27345. Spry shortening. (F.D.C. No. 44679. S. Nos. 3-433/4 R.) QUANTITY: 101 cases, 36 14-oz. cans each, and 107 cases, 12 2-lb. 10-oz. cans each, at Landover, Md. SHIPPED: 5-17-60 and 6-2-60, from Edgewater, N.J., by Lever Bros. Co.. LABEL IN PART: (Can) "New! Light SPRY * * * Pure All-Vegetable Short- ening Made of partially hydrogenated vegetable oil; contains no animal fat. Lever Brothers Company, New York, N.Y. * * * 226 Fewer Calories Per Cup than any other shortening ...*** makes everything you bake less fattening! * * * made by a revolutionary new process that actually WHIPS OUT calories." LIBELED : 6-20-60, Dist. Md. CHARGE: 402(b)(4)謡hen shipped, nitrogen had been added to the article to increase its bulk and reduce its strength; 403(a)*葉he label statements "226 Fewer Calories Per Cup than any other shortening," "Lower in calories," and "made by a revolutionary new process that actually whips out calories," were false and misleading since the label failed to reveal the material fact that the article had the same caloric content as shortening generally on the basis of calories per gram of fat, and that when used for frying the article would add the same number of calories to the fried foods as shortening gen- erally, and the process of manufacture merely increased the volume of the article without reduction of its caloric content per gram of the article; 403(a)葉he label statement "new light Spry makes everything you bake less fattening!" was false and misleading since it was contrary to fact; 403(a)葉he label statements "Introductory Offer! 3$ [or "54"] Off羊egular price of this can" were false and misleading since the article was being marketed on an introductory basis and no regular price of the article had been established or was stated on the label; 403(d)葉he package was so made, formed, or filled as to be misleading; and 403(i) (2)葉he label of the article failed to declare the common or usual name of each ingredient since nitrogen was not declared. DISPOSITION : Lever Bros. Co. appeared as claimant and represented to the court that it was no longer using the labeling which was the subject of the charges in the libel. Consequently, although the claimant denied that the article under seizure was in violation of the law, the claimant believed that no useful purpose would be served by contesting the charges of the libel and consented to the entry of a decree. On 10-7-60, the court entered a decree providing for condemnation of the article and its delivery for the use of a charitable institution.