12760. Adulteration   and   misbranding   of   grape   beverage.    V.   S.   v.   "Val
Blatz   Brewing   Co.,   a   Corporation.     Plea   of   guilty.     Fine,   $100.
(F. & D. No. 17242.    I. S. No. 2627-t.)
On April 10, 1923, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of 
Wisconsin, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the 
District Court of the United States for said district au information against the 
Val Blatz Brewing Co., a corporation, Milwaukee, Wis., alleging shipment by 
said company, in violation of the food and drugs act, on or about May 27, 1922, 
from the State of Wisconsin into the State of Iowa, of a quantity of grape 
beverage which was adulterated and misbranded. The article was labeled in 
part: (Bottle) "Grape Drink Blatz Grape Artificially Flavored And Colored 
Blatz Products Co."
Analysis of a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this de- 
partment showed that it contained little or no fruit and consisted essentially 
of an artificially colored sugar solution, to which tartaric acid and artificial 
flavor had been added.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the information for the reason that 
a sugar solution artificially colored and flavored had been mixed and packed 
therewith so as to lower and reduce and injuriously affect its quality and 
strength and had been substituted for a product derived-from grape, which the 
said article purported to be. Adulteration was alleged for the further reason 
that it was an article inferior to a product derived from grape, and was 
artificially colored and flavored so as to simulate the appearance and taste of 
a product derived from grape and in a manner whereby its inferiority to such 
product was concealed.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements in prominent 
type, to wit, " Grape Drink " and " Grape," not corrected by the statement in 
very inconspicuous type, "Artificially Colored and Flavored," together with the 
designs and devices of bunches of grapes, borne on the labels attached to the 
bottles containing the article, were false and misleading in that they repre- 
sented that the article was a product derived from grape, namely, a grape juice 
beverage, 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 a product derived 
from grape, namely, a grape juice beverage, whereas, in truth and in fact, it 
was not but was a sugar solution artificially colored and flavored.
On July 2, 1924, 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. GORE, Secretary of Agriculture.