9104.  Adulteration and misbraniling; of Samaco Brand extra fine macaroni.
IT. S. * * * >". Savarese Macaroni Co., a Corporation. Flea of 
nolo contendere. Fine, $25 and costs. (P. & D. No. 12468. I. S. No. 
17020-r.)
On March 2, 1921, the United States attorney for the District of Maryland, 
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 Savarese 
Macaroni Co., a corporation, Baltimore, Md., alleging shipment by said com- 
pany, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, as amended, on or about May 21, 
1919, from the State of Maryland into the State of New York, for reshipment 
to the island of Porto Rico, of a quantity of Samaco Brand extra fine macaroni 
which was adulterated and misbranded.
Analysis of a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this depart- 
ment showed that it was made from an inferior grade of flour and had been 
artificially colored with a coal-tar dye, naphthol yellow S.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the information for the reason that 
a substance, to wit, flour, had been mixed and packed therewith so as to lower 
and reduce and injuriously affect its quality and strength, and had been sub- 
stituted in part for macaroni, which the article purported to be. Adulteration 
was alleged for the further reason that the article was a product inferior to 
macaroni, to wit, a mixture composed in part of flour prepared in imitation 
of macaroni, and was colored with a coal-tar dye, to wit, naphthol yellow S, 
so as to simulate the appearance of macaroni, and in a manner whereby its in- 
feriority to macaroni was concealed.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statement,. to wit, "Extra 
Fine Macaroni Gragnano Style," borne on the labels attached to the boxes con- 
taining the article, regarding it and the ingredients and substances contained 
therein, was false and misleading in that it represented that the article was 
macaroni, to wit, a product made from semolina, that is to say, coarsely ground 
Durum wheat, and for the further reason that the article was labeled as afore- 
said so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief that it was 
macaroni, to wit, a product made from semolina, that is to say, coarsely ground 
Durum wheat, whereas, in truth and in fact, the article was not macaroni, but 
was a mixture prepared from flour artificially colored. Misbranding was al- 
leged for the further reason that the article was a mixture prepared from flour 
artificially colored in imitation of macaroni, and was offered for sale and sold 
under the distinctive name of another article, to wit, macaroni, and for the 
further reason that the article was food in package form, and the quantity 
of the contents was not plainly and conspicuously marked on the outside of 
the package.
On March 2, 1921, a plea of nolo contendere to the information was entered 
on behalf of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $25 and 
costs.
E. D. BALL, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.