Sli>7. Adulteration and misbranding of tomatoes. If. S. * * * v. 150?
Cases, More or I^ess, of Bine Doit Brand Tomatoes, Consent decree?
of condemnation and forfeiture.     Product released on  fioiul,     (F.  &
D. No. 11548.     I. S. No. 15340-r.     S. No. E-1864.)
- On December 8, 1919, the United States attorney for the District of Colum??
bia, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the Police?
Court of the district aforesaid a: libel praying the seizure, of a certain quantity?
of Blue Dot Brand-tomatoes, remaining unsold in the original unbroken pack??
ages at Washington, D. C, alleging that the article had been shipped on or?
about September 4,'1919, by Winiield Webster & Co., Vienna, Md., and trans??
ported from the State of Maryland into the District of Columbia, and charg??
ing adulteration and misbranding in violation of the Food and Drugs Act. The?
product was labeled, in part, "Blue. Dot Brand Tomatoes * * * These?
tomatoes were, packed in a sanitary .factory * * * Packed, by Winneld?
Webster & Co. Main Office Vienna, Md."
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the libel in that a certain sub??
stance, to wit, tomato pulp, had been mixed and packed with .the article so as?
to reduce and lower and injuriously affect its quality and strength. Further?
adulteration was alleged in that a-certain substance, to wit, tomato pulp, had?
been substituted, wholly and in part for the article. Further adulteration was?
alleged in that the article consisted in whole or in part of a filthy, decomposed,?
and putrid animal and vegetable substance.
Misbranding of the article was alleged in that the statements and designs?
on the label of the cans enclosing the article, to wit. "Blue Dot Brand To??
matoes" and "These tomatoes were packed in a sanitary factory," with a?
design showing a representation of a whole ripe tomato, were false and mis??
leading in that the article was deficient in tomato solids, consisting wholly and?
in part of tomato pidp. Further misbranding was alleged in that the said?
article was an imitation of, and was offered for sale under the distinctive name?
of, another article, to wit, canned Tomatoes. Further misbranding was alleged?
in that the article was labeled and branded so as to deceive and mislead the?
purchaser.
138     
BUREAU  OF   CHEMISTRY.	
[Supplement 94,
On March 10, 1920, Winfield Webster & Co., claimant, having consented to a?
decree, judgment of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and the product?
was ordered released to the claimant upon payment of the costs of the proceed??
ings and tiling of a bond, in conformity with section 10 of the act.
E. D. BALL, Ac-ting Secretary of Agriculture.