3911. Adulteration and misbranding of "Malt and Hop Liquid Pood." U. S. v. Schuster? Brewing Co. Plea of guilty. Fine, $10. (F. & D. No. 4956. I. S. No. 6173-d.) On November 17, 1914, the United States attorney lor the District of Minnesota,? 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 Schuster Brewing Co., a? corporation, Rochester, Minn., alleging shipment by said company, in violation of the? Food and Drugs Act, on May 27, 1912, from the State of Minnesota into the State of? Missouri, of a quantity of so-called "Malt and Hop Liquid Food," which was adulter?? ated and misbranded. The product was labeled: (On casks) "Malt Food?The con?? tents of this container is 100 bottles of fermented Malt Liquor of 12 ounce capacity? each. Schuster Brewing Co. Rochester, Minnesota, Consignor." (On bottles) (Trade? Mark) "Schuster's Malt and Hop Liquid Food Serial No. 2288. Guaranteed by Schus?? ter Brewing Co. Under the Food and Drugs Act. June 30th, 1906. Also the food laws? of all States. Capacity 12 oz., 4? alcohol. Mfrd. only by Schuster Brewing Co.,? Rochester, Minn. $1000 bona fide guarantee that there is no adulteration whatever? in the production of this malt and hop food and that it is a perfectly fermented malt? liquor." "Gives great strength to nursing mother and her baby." "A boon to those? of overworked brains, shattered nerves and no appetite. Gives sound and refreshing? sleep." "None genuine without this signature Schuster Brewing Co." "A great? strength giver?A pure liquid food?Contains no drug whatever." "None genuine? without this signature Schuster Brewing Co." Analysis of a sample of the product by the Bureau of Chemistry of this department? showed the following results: Specific gravity? 1. 02397 Specific gravity distillate? 0. 99271 Refraction, Zeiss, 17.5? C? 53. 2 Refraction, Zeiss, distillate, 17.5? C? 21. 5 Alcohol by specific gravity (per cent by volume)? 5.07 Alcohol by Zeiss refractometer (per cent by volume)? 5.03 Extract by specific gravity (per cent)? 8. 00 Extract, by Zeiss refractometer (grams per 100 cc)? 8.15 Extract original wort (per cent)? 16.12 Degree fermentation? 50. 37 Volatile acid, as acetic (grams per 100 cc)? 0. 0114 Total acid, as lactic (grams per 100 cc)? 0. 2025 Maltose (per cent)? 2.19 Dextrin (per cent)? 4. 40 Ash (per cent)? 0.172 P205 (per cent)? 0. 046 Proteid (per cent)?,? 0. 293 Polarization, undiluted (?V.)? +64 Color (degrees, Brewer's scale, -J-inch cell)? 19 Basis 15 per cent wort: P205 (per cent)? 0. 043 Proteid (per cent)? 0. 273 Ash (per cent)? 0.160 Adulteration of the product was alleged in the information for the reason that a? substance, to wit, a product prepared from barley malt, hops, corn, and rice, had? been substituted wholly or in part for a product prepared exclusively from barley? malt and hops. Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the words "Malt and? Hop Liquid Food," borne-on the bottles containing the product, were false and? misleading in that the article purported to be a product prepared wholly from barley? and hops, when, in truth and in fact, it was not so prepared, but was prepared from N. J. 3901-3950.] SERVICE AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS. 513 a substitute for said barley and hops, to wit, a product prepared from barley malt,? bops, corn, and rice. Misbranding waa alleged for the further reason that the label? on the bottles bore pictorial matter of barley and hops, which tended to mislead the? purchaser into the belief that said product was made exclusively from barley and? hops, whereas, in truth and in fact, said product was not so prepared, but was pre?? pared from barley malt, hops, corn, and rice. On November 17, 1914, the defendant company entered a plea of guilty to the? information, and the court imposed a fine of $10. D. F. HOUSTON, Secretary of Agriculture.? WASHINGTON, D. C, June 8, 1915. 2428??15?3 514 BUREAU OF CHEMISTRY, [Supplement 9.