Issued November 23,1922.
United States Department of Agriculture.
SERVICE AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS.
BUREAU   OF   CHEMISTRY.
SUPPLEMENT.
N. J. 10651-10.700.?
[Approved by the Acting Secretary of Agriculture, Washington, D. C, November 15,1922.]
NOTICES OF JUDGMENT UNDER THE FOOD AND DRUGS ACT.
[Given pursuant to section 4 of the Food and Drugs Act.]
10651. Adulteration and misbranding of Sparkling Grape Queen. U. S.?
* * * v. Orchard Queen Co., a corporation. Plea of nolo con??
tendere. Fine, S35 and costs. (F. & D. No. 14562. I. S. Nos. 6734-r,?
6735-r.)
On June 1, 1921, 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 Orchard?
Queen Co., a corporation, Sandusky, Ohio', alleging shipment by, said company,?
in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, as amended, on or about July 11 and?
July 16, 1919, respectively, from the State of Ohio into the State of Illinois, of?
quantities of Sparkling Grape Queen which was adulterated and misbranded.?
The article was labeled in part, " * * * Sparkling Grape Queen Non-Alco??
holic   *    *    *    Orchard Queen Co. Sandusky, O.    *    *    * "
Analyses of samples of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this depart??
ment showed that it was a fermented grape product to which sugar and water?
had been added.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the information for the reason that?
an uncarbonated mixture of grape juice, sugar, water, and alcohol, preserved?
with sulphur dioxid, in the case of the product involved in both consignments,?
and the additional preservative of sodium benzoate, in the case of the product?
involved in the consignment of July 11, had been substituted in whole or in part?
for " Sparkling Grape Queen, a combination of selected, unfermented juices,"?
to wit, a sparkling grape juice, which the said article purported to be.
Misbranding was alleged in substance for the reason that the statements,?
to wit, " sparkling," " non-alcoholic," and " a combination of selected, unfer??
mented juices," borne on the labels attached to the bottles containing the?
article, regarding the said article and the ingredients and substances contained?
therein, were false and misleading in that the said statements represented that?
the article was a sparkling, non-alcoholic combination of selected, unfermented?
juices, 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 sparkling,?
non-alcoholic combination of selected, unfermented juices, whereas, in truth?
and in fact, it was not a sparkling, non-alcoholic combination of selected, unfer??
mented juices, but was a product composed of an uncarbonated mixture of?
grape juice, sugar, water, and alcohol, preserved, in the case of both consign??
ments, with sulphur dioxid and, in the case of the consignment of July 11, with
15679?22?1?
369
370	
BUREAU  OF  CHEMISTRY.	
[Supplement 144,
the additional preservative of sodium benzoate. Misbranding was alleged for?
the further reason that the article was food in package form and the quantity?
of the contents was not plainly and conspicuously marked on the outside of the?
package.
On March 28, 1922, a plea of nolo contendere to the information was entered?
on behalf of the defendant company, and on April 24, 1922, the court imposed?
a fine of $25 and costs.
C. W. PUGSLEY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.