11929.  Adultei-ation and misbranding of butter.    U. S. v. Lakeview Cream- 
ery, Inc., a Corporation.    Plea of guilty.     Fine, $25.     (F. & D. No.
17612.    I.  S. Nos. 8465-v, 10834-v.)
On September 21, 1923, the United States attorney for the District of Oregon, 
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 Lakeview 
Creamery, Inc., a corporation, Lakeview, Oreg., alleging shipment by said 
company, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, as amended, in two con- 
signments, namely, on or about January 24 and March 5, 1923, respectively, 
from the State of Oregon into the State of Nevada, of quantities of butter, a 
portion of which was adulterated and misbranded and the remainder of which 
was misbranded. A portion of the article was labeled in part: "Desert Brand 
Pasteurized Creamery Butter Net Weight 1 Pound." The remainder of the 
said article was labeled in part: " Lakeview Pasteurized Creamery Butter 
Net Weight One Pound, in Quarters   Lakeview Creamery, Lakeview, Oregon."
Analysis of a sample of the Desert brand butter by the Bureau of Chemistry 
of this department showed that it was high in moisture and low in butterfat. 
Examination of both consignments of the article by said bureau showed that 
the packages averaged less than 1 pound net of butter.
Adulteration was alleged with respect to the Desert brand butter for the rea- 
son that a product deficient in milk fat and containing an excessive amount of 
moisture had been substituted for creamery butter, whicli the article purported 
to be.
Misbranding was alleged with respect to the said Desert brand butter for 
the reason that the statement, to wit, " Creamery Butter," borne on the pack- 
ages containing the said Desert brand, was false and misleading in that it 
represented that the article consisted wholly of creamery butter, 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 creamery 
butter, whereas it consisted of a product deficient in milk fat and contained 
an excessive amount of moisture. Misbranding was alleged with respect to 
both brands, of the said butter for the reason that the statement, to wit, " Nei 
Weight One Pound," borne on the packages containing the article, was false 
and misleading in that the said statement represented that each of the said 
packages contained 1 pound net of butter, and for the further reason that the 
article was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser 
into the belief that each of the said packages contained 1 pound net of butter, 
whereas each of the said packages did not contain 1 pound net of butter but did
contain a less amount. Misbranding was alleged with respect to both brands, 
of the article 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 out- 
side of the package.
On October 2, 1923, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on behalf 
of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $25.
C. F. MARVIN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.