5451.  Adulteration   and misbranding of   " Seivoppo   Taiuarindo."      V.   S 
*     *     *     v. Antonio Lnccai-o, Rafaele Pocatello, and John  Puziello 
(Puziello,  Lwcearo  &   Co.).     Pleas   of  guilty.     Fine,   $50.      (F.   &  D.
No. 8085,    I. S. No. 3885-1.)
On April 9, 1917, the United States attorney for the Southern District of New 
York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District 
Court of the United States for said district an information against Antonio 
Luccaro, Rafaele Puziello, and John Puziello, trading as Puziello, Luccaro & 
Co., Brooklyn, N. Y., alleging shipment by said defendants, in violation of the 
Food and Drugs Act, on May 26, 1916, from the State of New York into the 
State of Massachusetts, of a quantity of an article labeled in part: " Sciroppo 
Tamarindo," made and bottled by Puziello, Luccaro & Co., Brooklyn, New 
York.    *    *    *," which was adulterated and misbranded.
Analysis of a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this de- 
partment showed the following results:
Tartaric acid: None.
Citric acid: Present.
Caramel; Present.
Phosphoric acid (P20B) in ash (mg. per 100 grams) 
1.64
The absence of tartaric acid, the deficiency of phosphoric acid,
and the presence of caramel Indicate that this product is not true
tamarind sirup.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the information for the reason that 
a substance, to wit, an imitation tamarind sirup, consisting largely of sugar 
sirup and citric acid, and colored with caramel, had been substituted in whole 
or in part for sirup of tamarind, which the article purported to be.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statement, to wit, " Sciroppo 
Tamarindo," borne on the label attached to the bottle containing the article,
36279—18 
507
regarding said article and the ingredients and substances contained therein, 
was false and misleading in that it indicated that said article was true sirup 
of tamarind; for the further reason that it was labeled as aforesaid so as to 
deceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief that it was true sirup of tama- 
rind, whereas, in truth and in fact, it was not, but was, to wit, a mixture pre- 
pared in imitation of true sirup of tamarind, consisting largely of sugar 
sirup and citric acid, and colored with caramel; and for the further reason 
that it was a mixture prepared in imitation of true sirup of tamarind, consisting 
largely of sugar sirup and citric acid and colored with caramel, and was 
offered for sale and sold under the distinctive name of another article, to wit, 
" Sciroppo Tamarindo."
On April 23, 1917, the defendants entered pleas of guilty to the information 
and the court imposed a fine of $50.
CLARENCE OUSLEY, Acting Secretary of AgricuUurc,