11733. Adulteration and misbranding of prepared mustard. U. S. v. Can- 
ton Canning Co., a Corporation. Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, 
$20 and costs. (F. & D. No. 16852. I. S. Nos. 8667-t, 8668-t, 8669-t, 
17208-t.)
On February 1 1923, 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 Canton Canning Co., a corporation, Canton, Ohio, alleging shipment by said 
company, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, as amended, in various 
consignments, namely, on or about August 26, September 30, October 5, 1920, 
and November 26, 1921, respectively, from the State of Ohio into the State 
of West Virginia, of quantities of prepared mustard which was adulterated 
and misbranded. A portion of the article was labeled in part: " Canton Brand 
Prepared Mustard Made From Pure Mustard Seed With Salt, Spices And Vine- 
gar. Colored With Turmeric. Packed By The Canton Canning Co. Canton, O." 
The remainder of the said article was labeled in part: " Molly Stark Brand 
Perpared Mustard Mustard Seed, Spices, Salt, Vinegar And Turmeric. Manu- 
factured By The Canton Canning Co. Canton, O." A portion of the Canton 
brand bore the statement, " Net Weight Of Contents Ozs," and in rubber 
stamp, the statement, " Net Weight 2 Lbs. Avd." The remainder of the said 
Canton brand bore the statement, " Net Weight Of Contents 13 Ozs.," and. 
in rubber stamp, the statement, " Net Weight 8 Lbs."
Analyses of samples of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this de- 
partment showed that it contained an excessive quantity of mustard bran, or 
mustard hulls.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the information for the reason 
that a certain substance, to wit, mustard hulls, had been mixed and packed 
with the said article so as to lower and reduce and injuriously affect its quality 
and strength, and for the further reason that a substance, to wit, added mus- 
tard hulls, had been substituted in part for prepared mustard, which the 
article purported to be.
Misbranding of the article was alleged for the reason that the statement, 
to wit, "Prepared Mustard," borne on the labels attached to the jugs contain- 
ing the article, regarding the said article and the ingredients and substances 
contained therein, was false and misleading, in that thfe said statement repre- 
sented that the article consisted wholly of prepared mustard, 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 prepared mus- 
tard, whereas, in truth and in fact, it did not so consist but did consist in part 
of added mustard hulls. 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 May 20, 1923, a plea of nolo contendere to the information was entered 
on behalf of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $20 
and costs.
HOWAKB M. GORE, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.