S17i>. Adulteration and misbranding? of vanilla and vanillin. U. S. * * *?
v. 235 Gross of 2-Ounce Bottles, More or Less, Labeled in Part,?
"Pure Vanilla and Vanillin." Consent decree of condemnation?
and forfeiture. Proilact ordered released on bond. (I<\ & D. No.?
114S0.     I.  S.  No.  S450-r.     S. No.  C-1551.)
On October 28, 1919, the United States attorney for the Eastern District?
of Illinois, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the?
District Court of the United States for said district a libel praying the seizure?
and condemnation of a certain quantity of an article, labeled in part "Pure?
Vanilla and Vanillin," remaining unsold in the original unbroken packages at?
East St. Louis, III., consigned by Schroeder Grocer Prod. Co., St. Louis, Mo.,?
alleging that the article had been shipped on or about September 6, 1919, and?
transported from the State of Missouri into the State of Illinois, and charging?
adulteration and misbranding in violation of the Food and Drugs Act.
Analysis of a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this?
department showed that it contained little, if any, vanilla extract, and that it-?
was composed essentially of a dilute alcoholic solution of vanillin and eouma??
rin, colored with caramel.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in that the product was an imitation?
of vanilla extract, containing vanillin and eoumarin and very little, if any,?
vanilla extract. Further adulteration was alleged in that a solution of?
vanillin and eoumarin had been mixed and packed with the article so as to?
reduce, lower, and injuriously affect its quality and strength. Further adul??
teration was alleged in that the article had been colored with caramel in a?
manner whereby inferiority was concealed.
Misbranding of the article was alleged in that the article was an imitation?
of, and was offered for sale under the distinctive name of, another article,?
to wit, "Pure Vanilla and Vanillin."
On November 24, 1919, C. II. Ozier, claimant, haying consented to the?
entry of a decree, judgment of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and?
it was ordered by the court that the product be delivered to the claimant?
upon the payment of the costs of the proceedings and the filing of a bond,?
in conformity with section 10 of the act.
E. D. BALL, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.