F. & D. Nos. 3176 and 3177.
S. No. 1158.	
Issued August 30, 1912
United States Department of Agriculture,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY.
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 1610.
(Given pursuant to section 4 of the Food and Drugs Act.)
ALLEGED MISBKANDING OE SODARINE.
On November 17, 1911, the United States Attorney for the West??
ern District of Tennessee
 acting upon reports by the Secretary of?
Agriculture, filed in the District Court of the United States for said?
district libels against-105 and 60 cases of Sodarine remaining unsold?
in the original unbroken packages,, the 105 cases remaining in the?
premises of a certain warehouse at the corner of South Front Street?
and Georgia Avenue, Memphis, Tenn., the 60 cases in a certain ware??
house corner of Carolina Avenue and I. C. R. R., Memphis, Tenn.,?
alleging that the product had been shipped by the Sea Gull Specialty?
Co., Baltimore, Md., from the State of Maryland into the State of?
Tennessee, 80 cases on or about September 5, 1911, 25 cases on or?
about September 18, 1911, 25 cases on or about September 26, 1911,?
and 35 cases on or about September 28, 1911, and charging mis??
branding in violation of the Food and Drugs Act. The product was?
labeled: " Bi-Carb-Sodarine. A wonderful leavening preparation??
Sodarine?Better than Soda?Better than other bread preparations.?
Ingredients: Sodium, aluminum sulphate, corn starch, sodium bicar??
bonate, Available carbonic acid gas when packed 16.66??net weight?
not less than 16 oz.? (L. G.) The Sea Gull Specialty Co., Balti??
more, Md."
Misbranding was charged in the libel for the reason that the prod??
uct was alleged to have been an alum baking powder and to have?
contained a large quantity of alum, while the labels and brands on?
the packages of the product declared it to have been entirely differ??
ent from and superior to the leavening'agents ordinarily used, and?
for the further reason that the labels on the packages containing the?
product proclaimed that it was entirely different and superior to any?
other leavening agents, when it was an alum baking powder, and?
that the labels on the product were misleading and calculated to de??
ceive the purchaser thereof.
51101??No. 1610?12
On or about December 7, 1911, the Sea Gull Specialty Co., Balti??
more, Md., claimant, demurred to the libel, and on January 16, 1911,?
the cause having come on to be heard before the court, the libel was?
dismissed with costs.   The opinion of the court (McCall, J.) follows:
The only thing that I can deduct from the label complained of in this pro??
ceeding is that the manufacturers thereof state that their leavening preparation?
was better than soda and better than any other bread preparations. I do not?
think that the act was intended to include within its condemnation such a label?
or publication. The result is that the (demurrer will be sustained and the libel?
dismissed with costs.
W. M. HAYS,
Acting Secretary of Agriculture.?
WASHINGTON, D. C., June 19, 1911.
161?