8399. Adnlterittion nml misbranding' of Orange. Dee-Ijight. IT. S. * * *?
v. 7 Cans, More or Less, of Orange Dee-tiiglit. Default decree of?
condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (b\ &. D. No. 13185. I. S.?
No.  7807-t.     S.  No.  E-2438.)
On or about July 17, 1920, the United States attorney for the Eastern District?
of Pennsylvania, 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 a certain quantity of a certain article, labeled in part?
" Orange Dee-Light," at Philadelphia, Pa., alleging that the article had been?
shipped on or about July 8, 1920, by the California Fruit Product Co., New?
York, N. Y., and transported from the State of New York into the State of?
Pennsylvania, 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 de??
partment showed that it consisted of an emulsion containing glycerin, sugar,?
and saccharin flavored with oil of orange and colored with a coal-tar color?
known as orange I;
Adulteration of the article was' alleged in the libel in that a sirup flavored?
with oil of orange and artificially colored had been mixed and packed with, and?
substituted wholly or in part for, the article. It was further adulterated in?
that it was colored in a manner whereby its inferiority was concealed. It was?
further adulterated in that it contained an added poisonous or other added?
deleterious ingredient, saccharin, which might render the article injurious to?
health.
Misbranding of the article was alleged in that the statement on the label,?
"Hand pressed from Fresh Iiipe Oranges Orange Dee-Light Too high earbon-?
ation has a tendency to destroy the line fruity flavor of the Orange," was false?
and misleading and deceived and misled the purchaser. Further misbranding?
was alleged in that the article was an imitation of, and was offered for sale?
under the distinctive name of, another article.
On August 12, 1920, no claimant having appeared for the property, judgment?
of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered by the court?
that the product be destroyed by the United States marshal.
E. D. BALL. Acting Secretary of Agriculture.