14797. Adulteration  and misbranding of  canned  tomatoes   and  adultera¬
tion of tomato puree and tomato catsup. U. S. v. Davis Canning 
Co. Plea of guilty. Fine, $300. (F. & D. No. 19676. I. S. Nos. 
13214-v, 13219-v, 13447-v, 13448-v. 15517-v, 16183-V, 17120-v, 17144-v, 
17342-v, 22230-v, 22231-v.)
On January 13, 1926, the United States attorney for the District of Delaware, 
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 Davis Canning 
Co., Laurel, Del., alleging shipment by said company, in violation of the food 
and drugs act, in various consignments between the approximate dates of 
September 12, 1924, and October 23, 1924, from the State of Delaware into the 
States of Pennsylvania, Maine, and New York, respectively, of quantities of 
canned tomatoes which were adulterated and misbranded; on dr about October 
4, 1924, from the State of Delaware into the State of Pennsylvania, of a 
quantity of tomato puree which was adulterated; and on or about October 2 
and 8, 1924, respectively, from the State of Delaware into the State of Mary-
land, of quantities of tomato catsup which was adulterated. The canned 
tomatoes were labeled in part: "Tomatoes," together with a design showing 
ripe tomatoes. A portion of the said tomatoes were further labeled: " Dee Bee 
Brand * * * Packed By Davis Canning Co. Laurel, Del." The remaining 
articles were labeled in part: "Tomato Puree" (or "Tomato Catsup") 
" Packed By The Davis Canning Co. Laurel, Del."
Adulteration of the canned tomatoes was alleged in the information for the 
reason that added water had been mixed and packed therewith so as to reduce 
and lower and injuriously affect its quality and strength and had been substi- 
tuted in part for the said article. Adulteration of the tomato puree and the 
tomato catsup was alleged in the information for the reason that the said 
articles consisted in part of filthy and decomposed and putrid vegetable 
substances.
Misbranding of the canned tomatoes was alleged for the reason that the 
statements, " Quality First Tomatoes" or " Tomatoes," as the case might be. 
together with the designs showing red ripe tomatoes, borne on the labels, were 
false and misleading, in that the said statements and designs represented thai 
the article consisted solely of tomatoes, and for the further reason that the 
said article was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser 
into the belief that it consisted solely of tomatoes, whereas it did not but did 
consist in part of added water. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason 
that the article was an imitation of and was offered for sale under the distinc- 
tive name of another article, to wit, tomatoes.
On October 7, 1926, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on behalf 
of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $200.
W. M. JARDINE, Secretary of Agriculture.