12588. Adulteration and misbranding of ice cream, V. S. v. Sidebottom 
Pare Ice Cream & Dairy Co., a Corporation. Plea of gruilty. Fine 
and costs, $125.     (F. & D. No. 16028.     I. S. Nos. 23106-t, 23107-t.)
On April 20, 1922, the United States attorney for the Middle District of 
Tennessee, 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 Sidebottom Pure Ice Cream & Dairy Co., a corporation, Nashville, Tenn., 
alleging shipment by said company, in violation of the food and drugs act, 
on or about October 19, 1921, from the State of Tennessee into the State of 
Kentucky, of quantities of ice cream which was adulterated and misbranded. 
The article was labeled in part: (Tag) "Sidebottom Pure Ice Cream and 
Dairy Co., * * * Nashville, Tenn."; (package) "Ice Cream * * *? an 
absolutely sterile ice cream reaching a standard of purity and velvet smooth- 
ness impossible for any other manufacturer in Nashville to obtain."
Analyses by the Bureau of Chemistry of this department of samples from 
each of the two consignments showed that the samples contained approximately 
2.69 per cent and 6.17 per cent, respectively, of milk fat.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in substance in the information for 
the reason that a product containing approximately 2.69 per cent or 6.17 per 
cent, as the case might be, of butterfat, which was much less than the amount 
required to comply with recognized trade practice, had been substituted wholly 
or in part for ice cream, which the said article purported to be. Adulteration 
was alleged for the further reason that butterfat, a valuable constituent of the 
article, had been wholly or in part abstracted.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statement, to wit, " Pure 
Ice Cream," borne on the tags attached to the packages containing the article, 
and the statements, to wit, " Ice Cream * * * an absolutely sterile ice 
cream reaching a standard of purity and velvet smoothness impossible for any 
other manufacturer in Nashville to obtain," borne on the package label, were 
false and misleading in that the said statements represented that the article 
was ice cream, to wit, an article containing a sufficient percentage of butterfat 
necessary to comply with recognized trade practice, 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 ice cream, to wit, an article containing a sufficient 
percentage of butterfat necessary to comply with recognized trade practice, 
whereas it was not ice cream, to wit, an article containing the said recognized 
amount of butterfat, but was a product containing a deficient amount of butter- 
fat, to wit, 2.69 per cent or 6.17 per cent of butterfat, as the case might be.
which was much less than the amount required to comply with recognized 
trade practice in ice cream. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason 
that the article was a mixture containing a deficient amount of butterfat, 
prepared in imitation of and offered for sale under the distinctive name of an- 
other article, to wit, ice cream.
On April 17, 1924, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to the information, 
and the court imposed a fine and costs in the amount of $.125.
HOWARD M. GORE, Secretary of Agriculture.