13445. Adulteration   and  misbranding   of   vanillin.     U.   S.   v.   Hymes   Bros.
Co.     Plea   of   guilty.     Fine,   $100.     (F.   &   D.   No.   19615.     I.   S.   Nos. 
16928-v, 18251-v.)
At the June, 1925, term of the United States District Court within and for 
the Southern District of New York, the United States attorney for said dis- 
trict, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district 
court aforesaid an information against the Hymes Bros. Co., a corporation, 
New York, N. Y., alleging shipment by said company, in violation of the food 
and drugs act, on or about May 3, 1924, from the State of New York into the 
State of Louisiana, and on or about June 17, 1924, from the State of New 
York into the State of Massachusetts, of quantities of vanillin which was 
adulterated and misbranded. The article was labeled in part: " Vanillin 
Chemically Pure Hymes Bros. Co. New York."
Analyses by the Bureau of Chemistry of this department of a sample from 
each of the consignments showed that the said samples contained 11.5 per cent 
and 8.9 per cent, respectively, of acetanilid.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the information for the reason that 
a substance, to wit, acetanilid, 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 vanillin, which the said article purported to be. Adul- 
teration was alleged for the further reason that the article contained an added 
poisonous and deleterious ingredient, to wit, acetanilid, which might have 
rendered it injurious to health.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statement, to wit, " Vanillin 
Chemically Pure," borne on the packages containing the article, was false and 
misleading, in that it represented that the said article was pure vanillin, and 
for the further reason that it was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and
not pure vanillin but was a product composed in part of acetanilid. Misbrand- 
ing was alleged for the further reason that the article was a product com- 
posed in part of acetanilid, prepared in imitation of and offered for sale and 
sold under the distinctive name of another article, to wit, vanillin.
On June 15, 1925. a plea of guilty to the information was entered on behalf 
of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $100.
R. W. DUNI,AP, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.