16922.  Adulteration   and   Misbranding of   canned   oysters.     U.   S.   v.   D.   E. 
Foote & Co. (Inc.).     Plea of nolo contendere.     Fine, $30 and costs.
(F. & D. No. 23734.    I. S. Nos. 01874, 01875, 02628.)
On October 14, 1929, the United States attorney for the district of Maryland, 
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District Court 
of the United States for said district an information against D. E. Foote & Co. 
(Inc.), a corporation, trading at Baltimore, Md., alleging shipment by said com- 
pany, in violation of the food and drugs act as amended, on or about November 
20, 1928, from the State of Maryland, in part into the State of Wisconsin, and in 
part into the State of Pennsylvania, of quantities of canned osyters which 
were adulterated and misbranded. The article was labeled in part: (Can) 
" Foote's Best Brand Delicious Fresh Oysters Packed by D. E. Foote & Co., Inc., 
Baltimore, Md.    Contents, 1 Pint."
Adulteration was alleged in the information with respect to a portion of the 
article for the reason that a substance, to wit, excessive water, had been mixed 
and packed therewith so as to reduce, lower, and injuriously affect its 
quality, and in that a substance, to wit, excessive water, had been substituted 
in part for oysters which the article purported to be.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statement " Contents, 1 
Pint," with respect to all of the product, and the statement " Oysters," with 
respect to a portion thereof, were false and misleading,in that the said state- 
ments represented that the cans each contained 1 pint of oysters, and that the 
said portion consisted wholly of oysters; and for the further reason that the 
article was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser 
into the belief that the cans each contained 1 pint of oysters, and that a portion 
thereof consisted wholly of oysters, whereas the said cans did not contain 
1 pint of the article, but did contain a less amount, and the said portion 
did not consist wholly of oysters, but did consist in part of excessive water. 
Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the article was food 
in package form and the quantity of the contents was not plainly and con- 
spicuously marked on the outside of the package.
On October 14, 1929, a plea of nolo contendere to the information was 
entered on behalf of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine 
of $30 and costs.
R. W. DXJNLAP, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.