1752. Adulteration and misbranding of tuna fish.    TJ. S. v. 86VS Cases of Tuna
Fish.    Consent decree of condemnation.    Product ordered released under 
bond for relabeling.     (F. D. C. No. 3660.    Sample No. 33005-E.)
This product was not white meat tuna as labeled, but was a yellow-fin tuna 
or a similar species having light brown or tan-colored flesh.
On January 14, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of New 
Jersey filed a libel against 86% cases of tuna fish at Jersey City, N. J., alleging 
that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about May 23, 
1940, by Steinhardter & Nordlinger from New York, N. Y.; and charging that 
it was adulterated and misbranded. The article was labeled in part: (Cans) 
"Filigree White Meat Tuna Fish Filigree Quality Foods, Inc.. Newark, New 
Jersey Distributors."
The article was alleged to be adulterated in that a substance, yellow-fin tuna 
or a similar species other than that known as white meat tuna, had been sub- 
stituted wholly or in part for white meat tuna, which it purported to be. It 
was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement "White Meat Tuna" was false
and misleading, since it was not white meat tuna; and in that it was offered for 
sale under the name of another food.
On February 21, 1941, Filigree Quality Foods, Inc., claimant, having admitted 
the allegations of the libel, judgment of condemnation was entered and the 
product was ordered released under bond conditioned that it be relabeled so that 
it comply with the requirements of the law.
FROZEN FISH