8G17. Adulteration and misbranding- of sugar vinegar. U. S. * * * v.?
Oaark Cider & "Vineg-aif Co., a Corporation. Plea of guilty. Fine,?
$20 and costs.     (F. & D. No. 9863.    I. S. Nos. 8152-p, 8934-p.)
On July 18, 1919, the United States attorney for the Western District of?
Arkansas, 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 Ozark Cider & Vinegar Co., a corporation, Siloam Springs, Ark., alleging?
shipment by said defendant, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on or?
about October 20, 1917, from the State of Arkansas into the State of Oklahoma,?
and on or about October 30, 1917, from the State of Arkansas into the State of?
Kansas, of quantities of alleged sugar vinegar which was adulterated and mis-?
branded.
Analyses of samples of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this de??
partment showed that the product consisted largely of artificially colored dis??
tilled vinegar or dilute acetic acid.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the information for the reason that?
either distilled vinegar or dilute acetic acid artificially colored had been mixed?
and packed therewith so as to lower and reduce and injuriously affect its?
quality, and had been substituted in part for sugar vinegar, which the article?
purported to be. Adulteration was alleged for the further reason that the?
article was a product inferior to sugar vinegar and was artificially colored in?
a manner whereby its inferiority to sugar vinegar was concealed.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statement " Sugar Vinegar,"?
borne on the labels attached to the barrels containing the article, regarding the?
article and the ingredients and substances contained therein, was false and mis??
leading in that it represented that said article was sugar vinegar, and for the?
further reason that the article was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and?
mislead the purchaser into the belief that it was sugar vinegar, whereas, in?
truth and in fact, it was not sugar vinegar, but was a product composed in?
part of either distilled vinegar or dilute acetic acid artificially colored. Mis??
branding was alleged for the further reason that the article was a product?
composed in part of either distilled vinegar or dilute acetic acid artificially?
colored, and was an imitation of, and was offered for sale and sold under the?
distinctive name of another article, to wit, sugar vinegar.
On December 22, 1919, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on?
behalf of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $20 and costs.
E. D. BALL, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
74	
BUREAU  OF   CBpBMISTRY.	
[Supplement 103,