S223. Adulteration anil iiiigl>ramlingr of My Own Pure Cocoa. U. S. * * *?
v. 404 Pounds and 5S4 Pounds of Alleged Cocoa.. Default decrees?
of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I<\ & D; Nos. 10701 to?
10731, inclusive. I. S. Nos. 11374-r, 11376-r to 11397-r, inclusive, 12430-r to?
12437-r,  inclusive.     S. Nos.  C-1301,  C-1306,)
On June 27, 1919, the United States attorney for the Northern District of?
Ohio, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District?
Court of the United States for said district libels for the seizure and condemna??
tion of 404 pounds and 5S4 pounds of alleged cocoa, at Lima, Ohio, alleging that?
the article had been shipped on or about February 19, 1919, by the National?
Cocoa Mills, New York, N. Y., and transported from the State of New York?
into the State of Ohio, and charging adulteration and misbranding in violation?
of the Food and Drugs Act. The article was labeled in part, "My Own Pure?
Cocoa * * * The Cocoa contained in this package is Positively High Grade?
and guaranteed by the manufacturers to comply with all Federal and State?
Food Laws * * * Absolutely pure * * *," (inconspicuously stamped on?
side panel) "My Own Cocoa Compound,-containing Corn Starch Cocoa Sugar."
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the libels for the reason that starch?
or starch and sugar had been mixed and packed therewith so as to reduce and?
lower and injuriously affect its quality and strength, and had been substituted?
wholly or in part for the article, and for the further reason that said product?
was mixed in a manner whereby damage or inferiority Svas concealed.
Misbranding of the article was alleged in substance for the reason that the?
statement "My Own Pure Cocoa," not sufficiently corrected by the incon??
spicuous statement " My Own Cocoa Compound," was false and misleading and?
deceived and misled the purchaser in that said label indicated that the article?
was pure cocoa, whereas analysis of the product in possession of different?
dealers showed that it contained 27.35 per cent of sugar and 40.84 per cent of?
starch, 21.77 per cent of starch and no sugar, 27.80 per cent of sugar and 41.91?
per cent of starch, 31.62 per cent of sugar and 39.88 per cent of starch, and 21.77?
per cent of starch and no .sugar, as the case might be. Misbranding of the?
article was alleged further for the reason that it was -an imitation of, and was?
offered for sale and sold under the distinctive name of, another article, and for
N. J. 8201-8250]      SERVICE AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS.	165
the further reason that it was food in package form, and the quantity of the?
contents was not plainly and conspicuously marked on the outside of the?
package.
On October 1, 1919, no claimant having appeared for the property, judgments?
of condemnation and forfeiture were entered, and it was ordered by the court?
that the product be destroyed by the United States marshal.
E. D. BALL, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.