20631. Adulteration of   canned   frozen   eggs,   and   adulteration   and   mis¬
branding  of  butter.   U.  S.  v.  Swift  &   Co.   Flea   of  guilty.   Fine, 
$150.    (F. & D. no. 29344.    I. S. nos. 50623, 53331, 53336.)
This case was based on an interstate shipment of a product represented to 
be canned whole mixed eggs, which was found to contain excessive whites; and 
of a shipment of butter which was found to contain less than 80 percent by 
weight of milk fat, the standard for butter prescribed by Congress.
On December 28, 1932, the United States attorney for the District of New 
braska, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the 
District Court of the United States an information against Swift & Co., trading 
at Omaha, Nebr., alleging shipment by said company in violation of the Food
and Drugs Act, from the State of Nebraska into the State of Illinois, on or 
about December 12, 1931, of a quantity of a product purporting to be canned 
frozen mixed whole eggs, which was adulterated, and on or about March 11, 
193J, of a quantity of butter that was adulterated and misbranded. The eggs 
were billed as frozen eggs, and were labeled in part, " Mixed." The butter 
was labeled in part: " Glenwood Creamery Butter * * * Distributed by 
Swift & Company   *   *    *   Chicago, U.S.A."
Adulteration of the canned frozen eggs was alleged in the information for 
the reason that egg whites, in excess of the normal amount contained in 
mixed whole eggs, had been mixed and packed with the article so as to re- 
duce and lower and injuriously affect its quality and strength and had been 
substituted in part for mixed whole eggs, which the article purported to be.
Adulteration of the butter was alleged for the reason that a product con- 
taining less than 80 percent by weight of milk fat had been substituted for 
butter, a product which must contain not less than 80 percent by weight of 
milk fat as required by the act of Congress of March 4, 1933, which the article 
purported to be.
Misbranding of the butter was alleged for the reason that the statement 
" Butter ", borne on the cartons, was false and misleading, and for the further 
reason that the article was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead 
the purchaser, since it was not butter as defined by law.
On January 3Q, 1933, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on 
behalf of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $150.
R. G. TTJGWKLL, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.