21066. Adulteration and Misbranding of candies (pineapple Jellies).   U. S.
v.   Joseph   G.   Dubin   &   Sons,   Inc.    Plea   of   guilty.     Fine,  TOO.
(F. & D. no. 28153.    I. S. no. 34379.)
This case was based on an interstate shipment of so-called " Pineapple 
Jellies ", consisting of candies with a jellylike center, chocolate covered. The 
centers were artificially flavored, containing no pineapple fruit or juice.
On February 9, 1933, the United States attorney for the Eastern District 
of New York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in 
the district court an information against Joseph G. Dubin & Sons, Inc., 
Brooklyn, N. Y., alleging shipment by said company in violation of the Food 
and Drugs Act, on or about April 23, 1931, from the State of New York into 
the State of New Jersey, of a quantity of the said pineapple jellies which were 
adulterated and misbranded. The article was labeled in part: (Box) "Jos. G. 
Dubin & Sons Manufacturing Confectioners 72 Dec. Pineapple Jellies lc Sea. 
Brooklyn, New York"; (display card inside box) "Pine Jellies Covered with 
Pure Milk Chocolate."
It was alleged in the information that the article was adulterated in that a 
chocolate-covered jellylike substance, artificially flavored with undeclared 
artificial flavor and containing neither pineapple fruit nor pineapple juice, had 
been substituted for chocolate-covered pineapple jelly, which the article pur- 
ported to be.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements, " Pineapple 
Jellies" and " Pine Jellies Covered with Pure Milk Chocolate ", borne on the 
labeling, 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 
said statements represented that the article was pineapple jelly covered 
with pure milk chocolate; whereas it was not, but was a product with jellylike 
centers, artificially flavored containing neither pineapple fruit nor pineapple 
juice. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the article was an 
imitation of another article, namely, chocolate-covered pineapple jelly, and was 
offered for sale under the distinctive name of another article, "Pineapple 
Jellies,"
On June 20, 1933, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on behalf 
of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $100.
M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.