"11851. Adulteration and misbranding of tomato catsup and strawberry 
preserve and misbranding- of fruit jams. U. S. v. S. J. Van Liill Co., 
a   Corporation.     Plea   of   guilty.     Fine,   $450   and   costs.      (F.   &   D.
No. 17134.    I. S. Nos. 226-v, 1313-v, 1314_v, 1318-v, 1330-v, 1331-v, 1332-v, 
1333-v, 1401-v, 1502-v, 3105-v.)
On July 6, 1923, the United States attorney for the District of Maryland, 
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 S. J. 
Van Lill Co., a corporation, Baltimore, Md., alleging shipment by said com- 
pany, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, as amended, on or about July 
17, 19, and 27, 1922, respectively, from the State of Maryland into the States 
of Rhode Island, New York, and Virginia, respectively, of quantities of tomato 
catsup which was adulterated, on or about July 22 and 27, 1922, respectively, 
from the State of Maryland into the State of Virginia, and on or about 
July 27, 1922, from the State of Maryland into the State of Florida, of 
?quantities of tomato catsup which was misbranded, on or about August 3, 
1922, from the State of Maryland into the State of Virginia, of various 
quantities of fruit jams which were misbranded, and on or about August 1, 
1922, from the State of Maryland into the State of Virginia, of a quantity 
of strawberry preserve which was adulterated and misbranded. The catsup 
was labeled in part, variously: (Can) "Somerset Club Brand Catsup Con- 
tents 6 Lbs. 6 Ozs.;" "Astoria Brand Tomato Catsup * * * Contents 
6 Lbs. 6 Ozs. S. J. Van Lill Co. Packers Baltimore, Md.; " (bottle) "Astoria 
Brand Contents 9 Ozs. Avdp. Pure Tomato Catsup S. J. Van Lill Co. Baltimore, 
Md." The fruit jams were labeled in part: (Jar) "Table Delicacies Pure 
Fruit Jam" (design of various fruits) " Blackberry-Apple " (or " Pineapple- 
Apple," " Peach-Apple," or " Damson- Apple ") "Contents 12 Ozs. Prepared By 
S. J. Van Lill Co. Baltimore, Md." The strawberry preserve was labeled 
in part: (Jar) "Calvert Brand Weight, 2 Lbs. 11 Ozs. Net Preserve Straw- 
berry."
Examination by the Bureau of Chemistry of this department of samples 
from the Somerset Club brand catsup and that portion of the Astoria brand 
catsup contained in cans showed a high mold count, indicating that an ex- 
cessive quantity of decomposed or moldy tomatoes had been used in its prep- 
aration. Examination by said bureau of the portion of the Astoria brand 
atsup contained in bottles showed that the said bottles contained from 3 to 
-a per cent less than the declared contents. Examination of the jams by said 
"bureau showed that the said jars contained from 5.7 to 9.9 per cent less than 
the declared contents.    Examination of the alleged strawberry preserve by
said bureau showed that it was an imitation strawberry preserve, consisting 
essentially of glucose, with some sugar, apple products, and strawberry fruit, 
artificially colored with red coal-tar dye.
Adulteration of the Somerset Club brand catsup and that portion of the 
Astoria brand catsup contained in cans was alleged in the information for 
the reason that it consisted in whole or in part of a filthy and decomposed 
and putrid vegetable substance.
Adulteration of the alleged strawberry preserve was alleged for the reason 
that an imitation product, artificially colored, had been substituted in whole or 
in part for, to wit, strawberry preserves, which the said article purported to be.
Misbranding of the alleged strawberry preserve was alleged for the reason 
that the statement, to wit, " Preserve Strawberry," borne on the labels attached 
to the jars containing the article, regarding the said article and the ingredients 
and substances contained therein, was false and misleading, in that the said 
statement represented that the article was composed wholly of preserve straw- 
berry, and for the further reason that it was labeled as aforesaid so as to de- 
ceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief that it consisted wholly of pre- 
serve strawberry, whereas, in truth and in fact, it did not so consist but did 
consist in whole or in part of an imitation product, artificially colored. Mis- 
branding was alleged for the further reason that it was a product other than 
preserve strawberry, artificially colored and prepared in imitation of and of- 
fered for sale and sold under the distinctive name of another article, to wit, 
preserve strawberry.
Misbranding of the portion of the Astoria brand catsup contained in bottles 
was alleged for the reason that the statement, to wit, " Contents 9 Ozs. Avdp.," 
borne on the labels attached to the bottles containing the article, regarding 
the said article, was false and misleading, in that it represented that each of 
the said bottles contained 9 ounces of the article, and for the further reason 
that the article was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead the pur- 
chaser into the belief that each of said bottles contained 9 ounces of the said 
article, whereas, in truth and in fact, each of said bottles did not contain 9 
ounces of the article but did contain a less amount. Misbranding of the said 
portion of the Astoria brand catsup was alleged 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.
Misbranding of the fruit jams was alleged for the reason that the statement, 
to wit, " Contents 12 Ozs.," borne on the labels attached to the jars containing 
the article, regarding the said article, was false and misleading, in that it 
represented that each of the said jars contained 12 ounces of the article, and 
for the further reason that it was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and 
mislead the purchaser into the belief that each of the said jars contained 12 
ounces of the article, whereas, in truth and in fact, each of said jars did not 
contain 12 ounces of the article but did contain a less amount. Misbranding 
of the said fruit jams was alleged for the further reason that they were food 
in package form and the quantity of the contents was not plainly and con- 
spicuously marked on the outside of the packages.
On July 11, 1923, a plea of guilty to the information was entered by the de- 
fendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $450 and costs.
HOWARD M. GORE, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.