11440.?Adulteration and misbranding- of concentrated sweetener.    V. S. v.
2 10-PonndCans,et al., of "Wood's  Special Concentrated Sweetener.?
Default    decree    of   condemnation,   forfeiture,    and    destruction.
(F. & D. No. 13670.    I. S. Nos. 6319-t, 6322-t.    S. No. E-2734.)
On September 8, 1920, the United States attorney for the District of Con??
necticut, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the?
District Court of the United States for said district a libel praying the seizure?
and condemnation of 35 pounds of Wood's special concentrated sweetener, re??
maining unsold in the original unbroken packages at New Haven, Conn., alleg??
ing that the article had been shipped by the W. B. Wood Mfg. Co., St. Louis,?
Mo., in part on or about April 21 and in part on or about June 20, 1920, and?
transported from the State of Missouri into the State of Connecticut, and?
charging adulteration and misbranding in violation of the Food and Drugs Act.?
The article was labeled in part: " Wood's Special Concentrated Sweetener?
500?500 Soluble in Cold Water Not sold as a drug W. B. Wood Mfg. Co., St.?
Louis, Mo."
Adulteration of the article was alleged in substance in the libel for the?
reason that starch and a certain quantity of saccharin, which has no food?
value, had been mixed and packed with the said article so as to reduce and?
lower and injuriously affect its quality and strength, and for the further rea??
son that starch and saccharin had been substituted wholly or in part for a?
product purporting to be a concentrated sweetener. Adulteration was alleged?
for the further reason that the article contained an added poisonous or dele??
terious ingredient, to wit, saccharin, which might render it injurious to health.
Misbranding was alleged in substance for the reason that the labels on the?
' cans containing the article bore certain statements which were false and mis??
leading, that is to say, the said labels bore the following words, " Special Con??
centrated Sweetener 500," which words were intended to be of such a character?
as to mislead and deceive the purchaser, namely, to induce him to believe that?
the said product was concentrated sweetener, whereas, in truth and in fact, it?
was not but was a product containing a certain quantity of starch and sac??
charin. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the article was?
an imitation of and was offered for sale under the distinctive name of another?
article.
On April 12, 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.
C. F. MARVIN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.