41G5. Adulteration an?l misbranding of " Superfine Fruit Flavor Rasp??
berry." U. S. v. Magnus &, Laner, Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $50.?
(F. & D. No. 6263.    I. S. No. 1297-h.)
On May 19, 1915, the United States attorney for the Northern District of?
California, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the?
District Court of the United States for said district an information against?
Magnus & Lauer (Inc.), a corporation, San Francisco, Cal., alleging shipment?
by said company, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on or about August 18,?
1913, from the State of California into the. State of Idaho, of a quantity of?
so-called " Superfine Fruit Flavor Raspberry " which was adulterated and mis-?
branded. The article was labeled; (On bottle) "Magnus & Lauer (Trade?
Mark) M & L Extracts Vanilla Beans Essential Oils Fruits Fruit Juices.?
Fruit Syrups Superfine Fruit Flavor Raspberry Imitation (Harmless Color?
Added) 139-141 Fremont St. San Francisco, Cal. Guaranteed by Magnus &?
Lauer, Inc. -Under the Food and Drugs Act June 30, 1908, Serial Number?
25454."
Analysis of a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this de??
partment showed the following results:
Alcohol   (per  cent by volume)?
51.28
Methyl alcohol: None.
Esters as ethyl acetate (grams per 100 cc)?:?:?    2.40
Color as caramel (by Marsh test) : Present.?
Organoleptic test indicates artificial flavor.
This product consists largely, if not entirely, of an imitation?
raspberry flavor, composed of dilute alcohol flavored with esters?
and colored with caramel.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the information for the reason that?
an imitation raspberry extract had been mixed and packed with the article so?
as to lower or reduce or injuriously affect its quality and strength, and for the?
further reason that an imitation raspberry extract had been substituted wholly?
or in part for superfine fruit flavor raspberry, which the article purported' to be,?
and for the further reason that said article was colored in a manner whereby?
its inferiority was concealed.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statement, to wit, in promi??
nent type " Superfine Fruit Flavor Raspberry," not corrected by the word?
" Imitation," following in inconspicuous type, was false and misleading in that?
it purported and represented said article to be a superfine fruit flavor rasp??
berry, whereas, in truth and in fact, it was not a superfine fruit flavor rasp??
berry, but was an imitation raspberry extract, artificially colored and flavored.?
Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the article was labeled?
" Superfine Fruit Flavor Raspberry," in prominent type, followed by the word?
" Imitation," in inconspicuous type, so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser?
into the belief that it was a superfine fruit flavor raspberry, whereas, in truth?
and in fact, it was not a superfine fruit flavor raspberry, but was an imitation?
raspberry extract, artificially colored and flavored.
On June 1, 1915, the defendant company entered a plea of guilty to the?
information, and the court imposed a fine of $50.
CABL VEOOMAN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
29857??16?2
264	
BUREAU  OF  CHEMISTRY.	
[Supplement 14.