11304. Adultei-ation and misbranding of evaporated milk. TJ. S. v. 4 Cases?
of Alleged Evaporated Milk. Default decree of condemnation, for??
feiture, and destruction.     (F. & D. No. 16690.    I. S. No. 126-v.    S. No. E-4084.)
On August 1, 1922, the United States attorney for the Middle 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 4 cases of alleged evaporated milk, remaining in the?
original unbroken packages at Swiftwater, Pa., alleging that the article had?
been shipped by the Rogers Milk Corp., Boonville, N. Y., on or about February?
14, 1922, 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. The article was labeled in part: " Sunbeam?
Pure Food Unsweetened Evaporated Milk    Contents 1 Lb.=454 Grams."
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the libel for the reason that foreign?
fat had been mixed and packed therewith so as to reduce or lower or injuriously?
affect its quality or strength and had been substituted wholly or in part for?
the said article, to wit, evaporated milk. Adulteration was alleged for the?
further reason that a valuable constituent, to wit, butterfat, had been wholly?
or in part abstracted from the said article.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements in the labeling,?
" Sunbeam Pure Food Unsweetened Evaporated Milk    Contents 108 [1 Lb.]=
N.J. 11301-11350.]     SERVICE  AND  REGULATORY  ANNOUNCEMENTS.       153
454 Grams * * * Directions * * * a resulting milk product will be?
obtained which will not be below the legal standard for whole milk * * *?
the highest possible quality," were false and misleading and deceived and?
misled the purchaser. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that?
the article was an imitation of and offered' for sale under the distinctive name?
of another article, and for the further reason that it was food in package form,?
and the quantity of the contents was not plainly and conspicuously marked on?
the outside of each package.
On January 16, 1923, 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.
O. W. PUGSLEY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture,