18884. Adulteration and Misbranding of butter.    TJ. S. v. Midwest Dairies
(Inc.)   (Desert   Gold   Dairies   (Inc.)).    Plea   of   guilty.    Fine,   $35.
(F. & D. No. 26536.    I. S. Nos. 505, 507, 588, 1665.)
Samples of butter from the shipments herein described having been found 
short of the declared weight, and a portion having been found to contain less 
than 80 per cent of milk fat, the standard prescribed by Congress, the Secre- 
tary, of Agriculture reported the matter to the United States attorney for the 
"Western District of Texas.
On November 3, 1931, the United States attorney filed in the District Court 
of the United States for the district aforesaid an information against the 
Midwest Dairies (Inc.), a corporation, trading as the Desert Gold Dairies 
(Inc.), EI Paso, Tex., alleging shipment by said company, in violation of the 
food and drugs act as amended, in various consignments, on or about August 
19, August 22, September 12, and October 3, 1930, from the State of Texas into 
the State of New Mexico, of quantities of butter which was misbranded and a 
portion of which was also adulterated. The article was labeled in part: 
"1 Pound Net Desert Gold Creamery Butter Desert Gold Finest Quality 
Creamery Butter Desert Gold Dairies, Inc."
It was alleged in the information that a portion of the article was adulter- 
ated in that a product which contained less than 80 per cent by weight of milk 
fat had been substituted for a product which should contain not less than 80 per 
cent by weight of milk fat as prescribed by the act of March 4, 1923, which the 
said article purported to be.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statement " 1 Pound Net" 
on the packages was false and misleading in that it represented the packages 
to contain 1 pound net of the article, and for the further reason that the article 
was food in package form and the quantity of contents was not plainly and con- 
spicuously marked on the outside of the package. Misbranding was also alleged 
with respect to a portion of the article in that the statement " Butter " on the 
packages was false and misleading, since it represented the article to be butter, 
to wit, a product which should contain not less than 80 per cent by weight of 
milk fat as prescribed by law; whereas the article did not conta'in 80 per cent 
by weight of milk fat but did contain a less amount. Misbranding was alleged 
for the further reason that the article was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive 
and mislead the purchaser.
On November 3, 1931. a plea of guilty to the information was entered on 
behalf of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $25.
ARTHUR M. HYDE, Secretary of Agriculture.