27041. Misbranding of bread.     U. S. v. Royal Baking Co.     Plea of guilty.     Fine,
$32.     (F. & D. no. 37958.    Sample nos. 67947-B, 67948-B, 73780-B, 73863-B).
This bread was misbranded because the loaves weighed less than declared on 
the label. A part was misbranded further because it was labeled to convey 
the impression that it was made with more milk than is used in making milk 
bread; whereas it contained less milk solids than milk bread contains.
On February 27, 1937, the United States attorney for the District of Utah, 
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court 
an information against the Royal Baking Co., a corporation, Salt Lake City, 
Utah, alleging shipment by said company, in violation of the Food and Drugs 
Act as amended, on or about February 21, April 16, and May 22, 1936, from 
Salt Lake City, Utah, into the States of Wyoming and Nevada of quantities of 
bread that was misbranded. A part of the article was labeled: "Royal Sand- 
wich Bread Weight 1% Lbs. Made by Royal Baking Co. Salt-Lake-Ogden 
Made with More Milk."     The remainder was labeled:   "Royal Long Royal
Bread 1 Lb. [or "1 Lb. 2 Ozs." or "One Pound"] Royal Baking Co. Salt Lake- 
side."
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, "Made with 
more milk" and "Weight 1% lbs." with respect to a portion, and "1 Lb.", "1 
Lb. 2 Ozs.", and "One Pound" with respect to the remainder, borne on the 
labels, were false and misleading and were borne on the packages so as to 
deceive and mislead the purchaser in that they represented that each of the 
packages contained the weight declared on the label, and that the portion 
labeled "Sandwich Bread" contained more milk solids than milk bread; whereas 
the packages contained less than the amount declared on the label and the 
sandwich bread contained less milk solids than milk bread contains. Said 
article was alleged to be misbranded further in 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 quantity stated was not correct.
On March 6, 1937, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant 
and the court imposed a fine of $32.
W. R. GREGG, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.