17132. Adulteration and Misbranding of butter.    TJ. S. v. Georgre  Sommer.
Plea of guilty.    Fine. $100.     (F. & D. No. 23762.    I. S. No. 08775.)
On February 14, 1930, the United States attorney for the Eastern District 
of Pennsylvania, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed 
in the District Ccurt of the United States for said district an information 
against George Sommer, Doylestown, Pa., alleging shipment by said defendant 
in violation of the food and drugs act as amended, on or about July 8, 1929, 
from the State of Pennsylvania into the State of Georgia, of a quantity of 
butter which was adulterated and misbranded. The article was labeled in part: 
" One Pound Net Weight Sommer Maid, Doylestown, Pa. Fancy Creamery 
Butter George Sommer, Doylestown, Pa."
It was alleged in the information that the article was adulterated in that 
a product purporting to be butter, but which was not butter in that it contained
less than 80 per cent by weight of milk fat, had been substituted for butter, a 
product which must contain not less than 80 per cent by weight .of milk fat as 
required by the act of Congress of March 4, 1923.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements " Fancy Creamery 
Butter " and " One Pound Net Weight," borne on the packages containing the 
article, were false and misleading in that the said statements represented the 
article to be butter, to wit, an article containing not less than 80 per cent 
by weight of milk fat as required by law, and that each of the packages con- 
tained 1 pound thereof; and for the further reason that it was labeled as afore- 
said so as to deceive and mislead the purehasec jttto^the belief tbat it was 
butter, to wit, an article containing not less than 80 per cent by weight of milk 
fat as required by law, and that each of said packages contained 1 pound thereof; 
whereas it was a product deficient in milk fat in that it contained less than 80 
per c&nt by weight of milk fat, and said packages did not each contain 1 pound 
of the article, but did contain a less amount. 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 conspicuously marked on the outside of 
the package in that the statement made was not correct.
On March 12, 1930, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to the information, 
and the court imposed a fine of $100.
ABTHtut M. HYDE, Secretary of Agriculture.