12274. Adulteration   and   misbranding-   of   butter.    U.   S.   v.   The   Cudahy
Packing-   Co.,   a   Corporation.    Plea   of   guilty.    Pine,   $100.    F.   &
D. No. 17783.     I.  S   No. 11264-v.)
On November 19, 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 the 
Cudahy Packing Co., a corporation, trading at San Francisco, Calif., alleging 
that on or about April 17, 1923, the said company did deliver for shipment from 
San Francisco, Calif., to the Territory of Hawaii, a quantity of butter which was 
adulterated and misbranded within the meaning of the food and drugs act, as
.amended. The article was labeled In part: (Carton) " One Pound Net Sunlight 
?Creamery Butter.    The Cudahy Packing Co. Distributors, U. S. A."
Analysis of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this department showed 
a deficiency in fat and excessive moisture. Examination of 120 packages of the 
article by said bureau showed the average net weight of the packages examined 
to be 15.76 ounces.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the information for the reason that 
?& product which contained less than 80 per cent of milk fat and which contained 
?excessive moisture had been substituted for creamery butter, which the article 
purported to be.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements, to wit, "Cream- 
ery Butter " and " One Pound Net," borne on the packages containing the article, 
regarding the said article and the ingredients and substances contained therein, 
were false and misleading in that they represented that the article consisted 
wholly of creamery butter, and that each of the said packages contained 1 
pound net 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 it con- 
sisted wholly of creamery butter and that each of said packages contained 1 
Tound net of the article, whereas, in truth and in fact, it did not consist wholly 
?of creamery butter but did consist of a product which contained less than 80 
per cent of milk fat and which contained excessive moisture, and each of said 
packages did not contain 1 pound net of the article but did contain a less amounl. 
Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the article was food in 
package form and the quantity of the contents was not plainly and conspicuously 
marked on the outside of the package.
On December 21,1923, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on behalf 
of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $100.
HOWARD M. GOKE, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.