20663. Adulteration and Misbranding of butter.   XI. S. v. mutual Creamery
Co.    Plea of guilty.    Fine, $ 100 and costs.     (F. & D. no. 29341.    I.  S. 
no. 12811.)
This action was based on the shipment of a quantity of butter, samples of 
which were found to contain less than 80 percent by weight of milk fat, the 
standard prescribed by Congress; sample packages also were found to contain 
less than 1 pound, the declared weight.
On December 8, 1932, the United States attorney for the Western District 
of Washington, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the 
District Court of the United States for the district aforesaid an information 
against the Mutual Creamery Co., a corporation, trading at Seattle, Wash., 
alleging shipment by said company in violation of the Food and Drugs Act. as 
amended, on or about April 4, 1932, from the State of Washington into the 
Territory of Alaska, of a quantity of butter that was adulterated and mis- 
branded. The article was labeled in part: " Net Weight One Pound When 
Wrapped Cascade Pasteurized Butter Mutual Creamery Company, U. S. A."
It was alleged in the information that the article was adulterated in that a 
product deficient in 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 March 4. 1923, which the article purported to be.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements. " Butter " and 
" Net Weight One Pound ", borne on the label, were false and misleading, and 
for the further reason that the article was labeled as aforesaid so as to 
deceive and mislead the purchaser, since the statement " Butter " represented 
that the article contained not less than 80 percent by weight of milk fat, 
whereas it contained less than 80 percent of milk fat; and the statement " Net 
Weight One Pound " represented that each package contained 1 pound of the 
article, whereas each of a large number of the packages contained less than 1 
pound. 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 packages, since the statement made 
was incorrect.
On December 30, 1932, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on 
behalf of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $100 and 
costs.
R. G. TUGWELL, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.