2005. Adulteration and misbranding of canned tomatoes with puree from trimŽ
mings. IT. S. v. 170 Cases and 25 Cases of Canned Tomatoes with Puree 
from   Trimmings.     Default   decrees   of   condemnation   and   destruction.
(F. D. C. Nos. 3547, 4198.    Sample Nos. 55216-E, 55782-E.)
Examination showed that one lot of this product contained worms and worm 
and insect fragments. The labels of both lots failed to bear the common name 
of the optional ingredient, viz, "Added Strained Residual Tomato Material from 
Preparation for Canning." Furthermore, both lots fell below the standard of 
quality for canned tomatoes because the drained weight was less than 50 per- 
cent of the water required to fill the container.
On or about December 19, 1940, and April 7, 1941, the United States attorneys 
for the Western District of Washington and the Northern District of California 
filed libels against 170 cases, each containing 24 cans, of tomatoes with puree 
from trimmings at Tacoma, Wash., and 25 cases, each containing 24 cans, of the 
same product at Weed, Calif., alleging that the article had been shipped on or 
about September 10 and November 30, 1940, by Bagley Canning Co. from Ashland, 
Oreg.; and charging that a portion was adulterated and that both lots were 
misbranded. It was labeled in part: "Bagley's Rogue River Valley Tomatoes 
With Puree From Trimmings   Net Contents 1 Lb. 3 Oz."
The portion of the article seized at Weed, Calif., was alleged to be adulterated 
in that it consisted wholly or in part of a filthy substance.
Both lots of the article were alleged to be misbranded (1) in that it pur- 
ported to be a food for which a definition and standard of identity had been 
prescribed by law, but its label failed to bear the common name of the optional 
ingredient, viz, "Added Strained Residual Tomato Material from Preparation 
for Canning," present in such food; and (2) in that it purported to be a food 
for which a standard of quality had been prescribed by regulations as provided 
by law, but its quality fell below such standard, and its label failed to bear in 
such manner and form as the regulations specify, a statement that it fell below 
such standard.
On May 15 and 23, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgments of con- 
demnation were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.