NOTICE  OF  JUDGMENT  NO. 2132.
(Given pursuant to section 4 of the Food and Drugs Act.)
ADULTERATION AND  MISBRANDING OF GRAHAM  FLOUR.
On May 4, 1912, the United States Attorney for the Southern Dis- 
trict of Ohio, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, 
filed in the District Court of the United States for said district an 
information against the Allen & Wheeler Co., a corporation, Troy, 
Ohio, alleging shipment by said company, in violation of the Food 
and Drugs Act, on July 31, 1911, from the State of Ohio into the State 
of Indiana of a quantity of so-called graham flour which was adulter- 
ated and misbranded. The product was labeled: "Graham Flour 
The Allen & Wheeler Co. Troy, Ohio Graham Grits Gain Good 
Words    Try Them    Made of Pure winter Wheat   *    *    *."
Analysis of a sample of the product by the Bureau of Chemistry of 
this Department showed the following results: Water, 13.21 per cent; 
ash, 1.63 per cent; protein, N x 5.7, 10.32 per cent; crude fiber, 1.04 
per cent; nitrogen-free extract, 72.18 per cent; fat, 1.62 per cent; 
the small amount of middlings (coarse and fine) together with the 
low quality of the coarse middlings, the large amount of flour, and 
the fact that the bran is clean, indicating that it has been bolted, 
all this shows that this flour is not graham flour and therefore is not 
entitled to the name "graham flour" without some qualification. 
Adulteration of the product was alleged in the information for the 
reason that a substance, to wit, a mixture of bran shorts and flour, 
was substituted wholly or in part for what the product by its label 
purported to be, to wit, graham flour. Misbranding was alleged for 
the reason that the label and brand on the product bore a statement 
regarding it and the ingredients and substances contained therein 
which statement, to wit, u Graham Flour," was false, misleading, and 
deceptive, in that it was calculated and intended to, and did, convey 
the impression and create the belief that the product was graham 
flour as understood and known and recognized by the trade and the 
public generally, that is to say, an unbolted wheat meal, whereas, in 
truth and in fact, it was not such graham flour but was a mixture of
71577°—No. 2132—13
bran shorts and flour. Misbranding was alleged for the further 
reason that the product was labeled and branded so as to deceive and 
mislead the purchaser into the belief that it was graham flour as that 
product is understood, known, and recognized by the trade and pub- 
lic generally, whereas, in truth and in fact, it was not graham flour, 
but was a mixture of bran shorts and flour.
On October 3, 1912, the defendant company entered a plea of 
guilty to the information and the court imposed a fine of $25 with 
costs, amounting to $14.75.
W. M. HAYS, 
Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C., December 19, 1912.
2132
o