21439. Adulteration   and   Misbranding of   grape  juice.     IT.   S.   v.   John   E.
Rice (John E. Rice Orchards). Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, 
?25.    (F. & D. no. 28181.    I.S. no. 38878.)
This case was based on an interstate shipment of a product labeled to convey 
the impression that it was grape juice, which contained undeclared added water 
and sugar. The declaration of the quantity of the contents on the label was 
not plain and conspicuous.
On May 25, 1933, the United States attorney for the District of Massachu- 
setts, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district 
court an information against John E. Rice, trading as the John E. Rice 
Orchards, Marlboro, Mass., alleging shipment by said defendant in violation
of the Food and Drugs Act as amended, on or about August 15, 1931, from the 
State of Massachusetts into the State of Rhode Island, of a quantity of grape 
juice which was adulterated and misbranded. The article was labeled in part: 
" Rice John E. Rice Orchards [design of bunch of grapes] * * * Made 
From Pure Fruit [indistinct statement of weight, " Contents 1 Pt."] Concord 
Grape   *    *    *   John E. Rice Orchards, Marlboro, Mass."
It was alleged in the information that the article was adulterated in that 
undeclared added substances, water and sugar, had been mixed and packed 
therewith so as to reduce and lower and injuriously affect its quality and 
strength, and had been substituted in large part for the article.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements, " Concord 
Grape, Made From Pure Fruit", together with the design of a bunch of grapes, 
borne on the label, were false and misleading, and for the further reason that 
the article was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, in that the 
said statement and design represented that the article was pure grape juice 
made from Concord grapes; whereas it was a mixture of grape juice and 
added undeclared water and sugar. Misbranding was alleged for the further 
reason that the article was offered for sale under the distinctive name of 
another article, "' Concord Grape." 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 
package, since the statement made was scarcely discernible.
On August 18, 1933, the defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere to the 
information, and the court imposed a fine of $25.
M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.