4409.   Misbranding  and   alleged   adulteration   of  lemon   extract.     TJ.   S.   v.?
McCullongli  Drag  Co.,  a  corporation.     Plea  of  guilty.     Fine,  $50
and coats.    (P. & D. No. 6227.    I. S. No. 7640-h.)
At the November, 1915, term of the District Court of the United States for?
the District of Indiana, the grand jurors of the United States within and for said?
district, acting upon a report of the Secretary of Agriculture, upon presentment?
by the United States attorney for said district returned an indictment against?
the McCullough Drug Co., a corporation, Lawrenceburg, Ind., charging shipment?
by said company, in violation of the Food and A*ugs Act, on or about May 1,?
1913, from the State of Indiana into the State of Georgia, of a quantity of lemon?
extract, which was misbranded and charged to have been adulterated. The?
article was labeled : " XXXX Brand Terpeneless Lemon Extract. Jan. 1, 1909.?
Compound Approximate Formula: Oil Lemon Pure 2.5? Lemon Peel Fresh?
2.5? Deodorized Alcohol 55? Distilled Water 40.0??100.0? Prepared and?
Guaranteed by McCullough Drug Co., Lawrenceburg, Ind. Under Food and?
Drugs Act June 30, 1908.    Our serial number 3341."?
Analysis of a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this depart??
ment showed the following results:
Specific gravity at 15.6? C?
_??0.9433
Alcohol (per cent by volume):?
?44.8
Methyl  alcohol?
?Absent.
Oil:
By polarization?
?None.
By precipitation?
?Trace.
Citral (Hiltner)  (per cent by weight)?-?
?0.05
Total aldehydes (Chace)   (per cent by weight)?
?0.05
The product is a dilute terpeneless lemon extract.
It was charged in the indictment that the article was adulterated in that a?
dilute terpeneless extract of lemon had been substituted w~holly or in part for?
genuine terpeneless lemon extract, which the article purported to be.
Misbranding was charged for the reason that the statements borne on the?
label, to wit, " Terpeneless Lemon Extract" and " Compound Approximate?
Formula: Oil Lemon Pure 2.5?," were false and misleading in that they repre??
sented, and were such as to deceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief,,?
that the article was a genuine terpeneless lemon extract which contained approxi??
mately 2.5? of pure oil of lemon, whereas, in truth and in fact, it was not, and?
did not contain said amount of pure oil of lemon, but was a dilute terpeneless?
lemon extract which contained little, if any, oil of lemon.
On November 29, 1915, the defendant company entered a plea of guilty to the?
charge of misbranding in the indictment, and the court imposed a fine of $50?
and costs.    The charge of adulteration was nolle prossed.
CABL VEOOMAN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
N, J. 4401-4450.] .SEBVICE   AND... REGULATORY -ANNOUNCEMENTS.
6&S