said claimant upon the payment of the costs of?
the proceedings and the execution of a bond in the sum of $500, in conformity?
with section 10 of the act, conditioned in part that the product should not be?
usei for ?eod purposes or in the manufacture of articles of food.
C. F. MARVIN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
N. J. 6351-6400.]      SERVICE  AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS.        431