10223.?Adulteration and misbranding of Bakers' Whip.     U. S.     *      *     *     V,
7 Pounds of Bakers' Whip * * *. Default decree of condem??
nation, forfeiture, and destruction. (P. & D. No. 14827. I. S. No.?
8475-t.    S. No. B-3330.)
On April 22, 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 a libel for the seizure and condemnation of?
7 pounds of Bakers' Whip, remaining in the original unbroken packages at?
Hagerstown, Md., consigned on or about March 30, 1921, alleging that the arti??
cle had been shipped by the W. B. Wood Mfg. Co., St. Louis, Mo., and transported?
from the State of Missouri into the State of Maryland, and charging adultera??
tion and misbranding in violation of the Food and Drugs Act.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the libel for the reason that a sub??
stance-containing baking powder, starch, and a small amount of gum had beerr?
mixed and packed with, and substituted wholly or in part for, the said article-?
Adulteration was alleged for the further reason that the article was mixed and?
colored in a manner whereby damage or inferiority was concealed.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements" on the label of?
the can containing the article, to wit, " Bakers' Whip An Egg Substitute?
Saves Time Saves Money If you are looking for something to use in place of?
Eggs, this is it. There Is No Other Each one pound of Bakers' Whip ist equal?
in strength to 50 Eggs, and should be used in like proportion. Dissolve one-?
fourth pound of Bakers' Whip in one pint of warm water. Stir well and it is?
ready to use. * * * When you consider each one-fourth lb. of Bakers' Whip?
is equal to about 13 eggs, you can readily determine its use. * * * Do Not?
Accept Imitations. This Is The Original," were false and misleading and de??
ceived and misled the purchaser. Misbranding was alleged for the further?
reason that the article was an imitation of, and was offered for sale under the?
distinctive name of, another article.
On December 23,1921, no claimant having appeared for the property, judgment?
of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered by the court?
that the product be destroyed by the United States marshal.
C. W. PUGSLEY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
124	
BUREAU   OF   CHEMISTRY.	
[Supplement 135,