2867. Adulteration and alleged misbranding of vinegar. U. S. v. Harbauer-Marleau Co. Plea?
of nolo contendere to count 1 of the information. Fine, $100 and costs. Count 2?
nolle prossed.   (P. & D. No. 4146.   I..S. No. 9791-d.)
On November 23, 1912, the United States Attorney for the Northern District 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 Harbauer-Marleau?
Co., a corporation, Toledo, Ohio, alleging shipment by said company, in violation of?
?e Food and Drugs Act, on or about October 9, 1911, from the State of Ohio into the?
State of Indiana, of a quantity of vinegar which was adulterated and alleged to have?
been misbranded. The product was labeled: (On barrel) "HO-Made Brand Pure?
Fermented Cider Vinegar Made for Ragon Brothers, Evansville, Indiana." "44 Oct.?
9,1911, Guaranteed under the pure food and drugs act, June 30,1906, Serial No. 8904."
Analysis of a sample of the product by the Bureau of Chemistry of this Department?
showed the following results:
Solids (grams per 100 cc)?
    1. 78
Reducing sugars, direct, after evaporation (grams per 100 cc)?
Nongugars (grams per 100 cc)?
,?    1.19
Ash (grams per 100 cc)?
Alkalinity of water soluble ash (cc N/10 acid per 100 cc)?
 29.7
Ash in nonsugars (per cent)?
 25. 2
Total phosphoric acid (mg per 100 cc)?
22. 2
Total acid, as acetic (grams per 100 cc)?
    4. 02
Fixed acid, as malic (grams per 100 cc)?
025
Glycerol (grams per 100 cc)?
Adulteration of the product was alleged in the first count of the information for the?
reason that a substance, to wit, a dilute solution of acetic acid or distilled vinegar and?
a product high in reducing sugars and mineral matter, mixed and prepared in imita??
tion of cider vinegar, had been and was substituted wholly or in part for the article?
(pure fermented cider vinegar). Misbranding was alleged in the second count of the?
information for the following reasons:
(1)?That the statement "Pure fermented cider vinegar" borne on the package was?
false and misleading in that the product was not pure fermented cider vinegar but con??
sisted in whole or in part of a dilute solution of acetic acid or a distilled vinegar and a?
product high in reducing sugars and mineral matter, mixed and prepared in imitation?
of cider vinegar.
(2)?That it was an imitation of cider vinegar and was offered for sale under the dis??
tinctive name of another article, to wit, "Pure fermented cider vinegar."
(3)?That it was so labeled and branded as to mislead and deceive the purchaser,?
being labeled and branded "Pure fermented cider vinegar" when as a matter of fact?
it was not pure fermented cider vinegar but consisted in whole or in part of a dilute?
solution of acetic acid or distilled vinegar, and a product high in reducing sugar and?
mineral matter, which had been mixed and prepared in imitation of pure fermented?
cider vinegar.
100	
BUBEAU  OF  CHEMISTRY.	
[February.
On January 27, 1913, the defendant company entered a plea of nolo -contendere to?
Che first count of the information, and the court imposed a fine of $100 and costs.?
The second count of the information, charging misbranding of the product, was nolle?
prossed.
B. T. GALLOWAY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C, February 9,1914.