21791. Adulteration of tomato puree.   IT. S. v. 50 Cases * * *.    (F. D. C. No.
34028.    Sample No. 3252-L.)
LIBEL FILED :    October 20,1952, District of Kansas.
ALLEGED SHIPMENT : On or about October 1, 1952, by Lord-Mott Co., Inc., from 
Baltimore, Md.
PRODUCT:   50 cases, each containing 48 cans, of tomato puree at Topeka, Kans.
LABEL IN PART: (Can) "Lord-Mott's Tomato Puree Made From Whole Ripe 
Tomatoes   Contents 10% Oz. Avoir."
NATURE OF CHARGE: Adulteration, Section 402 (a) (3), the article consisted in 
whole or in part of a decomposed substance by reason of the presence of de- 
composed tomato material.
DISPOSITION: On December 23, 1952, Lord-Mott Co., Inc., in the capacity of 
claimant, submitted a letter to the court designated as an "answer" to the
libel. The "answer" failed to deny the allegations of the libel, but instead 
set forth approximately 5 different reasons for dismissing the libel as follows: 
( (1) That, the Federal Security Administrator had over the years allowed a 
tolerance for decomposition which he had gradually lowered to what was as- 
serted to be an "unreasonable level"; (2) that the inspectors who collected 
the samples of the product acted illegally and that the evidence so obtained 
should be suppressed; (3) that a meeting had been held on December 18,1952, 
between the representatives of the Food and Drug Administration and the 
tomato canning industry, on the subject of relief from the act's ban on decom- 
position, but that no relief had been granted by the Food and Drug Adminis- 
tration; (4) that a congressional committee was scheduled to investigate the 
Food and Drug Administration in the near future; and, (5) that the product 
was not injurious to the consumer.
„ The Government filed motions to have the court enter either a default judg- 
ment or a judgment on the pleadings. The Government filed also a motion to 
strike the "answer," On March 5, 1953, the claimant filed a motion to strike 
and an application for judgment in its favor, and, on March 13,1953, the court 
denied the claimant's motion. The claimant submitted a reply to the Govern- 
ment's motions on March 18, 1953. The case came on for hearing before the 
court on April 10, 1953, but the claimant failed to appear. The Government 
thereupon moved the court for judgment on the pleadings, which was granted 
on the basis that all material facts stated in the libel had been admitted by 
the claimant's "answer." Accordingly, the court, on April 10, 1953, entered 
a decree of condemnation and ordered that the product be destroyed.
NUTS AND NUT PRODUCTS*