9514. Misbranding of Egg-Nu.    U.  S.     *     *     *     v. The Abner Royce  Co., JR.
Corporation.     Plea of nolo contendere.    Fine, $100 and costs.     (F. &
D. No. 12323.    I.  S. No. 15087-r.)
On June 21, 1920, the United States attorney for the Northern District of 
Ohio, 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 Abner 
Royce Co., a corporation, Cleveland, Ohio, alleging shipment by said company, 
in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on or about June 16 or July 5, 1919, 
from the State; of Ohio into the State of Pennsylvania, of a quantity of 
Egg-Nu which was misbranded.
Analysis of a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this 
department showed that it consisted of dried powdered egg and cornstarch. 
Baking tests made by the said bureau showed that the article did not take 
the place of eggs in cake baking.   Cakes made with Egg-Nu were slightly
72612°—21 2
greater in volume than cakes made with skim milk, but were not comparable 
in volume, flavor, color, tenderness, and texture with cakes made with eggs.
Misbranding of the article was alleged in the information for the reason 
that the statements, to wit, " Substitute for Eggs * * * For each egg 
called for in recipe, use one scant teaspoonful of Egg-Nu * * * Contents 
of this package when used according to directions for cooking and baking is 
equal to 2 Dozen Eggs * * * Conforms With All Food Laws * * *," 
borne on the packages containing the article, regarding the article and the 
ingredients and substances contained therein, were false and misleading in 
that they represented that the said article was a substitute for eggs, that one 
scant teaspoonful thereof was equal to one egg, that the contents of the said 
package were equal to 2 dozen eggs, and that it conformed with all food laws, 
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 a substitute 
for eggs, that one scant teaspoonful of the article was equal to one egg, that 
the contents of the said package were equal to 2 dozen eggs, and that it con- 
formed to all food laws, whereas, in truth and in fact, it was not a substi- 
tute for eggs; one scant teaspoonful thereof was not equal to one egg, the 
contents of each of the said packages, to wit, three ounces, were not equal to 
2 dozen eggs, and the said article did not conform with all food laws in that 
it was a mixture composed in large part of cornstarch, which rendered it 
unfit as an egg substitute.
On August 7, 1920, a plea of nolo contendere to the information was en- 
tered on behalf of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of 
$100 and costs.
C. W. PUGSLEY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.