13678. Adulteration and misbranding of butter. U. S. v. Iola Creamery 
Co.     Plea of guilty.     Fine, $25 and costs.     (F. & D. No. 19231.    I. S.
Nos.  19456-v,  19468-v, 19469-v.)
On December 12, 1924, the United States attorney for the District of Kansas, 
-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 Iola Creamery- 
Co., a corporation, Iola, Kans., alleging shipment by said company, in violation 
?of the food and drugs act, in three consignments, namely, on or about Feb- 
ruary 4 and 13, 1924, respectively, from the State of Kansas into the State of 
?Oklahoma, of quantities of butter which was adulterated and misbranded. 
The article was labeled in part: (Shipping box) "From Iola Creamery Com- 
pany Iola, Kansas,"  (carton)  "Creamery Butter."
Examination by the Bureau,of Chemistry of this department of 6 samples 
of the article from each consignment showed an average of 74.69 per cent, 
77.14 per cent, and 77.77 per cent, respectively, of butterfat
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 substituted for 
butter, a product which should contain not less than 80 per cent by weight of 
milk fat, as prescribed by law.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the- statement "Creamery 
Butter," borne on the cartons containing the article, was false and misleading, 
in that the said statement represented that the article was butter, to wit, a 
product containing not less than 80 per cent by weight of milk fat, as prescribed 
by law, 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 butter, to wit, an 
article containing not less than 80 per cent by weight of milk fat, as prescribed 
by law, whereas it was not butter but was a product containing less than 80 
per cent by weight of milk fat. Misbranding was alleged for the further 
reason that the article was an imitation of and was offered for sale under the 
distinctive name of another article, to wit, butter.
On April 13, 1925, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on behalf 
of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $25 and costs.
It. W. DUNLAP, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.