1858. Adulteration and misbranding of candy. U. S. v. 8 Cases of Candy. Default 
decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 3718. Sample No. 
43849-E.)
Three of the four lots of this product were found to contain rodent hairs. 
All lots were misbranded because of failure to comply with certain labeling re- 
quirements of the law; and in one instance, because of containers that were 
deceptive in that they did not contain the amount of candy indicated by their 
outward appearance.
On or about February 6, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of 
Kansas filed a libel against 3 cases of candy at Clay Center, Kans., alleging 
that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about November 
28, 1940, by the Elmer Candy Co. from New Orleans, La.; and charging that 
it was misbranded and that certain lots were also adulterated. The article 
was labeled in part variously: "Juicy Cherries," "Standard Assortment," and 
"Cottage Sweets   *   *   * ' Nut & Fruit Assortment [or "Hand-Rolled Creams"]."
The products labeled "Standard Assortment," "Nut & Fruit Assortment," 
and "Hand-Rolled Creams" were alleged to be adulterated in that they con- 
sisted wholly or in part of a filthy substance; and in that they had been pre- 
pared under insanitary conditions whereby they ' might have become con- 
taminated with filth. The " Standard Assortment," "Nut & Fruit Assortment," 
and "Hand-Rolled Creams" were alleged to be misbranded in that the name 
and place of business of the manufacturer, and in the case of the "Standard 
Assortment" the quantity of contents (required by the act to appear on the 
label) were not prominently placed thereon with such conspicuousness (a?r 
compared with other words, statements, designs, or devices in the labeling) as 
to render them likely to be read by the ordinary individual under customary 
conditions of purchase and use.
The chocolate-covered cherries were alleged to be misbranded in that their 
container was so made, formed, or filled as to be misleading; in that they were 
in package form and did not bear the name of the manufacturer; and in that 
the statement of the quantity of contents and the list of mgredients were not 
prominently placed on the label with such conspicuousness as to render them 
likely to be read by the ordinary individual under customary conditions of pur- 
chase and use.
On March 22, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation 
was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.