13721. Adulteration and misbranding of grape nip concentrate. IT. S. v. 
Orange Smash Co. Tried to the court and a jury. Directed ver- 
dict of guilty.    Fine, ?100.     (F. & D. No. 19252.    I. S. No. 12606-v.)
On January 5, 1925, the United States attorney for the Northern District of 
Alabama, 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 Orange Smash Co., a corporation, Birmingham,. Ala., alleging shipment by 
said company, in violation of the food and drugs act, on or about November 
20, 1923, from the State of Alabama into the State of Maryland, of a quantity 
of grape nip concentrate which was adulterated and misbranded. The article 
was labeled in part: "From Orange Smash Company Birmingham, Alabama 
* * * Grape Nip Concentrate (50 Gals.) Contains extract Of Ripe Grapes 
Sugar And Water & Tartaric Acid."
Examination by the Bureau of Chemistry of this department of a sample of 
the article showed that it was an imitation grape sirup composed in part of 
sugar, glycerin, and water, artificially colored with a coal-tar dye, and flavored 
with methyl anthranilate.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the information for the reason 
that an artificially colored and artificially flavored grape sirup had been sub- 
stituted for grape nip concentrate, to wit, an article composed of extract of 
ripe grapes, sugar, water, and tartaric acid, which the said article purported 
to be. Adulteration was alleged for the further reason that the article was 
an artificially flavored grape sirup prepared in imitation of grape nip concen- 
trate, to wit, an article composed of extract of ripe grapes, sugar, water, and 
tartaric acid, and was artificially colored with a certain coal-tar dye, to wit, 
amaranth, so as to simulate the appearance of grape nip concentrate, and in a 
manner whereby its inferiority to said grape nip concentrate was concealed.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements "Grape Nip 
Concentrate" and "Contains extract of Ripe Grapes Sugar And Water & 
Tartaric Acid," borne on the label attached to the barrel containing the article, 
were false and misleading, in that the said statements represented that the 
article was composed of extract of ripe grapes, sugar, water, and tartaric acid, 
whereas it was not so composed but contained artificial color and artificial 
flavor. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the article was 
an artificially flavored and artificially colored product prepared in imitation of 
grape nip concentrate and was offered for sale and sold under the distinctive 
name of another article, to wit, grape nip concentrate.
On August 24, 1925, the case came on for trial before the court and a jury. 
After the submission of evidence, by direction of the court the jury returned 
a verdict of guilty, and the court imposed a fine of $100.
R. W. DUNLAP, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.    ,