26056. Adulteration and misbranding of plum preserves.     V. S. v. Two Cases of
Alleged   Plum   Preserves.     Default   decree   of   condemnation   and   de- 
struction.    (F. & D. no. 37551.    Sample no. 62618-B.)
This case involved a shipment of plum preserves that contained less fruit 
and more sugar than a standard preserve, and that also contained added pectin 
and water.
On April 6, 1936, the United States attorney for the District of Maryland, 
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court 
a libel praying seizure and condemnation of two cases of alleged plum preserves 
at Baltimore, Md., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate com- 
merce on or about October 15, 1935, by Lutz & Schramm Co., from Pittsburgh, 
Pa., and charging adulteration and misbranding in violation of the Food and 
Drugs Act. The article was labeled in part: (Jar, main label) "L. & S. Pure 
Preserves, Lutz & Schramm Co., Pittsburgh, Pa."; (strip label) "Pure Plum 
Preserves    *    *    *    Guaranteed Pure."
The article was alleged to be adulterated in that sugar, pectin, and water 
which should have been removed by boiling, had been mixed and packed with 
the article so as to reduce or lower its quality; in that a mixture of fruit, 
sugar, pectin, and water containing less fruit and more sugar than preserves, 
had been substituted for preserves, which article purported to be; and in that
sugar, pectin, and water had been mixed with the article in a manner whereby 
inferiority was concealed.
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement on the label, 
"Pure Preserves", and the statements on the strip label, "Pure Plum Preserves" 
and "Guaranteed Pure", were false and misleading and tended to deceive and 
mislead the purchaser when applied to a product resembling preserves but 
which contained less fruit than preserves, the deficiency having been concealed 
by the addition of pectin, water, and excess sugar; and in that it was an imi- 
tation of and offered for sale under the distinctive name of another article, 
namely, preserves.
On May 21, 1936, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation 
was entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.
W. R. GBEGQ, Acting Secretary of Agriculture,