25227. Adulteration and misbranding of butter. U. S. v. Swift & Co. Plea of 
guilty. Fine, SOO and costs. (F. & D. no. 34072. Sample nos. 71236-A, 
661-B.)
This case involved butter, a part of which was deficient in milk fat and a 
part of which was short in weight.
On July 6, 1935, the United States attorney for the Western District of 
Washington, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the 
district court an information against Swift & Co., a corporation, trading at 
Tacoma, Wash., alleging shipment by said company in violation of the Food 
and Drugs Act on or about July 9, 1934, from Tacoma, Wash., to Alaska, of a 
quantity of butter which was adulterated and misbranded. The information 
further alleged that on or about June 9, 1934, Swift & Co. sold a quantity of 
butter under a guaranty that it was not adulterated or misbranded in violation 
of the Food and Drugs Act; that the said butter had been shipped by the 
purchaser thereof, the Tacoma Grocery Co., of Tacoma, Wash., on or about 
June 9, 1934, to Alaska; that it was misbranded in violation of the Food and 
Drugs Act as amended, and that Swift & Co., the defendant herein, was 
amenable to prosecution for the violation of the law which would, but for said 
guaranty, have attached to the shipper. The article was labeled in part: 
"1 Lb. Net Weight Swift's Premium Quality Brookfield Butter * * * Swift 
& Company    *    *    *    Chicago."
The information alleged that a portion of the article was adulterated in that 
a product containing less than 80 percent by weight of milk fat had been substi- 
tuted for butter, a product which should 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 of the said portion was alleged for the reason that the state- 
ment "butter", borne on the label, was false and misleading and for the further 
reason that it was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since 
said statement represented that the article was butter as defined by law; 
whereas it was not butter as defined by law, but was a product containing less 
than 80 percent by weight of milk fat.
Misbranding was alleged with respect to the remainder of the product for the 
reason that the statement "1 Lb. Net Weight", borne on the packages, was false 
and misleading; for the further reason that it was labeled so as to deceive and 
mislead the purchaser, since the packages did not each contain 1 pound of the 
article, but did contain in each of a large number of packages, less than 1 pound; 
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 statement made was incorrect.
On September 16, 1935, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the de- 
fendant company and the court imposed a fine of $100 and costs.
W. R. GEEGG, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.