3425.  Misbranding of fruit ptiddine.     V. S. v. The Fruit Puddine Co. (Inc.).?
PJea   of   guilty.    Fine,   SJ540.    Two    counts   of   information    nolle
prossed.     (F. & D. No. 1069.    I. S. Nos. 2820-b, 2823-b, 2824-b.)
On April 16, 1910, 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 in 10 counts against the?
Fruit Puddine Co. (Inc.), Baltimore, Md., alleging shipment by said company?
in violation of the Food and Drugs Act on November 21, 1908, from the State?
of Maryland into the State of Ohio of a quantity of fruit puddine of assorted?
flavors, which was misbranded. One portion of the consignment was labeled:?
" Fruit Flavored Puddine (Trade Mark Registered) Lemon. Fruit Pud??
dine Co., Baltimore, Md., U. S. A. Fruit Puddine Co., Baltimore, Md., U. S. A."?
(Picture of dish of fruit is also shown.) Another part of the consignment was?
labeled: "Fruit Flavored Puddine (Trade Mark Registered) Orange. Fruit?
Puddine Co., Baltimore, Md., U. S. A. Fruit Puddine. Fruit Puddine Co.,?
Baltimore, Md., U. S. A." (Picture of fruit.) Balance of consignment was?
labeled:   "Fruit  Flavored Puddine   (Trade Mark  Registered)   Rose Vanilla.
656	
BUREAU OF  CHEMISTRY.   •	
[August, 1914.
Fruit Puddine Co., Baltimore, Md., U.  S. A.    Fruit Puddine.    Fruit Puddine?
Co., Baltimore, Md., U. S. A."    (Picture of fruit.)
Analysis of samples of the product labeled as orange and lemon flavor showed?
that it consisted of cornstarch colored with a coal tar dye, namely, Naphthol?
Yellow S, and slightly flavored with citral. Analysis of a sample of that part?
of the product marked " rose vanilla " showed that it was cornstarch colored?
with Cochineal Carmine and flavored with 0.04 of 1 per cent of vanillin.
Misbranding of a part of the product was alleged in the first count of the?
information for the reason that it was labeled and branded so as to deceive?
and mislead the purchaser, in that each of the packages containing the same?
bore a certain statement regarding the ingredients and substances contained?
therein, which said statement was false and misleading, each of the pack??
ages being labeled as follows: " Fruit Flavored Puddine, Lemon," whereas, in?
truth and in fact, the said puddine was not fruit flavored. Further misbranding?
was alleged in the second count of the information for the reason that it was?
labeled and branded so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser in that each?
of the packages bore a certain statement regarding the ingredients and sub??
stances contained therein, which said statement was false and misleading,?
each of the packages being labeled as follows: "Fruit Puddine," "Fruit Fla??
vored Puddine, Lemon'," whereas, in truth and in fact, the said puddine was not?
a fruit puddine and did not contain any fruit. Further misbranding was?
alleged in the sixth count of the information for the reason that it was labeled?
and branded so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, in that each of the?
packages bore a certain statement regarding the ingredients and substances?
contained therein, which said statement was false and misleading, each of the?
packages being labeled as follows: " Fruit Flavored Puddine, Lemon," whereas?
in truth and in fact the said puddine was not fruit flavored, but was flavored?
with citral. Further misbranding was alleged in the seventh count of the?
information for the reason that it was labeled and branded so as to deceive?
and mislead the purchaser in that each of the packages bore a certain design?
regarding the ingredients and substances contained therein, to wit, a dish of?
fruit, and bore a certain statement regarding said ingredients and substances,?
which said statement in effect was that the said puddine was a fruit puddine?
and a fruit flavored puddine, lemon, which said design and which said state??
ment were false and misleading in that they would import that the said pud??
dine contained fruit, or a fruit flavor, whereas in truth and in fact the said?
puddine did not contain fruit or a fruit flavor.
Misbranding of another portion of the product was alleged in the third count?
of the information for the reason that it was labeled and branded so as to?
deceive and mislead the purchaser in that each of the packages containing the?
same bore a certain statement regarding the ingredients and substances con??
tained therein, which said statement was false and misleading, each of the?
packages being labeled as follows: " Fruit Flavored Puddine, Orange," whereas,?
in truth and in fact, the said puddine was not fruit flavored. Further mis??
branding was alleged in the fourth count of the information for the reason that?
it was labeled and branded so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, in that?
each of the packages bore a certain statement regarding the ingredients and sub?
stances contained- therein, which said statement was false and misleading, each?
of the packages being labeled as follows: "Fruit Puddine," "Fruit Flavored?
Puddine, Orange," whereas, in truth and in fact, the said puddine was not a?
fruit puddine and did not contain any fruit. Further misbranding was alleged'?
in the eighth count of the information for the reason that it was labeled and?
branded so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, in that each of the pack??
ages bore a certain statement regarding the ingredients and substances con-
Supplement.)      SERVICE  AND  REGULATORY  ANNOUNCEMENTS.	657
tained therein, which said statement was false and misleading, each of the?
packages being labeled as follows: " Fruit Flavored Puddine, Orange," whereas,?
in truth and in fact, the said puddine was not fruit flavored, but was flavored?
with citral. Further misbranding was alleged in the ninth count of the infor??
mation for the reason that it was labeled and branded so as to deceive and mis??
lead the purchaser, in that each of the packages bore a certain design regarding?
the ingredients and substances contained therein, to wit, a dish of fruit, and in?
that each of said packages bore a certain statement regarding the said ingre??
dients and substances, which said statement in effect was that said puddine?
was a fruit puddine and a fruit flavored puddine, orange, which said design?
and which said statement were false and misleading, in that they would import?
that the said puddine contained fruit or a fruit flavor, whereas, in truth and?
in fact, the said puddine did not contain fruit or a fruit flavor.
Misbranding of the remaining portion of the product was alleged in the fifth?
count of the information for the reason that it was labeled and branded so as?
to deceive and mislead the purchaser, in that each of the packages containing?
the same bore a certain statement regarding the ingredients and substances?
contained therein, which said statement was false and misleading, each of the?
packages being labeled as follows: " Fruit Flavored Puddine, Rose, Vanilla,"?
whereas, in truth and in fact, the said puddine did not contain vanilla, but, on?
the contrary, contained a quantity of vanillin, to wit, 0.04 of 1 per cent.?
Further misbranding was alleged in the tenth count of the information for the?
reason that it was labeled and branded so as to deceive and mislead the pur??
chaser, in that each of the packages bore a certain statement regarding the in??
gredients and substances contained therein, which said statement was false and?
misleading, each of the packages being labeled as follows: " Fruit Flavored?
Puddine, Rose Vanilla," whereas, in truth and in fact, the said puddine did not?
contain vanilla.
On March 26, 1914, the defendant company entered a plea of guilty to the?
first, second, third, fourth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth counts of the infor??
mation, and the court imposed a fine of $40. The fifth and tenth counts of the?
information were nolle-prossed.
D. F. HOUSTON, Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C, September 24, 1914.