2255. ~ Adulteration and misbranding of preserves.    IT. S. v. 6 Cases, 5 Cases, and
5 Cases of,Preserves.    Default decree of condemnation and destruction.
(F. D. C. No. 5142. - Sample"No?. 53910-B to 5.3912-E, tacl.) 
.;
These products failed to comply with the requirements set forth in the defini- 
tion and standard of identity for fruit preserves prescribed by regulations as 
provided by law. The strawberry preserves were insufficiently cooked, as evi- 
denced by the fact that their soluble solids content was less than 68. percent, 
and the raspberry and the apricbt preserves contained less,than 45 percent by 
weight of fruit.
On July 15, 1841, the United States attorney for the District of Nevada filed 
a libel against 16 cases, each containing 12 jars, of preserves at Las Vegas, Nev., 
alleging that the articles had been shipped on or about March 30, 1941, by the 
Diamond-T Preserving Co. from Los Angeles, Calif.; and charging that they 
were adulterated and misbranded. They were labeled in part: "D-Lite Brand 
Pure Strawberry [or "Raspberry" or "Apricot"] Preserves Net Wt. 2#."
The strawberry preserves were alleged to be adulterated in that an insuf- 
ficiently concentrated mixture of fruit and sugar that contained a smaller per- 
centage of soluble solids than that required in .the definition and standard of 
identity for fruit preserves, had been substituted.wholly or in part for straw- 
berry preserves. The raspberry and the. apricot preserves were alleged to be 
adulterated in that articles deficient in fruit had been substituted wholly or in 
part for raspberry and apricot preserves.
The strawberry preserves were alleged to be misbranded in that the name 
"Pure Strawberry Preserves" was false and misleading as applied to an article 
that was insufficiently concentrated, since the soluble solids content of the 
finished preserve was less than 68 percent. The raspberry and the apricot 
preserves were alleged to be misbranded (1) in that the names "Pure Raspberry 
Preserves" and "Pure Apricot Preserves" were false and misleading as applied 
to articles deficient in fruit; (2) in that they were imitations of other foods 
and their labels failed to bear in type of uniform size and prominence the word 
"Imitation," and immediately thereafter the names of the foods imitated; and (3) 
in that they purported to be foods for which definitions and standards of identity 
had been prescribed, but failed to conform to such definitions and standards..
On September 4, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation 
was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.