18422. Adulteration and Misbranding of cheese.    U. S. v. Swift & Co.    Plea
of nolo contendere.    Fine, SlOO and costs.     (F. & D. No. 25009.    I. S. 
No. 020362.)
Samples of cheese from the shipment herein described having been found to 
be deficient in milk fat and short of the declared weight, the Secretary of Agri- 
culture reported the matter to the United States attorney for the Northern 
District of Mississippi.
On October 10, 1930, the United States attorney filed in the District Court 
of the United States for the district aforesaid an information against Swift & 
Co., a corporation trading at West Point, Miss., alleging shipment by said 
company, in violation of the food and drugs act as amended, on or about 
August 16, 1929, from the State of Mississippi into the State of Louisiana, of 
quantities of cheese which was adulterated and misbranded. The article was 
marked variously: "20%, 21%, 23%, 22, 23%, 21%, 23%, 23, 22, 20%, 21%, 
21%, 22%, 21%, 20%, 19%, 20%, 20%, 20, 22%, 22%, 20%, 21%, 20%, 23, 20%, 
21%, 23, 21%, 19, 20%, 22%, 21, 22%, 22, 22, 20%, 22."
It was alleged in the information that the article was adulterated in that a 
substance deficient in milk fat had been substituted for the said article, and 
for the further reason that milk fat, a valuable constituent of the article, had 
been in part abstracted.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements of the weight of 
the article, appearing on the packages, except the package bearing the declared 
weight " 19," were false and misleading, in that the statements represented that 
the article contained in pounds the amount marked thereon, and for the 
further reason that it was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead the 
purchaser into the belief that it contained in pounds the amount marked 
thereon, whereas the said cheese, with the exception of the one marked " 19," 
contained less than so labeled. 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, since the 
actual contents of the packages were less than represented.
On April 7, 1931, a plea of nolo contendere to the information was entered 
on behalf of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $100 and 
costs.
ABTHTJE M. HYDE, Secretary of Agriculture.