11742. Adulteration and misbranding of extract of lemon, extract of va- 
nilla., and fruit powders. TJ. S. v. Yerkes Chemical Co., Inc., a 
Corporation.     Plea  of g-nilty.     Fine,   $25   and   costs.      (F.   &  D.   No.
16415.    I. S. Nos. 8297-t, 8298-t, 8300-t, 9094-t, 9095-t, 9098-t.)
On December 4, 1922, the United States attorney for the Western District of 
North Carolina, 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 Terkes Chemical Co., Inc., a corporation, Winston-Salem, N.  C, alleging 
shipment  by   said   company,   in  violation   of   the   Food   and   Drugs  Act,   as 
amended, in various consignments, on or about the respective dates of July 20 
and 29, 1921, from the State of North Carolina into the State of Virginia, of 
quantities of extract of lemon, extract of vanilla,  and fruit powders which 
were, adulterated   and   misbranded.     The   articles   were   labeled   in   part   as 
follows: (Lemon extract)   (bottle) " Terkes Brand    *    *    *    Pure Ext Lemon 
Max. Alcohol 85%    *    *    *    6 Drs.    *    *    *    Yerkes Chemical Company Inc. 
*    *    *    Winston-Salem,   N.   C,"    (carton)    " Superior   Strength   And   Rich 
Aromatic   Qualities;"   (vanilla   extract)    (bottle)   Yerkes   Brand   Pure   Ext. 
Vanilla  Max.   Alcohol   60%    *    *    *   Yerkes   Chemical   Co.,   Inc.,"   (carton) 
"Superior Strength And Rich Aromatic Qualities;"  (fruit powders)  "Yerkes; 
'Sure Keep' Fruit Powders (Contains 80 Per Cent Salicylic Acid)    *    *    * 
Yerkes Chemical Co."
Analyses by the Bureau of Chemistry of this department of samples taken 
from each of the four consignments of the extract of lemon showed that the 
product in three of the samples was deficient in lemon oil and citral and con- 
tained less alcohol than declared on the label, and that the remainder was 
not a concentrated extract but was deficient in citral and contained less 
alcohol than declared on the label. Analysis of a sample of the extract of 
vanilla by said bureau showed that it was not a concentrated extract and 
that it was deficient in alcohol. Analysis of a sample of the fruit powders- 
by said bureau showed that it contained 99.8 per cent of salicylic acid.
Adulteration was alleged with respect to the product involved in three of the 
consignments of the extract of lemon because a dilute lemon extract, deficient 
in lemon oil and citral, had been mixed and packed therewith so as to reduce 
and lower and injuriously affect its quality and strength and had been sub- 
stituted in part for pure extract of lemon, which the article purported* to be. 
Adulteration was alleged for the further reason that the article had been 
mixed in a manner whereby its inferiority was concealed. Adulteration was 
alleged with respect to the product involved in the remaining consignment 
of the extract of lemon and the extract of vanilla because a product deficient 
in alcohol and other than pure concentrated extract of lemon or vanilla, 
as the case might be, of superior strength and rich aromatic qualities, had 
been substituted in whole or in part for the said articles.
Misbranding was alleged in substance with respect to the extracts of lemon 
and vanilla because the statements, to wit, " Pure Ext Lemon Max. Alcohol 
85% * * * 6 Drs.," "Pure Extract Lemon * * * Superior Strength 
And Rich Aromatic Qualities," " Max. Alcohol 85%," " Pure Concentrated Ex- 
tract Lemon," and " Max. Alcohol 60%," " Pure Concentrated Extract Vanilla," 
" Superior Strength and Rich Aromatic Qualities," appearing on the bottles and 
cartons containing the respective articles, were false and misleading in that 
they represented that the articles were pure concentrated extracts of lemon 
or vanilla, as the case might be, that the articles contained the proportions 
of alcohol indicated by the said statements, that a portion of the extract of 
lemon contained a larger percentage by volume of oil of lemon than the cus- 
tomary 5 per cent by volume lemon extract, and that the bottles contain'ng 
the said portion of the extract of lemon contained 6 drams each by volume, 
and for the further reason that the articles were labeled as aforesaid so as 
to deceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief that they were pure con- 
centrated extracts of lemon or vanilla, as the case might be, that they contained 
the proportions of alcohol indicated by the said statements, that a portion 
of the extract of lemon contained a larger percentage by volume of oil of lemon 
than the customary 5 per cent by volume lemon extract, and that the bottles 
containing the said portion contained 6 drams each by volume, whereas the said 
articles were products other than pure extracts of lemon or vanilla, as the 
case might be, and contained less than the proportions of alcohol indicated, a 
portion of the said extract of lemon contained less than 5 per cent by volume 
of oil of lemon, and the net contents of the bottles containing the said portion 
was less than 6 drams by volume. Misbranding was alleged with respect 
to the product involved in all of the consignments of the extract of lemon 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 the 
package.
Adulteration was alleged with respect to the fruit powders because it con- 
tained an added deleterious ingredient, to wit, salicylic acid, which might 
render it injurious to health.
Misbranding was alleged in substance with respect to the fruit powders be- 
cause the statement, to wit, " Fruit Powders," in large type, and the statement, 
"(Contains 80 Per Cent Salicylic Acid)," in small inconspicuous type, borne 
on each of the packages containing the article, were false and misleading in 
that they represented that the article was powdered fruit and that it contained 
only 80 per cent of salicylic acid, and for the further reason that the article 
was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser in'.o the 
belief that it was an article prepared of fruit powder and salicylic acid and 
that it contained only 80 per cent of salicylic acid, whereas, in truth and in 
fact, it contained approximately 99.8 per cent of salicylic acid and contained 
no fruit powder.
Misbranding was alleged with respect to all the products involved in the vari- 
ous consignments for the further reason that they were imitations of and 
offered for sale under the distinctive names of other articles.
On June 6, 1923, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on behalf 
of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $25 and costs.
HOWARD M. GOKE, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.