F. & D. No. 4034.
I. S. No. 14359-d.	
Issued January 11, 1913.
United States Department of Agriculture,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY.
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 1839.
(Given pursuant to section 4 of the Food and Drugs Act.)
MISBRANDING OF COCOA.
On June 17, 1912, the United States Attorney for the Eastern?
District of Wisconsin, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agri??
culture, filed in the District Court of the United States for said?
district an information against the Ambrosia Chocolate Co., a co??
partnership consisting of Otto J. Schoenleber, William C. Blommer,?
George W. Dodd, and W. G. Fahnestock, Milwaukee, Wis., alleging?
shipment by them, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on or?
about October 10, 1910, from the State of Wisconsin into the State?
of Nebraska of a quantity of cocoa which was misbranded. The?
product was labeled: "Net weight one-half pound (design of Arab?
on horseback) Sheik Brand Breakfast Cocoa Packed for Hargreaves?
Merc Co., Lincoln, Neb. A concentrated Extract of Choice Cocoa?
Being made by the new process it preserves the Theobromine and?
nutritive proportion and is rendered treble the strength of Cocoa as?
usually prepared. It yields a delicious flavor and is an easily?
digested and thoroughly wholesome Cocoa * * * Guaranteed?
by Hargreaves Merc. Co., under the Pure Food and Drugs Act,?
June 30, 1906    *    *    *."
Analysis of a sample of the product by the Bureau of Chemistry of?
this Department showed the following results: Ash, 5.70 per cent;?
ash soluble in water, 2.16 per cent; ash insoluble in water, 3.54 per?
cent; alkalinity water soluble ash (cc N/10 acid per gram), 2.1; non??
volatile ether extract, 20.76 per cent, net weight, 0.494 pound; short?
1.2 per cent.
Misbranding was alleged in the information for the reason that?
the product" bore a label, which label and branding was false and?
misleading in that it gave the impression and was calculated to give
05930??No. 1839?13
the impression that the food product was a concentrated extract of?
cocoa, possessing treble the strength of cocoa as cocoa is usually and?
ordinarily prepared, whereas in truth and in fact it was not a con??
centrated extract of cocoa, possessing treble the strength of cocoa?
as usually or ordinarily prepared, but was cocoa merely of ordinary?
strength and concentration. Misbranding was alleged for the fur??
ther reason that the label on the product gave the impression that the?
product was a concentrated extract and was treble the strength of?
cocoa as usually prepared, which was false, misleading, and deceptive.?
Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the statement on?
the label led purchasers to believe and was calculated to so mislead?
and deceive them into believing that the product was a more con??
centrated extract of cocoa possessing treble the strength of cocoa?
as cocoa is usually and ordinarily prepared, whereas in truth and in?
fact it was not of any greater concentration or greater strength than?
ordinary cocoa or cocoa as usually prepared. Misbranding was?
alleged for the further reason that the label on the product led pur??
chasers to believe and was calculated to so mislead and deceive them?
into believing that the product was more concentrated extract of?
cocoa than ordinary cocoa and that it possessed treble the strength of?
ordinary cocoa, which was false, misleading, and deceptive.
On June 19, 1912, the defendants entered pleas of guilty to the?
information and were sentenced to pay a fine of $50.
W. M. HAYS,?
Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C, October 23,1912.
1839
WASHINGTON ; eOVKHNMBNT PRINTING  OFFICE ; W3