10250. Adulteration and misbranding of extracts of orange, lemon, straw??
berry, and raspberry. V. S. * * * v. Extract of Orange, et al.?
Default    decree    of    condemnation,    forfeiture,    and     destruction.
(F.   &   D.   No.   15927.     I.   S.   Nos.   8101-t,   8102-t,   8103-t,   8104-t.      S.   No?
E-3729.)
On January 23, 1922, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of?
Pennsylvania, 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 36 bottles of extract of orange, 57 bottles of extract of lemon.?
36 bottles of extract of strawberry, and 36 bottles of extract of raspberry, re??
maining in the original unbroken packages at Philadelphia, Pa., cons'gned by?
the Leading Perfumers & Chemists, Inc., New York, N. Y., alleging that the?
articles had been shipped from New York, N. Y., on or about October 26, 1921,?
and transported from the State of New York into the State of Pennsylvania,?
and charging adulteration and misbranding in violation of the Food and Drugs?
Act, as amended.
Adulteration of the orange extract and lemon extract was alleged in the?
libel for the reason that a product deficient in orange oil or lemon oil, as the?
case might be, had been mixed and packed therewith so as to reduce and lower?
and injuriously affect their quality and strength and had been substituted?
wholly or in part for extract of orange and extract of lemon, which the said
N. J. 10251-10300] SERVICE  AND REGULATORY  ANNOUNCEMENTS.	145
articles purported to be. Adulteration of the alleged strawberry and rasp??
berry extracts was alleged for the reason that imitation flavors had been?
mixed and packed with, and substituted wholly or in part for, the said ar??
ticles. Adulteration was alleged with respect to all the products for the further?
reason that they had been mixed and colored in a manner whereby their?
damage or inferiority was concealed.
Misbranding was alleged in substance for the reason that the following state??
ments, designs, and devices regarding the said articles and the ingredients con??
tained therein indicated to the purchaser that the respective articles con??
tained (labeling of all products) " * * * Vegetable color * * * Strength?
Combined with delicacy of flavor makes this extract unexcelled," (respective?
articles) "Extract of Orange," "Extract of Lemon," "Extract of Strawberry?
2 Fluid Ounces," " Extract of Raspberry, 2 Fluid Ounces," when in fact they?
did not contain the respective products and amounts as indicated. Misbrand??
ing was alleged with respect to the said strawberry and raspberry extracts for?
the further reason that they were food in package form, and the quantity of the?
contents was not plainly and conspicuously marked on the outside of the pack??
ages, since the quantity stated was not correct. Misbranding was alleged with?
respect to all the products for the further reason that they were imitations of,?
and were offered for sale under the distinctive names of, other articles.
On February 16, 1922, no claimant having appeared for the property, judg??
ment of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered by the?
court that the products be destroyed by the United States marshal.
0. F. MARVIN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.