1230. Misbranding of noodle soup mix.    IT. S. v. "Beefy-Bowl Noodle Soup Mix
with Beef Stock," etc. Default decree of condemnation. Product or- 
dered delivered to a charitable institution. (F. D. C. No. 2437. Sample Nos. 
5688-E, 5689-E, 5690-E.)
These packages each contained noodles and an envelope of soup mix, which 
occupied only about 60 percent of the capacity of the package. In two of the 
lots the envelopes containing the soup mix did not bear a statement of the quantity 
of contents, and in the third lot the envelopes were unlabeled.
On or about July 30, 1940, the United States attorney for the Southern District 
of Ohio filed a libel against 134 packages of noodle soup mix at Cincinnati, Ohio, 
which had been shipped in interstate commerce within the period from on or 
about May 10 to on or about July 13, 1940, alleging that the article had been 
shipped by the Carjon Food Products Co. from Chicago, Ill.; and charging that it 
was misbranded. The article was variously labeled in part: (Package) "Beefy- 
Bowl Noodle Soup Mix with Beef Stock"; "Noodle-Bowl Noodle Soup Mix with 
Vegetables"; and "Chick-n-Bowl Noodle Soup Mix Flavored with Chicken Fat."
The Beefy-Bowl Soup Mix was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement 
"Beefy-Bowi" was misleading as applied to an artificially flavored product. It 
was alleged to be misbranded further in that the statement "With Beef Stock" 
was misleading as it referred to only one ingredient, whereas the flavor was 
derived in part from artificial sources.
The Chick-n-Bowl mix was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement 
"Chiek-n-Bowl" was misleading as applied to a soup mix containing no chicken 
broth, a fundamental ingredient of chicken soup, the chief flavor of the product 
being derived from artificial sources. It was alleged to be misbranded further 
in that the prominent statement in the name of the article, "Flavored with 
Chicken Fat," was misleading as it referred to only one ingredient; whereas the 
flavor was derived in part from artificial sources. It was alleged to be misbranded 
further in that it was in package form and the envelope containing the mix 
did not bear the name and place of business of the manufacturer, packer, or 
distributor. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that it was fabricated 
from two or more ingredients and did not bear the common or usual name of 
each such ingredient.
The Noodle Bowl Mix was alleged to be misbranded in that the prominent 
statement in the name of the article, "with vegetables," was misleading as it 
referred to only one ingredient; whereas the flavor was derived in part from 
artificial sources. All lots were alleged to be misbranded further in that their 
containers were so made, formed, or filled as to be misleading and in that they 
were in package form and the soup mix did not bear an accurate statement of 
the quantity of the contents.
On November 9, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation 
was entered and the product was ordered delivered to a charitable institution.