20666. Adulteration  and Misbranding of canned tomato paste.     TJ.  S. v. 3
Cases of Tomato Paste. No claim entered. Verdict for the Gov- 
ernment. Decree of condemnation and destruction, with pro- 
vision that goods might be delivered to a charitable institution.
(F. & D. no. 28681.    Sample no. 13303-A.)
This action involved the interstate shipment of a product represented to be 
tomato paste, but which consisted of a tomato product insufficiently concentrated 
to be designated as tomato paste. Examination also showed that certain of the 
cans were short weight.
On August 19. 1932. the United States attorney for the Western District of 
Louisiana, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the 
District Court of the United States for the district aforesaid a libel praying 
seizure and condemnation of 3 cases of tomato paste at Alexandria, La., alleg- 
ing that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce, on or about 
June 28. 1930. by the Uddo-Taormina Corporation, from Crystal Springs. Miss., 
to Alexandria. La., and charging adulteration and misbranding in violation of 
the Food and Drugs Act as amended. On August 23, 1932, an amended libel 
was filed, praying that the original libel be changed to read " Thirty cases " 
instead of " three cases ", which amendment was allowed. The article was 
labeled in part: "Buffalo Brand Tomato Paste * * * Net Contents 5 
Ounces.    Packed by Uddo-Taormina Corp. New Orleans, La."
It was alleged in the libel as amended that the article was adulterated in that 
it consisted of an insufficiently condensed, strained tomato product.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements, " Tomato Paste " 
and " Net Contents Five Ounces ". were false and misleading and deceived and 
misled the purchaser, since the article consisted of an insufficiently condensed, 
strained tomato product and was short weight. Misbranding was alleged for 
the further reason that the article was offered for sale under the distinctive 
name of another article, and for the further reason that it 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 was incorrect.
On January 24, 1933, no claimant having appeared for the property and a 
jury having no,and that the allegations of the libel were true and correct, judg- 
ment of condemnation was entered and it was ordered by the court that the 
product be destroyed, or that it might be delivered to a charitable institution in 
lieu of destruction.
R. G. TTTGWELL, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.