18794. Adulteration and Misbranding of butter. V. S. v. 6 Tubs, et al., of 
Butter. Decrees of condemnation and forfeiture. Product re- 
leased under bond. (F. & D. No. 27138. I. S. Nos. 15175, 35051. S. No. 
4890.)
Examination of samples of butter from the shipments herein described having 
shown that the tub butter contained less than 80 per cent by weight of milk 
fat, the standard provided by Congress, and that the print butter was short of 
the declared weight, the Secretary of Agriculture reported the matter to the 
United States attorney for the Eastern District of Louisiana. 
. On or about June 18, 1931, the United States attorney filed in the District 
Court of the United States for the district aforesaid libels praying seizure and 
condemnation of 6 tubs of butter and 255 cases, each containing 32 pounds of 
butter, remaining in the original unbroken packages at New Orleans, La., alleg- 
ing that the article had been shipped by Swift & Co., Oklahoma City, Okla., the 
former on or about May 30, 1931, and the latter on or about June 6, 1931, and 
had been transported from the State of Oklahoma into the State of Louisiana, 
and charging adulteration and Misbranding of the tub butter, and misbranding 
of the print butter in violation of the food and drugs act as amended. The tub 
butter was labeled in part:' " Brookfield Creamery Butter Swift & Company." 
The print butter was labeled in part: (Carton) "Swift's Premium Quality 
Brookfield Pasteurized Creamery Butter Quarters 1 Lb. Net Weight, Distributed 
by Swift & Company."
Adulteration of the tub butter was alleged in the libel for the reason that a 
product deficient in milk fat had been substituted for butter, which the article 
purported to be; and for the further reason that a product containing less than 
80 per cent by weight of milk fat had been substituted for butter, a product 
which should contain not less than 80 per cent by weight of milk fat as pre- 
scribed by the act of March 4, 1923, which the article purported to be.
Misbranding of the tub butter was alleged for the reason that it was labeled 
butter, which was false and misleading, since it contained less than 80 per cent 
of milk fat. Misbranding of the print butter was alleged for the reason that 
the statement, " 1 Lb. Net Weight," borne on the label, was false and mislead- 
ing and deceived and misled the purchaser; and 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 
quantity stated on the package was not correct.
On June 24, 1931, Swift & Co. (Ltd.), New Orleans, La., having appeared as 
claimant for the property and having admitted the allegations of the libels, 
judgments of condemnation and forfeiture were entered, and it was ordered by 
the court that the product be released to the said claimant upon payment of 
costs and the execution of bonds totaling $3,150, conditioned that it be reworked 
or relabeled, as the case might be, under the supervision of this department, 
so that it meet the requirements of the Federal food and drugs act.
ARTHUR; M. HTDB, Secretary of Agriculture.