21731. Misbranding of canned peas, canned tuna, and canned pineapple. U. S. 
v. Max Factor. Plea of guilty. Defendant fined $250 and placed on 
probation for 1 year. (F. D. C. No. 35193. Sample Nos. 73021-L, 
73027-L, 73029-L, 73052-L.)
INFOBMATTO:N  FILED:   November  6,  1953,  Eastern  District  of Pennsylvania,
against Max Factor, Philadelphia, Pa. 
ALLEGED VIOLATION : Between the approximate dates of June 1,1952, and March 
13, 1953, while a number of cans of peas and pineapple were being held for 
sale on the business premises of the defendant, after shipment in interstate 
commerce, the defendant caused the labels to be removed from a number of 
cans of peas and pineapple and caused a number of different labels to be 
affixed to such cans, which acts of removing and relabeling resulted in the 
relabeled peas and pineapple being misbranded.
In addition, on or about March 5 and 13,1953, the defendant caused a number 
of cans of peas and tuna to be introduced into* interstate commerce, which 
articles were misbranded. 
LABEL IN PART: (Cans of peas prior to relabeling) "Below Standard In 
Quality And Not High Grade Early June Peas"; (relabeled cans of peas) 
"Broadcast Brand Wisconsin Early June Peas Packed by Klindt-Geiger 
Canning Co., Cassville, Wis."; (cans of pineapple prior to relabeling) "Pine- 
apple Tidbits In Heavy Syrup"; (relabeled cans of pineapple) "Climax 
Brand Sliced Pineapple"; (cans of tuna) "Max Factor Philadelphia, Pa. 
Distributor Bingo Brand Tuna." 
NATURE OF CHARGE: Peas. Misbranding, Section 403 (a), the label statement 
"Packed by Klindt-Geiger Canning Co., Cassville, Wis." appearing on the 
relabeled cans of peas and on the cans of peas introduced by the defendant 
into interstate commerce was false and misleading since the peas in such cans 
were not packed by the Klindt-Geiger Canning Co., Cassville, Wis. Further 
misbranding, Section 403 (h) (1), the article purported to be and was repre- 
sented as canned peas of a smooth-skin variety, a food for which a standard 
of quality had been prescribed by regulations, and the article failed to conform 
to such standard because of high alcohol-insoluble solids; and the label failed 
to bear a statement that the article fell below such standard.
Pineapple. Misbranding, Section 403 (a), the statement "Sliced Pineapple" 
appearing on the relabeled cans was false and misleading since the article 
was not sliced pineapple but was pineapple tidbits.
Tuna. Misbranding, Section 403 (a), the label statement "Tuna" was 
false and misleading since the statement represented and suggested that the 
article was tunafish, whereas the article was not tunafish but was another 
variety of fish, namely, bonita.
See also Nos. 21735, 21748, 21749.