3287.?Misbranding: of confectionery.    TJ. S. v. Candy Bros. Mfgr. Co.     Plea of
guilty.     Fine, $10 and costs.     (F. & D. No. 2923.    I. S. No. 12968-c.)
On February 29, 1912, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of?
Missouri, 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 Candy Bros. Mfg. Co., a corporation, St. Louis, Mo., alleging shipment by?
said company, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on or about March 8,?
1911, from the State of Missouri into the State of Louisiana, of a quantity?
of confectionery which was misbranded. The product was labeled: " Mixed?
Fruit Tablets, Vegetable Colored, Apricot, Banana, Blood Orange, Chocolate,?
Lemon, Pineapple, Raspberry, Strawberry, Ya.ni]leL, and Wild Cherry. Serial?
No. 4133, Guaranteed by Candy Bros. Mfg. Co., under the Food and Drugs Act,?
June 30, 1906. Put up expressly for the finer retail trade by Candy Bros.?
Mfg. Co., St. Louis, Mo.    *    *    *."
Analysis of a sample of the product by the Bureau of Chemistry of this?
department showed the following results:
Sucrose, Clerget (per cent) ?_..?..,..-_:?........?
_?__^??67.7
Reducing sugars as invert (per cent),?
,__,_,,??12.16
Commercial glucose (factor 163)  (percent)?
__,?_??23.3
Polarization, direct, at 23.7? 0. (?V.)???
,??+114.2
Polarization, invert, at 23.7? C.  (?V.)?.?
?+25.6
Polarization, invert, at 87" C. (*V.)???
?+38.0
Ash   (per   cent)?
Loose powder (principally magnesium carbonate)   (per cent)?.??0.38
Arsenic: None.
Weight (pounds) _,^??,??,_..?,*?,??
?4.056
Ootor: No cfc&l tertr dy?fe pfcesferrt.
Supplement.]    SEEVICE  AND  REGULATORY  ANNOUNCEMENTS.	
471
Esters, as ethyl acetate, strawberry (per cent)?
     0.071
Esters, as ethyl acetate, raspberry (per cent)?
     0.049
Esters, as ethyl acetate, banana (per cent)?
     0.047
Esters, as ethyl acetate, blood orange (per cent)?
     0.101
Esters, as ethyl acetate, wild cherry (per cent)?
     0.119
Esters, as ethyl acetate, pineapple  (per cent)?
     0.097
Ether extract, chocolate  (per cent)?
       0.56
Refractive index of ether extract at 40? C?
   1. 4610
Misbranding of the product was alleged in the information for the reason?
that the label upon the jar containing the product was false and misleading,?
in that said product was flavored with imitation flavors and said product did?
not consist of and was not fruit tablets, and was further misbranded in that?
said label was false and misleading, because it would deceive and mislead the?
purchaser thereof into the belief that said product and candy contained in said?
jar "or package was flavored with flavors derived from fruits, whereas, in?
truth and in fact, said product was not flavored with flavors derived from?
fruits, but, on the contrary thereof, was flavored with imitation flavors.
On December 31, 1913, the defendant company entered a plea of guilty to?
the information, and the court imposed a fine of $10 and costs.
B. T. GALLOWAY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C, June 8, 1914.