12185. Adulteration and misbranding of vinegar. IT. S. v. George K. 
Peters and Charles M. Butterfleld (Fruit Products Co.). Pleas of 
guilty. Fine, $25. (F. & D. No. 17243. I. S. Nos. 8178-t, 9337-t, 9338-t, 
9341-t.)
On June 29, 1923, the United States attorney for the Southern District of 
Georgia, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the 
District Court of the United States for said district an information against 
George K. Peters and Charles M. Butterfleld, copartners, trading as the Fruit 
Products Co., Savannah, Ga., alleging shipment by said defendants, in viola- 
tion of the Food and Drugs Act, as amended, on or about March 16, 1922, from 
the State of Georgia into the State of Florida, and on or about April 5 and 19, 
3922, respectively, from the State of Georgia into the State of South Carolina, 
of quantities of vinegar, a portion of which was adulterated and misbranded 
and the remainder of which was misbranded. The article was labeled vari- 
ously: (Barrels) "Fruit Products Co. Apple Cider Vinegar;" "Fruit Products 
Co. Red Distilled Vinegar;" "Fruit Products Co. White Distilled Vinegar;" 
(bottles) "Palmetto Distilled Red Vinegar * >* * Pure Food Products 
Fruit Products Company Savannah, Georgia.   Contents 32 Ozs."
Analyses of samples of the barreled product by the Bureau of Chemistry 
of this department showed that a portion of the article had been excessively 
diluted with water and that the remainder was a mixture of apple vinegar, 
distilled vinegar, and added water, containing not more than 15 per cent of 
apple vinegar. Examination of the bottled product by said bureau showed 
that the average measure of three bottles was 31.3 fluid ounces of the article.
Adulteration of the barreled product was alleged in the information for the 
reason that substances, to wit, distilled vinegar and water or excessive water, 
as the case might be, had been mixed and packed therewith so as to lower and 
reduce and injuriously affect its quality and strength and had been substituted 
in part for apple cider vinegar or distilled vinegar, as the case might be, which 
the article purported to be.
Misbranding of the barreled product was alleged for the reason that the 
statement, to wit, "Apple Cider Vinegar," borne on the barrels containing the
alleged apple cider vinegar, and the statement, to wit, "Distilled Vinegar," 
borne on the barrels containing the alleged distilled vinegar, were false and 
misleading, in that they represented that the article consisted wholly of apple 
cider vinegar or distilled vinegar, as the case might be, and for the further 
reason that the product was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mis- 
lead the purchaser into the belief that it consisted wholly of apple cider vinegar 
or distilled vinegar, as the case might be, whereas, in truth and in fact, it did 
not so consist but the alleged apple cider vinegar consisted in part of distilled 
vinegar and added water and the alleged distilled vinegar consisted in part 
of excessive water. Misbranding of the barreled product was alleged for the 
further reason that it was an imitation of and was offered for sale under the 
distinctive name of another article, to wit, apple cider vinegar or distilled 
vinegar, as the case might be.
Misbranding of the bottled product was alleged for the reason that the state- 
ment, to wit, " Contents 32 Ozs.," borne on the labels attached to the bottles 
containing the article, was false and misleading, in that it represented that 
each of the said bottles contained 32 ounces of the article, and for the further 
reason that the product was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead 
the purchaser into the belief that each of the said bottles contained 32 ounces 
of the article, whereas, in truth and in fact, each of said bottles did not con- 
tain 32 ounces of the article but contained a less amount. Misbranding of the 
bottled product 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.
On November 9, 1923, the defendants entered pleas of guilty to the informa- 
tion, and the court imposed fines in the aggregate amount of $25.
HOWARD M. GORE, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.