10346. Adulteration and misbraading of flavor of lemon and flavor of?
vanilla. U. S. * * * v. E. M. Matthews Co., Inc., a Corpora??
tion. Plea of guilty. Fine, S20 and costs. (F. & D. No. 15254. I. S.?
Nos. 8653-t, 8654t-t, 9249-t.)
On December 16, 1921, the United States attorney f?r the Eastern District of?
South Carolina, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in?
the District Court of the United States for said district an information against?
the E. M. Matthews Co., Inc., a corporation, Florence, S. C, alleging shipment?
by said company, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on or about August?
9, September 14, and October 25, 1920, respectively, from the State of South?
Carolina into the States of Virginia and Georgia, respectively, of quantities of?
flavor of lemon and flavor of vanilla, which were adulterated and misbranded.?
The articles were labeled in part, respectively:(Carton) "Matthews' Reliable?
Flavor Of * * * Lemon * * *"; (bottle) " Extract Of * * * Lemon?
* * * The E. M. Matthews Co., Inc. Florence S. C."; (carton) "Matthews"?
Reliable Flavor Of * * * Vanilla * * *"; (bottle) "Extract of Va??
nilla    *    *    *" or " Pure Extract    *    *    *    Vanilla    *    *    *"
Analyses of samples of the articles by the Bureau of Chemistry of this de??
partment showed that the flavor of lemon was a dilute lemon extract strongly?
colored with turmeric and that the flavor of vanilla was a dilute vanilla extract?
fortified with vanillin and artificially colored.
Adulteration of the articles was alleged in substance in the information for?
the reason that substances, to wit, dilute lemon extract artificially colored, or
N. J. 10301-10350]   SERVICE AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS.	189
dilute vanilla extract fortified with vanillin and artificially colored, as the case?
might be, had been mixed and packed therewith so as to lower and reduce and?
injuriously affect their quality and strength and had been substituted in part?
for flavor of lemon and extract of lemon, or flavor of vanilla and extract of?
vanilla, which the said articles purported to be. Adulteration was alleged in?
substance for the further reason that the articles were products inferior to?
flavor of lemon and extract of lemon or flavor of vanilla and extract of vanilla,?
as the case might be, and were prepared in imitation of flavor of lemon and?
extract of lemon and colored with turmeric, or were mixtures composed in part?
of dilute vanilla extract fortified with vanillin and colored with caramel, as?
the case might be, so as to simulate the appearance of flavor of lemon and ex??
tract of lemon, or flavor .of vanilla and extract of vanilla, as the case might be,?
in a manner whereby their inferiority to said articles was concealed.
Misbranding was alleged in substance for the reason that the statements, to?
wit, "Reliable Flavor of Lemon," " Purity, Strength, Delicacy of Flavor,"?
" Extract of Lemon," and " Flavor of "Vanilla, Purity, Strength, Delicacy of?
Flavor," " Extract Vanilla," and " Pure Extract Vanilla," borne on the labels?
of the cartons and bottles containing the said articles, as the case might be,?
regarding the articles and the ingredients and substances contained therein,?
were false and misleading in that the said statements represented that the?
articles were flavor of lemon or vanilla and extract of lemon or vanilla, as the?
case might be, and for the further reason that the said articles were labeled as?
aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief that they?
were flavor of lemon or vanilla and extract of lemon or vanilla, as the case?
might be, whereas, in truth and in fact, they were not, but were mixtures com??
posed in part of dilute lemon extract artificially colored or dilute vanilla ex??
tract fortified with vanillin and artificially colored. Misbranding was alleged?
in substance for the further reason that the articles were mixtures composed?
in part of dilute lemon extract artificially colored or dilute vanilla extract for??
tified with vanillin and artifically colored, prepared in imitation of flavor of?
lemon and extract of lemon or flavor of vanilla and extract of vanilla, as the?
case might be, and were offered for sale and sold under the distinctive names?
of other articles, to wit, flavor of lemon and extract of lemon or flavor of?
vanilla and extract of vanilla.
On March 7, 1922, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on behalf?
of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $20 and costs.
C. W. PUGSLEY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.