1822. Misbranding of smoked turkey paste.    U. S. v. S Cases of Smoked Turkey
Paste. Default decree of condemnation. Produet ordered distributed 
to charitable institutions.     (F. D. C. No. 3526.    Sample No. 34918-E.)
This product was short of the declared weight, the statement of the quan- 
tity of the contents was printed in very small type and was inconspicuously 
placed, and the label failed to bear a statement of the ingredients.
On December 17, 1940, the United States attorney for the Southern District 
of New York filed a libel against 8 cases of turkey paste at New York, N. Y., 
alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about 
October 7, 1940, by the Van Zandt Farms from Fort Worth, Tex.; and charging 
that it was misbranded. The article was labeled in part: (Jars) "Smokay 
(Smoked Turkey Paste) Deviled delicacy   *   *   *   Four Oz. Net."
It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement "4 Oz. Net" was false 
and misleading since it was incorrect. It was misbranded further in that it 
was in package form and failed to bear an accurate statement of the contents. 
It was misbranded further in that the statement of the quantity of the contents 
required by the act to appear on the label was not prominently placed thereon 
with such conspicuousness (as compared with other words, statements, designs, 
or devices in the labeling) as to render it likely to be read by the ordinary indi- 
vidual under customary conditions of purchase and use.
It was misbranded further in that it was fabricated from two or more in- 
gredients and its label failed to bear the common or usual name of each in- 
gredient. *
On February 7, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna- 
tion was entered and the product was ordered distributed to charitable insti- 
tutions.
DOG AND CAT FOODS
Nos. 1823 and 1824 report the institution of criminal proceedings and the 
judgments entered in actions based on shipments of dog and cat food that con- 
tained little, or ho, meat or meat byproducts, but did contain an excessive amount 
of water. They also contained smaller proportions of protein and fat than those 
declared on the label, and one brand of the product (No. 1823) was short of 
the declared weight.