S114. Misbranding of MX Cooking- Powder. V. S. * * * v. White Cross?
I,al>ox*atories, a Corporation. Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, costs;?
(F.  & D.  No.  1123 6.     I.   S.  No.   12850-r.)
On March 17, 1920, the United States attorney for the Northern District of?
Illinois, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the Dis??
trict Court of the United States for said district an information against the?
White Cross Laboratories, Chicago, 111., alleging shipment by said defendants,?
on or about January 10, 1919. from the State of Illinois into the State of Rhode?
Island, of a quantity of an article, labeled in part " IXL Cooking Powder,"?
which was misbranded.
Examination of samples of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this?
department showed that it consisted essentially of cornstarch, baking powder,?
and a small amount of casein, and that the packages were short weight.
Misbranding of the article was alleged in that the statements on the label on?
the package containing the article, regarding the article, to wit, " For Custards,?
24403??21?2
88	
BUREAU   OF ¦ CHEMISTRY*"	
[Supplement93,
Omelets, Etc., use J IXL Cooking Powder and * egg" and "Use one level teaspoon-?
ful for each egg .called for in tint, srecipe," were false and misleading and deceived?
and misled the purchaser into tlrt belief that the article was a substitute for?
eggs and for shortening in cooking, whereas,- in truth and in fact, it was not.?
Further misbranding was alleged in that the statements above quoted repre??
sented to the purchaser that the article was au egg substitute and contained?
ingredients and substances of the same composition as eggs, whereas, in truth?
and in fact, it was not such a substitute nor was the same so composed. Fur??
ther misbranding of the article was alleged ?n that the statement on the label?
on the package containing the article, regarding the article, to wit, " Net Weight?
6 Ozr.," was false and misleading in that it represented to the purchasers that?
the package contained not less than 6 ounces of the article, whereas, in truth?
and in fact, it contained less than 0 ounces. Further misbranding of the article?
was alleged in that the article was food in package form, and the quantity?
of the contents was not plainly or conspicuously marked on the outside of the?
package in terms of weight, measure, or numerical count.
- On June 22, 1920, the defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere, and the?
court imposed a fine of costs.
E. D. BALL, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.