11958. Adulteration and misbranding* of butter.    U. S. v. Armour & Co., a
Corporation.     Plea of nolo  contendere.     Fine, $180.     (F.  & I).  No.
17520.    I. S. Nos. 8124-v, 8676-v, 8680-v, 8681-v, 8683-v, 8684-v, 8689-v.)
On October 9, 1923, the United States attorney for the Northern District of 
California, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the 
District Court of the United States for said district an information against 
Armour & Co., a corporation, trading at San Francisco, Calif., alleging ship- 
ment by said company, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, as amended, 
in various consignments, namely, on or about February 14, 16, 20 (three con- 
signments), and 27, and March 7, 1923, respectively, from the State of Cali- 
fornia into the Territory of Hawaii, of quantities of butter, a portion of which
was adulterated and misbranded and the remainder of which was misbranded. 
The article was labeled in part: " 1 Lb. Net Weight Armour's * * * Veri- 
best Creamery Butter."
Analyses of samples of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this de- 
partment showed that the product involved in the consignments of February 
14, February 16, one of the consignments of February 20, and the consignments 
of February 27 and March 7 contained excessive moisture and was deficient 
in butterfat. Examination by said bureau showed that the packages involved 
in all of the consignments, with the exception of that of March 7, were short 
weight.
Adulteration was alleged in the information with respect to the shipments 
of February 14, 16, 27, and March 7 for the reason that a product deficient in 
milk fat and containing excessive moisture had been substituted in whole or 
in part for butter, which the article purported to be. Adulteration was alleged 
with respect to one of the consignments of February 20 for the reason that a 
valuable constituent of the article, to wit, milk fat, had been in part abstracted.
Misbranding was alleged with respect to the product in all of the consign- 
ments, with the exception of the three consignments of February 20, for the 
reason that the statement, to wit, " Creamery Butter," borne on the packages 
containing the article, was false and misleading in that it represented that 
said article was creamery butter, and for the further reason that it was labeled 
as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief that it 
was creamery butter, whereas it was not but was a product deficient in milk 
fat and contained excessive moisture. Misbranding was alleged with respect 
to one of the consignments of February 20 for the reason that the statement, 
to wit, " Creamery Butter," borne on the packages containing the article, was 
false and misleading in that it represented that said article was creamery 
butter, and for the further reason that it was labeled as aforesaid so as to 
deceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief that it was creamery butter, 
whereas it was not but was a product deficient in milk fat. Misbranding was 
alleged with respect to all of the said article, with the exception of the three 
consignments of February 20, for the further reason that it was an imita- 
tion of creamery butter and was offered for sale and sold under the distinctive 
name of another article, to wit, creamery butter.
Misbranding was alleged with respect to the product involved in all the 
consignments, with the exception of that of March 7, for the reason that the 
statement, to wit, " 1 Lb. Net Weight," borne on the packages containing the 
article, was false and misleading in that it represented that each of the said 
packages contained 1 pound net of the said 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 packages contained 1 pound net of the ar- 
ticle, whereas each of said packages did not but did contain a less amount. 
Misbranding was alleged with respect to the said article, with the exception 
of the said consignment of March 7, for the further reason that it was food 
in package form and the quantity of the contents was not plainly and con- 
spicuously marked on the outside of the package.
On November 15, 1923, a plea of nolo contendere to the information was 
entered on behalf of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of 
$180.
C. F. MARVIN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.