10022. Adulteration and misbranding: of whole egg powder. V. S. v. .Joe?
Lowe Co., a Corporation.    Plea of guilty.     Fine, $50.     (F. & D. No.
14929.    I.  S. No.  10226-t.)
On October 3, 1921, the United States attorney for the Southern District?
of California, 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 Joe Lowe Co., a corporation, Los Angeles, Calif., alleging ship??
ment by said company, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on or about?
December 24, 1920, from the State of California into the State of Colorado,?
of a quantity of whole egg powder which was adulterated and misbranded.?
The article was invoiced as " Hygrade Whole Egg Powder " and was labeled?
in part: " * * * W. E. From Joe Lowe & Co. * * * Los Angeles,?
Cal.    *    *    *"
Analysis of a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this?
department showed that it was a commercial yolk containing approximately?
83 per cent of actual yolk and 11 per cent of albumen or egg white.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the information for the reason?
that a substance, to wit, commercial egg yolk powder, had been substituted?
in whole or in part for whole egg powder, which the article purported to be,?
and for the further reason that a valuable constituent of the article, to wit,?
-white of egg, had been wholly or in part abstracted.
N.J. 10901-10950]     SEKVICE AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS.      511
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statement, design, and?
device, to wit, " W. E.," borne on the barrel containing the article, regarding?
the article and the ingredients and substances contained therein, was false?
and misleading in that it represented that the said article consisted of a?
whole egg product, and for the farther reason that the article was labeled?
as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief that It?
consisted of a whole egg product, whereas, in truth and in fact, it did not so?
consist but did consist in whole or in part of commercial egg yolk powder.?
Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the article was a product?
composed in whole or in part of commercial egg yolk powder, prepared in?
imitation of whole eggs and so offered for sale and sold under the' distinctive?
name of another article, to wit, whole egg powder.
On June 26, 1922, a plea of guilty to the information was entered-on behalf?
of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $50.
G. W. PUGSLEY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.