13639. Adulteration and misbranding: of butter.    V. S. v. D. B5. Wood Butter
Co.    Plea of nolo contendere.    Fine, $100.    (F. & D. No. 19327.    I. S.
Nos. 19025-v, 19028-v.)
On April 14, 1925, the United States attorney for the Western District of 
Wisconsin, 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 D. E. Wood Butter Co., a corporation, trading at Evansyille, Wis., alleging 
shipment by said company, in violation of the food and drugs act as amended, 
on or about August 11, 1924, from the State of Wisconsin into the State of 
Illinois, of quantities of butter which was adulterated and misbranded. A 
portion of the article was labeled in part: " Butter Cup Brand * *? * One 
Pound Net." The remainder of the said article was labeled in part: " Mono- 
gram Brand Elgin Quality Creamery Butter The D. E. Wood Butter Co. 
Evansville Wis."
Analyses by the Bureau of Chemistry of this department of 4 samples of 
the Butter Cup brand and 6 samples of the Monogram brand showed an 
average of 79.56 per cent and 78.08 per cent, respectively, of fat. Sixty prints 
of the Butter Cup brand averaged 15.8 ounces.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the information for the reason 
that a product deficient in milk fat had been substituted for butter, which 
the said article purported to be, and for the further reason that a product 
which contained less than 80 per cent by weight of milk fat had been sub- 
stituted for butter, a product which should contain not less than 80 per cent 
by weight of milk fat, as prescribed by the act of March 4, 1923.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements, to wit, " But- 
ter" and "One Pound Net," with respect to the Butter Cup brand and the 
statement, to wit, " Creamery Butter," with respect to the Monogram brand, 
borne on the labels, were false and misleading, in that the said statements 
represented that the article consisted wholly of butter and that the packages 
of the Butter Cup brand contained 1 pound net of butter, and for the further 
reason that it was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead the pur- 
chaser into the belief that it consisted wholly of butter, and that the packages 
contained 1 pound net of butter, whereas it did not consist wholly of butter 
but did consist of a product deficient in milk fat, and the packages did con- 
tain less than 1 pound of butter. Misbranding was alleged for the further 
reason that the statements " Butter" and " Creamery Butter," borne on the 
Monogram brand, were false and misleading, in that they represented that the 
article was butter, to wit, a product which should contain not less than 80 
per cent by weight of milk fat, as prescribed by the act of March 4, 1923, 
whereas it did not contain 80 per cent by weight of milk fat but did contain a 
less amount. Misbranding was alleged with respect to the Butter Cup brand 
for the further reason that it 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 10, 1925, a plea of nolo contendere to the information was entered 
on behalf of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $100.
R. W. DXJNLAP, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.