F. & D. No, 2484.
I. S. No. 1784-c.	
Issued May 18,1912.
United States Department of Agriculture,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY.
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 1410.
(filyen pursuant to section 4 of the Food and Drugs Act.)
ADULTERATION AND MISBRANDING OF CIDER YINEGAR.
On December 1, 1911, the United States Attorney for the District?
of Oregon, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture,?
filed information in the District Court of the United States for said?
district against H. H. Ogden, doing business under the firm name and?
style of Pacific Honey Co., alleging shipment by him, in violation of?
the Food and Drugs Act, on or about October 6, 1910, from the State?
of Oregon into the State of Washington, of a quantity of cider vine??
gar which was adulterated and misbranded. The product was la??
beled : " Pure Cider Vinegar. Put up by Pacific Honey Company,?
Oregon Cider Vinegar."
Analysis of a sample of said product, made by the Bureau of
Chemistry of the United States Department of Agriculture, showed
the following results:
Solids (grams per 100 cc)?
    1.62
Non-sugars (grams per 100 cc)?
     .83
Eeducing sugar, direct (grams per 100 cc)?
      .79
Polarization,  direct?
?V__?1.0
Ash (grams per 100 cc)_?
     .30
Alkalinity of soluble ash (cc N 10 acid per 100 cc)__?34. 2
Soluble P205 (mg per 100 cc)_?
16.2
Insoluble P20B (mg per 100 cc)?
    5.2
Acid as acetic (grams per 100 cc)?
   4. 32
Fixed acid as malic (grams per 100 cc)?
._  Trace.
Lead precipitate?
   Small.
Color, degrees, brewer's scale (0.5 in. cell)?
   4.0
Color removed by fuller's earth (per cent)?
62. 0
Pentosans (grams per 100 cc)?
     .08
Alcohol precipitate (grams per 100 cc)?
      . 09
Glycerine (grams per 100 cc)?
     .056
Adulteration was alleged for the reason that the product consisted?
in whole or in part of a mixture of acetic acid or distilled vinegar, a?
foreign material high in reducing.sugars, and added ash, which was?
so mixed and packed with the product as to reduce, impair, lower,
31766??No. 1410?12
and injuriously affect its quality and strength, and which said sub??
stances had been substituted wholly or in part for cider vinegar.?
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the product was labeled?
to represent same as being pure cider vinegar, which was false and?
misleading, and calculated to deceive and mislead the purchaser, for?
the reason that the product was not as represented, but was a product?
prepared in imitation of and offered for sale under the distinctive?
name of another article, to wit, pure cider vinegar.
On December 4, 1911, defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere?
and was fined $25 and costs.
JAMES WILSON,?
Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C, February IS, 1912.
1410