4454. Adulteration   and misbranding of blacfe Taspberry jam and misbranding:
of fruit marmalade.    V. S. v. 85 Jars of Fruit Marmalade'/and 85 Jars of 
Black Raspberry Jam.   Default decree of condemnation and destruction.
\ (F. D. C. No. 8320.    Sample Nos. 19719-F, 19720-F.)
'    On September 8, 1942, the United States' attorney for the District of Massa- 
chusetts filed a libel against 85 jars of an article labeled in part: "Mactavish¦
* *   *   fruit marmalade," and 85 jars of an article labeled in part: "Mactavish
* * * Black Raspberry," at Springfield, Mass., alleging that the articles had 
been shipped in interstate commerce on or about July 8, 1942, by the Mactavish 
Preserves Co;, Inc., from Long Island City, N. Y., and charging that they were 
adulterated and misbranded.
The product labeled "Black Raspberry" was alleged to be adulterated in that 
imitation black raspberry jam had been substituted in whole or in part for black 
raspberry jam which it purported to be. Both products were alleged to be mis- 
branded (1) in that the statement, "1 Pound Net," on the labels was false and 
misleading as applied to articles that were short weight; and,(2) in that they 
were in package form and did not bear labels containing an accurate statement 
of the quantity of the contents. The product labeled "Black Raspberry" was 
alleged to be misbranded further (1) in that the statement, "Black Raspberry 
Seedless Contains only selected wholesome fruit and cane sugar," was false and 
misleading since it was not black raspberry jam and contained other ingredients 
than fruit and cane sugar; (2) in that it was an imitation of another food, namely, 
black raspberry jam, and its label did not bear in type of uniform size and promi- 
nence the word "imitation" and immediately thereafter the name of the food 
imitated; and (3) in that it purported to be a food for which a definition and 
standard of identity had been prescribed by regulations promulgated pursuant to 
the law and it failed to conform to such definition and standard since it had not 
been concentrated by heat to such point that its insoluble solids content was not 
less than 68 percent as provided by such regulation and since its label did not 
bear the name of the food as specified therein. 
;
On December 14,1942, no claimant having appeared* judgment of condemnation 
was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.