21149. Adulteration and Misbranding of canned frozen eggs.   U. S. v. Swift 
& Co.   Plea of nolo contendere.   Fine, $200 and costs.     (F. & D. no.
29353.    I. S. nos. 52130, 52267.)
This case was based on an interstate shipment of canned frozen eggs which 
were found to contain excessive moisture.
On December 15, 1932, the United States attorney for the Southern District 
of Iowa, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district 
court an information against Swift & Co., a corporation, trading at Keokuk, 
Iowa, alleging shipment by said company in violation of the Food and Drugs 
Act, on or about May 19, 1931, from the State of Iowa into the State of Michi- 
gan, of a quantity of canned frozen eggs which were adulterated and mis- 
branded. The article was labeled in part: " Brookfield Frozen Whole Eggs 
Free from Adulterants * * * Swift & Company * * * Unadulterated— 
Nothing is added or taken away."
It was alleged in the information that the article was adulterated in that 
an added substance, water, had been mixed and packed therewith so as to 
reduce and lower and injuriously affect its quality and strength, and had been 
substituted in part for the article.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements, " Frozen Eggs 
Whole Free from Adulterants * * * Unadulterated * * * Nothing is 
added", borne on the cans, were false and misleading, and for the further 
reason that the article was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, 
since it was not composed solely of frozen whole eggs free from adulterants, 
it was not unadulterated, and was not an article to which nothing had been 
added, but was an adulterated article composed, in part of an added adulter- 
ant, water.
On May 3, 1933, a plea of nolo contendere to the information was entered 
on behalf of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $200 and 
costs.
M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.