9381. Misbranding of Eg-Less. TI. S. * * * v. Haring S. Minton and 
Anna E. Minton (Holley Co.). Pleas of guilty. Fine, $50. (F. & D. 
No. 9856.    I.  S. No. 10005-p.)
On December 1, 1919, the United States attorney for the Western District of 
New York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the 
District Court of the United States for said district an information against 
Haring S. Minton and Anna E. Minton, a partnership, trading as the Holley Co., 
Rochester, N. Y., alleging shipment by said defendants, in violation of the 
Food and Drugs Act, on or about February 12, 1918, from the State of New 
York into the State of Missouri, of a quantity of Holley Eg-Less which was mis- 
branded.
Analysis of a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this de- 
partment showed that it was a white powder containing cornstarch, skimmed 
milk powder, milk casein, rice flour, bicarbonate of soda, and little or no 
powdered eggs, with a few dyestuff particles visible to the naked eye. When 
mixed with water, the product assumed a red-dish-yellow color.
Misbranding of the article was alleged in the information for the reason that 
the statements, to wit, " You Do Not Need Eggs For Cooking If You Use Eg- 
gs," "A Wholesome Preparation Used In Place Of Eggs In Baking And Cook- 
ing," " Use As 12 Eggs," " Use this product in place of eggs in baking & cook- 
ing," and " Directions: In place of each egg called for by this recipe, use 1 
teaspoonful Bg-Less," borne on the packages containing the article, regarding
it and the ingredients and substances contained therein, were false and mis- 
leading in that they represented that the article was an egg substitute, that is 
to say, that eggs were not needed for cooking if the article was used, that 
said article could be used in place of eggs in baking and cooking, that the 
contents of each of the packages containing the article could be used the same 
as twelve eggs, and that one teaspoonful of said article could be used in place 
of each egg called for in the recipe, whereas, in truth and in fact, said article 
was not an egg substitute, that is to say, eggs would be needed for cooking when 
using the article, said article could not be used in place of eggs in cooking 
and baking, the contents of one of said packages could not be used as 
twelve eggs, and one teaspoonful of the article could not be used in place of 
each egg called for in the recipe. Misbranding was alleged for the further 
reason that the statement, to wit, " Manufactured From Corn Starch, Skimmed 
Milk Powder, Milk Casein, Powdered Eggs, Rice Flour, Bicarbonate Of Soda, 
And Certified Colors," borne on the packages containing the article, regarding 
it and the ingredients and substances contained therein, was false and mislead- 
ing in that it represented that the article consisted of the ingredients named on 
the label as aforesaid, whereas, in truth and in fact, said article did not so 
consist, but was a product containing little or no egg. Misbranding was alleged 
for the further reason that the article was labeled as aforesaid so as to de- 
ceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief that it was an egg substitute, 
that is to say, that no eggs were needed for cooking when using the article, 
that said article could be used in place of eggs in baking and cooking, that the 
contents of one of the packages could be used as twelve eggs, and that one 
teaspoonful of said article could be used in place of each egg called for in the 
recipe, whereas, in truth and in fact, said article was not an egg substitute, that 
is to say, eggs would be needed for cooking when using the article, and said 
article could not be used in place of eggs in cooking and baking, and the con- 
tents of one of said packages could not be used in place of twelve eggs, and one 
teaspoonful of said article could not be used for each egg called for in the 
recipe, and said article did not contain powdered eggs, but was a mixture con- 
taining little or no egg.
On May 31, 1921, the defendants entered pleas of guilty to the information, 
and the court imposed a fine of $50.
E. D. BALL, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.