4490. Adulteration and misbranding of fruit beverage bases. U. S. v. 199 
Bottles of Sunshine Health Drinks. Default decree of condemnation. 
Product ordered delivered to a charitable institution. (F. D. C. No. 7944. 
Sample Nos. 94243-E to 94248-E, incl.)
On July 25, 1942, the United States attorney for the Western District of Mis- 
souri filed a libel against 199 gallon-bottles of Sunshine Health Drinks at Jef- 
ferson City, Mo., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate com- 
merce on or about April 20 and May 6, 1942, by the Orange Products Corp. from 
Chicago, Ill.; and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded. The article 
was labeled in part: "Sunshine Health Drinks * * * Pineapple Orange [or 
"Grape Juice," "Orange," "Pineapple," "Fruit Punch," or "Grapefruit"] Con- 
centrate."
The pineapple orange, orange, and fruit punch flavors were alleged to be 
adulterated (1) in that inferiority had been concealed through the use of artificia1 
color, added orange pulp, and phosphoric acid and (2) in that artificial color
orange pulp, and phosphoric acid had been added thereto or mixed or packed 
therewith so as to make them appear better or of greater value than they were. 
)The grape juice was alleged to be adulterated (1) in that inferiority had been 
concealed through the use of artificial color, and (2) in that artificial color had 
been added thereto or mixed or packed therewith so as to make it appear better 
or of greater value than it was.
The pineapple orange, orange, and orange fruit punch flavors were alleged to be 
misbranded (1) in that the statement on the streamer label "Health Drinks 
Rich in Natural Vitamins" was false and misleading since the articles were not 
rich in vitamins because the amounts of vitamin C found were substantially less 
than the amounts found in orange and grapefruit juices; (2) in that the state- 
ments appearing in the labeling "Health Drinks * * * Pineapple Orange 
Concentrate Health Drink," "Orange Concentrate Health Drink," "Fruit Punch 
Concentrate Health Drink," were false and misleading as applied to articles that 
were fruit-flavored sirups imitating fruit-juice concentrates; (3) in that they 
wereimitations of other foods and their labels failed to bear in type of uniform 
size and prominence the word "imitation" and, immediately thereafter, the 
name of the food imitated; (4) in that they were fabricated from two or more 
ingredients and their labels failed to bear the common or usual name of each 
such ingredient since phosphoric acid was not declared; and (5) in that they 
contained artificial coloring and failed to bear labeling stating that fact. The 
grape juice was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that the statements, (streamer) 
"Health Drinks" and (bottle) "Health Drinks * * * Grape Juice Concen- 
trate Health Drinks," were false and misleading as applied to an article that 
was a fruit-flavored sirup imitating fruit-juice concentrates and that it was 
not rich in vitamins; and (2) in that it was an imitation of another food and 
its label failed to bear, in type of uniform size and prominence, the word "imi- 
tation" and, immediately thereafter, the name of the food imitated. The 
pineapple flavor was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements (streamer) 
"Health Drinks" and (bottle) "Health Drinks ' * * * Pineapple Concentrate 
Health Drink," were false and misleading as applied to an article that was a 
fruit-flavored sirup imitating fruit-juice concentrates and that it was not rich 
in vitamins. The grapefruit flavor was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that 
the statements, (streamer) "Health Drinks Rich in Natural Vitamins" and 
bottle) "Health Drinks * * * Grapefruit Concentrate Health Drink," were 
false and misleading as applied to an article that was a fruit-flavored sirup 
imitating fruit-juice concentrates and that it was not rich in vitamins; and (2) 
in that it? was fabricated from two or more ingredients and its label failed to bear 
the common or usual name of each such ingredient since its pulp was not declared. 
On October 24, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation 
was entered and the product was ordered delivered to a charitable institution.