10520. Adulteration and Misbranding of milk chocolate'. U. S. * * * 
v. Massachusetts Chocolate Co., a Corporation, Plea of nolo con- 
tendere.    Pine, $25.    (F. & D. No. 8701.    I. S. No. 4021-m.)
On April 3, 1918, the United States attorney for the District of Massa- 
chusetts, 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 Massachusetts Chocolate Co., a corporation, Boston, Mass., alleging ship- 
ment by said company, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on or about 
April 9, 1917, from the State of Massachusetts into the State of New York, 
of a quantity of milk chocolate which was adulterated and misbranded. The 
article was labeled in part: " Wan-Eta Sweet Milk Chocolate Topekas, Mas- 
sachusetts Chocolate Co.. Boston, Mass."
Analysis of a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this de- 
partment showed that it was deficient in milk.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the information for the reason 
that a product, to wit, a mixture composed largely of either sugar or sweet 
chocolate and deficient in milk, a necessary ingredient of sweet milk chocolate,
had been substituted wholly for sweet milk chocolate, which the article pur- 
ported to be.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statement, to wit, " Sweet 
Milk Chocolate," borne on the labels attached to the boxes containing the 
article, regarding the article and the ingredients and substances contained 
therein, was false and misleading in that the said statement represented that 
the article was sweet milk chocolate, and for the further reason that it was 
labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser into the 
belief that the article was sweet milk chocolate, whereas, in truth and in 
fact, the said article was not sweet milk chocolate, but was a product, to wit, 
a mixture largely composed of either added sugar or added sweet chocolate 
and deficient in milk, a necessary ingredient of sweet milk chocolate. Mis- 
branding was alleged for the further reason that the article was a product, 
to wit, a mixture largely composed of either added sugar or added sweet 
chocolate and deficient in milk, a necessary ingredient of sweet milk chocolate, 
and was offered for sale and sold under the distinctive name of another 
article, to wit, sweet milk chocolate.
On January 6, 1922, a plea of nolo contendere to the information was 
entered on behalf of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine 
of $25.
C. W. PUGSLEY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.