10603, Adulteration and misbranding; of  Dakers'^whip.   ,TJ, S.    *      *     *   ' v.?
e .Pounds   of     *     .?     *    Bakers* .Whip.     Default   decree   ordering
dejstractioai   of   the   product.     (P.   &   D.   No.   14828.    I.   S.   No.   8476-t.?
S. No. E-3331.)
On June 1, 1921, the united states attorney for the Northern District of?
West Virginia, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in?
the District Court of the United States for said district a libel for the seizure?
and condemnation of 6 pounds of bakers' whip, remaining in the original?
packages at Martinsburg, W. Va., alleging that the article had been shipped?
by the W. B. Wood Mfg. Co., St. Louis, Mo., on or about April 1, 1921, and?
transported from the State of Missouri into the State of West Virginia, and?
charging adulteration and misbranding in violation of the Food and Drugs?
Act. The article was labeled in part; "Bakers' Whip * * * Manufac??
tured exclusively by W. B. Wood Mfg. Co.    *    *    *."
Adulteration of the article was alleged in substance in the libel for the?
reason that it consisted chiefly of baking powder, starch, and a small amount?
of gum, colored with coal-tar dye and containing no eggs, which had been?
mixed and packed with and substituted wholly for the said article, and for?
the further reason that it was mixed and colored in a manner whereby damage?
and inferiority were concealed.
Misbranding was alleged in substance for the reason that the statements on?
the label of the can containing the article, to wit, " Bakers' Whip An Egg?
Substitute Saves Time Saves money If you are looking for something to?
use in place of Eggs, this is it. There Is No Other Each one pound of Bakers'?
Whip is equal in strength to 50 Eggs, and should be used in like proportion.?
Dissolve one-fourth pound of Bakers' Whip in one pint of warm water. Stir?
well and it is ready to use. * * * When you consider each one-fourth lb.?
of Bakers' Whip is equal to about 13 eggs, you can readily determine its use.?
* * * Do Not Accept Imitations. This Is The Original," were false and?
misleading and deceived and misled the purchaser. Misbranding was alleged?
for the further reason that the article was an imitation of, and was offered for?
sale under the distinctive name of, another article.
On September 29, 1921, no claimant having appeared for the property, judg??
ment of the court was entered finding the product to be adulterated and mis-?
branded and ordering its destruction by the United States marshal.
C. W. PUGSLEY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
N. J. 10601-10650]  SERVICE  AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS.	341