F. & D. No. 1244.
I. S. Nos. 8995-b, 8996-b, 8997-b, 8998-b, 8999-b, 9000-b,	Issued January 10, 1912.
United States Department of Agriculture,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY.
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 1217.
(Given pursuant to section 4 of the Food and Drugs Act.)
ADULTERATION AND MISBRANDING OF STRAWBERRY EXTRACT,?
RASPBERRY EXTRACT, ORANGE EXTRACT, YANILLA AND TONKA?
EXTRACT, ALMOND EXTRACT, AND CINNAMON EXTRACT.
At a stated term of the Circuit Court of the United States for the?
Southern District of New York, begun and held in the city of New?
York, on the first Monday of July, 1911, the United States Attorney?
for said district, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agricul??
ture, filed information in said circuit court against the California?
Perfume Co., a corporation, alleging shipment by it, in violation of?
the Food and Drugs Act, on or about September 22, 1909, from the?
city of New York into the State of Kentucky, of a quantity of ex??
tracts which were adulterated and misbranded. The labeling on?
the cartons was the same in each instance, except as to the stamping?
of the name of the extract, and was as follows: " CP, the Sign of?
Quality, 4 Ounces, Full Weight, California (Trade Marked Design)?
Flavoring Extract, Strawberry, Manufactured by California Per??
fume Company, New York,,Price 45 Cents."
The bottles containing the concentrated extract of strawberry were?
labeled: " 4 Ounces, Full Weight, Concentrated Extract of Straw??
berry, Imitation, For all Flavoring purposes. These goods are?
Guaranteed under the Pure Food & Drugs Act of June 30, 1906,?
Serial No. 3909, California Perfume Co., New York." Analysis of?
a sample of said product made by the Bureau of Chemistry of the?
United States Department of Agriculture showed the following re??
sults: Average contents (2 bottles), 120.5 cc, or 1.9 per cent over 4.?
fluid ounces; solids (grams per 100 cc), 0.062; ash (grams per 100?
cc), 0.017; alkalinity of ash (cc N/10 HC1 per 100 cc), 1.5 cc; esters,?
as ethyl acetate (per 100 cc), 0.58 grams; alcohol by volume, 43.1?
per cent; no methyl alcohol; no chloroform; color, impure amaranth.?
Adulteration was alleged against said product for the reason that?
an imitation strawberry extract, esters, impure amaranth, and other?
foreign substances had been mixed and packed with said article so?
as to reduce, lower, and injuriously affect its quality and strength,?
and had been substituted in part for said article, and said substance?
had been colored in a manner whereby inferiority was concealed.?
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that said product was an
18874??No.   1217?12
imitation of and offered for sale under the distinctive name of an??
other article, to wit, concentrated extract of strawberry, when in?
fact it was an imitation thereof, and contained esters, impure ama??
ranth, and other substances foreign thereto. The statements on the?
label were therefore false and misleading, and calculated to deceive?
and mislead the purchaser.
The bottles containing the concentrated extract of raspberry were?
labeled as follows: "Four Ounces Full Weight, Concentrated Ex??
tract of Raspberry, for all Flavoring Purposes, (Design and Trade?
Mark), California Perfume Company, New York." Analysis of a?
sample of said product made by the Bureau of Chemistry of the?
United States Department of Agriculture showed the following re??
sults: Contents (1 bottle), 129 cc, or 9.1 per cent over 4 fluid ounces;?
solids by weight, 0.30 per cent; ash by weight, 0.026 per cent; alka??
linity of ash (cc N/10 HC1 per 100 grams), 3.65 cc; esters as ethyl?
acetate (per 100 cc), 0.48 grams; alcohol by volume, 38.9 per cent; no?
methyl alcohol; no chloroform; color, impure amaranth. Adultera??
tion was alleged against said product because an imitation raspberry?
extract, esters, impure amaranth, and other foreign substances had?
been mixed and packed with said article so as to reduce, lower, and?
injuriously affect its quality and strength, and had been substituted?
in part for said article, and said substance was colored in a manner?
whereby inferiority was concealed. Misbranding was alleged for the?
reason that said product was an imitation of and offered for sale?
under the distinctive name of another article, to wit, concentrated?
extract of raspberry, when in fact it was an imitation thereof, and?
contained esters, impure amaranth, and other substances foreign?
thereto. The representations on the label were therefore false and?
misleading, and calculated to deceive and mislead the purchaser.
The bottles containing the concentrated extract of terpeneless?
orange were labeled as follows: " Four Ounces Full Weight, Con??
centrated Extract of Terpeneless Orange For All Flavoring Pur??
poses. These goods are Guaranteed under the Pure Food and Drugs?
Act June 30, 1906, Serial Number 3909. California Perfume Com??
pany, New York." Analysis of a sample of said product made by?
the Bureau of Chemistry of the United States Department of Agri??
culture showed the following results: Contents, average (2 bottles),?
