25667. Adulteration and misbranding of honey. U. S. v. 7 Cases, et al., of 
Honey.     Default  decrees  of  condemnation and destruction.     (F.  & D.
nos.   36461,   36473.      Sample   nos.   42775-B   to   42779-B,   incl.,   42787-B   to 
42791-B, lnel.)
The product in these cases consisted of a mixture of honey and commercial 
invert sugar and was sold as pure honey. Most of the lots were found to be 
short in weight.
On October 7 and October 14, 1935, the United States attorney for the District 
of New Jersey, acting upon reports by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in 
the district court libels praying seizure and condemnation of 74 cases and 350 
dozen jars of honey at Newark, N. J., alleging that the article had been shipped 
in interstate commerce, on or about September 14, October 2, and October 3, 
1985, by the Silver Label Products Co., from Brooklyn, N. Y., and charging 
adulteration and misbranding in violation of the Food and Drugs Act as 
amended. The article was labeled in part: (Jar) "The Better Grade No 
Pure Honey * * * Distributed by Uco Food Corp. Newark, N. J." The jars 
were of various sizes labeled with respect to the weight of their contents: 
"Contents 8 Oz.", "Contents 14 Ozs.", "Contents 16 Ozs.", "Contents 82 Ozs", or 
"Contents 5 Oz."
Adulteration of the article was charged under the allegation that honey con- 
taining commercial invert sugar had been substituted for pure honey which it 
purported to be.
Misbranding was alleged in that the statement "Pure Honey", borne on the 
label was false and misleading and tended to deceive and mislead the purchaser 
when applied to a product containing commercial invert sugar; and in that the 
article was offered for sale under the distinctive name of another article, "Pure 
Honey." Misbranding was alleged with respect to certain lots of the product 
for the further reason that the statements, "Contents 32 Ozs.", "Contents 16 
Ozs.", "Contents 14 Oz.", and "Contents 8 Ozs.", were false and misleading and 
tended to deceive and mislead the purchaser when applied to a product which 
was short in weight, and for the further reason that the article was food in 
package form and the quantity of the contents was not plainly and conspicu- 
ously marked on the outside of the package since the statement made was not 
correct.
On January 16 and February 19, 1936, no claimant having appeared, judg- 
ments of condemnation were entered and it was ordered that the product be 
destroyed.
W. R. GBEGG, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.