9528. Adulteration and Misbranding of canned tomatoes. IT. S. * * * 
v. Winfield Webster and Guy I,. Webster Winnfield Webster etc Co.). 
Pleas of guilty. Pine, $10 and costs. (F. & D. No. 14722. I. S. No. 
15340-r.)
On June 15, 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 Winfield Webster 
and Guy L. Webster, copartners, trading as Winfield Webster & Co., Vienna, 
Md., alleging shipment by said defendants, in violation of the Food and Drugs 
Act. on or about September 4,  1919, from the  State of Maryland into the
District of Columbia, of a quantity of Blue Dot Brand tomatoes which were 
adulterated and misbranded.
Analysis of a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this depart- 
ment showed that it was a mixture of poorly peeled and off-color tomatoes and 
tomato pulp made from skins and cores of tomatoes and partly decayed tomato 
stock.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the information for the reason that 
a substance, to wit, moldy tomato pulp, had been mixed and packed therewith 
so as to lower and reduce and injuriously affect its quality, for the further 
reason that substances, to wit, moldy tomato pulp and pulp from the skin and 
cores of tomatoes, had been substituted in whole or in part for sanitary and 
wholesome canned tomatoes, which the article purported to be, and for the 
further reason that the said article consisted in whole or in part of a filthy, 
decomposed, and putrid vegetable substance.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statement and device borne 
on the can label, regarding the article and the ingredients contained therein, 
to wit, " * * * Tomatoes * * * These Tomatoes Were Packed In A 
Sanitary Factory," and the cut showing a whole ripe tomato, were false and 
misleading in that they represented that the said article was pure, wholesome, 
and whole ripe tomatoes canned in a sanitary factory that observed sanitary 
rules, 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 composed 
of pure, whole, ripe tomatoes packed in a sanitary manner, whereas, in truth 
and in fact, it did not consist of pure, whole, wholesome, and sanitary tomatoes, 
but did consist in whole or in part of moldy tomato pulp and the cores and 
skins of tomatoes. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the 
article was a product composed in whole or in part of the cores and skins of 
tomatoes and of moldy tomato pulp prepared in imitation of wholesome and 
whole ripe tomatoes, and was offered for sale and sold under the distinctive 
name of another article, to wit, tomatoes.
On June 15, 1921, the defendants entered pleas of guilty to the information, 
and the court imposed a fine of $10 and costs.
C. W. PUGSLEY, Acting Secretary of AgrlcuUm e.