1690. Adulteration  and misbranding of  candy.     U.   S.  v.   46 Boxes  of   Candy.
Default decree of condemnation. Product ordered distributed to char- 
itable institutions. (F. D. C. No. 2717. Sample Nos. 33530-E,33531-B, 
33862-B.)
One lot of this product was artificially flavored and colored, one lot was 
artificially flavored, and one lot was flavored with essential oil. Furthermore, 
the candy occupied only about 75 percent of the volume of the packages.
On September 3, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of New 
Jersey filed a libel against 46 boxes of candy at Jersey City, N. J., alleging that 
the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about May 8, 1940, 
by Cocilana, Inc., from Brooklyn, N. Y.; and charging that it was adulterated 
and misbranded. The article was labeled in part: "[Design of fruits] Pineapple 
[or "Raspberry" or "Peppermint"] Fruit Nips."
It was alleged to be adulterated in that substances, namely, artificially 
flavored and colored candy in the case of the "Raspberry," artificially flavored 
candy in the case of the "Pineapple," and candy flavored with essential oil in 
the case of the "Peppermint" had been substituted for candies containing sub- 
stantial proportions of fruit as the name "Fruit Nips" implied. The Raspberry 
Fruit Nips were alleged to be adulterated further in that inferiority had been 
concealed by the addition of artificial color.
Misbranding was alleged in that the names "Raspberry [or "Pineapple" or 
"Peppermint"] * * * Fruit Nips" and the designs of fruits appearing 
prominently on the display carton and label of the retail packages, were false 
and misleading as applied to candies which were artificially flavored or flavored 
with essential oil and which did not contain a substantial amount of fruit. 
Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the article was offered for 
sale under the name of another food, namely, Raspberry (or Pineapple or Pepper- 
mint) Fruit Nips; and in that its containers were so made, formed, or filled as to 
be misleading.
On December 21, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna- 
tion was entered and the product was ordered distributed to charitable 
institutions.