114 cc; shortage, 3.6 per cent; solids (grams per 100 cc), 0.043; oil, by?
polarization, 1.4 per cent; oil, by precipitation, 1.6 per cent; alcohol,?
by volume, 68.7 per cent; no methyl alcohol; colored with a yellow?
coal-tar dye not Naphthol Yellow S. Adulteration was alleged?
against said product for the reason that a dilute extract of orange?
and yellow coal-tar dye and other foreign substances had been mixed?
and paeked with said article so as to reduce, lower, and injuriously?
affect its quality and strength, and had been substituted in part for
1217
said article, and said substance had been colored in a manner whereby?
inferiority was concealed. Misbranding was alleged for the reason?
that said product was an imitation of and offered for sale under the?
distinctive name of another article, to wit, concentrated extract of?
terpeneless orange, when in fact it was not such, but a mixture includ??
ing dilute extract of orange and other substances foreign to extract?
of terpeneless orange, and the representation on the label was there??
fore false and misleading, and calculated to deceive and mislead the?
purchaser.
The bottles containing the concentrated extract' of vanilla and?
tonka were labeled: " Four Ounces Full Weight, Concentrated Ex??
tract of Vanilla and Tonka, For All Flavoring Purposes. These?
goods are Guaranteed under the Pure Food and Drugs Act June 30,?
1906, Serial Number 3909. California Perfume Company, New?
York." Analysis of a sample of said product made by the Bureau of?
Chemistry of the United States Department of Agriculture showed?
the following results: Average contents (2 bottles), 127 cc, or 7.4?
per cent over 4 fluid ounces; solids, by weight, 23.4 per cent; alcohol,?
by volume, 27.9 per cent; no methyl alcohol; vanillin, m. p. 78? C, 0.24?
per cent; coumarin, 0.013 per cent; resins, amount very small; cara??
mel present. Adulteration was alleged against said product because?
an imitation extract of vanilla, caramel, and other substances for??
eign to extract of vanilla and tonka had been mixed and packed with?
said article so as to reduce, lower, and injuriously affect its quality?
and strength, and had been substituted in part for said article, and?
said substances had been colored in a manner whereby inferiority?
was concealed. Misbranding was alleged for the reason that sjaid?
product was an imitation of and offered for sale under the distinc??
tive name of another article, to wit, concentrated extract of vanilla?
and tonka, when in fact it was not such, but a mixture including an?
imitation extract of vanilla, caramel, and other substances foreign to?
extract of vanilla and tonka, and the representation on the label was?
therefore false and misleading, and calculated to deceive and mislead?
the purchaser.
The bottles containing the concentrated extract of almond were?
labeled: " Concentrated Extract of Almond for all Flavoring Pur??
poses. These goods are Guaranteed under the Pure Food and Drugs?
Act June 30, 1906, Serial Number 3909. California Perfume Com??
pany, New York." Analysis of a sample of said product made by?
the Bureau of Chemistry of the United States Department of Agri??
culture showed the following results: Contents, average (2 bottles),?
121.5 cc, or 2.7 per cent over 4 fluid ounces; solids (per 100 cc), 0.023?
gram; alcohol, by volume, 38.2 per cent; no methyl alcohol; benzal-?
dehyde (grams per 100 cc), 0.30; benzoic acid (by titration), none;?
colored with a yellow coal-tar dye.    Adulteration was alleged against
1217
said product for the reason that a dilute extract of almond and yellow?
coal-tar dye and other foreign substances had been mixed and packed?
with said article so as to reduce, lower, and injuriously affect its?
quality and strength, and had been substituted in part for said?
article, and said substance had been colored in a manner whereby its?
inferiority was concealed. Misbranding was alleged for the reason?
that said product was an imitation of and offered for sale under the?
distinctive name of another article, to wit, extract of almond, when?
in fact it was not such, but a mixture including dilute extract of?
almond and 3^ellow coal-tar dye and other substances foreign to?
extract of vanilla, and the representation on the label was there??
fore false and misleading, and calculated to deceive and mislead the?
purchaser.
The bottles containing the concentrated extract of cinnamon were?
labeled: " Concentrated Extract of Cinnamon, For All Flavoring?
Purposes. These goods are Guaranteed under the Pure Food and?
Drugs Act June 30, 1906, Serial Number 3909. California Perfume?
Company, New York." Analysis of a sample of said product made?
by the Bureau of Chemistry of the United States Department of?
Agriculture showed the following results: Contents, average (2?
bottles), 111 cc; shortage, 6.2 per cent; solids (grams per 100 cc),?
0.35; alcohol, by volume, approximately, 55.1 per cent; no methyl?
alcohol; cinnamic aldehyde (per 100 cc), 1.65 grams; oil of cinna??
mon, calculated on basis of 75 per cent contents of cinnamic aldehyde,?
(grams per 100 cc), 2.2; colored with a yellow coal-tar dye. Adul??
teration was alleged against said product for the reason that a dilute?
extract of cinnamon and yellow coal-tar dye and other foreign sub??
stances had been mixed and packed with said article so as to reduce,?
lower, and injuriously affect its quality and strength, and had been?
substituted in part for said article, and said substance had been?
colored in a manner whereby its inferiority was concealed. Mis??
branding was alleged because said product was an imitation of and?
offered for sale under the distinctive name of another article, to wit,?
concentrated extract of cinnamon, when in fact it was not such, but?
was a mixture including dilute extract of cinnamon, and yellow coal-?
tar dye and other substances foreign to extract of cinnamon, and the?
representation on the label was therefore false and misleading, and?
calculated to deceive and mislead the purchaser.
On October 5,1911, the defendant company pleaded guilty and was?
fined $300.
JAMES WILSON,?
Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C, November ?5, 1911.
1217