9624,  Adulteration   and misbranding of   Eg-g-ette.     U.   S.     *      *     *     v,   Ed- 
ward   Zimmer   and   Walfred   F.   Johnson   (Bestever   Products   Co.).
Pleas of guilty.    Fine, $25 and costs.     (F. & D. No. 11222.    I.  S. Nos. 
8162-p,  10004-p,  10125-p,  19451-p.)
On November 30, 1920, the United States attorney for the Northern District 
of Illinois, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the 
District Court of the United States for said district an information against 
Edward Zimmer and Walfred F. Johnson, trading as the Bestever Products 
Co., Chicago, Ill., alleging shipment by said defendants, in violation of the 
Food and Drugs Act, from the State of Illinois, on or about March 26 and 
April 26, 1918, respectively, into the State of Missouri, on or about March 26, 
1918, into the State of Louisiana, and on or about February 2, 1918, into the 
State of Texas, of quantities of Eggette which was adulterated and misbranded. 
The product involved in the consignments to Missouri was labeled in part, 
(package) " Eggette for Baking and Cooking * * * Contents Of This Pack- 
age Saves The Use Of 12 Eggs * * * Use Eggette the same as you would 
eggs." The product involved in the consignment to Louisiana was labeled, in 
part, (box) "Reduce Your Egg Bill Use regretted Saves the Use of Eggs in 
Baking and Cooking * * *." The product involved in the consignment to 
Texas was labeled in part, (package) " Eggette for Baking And Cooking 
*   *   *   Contents Of This Package Saves The Use of 36 Eggs   *   *   *."
Analyses of samples of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this de- 
partment showed that it was a mixture of starch and casein, containing coal-tar 
color and probably baking powder.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the information for the reason 
that a mixture of starch and casein had been substituted for egg substitute, 
which the said article purported to be, and for the further reason that it was 
colored in a manner whereby inferiority was concealed.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that certain statements on the label 
of the package containing the article and in an accompanying folder were false 
and misleading in that they represented to the purchaser thereof that the 
article was an egg substitute and could be used in place of eggs in cooking, 
and for the further reason that it was so labeled as to deceive and mislead the 
purchasers into the belief that it was an egg substitute and could be used in 
place of eggs in cooking, whereas, in fact and in truth, it was not an egg sub- 
stitute and could not be used in place of eggs for cooking. Misbranding was 
alleged with respect to the product involved in the consignment of February 2, 
into Texas, for the further reason that the said article was an imitation of 
another article, to wit, an egg substitute, and was sold under the distinctive 
name of said other article.
On March 30, 1921, the defendants entered pleas of guilty to the information, 
and on July 1, 1921, the courl imposed a fine of $25 and costs,
C. W. PUGSLEY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.