12394. Adulteration  and  misbranding  of  milk  chocolate.    V.   S.  v.   Nissly
Swiss Chocolate Co., Inc.. a Corporation. Plea of guilty. Fine, 
$50.     (F. & D. No. 18344.    I. S. Nos. 7-v, 1115-v.)
On May 19, 1924, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of 
Pennsylvania, 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 
Nissly Swiss Chocolate Co., Florin, Pa., alleging shipment by said company, in 
violation of the food and drugs act as amended, on or about September 20, 1922, 
from the State of Pennsylvania into the State of Virginia, and on or about
February 10, 1923, from the State Of Pennsylvania into the State of New Jersey, 
of quantities of milk chocolate which was' adulterated and misbranded. A 
portion of the article was labeled in part: " 5 Pounds Nissly's * * * Sweet 
Milk Chocolate * * * Manufactured by Nissly Swiss Chocolate Co. Inc., 
Florin, Pa. U. S. A." The remainder of the said article was labeled in part : 
" 20 10 cent Blocks Nissly's Sweet Milk Chocolate * * * Manufactured by 
Nissly Swiss Chocolate Co., Inc."
Analyses of samples of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this depart- 
ment showed that it was deficient in milk solids. Examination of 24 of the 
5-pound boxes showed an average weight of 4 pounds 13 ounces.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the information for the reason that 
a product deficient in milk solids had been substituted for sweet milk chocolate, 
which the said article purported to be.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statement, to wit, " Sweet 
Milk Chocolate," borne on the boxes containing the article, and the statement, 
to wit, " 5 Pounds," borne on the boxes containing a portion thereof, were 
false and misleading in that the said statements represented that the article 
consisted wholly of sweet milk chocolate, and that each of the boxes labeled 
" 5 Pounds " contained 5 pounds 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 consisted wholly of sweet milk chocolate and that each of the 
boxes labeled " 5 Pounds " contained 5 pounds of the said article, whereas, in 
truth and in fact, it did not consist wholly of sweet milk chocolate but did 
consist of a product deficient in milk solids, and each of the alleged 5-pound 
boxes contained less than 5 pounds of tlfe said article. Misbranding was 
alleged for the further reason that the article was a product deficient in milk 
solids, prepared in imitation of and offered for sale and sold under the^ dis- 
tinctive name of another article. Misbranding of both articles 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 June 20, 1924, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on behalf 
of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $50.
HOWARD M. GORE, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.