3930. Adulteration and misbranding of vanilla flavor.   TJ. S. v. The William Haigh Co.   Plea?
of nolo contendere.   Fine, S5.   (F. & D. No. 4550.   I. S. No. 14924-d.)
On July 16, 1913, the United States attorney for the District of Maryland, acting?
upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District Court of the United?
States for said district an information against William Haigh, doing business under?
the firm name and style of The William Haigh Co., Baltimore, Md., alleging shipment?
by said defendant, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on March 1, 1912, from?
the State of Maryland into the State of New York, of a quantity of so-called vanilla
1914.1	SEEVICE  AND  REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS.	147
flavor which was adulterated and misbranded. The product was labeled: "Guar??
anteed by The Wm. Haigh Go. under the Food and Drugs Act, June 30, 1906, serial?
No. 6632. The Wm. Haigh Co., 126-128 S. Calvert Street, Baltimore, Md. Special?
* * * Vanilla Flavor Special Flavoring for Ice Cream and Candies. Compounded?
of Vanilla Beans, added Vanillin, Coumarin. Highly concentrated Extracts, Fruit?
Juices, etc., The William Haigh Co., Manufacturing Chemists, 128 S. Calvert St.,?
Baltimore, Md."
Analysis of a sample of the product by the Bureau of Chemistry of this department?
showed the following results:
Vanillin (per cent)?
?0. 20
Coumarin (per cent)?
?0.12
Lead number (normal)?
?0. 32
Total solids (per cent)?
?8. 86
Ash (per cent)?
?0. 293
Alkalinity of ash (cc N/10 hydrochloric acid per 100 grams)?
?37. 8
Invert sugar (per cent)?
?0. 43
Sucrose (per cent)?
?3.56
Nonsugar solids (per cent)?
?4. 87
Adulteration of the product was alleged in the information for the reason that a cer??
tain substance, to wit, an imitation of vanilla flavor, containing added vanillin and?
coumarin, had been mixed and packed with the article so as to reduce, lower, and?
injuriously affect its quality and strength, and for the further reason that a certain?
substance, to wit, an imitation vanilla flavor, containing added vanillin and coumarin,?
had been substituted in part for said article. Misbranding of the product was alleged?
for the reason that the labels on the packages containing the article bore a statement?
regarding it as follows: (In large type) "* *? * Vanilla Flavor"; (in small type)?
"Special Flavoring for Ice Cream and Candies. Compounded of vanilla beans, added?
vanillin and coumarin," which said statement was false and misleading because it?
conveyed the impression that the article was a genuine vanilla flavor, whereas, in?
truth and in fact, it was not a genuine vanilla flavor, but an imitation vanilla flavor?
containing added vanillin and coumarin, the statement in small type '' compounded?
of Vanilla Beans, added Vanillin and Coumarin" being insufficient to correct?
the false impression conveyed by the statement in large type "* * * Vanilla?
Flavor." Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the product was?
labeled and branded so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, being labeled as?
set forth above, thereby conveying the false impression that it was a genuine vanilla?
flavor, when, in truth and in fact, it was not a genuine vanilla flavor but an imitation?
vanilla flavor, containing added vanillin and coumarin, the statement in small type?
"Compounded of Vanilla Beans, added Vanillin and Coumarin" being insufficient?
to correct the false impression created by the statement in large type "* * * Va??
nilla Flavor."
On October 9, 1913, the defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere to the informa??
tion and the court imposed a fine of $5.
B. T. GALLOWAY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C, February 18, 1914-