Misbranding of canned peaches. U.S. v. 28 Cases, et al., of Canned
Peaches. Decrees of conde1nnation and forfeiture. Product released
under bond for relabeling. (F. & D. Nos. 27794, 27808. I. S.
Nos. 41124, 52609. S. Nos. 5888. 5905.)
These actions involved the interstate shipment of quantities of canned
peaches, samples of which fell below the standard of quality promulgated by
the Secretary of Agriculture for such canned food, and which was not labeled
to indicate that it was substandard.
On February 29, 1932 and March 4, 1932, the United States attorney for
the Western District of Tennessee, acting upon reports by the Secretary of
Agriculture, filed in the District Court of the United States for the district
aforesaid libels praying seizure and condemnation of 369 cases of canned
peaches at Memphis, Tenn., alleging that the article had been shipped in
interstate commerce in various consignments on or about August 20, 1931,
September 14, 1931, and November 1, 1931, by the Paragould Canning Co.,
from Paragould, Ark., to Memphis, Tenn., and charging misbranding in violation
of the Food and Drugs Act. A portion of the article was labeled in part:
(Cans) "Crowley's Ridge Brand Yellow Frees Pie Peaches Packed in 10 Degree
Syrup [or "Packed in Light Syrup"] * * * Packed · by Paragould
Canning Co., Paragould, Ark." The remainder were labeled in part: "Crowley's
Ridge Brand Water Packed Pie Peaches."
It was alleged in the libels that the article was misbranded in that it ·was
canned food and fell below the standard of quality and condition promulgated
by the Secretary ·of Agriculture for such canned food, in that a portion contained
excessive trimming, excessively ragged units, and excessive amounts of
peel; and the remainder contained an excessive amount of. hard and excessively
trimmed fruit and the Brix reading was below 14 degrees and its label
did not bear a plain and conspicuous statement prescribec:1 by the Secretary,
indicating that such canned food fell below such standard.
On August 11, 1932, the Paragould Canning Co., Paragould, .Ark., claimant,
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 claimant upon payment of costs and the execution of good and
sufficient bonds, conditioned that it should not be sold or disposed of contrary
to the laws of the United States and all other laws, and that it be relabeled
under the supervision of this Department.