11207.?Adulteration and  mishranding of color, orange sirup, and fig jam.
V.   S.   v.   Caravan   Products   Co.,   a   Corporation.     Plea   of   guilty.?
Fine, ?100.     (F. & D. No. 16859.    I. S. Nos. 5947-t, 6027-t, 6992-t.)
On December 13, 1922, the United States attorney for the Southern District?
of New York, 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?
Caravan Products Co., a corporation, New York, N. Y., alleging shipment by?
said company, in violation of tbe Food and Drugs Act, en or about May 13,?
1921, from the State of New York into the State of Pennsylvania, of a quantity?
of color, on or about August 8, 1921, from the State of New York into the State?
of New Jersey, of a quantity of orange sirup, and on or about August 13, 1921,?
from the State of New York into the State of Pennsylvania, of a quantity of?
fig jam, all of which were adulterated and misbranded. The articles were?
labeled in part, respectively: " Caravan * * * Red Shade Manufactured?
By Caravan Products Co.    New York, U. S. A.;" " Orange Ends Toil Brand
116	
BUREAU  OF  CHEMISTRY.	
[Supplement 155,
Artificial   Color;"   "Caravan   *    *    *    Fig   Jam   *    *    *    Contains   Gran.?
Sugar Corn Syrup 1-10 1? Benzoate of Soda."
Analysis of a sample of the color by the Bureau of Chemistry of this depart??
ment showed that it contained 62.8 per cent of sugar. Analysis of a sample of?
the orange sirup by said bureau showed that it consisted of an orange-yellow?
sirup of artificial oaor and taste, containing not more than 2 per cent of orange?
juice, about -1 per cent of added tartaric acid, and 3 per cent of sucrose.?
Analysis of a sample of the fig jam by said bureau showed that it fvas a glucose?
fig and apple jam.
Adulteration of the color was alleged in the information for the reason that?
a substance, to wit, sugar, had been mixed and packed therewith so as to lower?
and reduce and injuriously affect its quality and strength and had been sub??
stituted in large part for red shade, which the article purported to be.
Adulteration of the orange sirup was alleged for the reason that an imita??
tion orange sirup, which contained added tartaric acid and little, if any, orange?
juice, had been substituted in whole and in part for orange, to wit, orange?
sirup, which the said article purported to be.
Adulteration of the fig jam was alleged for the reason that a glucose jam of?
fig and apple had been substituted in whole and in part for fig jam, which the?
said article purported to be.
Misbranding of the color was alleged for the reason that the statement, to wit,?
" Red Shade," borne on the labels attached to the cans containing the article,,?
regarding the said article and the ingredients and substances contained therein,?
was false and misleading in that it represented that the article was red shade,,?
to wit, an article designed and intended to be used in the coloring and composi??
tion of food, understood by the trade to be composed of coloring substances only,?
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 red shade, to wit,?
an article designed and intended to be used in the coloring and composition of?
food, understood by the trade to be composed of coloring substances only,?
whereas, in truth and in fact, it was not red shade, but was a mixture composed?
in large part of sugar which contained a small amount of color.. Misbranding?
was alleged for the further reason that the article was a mixture composed in?
large part of sugar, prepared in imitation of red shade, and was offered for?
sale and sold under the distinctive name of another article, to wit, red shade.
Misbranding of the orange sirup was alleged for the reason that the state??
ment, to wit, " Orange," borne on the labels attached to the bottles containing?
the article, regarding the said article and the ingredients and substances con??
tained therein, was false and misleading in that it represented that the article-?
was, to wit, orange sirup, 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, to wit, orange sirup, whereas, in truth and in fact, it was not,?
to wit, orange sirup, but was a mixture composed of an imitation orange sirup-?
which contained added tartaric acid and little, if any, orange juice. Misbrand??
ing was alleged for the further reason that the article was a mixture which?
contained added tartaric acid and little, if any, orange juice, prepared in imita??
tion of orange, that is to say, orange sirup, and was offered for sale and sold?
under the distinctive name of another article, to wit, orange, that is to say,?
orange sirup.
Misbranding of the fig-jam was alleged for the reason that the Statements,?
to wit, " Fig Jam " and " Contains Gran. Sugar," borne on the labels attached?
to the pails containing the article, regarding the said article and the ingredients-?
and substances contained therein, were false and misleading in that they repre??
sented tha.t 'the article consisted wholly of fig jam which contained granulated?
sugar, 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 consisted wholly?
of fig jam which contained granulated sugar, whereas, in truth and in fact, it?
did not consist wholly of fig jam which contained granulated sugar, but did?
consist of a glucose jam of fig and apple which contained no granulated sugar.?
Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the article was a glucose?
jam of fig and apple, prepared in imitation of fig jam, and was offered for sale?
and sold under the distinctive name of another article, to wit, fig jam.
On December 18, 1922, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on?
behalf of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $100.
C. W. PUGSLEY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
N.J. 11201-11250.]    SERVICE  AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS.       117