9328. Adulteration and Misbranding of vinegar. U. S. * * * v. 446 Cases * * * and 
600 Cases * * * of Cider Vinegar. Decrees of condemnation and forfeiture. 
Product released under bo ml. (F. & D. Nos. 14284, 14290. I. S. Nos. 5246-t, 5024-t. S. Nos. 
E-3081, E-3123.)
On February 5 and 14, 1921, respectively, the United States attorney for the Dis- 
trict of Massachusetts, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in 
the District Court of the United States for said district libels of information for the 
seizure and condemnation of 44G cases and 600 cases, more or less, of cider vinegar, 
so called, remaining in the original unbroken packages at Somerville and Springfield, 
Mass., respectively, consigned by the Naas Cider & Vinegar Co., Inc., Cohocton, 
N. Y., alleging that the article had been shipped from Cohocton, N. Y., on or about 
July 12 and August 7, 1920, respectively, and transported from the State of New York 
into the State of Massachusetts, and charging adulteration and misbranding in viola- 
tion of the Food and Drugs Act, as amended. The article was labeled in part: " Steu- 
ben Brand Reduced Cider Vinegar Fermented * * * Net Contents One Pint" 
(pictorial representation of a red apple), or "Steuben Brand Reduced Cider Vinegar 
Fermented Made From Apples * * * Net Contents One Pint" (pictorial repre- 
sentation of a red apple) (in smaller type) "Reduced to zinc Acetic Acid," "Naas 
Cider & Vinegar Co., Inc., Cohocton, N. Y."
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the libels of information for the reason 
that a substance, to wit, distilled vinegar, had been mixed and packed therewith so 
as to lower and reduce and injuriously affect its quality and strength, and had been 
substituted in whole or in part for pure cider vinegar, which the article purported to 
be. Adulteration was alleged for the further reason that distilled vinegar had been 
mixed with said article in a manner whereby damage and inferiority were concealed.
Misbranding was alleged in substance for the reason that the foregoing statements 
appearing on the bottles containing the article, regarding the article and the ingre- 
dients contained therein, were false and misleading in that they represented to the 
purchaser thereof that the said article was pure cider vinegar, and for the further 
reason that the said article was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead the 
purchaser thereof into the belief that it was pure cider vinegar, whereas, in truth and 
in fact, it was not, but was a product composed in part of distilled vinegar. Mis- 
branding was alleged for the further reason that the article was a product composed in
part of distilled vinegar prepared in imitation of pure cider vinegar, and was offered 
for sale under the distinctive name of another article, to wit, pure cider vinegar. 
Misbranding was alleged in substance for the further reason that the article was food 
in package for, and the quantity of the contents was not plainly and conspicuously 
marked on the outside of the package, since the statement made was not correct in 
that said contents were stated as 1 pint, whereas, in truth and in fact, the contents 
were less than 1 pint. Misbranding was alleged with respect to a portion of the 
product for the further reason that it was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and 
mislead the purchaser thereof into the belief that it was pure cider vinegar reduced 
to 4 per cent acetic acid strength, whereas, in truth and in fact, it was not pure cider 
vinegar, but was a product composed in part of distilled vinegar and contained a higher 
average of acidity than 4,per cent, and for the further reason that the article was food 
in package form, and bore the aforesaid statements and representation of an apple, 
which were false and misleading to purchasers thereof in that they misled said pur- 
chasers into the belief that the contents of said packages were pure cider vinegar made 
from apples.
On April 15, 1921, the Naas Cider & Vinegar Co., a corporation, Cohocton, Steuben 
County, N. Y., having entered an appearance as claimant for the property and having 
executed a good and sufficient bond in conformity with section 10 of the act, judg- 
ments were entered finding the product to be adulterated and misbranded as set forth 
in the libels of information and ordering its condemnation, and it was further ordered 
that the product be released to the said claimant upon payment of the costs of the
proceedings.
E. D. BALL, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.