11313.?Adulteration and misbranding of macaroni and noodles. TJ. S. v.?
jVseienssio Fuschino (A. Fuschino Mercantile &. Importing- Co.). Plea of?
guilty. Fine, $50 and costs. (F. & D. No. 15844. I. S. Nos. 10764-t, 10765-t,?
10766-t.)
On March 24, 1922, the United States attorney for the District of Colorado,?
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District Court?
of the United States for said district an information against Ascienzio Fuschino,?
trading as A. Fuschino Mercantile & Importing Co., Pueblo, Colo., alleging ship??
ment by said defendant, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, as amended, on?
or about November 18, 1920, from the State of Colorado into the State of Utah,?
of quantities of macaroni and noodles which were adulterated and misbranded.?
The articles were labeled in part, respectively: " Perfezionata Fabrica di?
Paste * * * Manufactured By A. Fuschino, Pueblo, Colo. Guaranteed?
under the Food & Drugs Act June 30th 1906 Serial No. 17618 Macaroni Egg?
Style;" "King's Taste Noodles Extra Fine Quality Manufactured by Tbe?
Pueblo Macaroni Mfg. Co. * * * Pueblo, Colo. * * * Guaranteed by us?
under the Pure Food and Drugs Act;" "A. F. Brand Twisted Noodles Extra?
Fine Quality * * * Manufactured By Pueblo Macaroni Factory A. Fus??
chino Pueblo, Colo."
Analyses of samples of the articles by the Bureau of Chemistry of this de??
partment showed that they were alimentary pastes, artificially colored, con??
taining little or no egg.
Adulteration of the articles was alleged in the information for the reason?
that an alimentary paste which contained little or no egg had been substituted?
for macaroni, egg style, or noodles, as the case might be, which the said articles?
purported to be. Adulteration was alleged for the further reason that the said?
articles were products inferior to macaroni, egg style, or noodles, as the case?
might be, to wit, alimentary pastes which contained little or no egg, and said?
products were colored so as to simulate the appearance of macaroni, egg style,?
or noodles, as the case might be, and in a manner whereby their inferiority to?
said products was concealed.
Misbranding was alleged in substance for the reason that the statements,?
to wit, " Qualita Insuperabile," " Guaranteed under the Food & Drugs Act?
June 30th 1906," and " Macaroni Egg Style," borne on the labeling of the?
macaroni, the statements, to wit, " Noodles Extra Fine" and " Guaranteed?
by us under the Pure Food and Drugs Act, June 30, 1906," borne on the labeling?
of a portion of the noodles, and the statement, " Noodles Extra Fine Quality."?
borne on the labeling of the remainder of the said noodles, regarding the said?
articles and the ingredients and substances contained therein, were false and?
misleading in that the said statements represented that the articles were high?
grade macaroni, egg style, or extra fine noodles, or noodles of extra fine quality,
N. J. 11301-11350.]    SEEVICE  AND  KEGULATORY  ANNOUNCEMENTS.       157
as the case might be, and that the macaroni and a portion of the noodles con??
formed to the Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 1906, and for the further reason?
that the articles were labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead the?
purchaser into the belief that the said articles were high grade macaroni, egg?
style, or extra fine noodles, or noodles of extra fine quality, as the case might?
be, and that the said macaroni and a portion of the said noodles conformed?
to the Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 1906, whereas, in truth and in fact,?
said articles were not high grade macaroni, 'egg style, or extra fine noodles, or?
noodles of extra fine quality, as the case might be, but were artificially colored?
alimentary pastes which contained little or no egg, and the said macaroni and?
the said portion of the noodles did not conform to the Food and Drugs Act of?
June 30, 1906. Misbranding was alleged with respect to the noodles for the?
further reason that it was an artificially colored alimentary paste which con??
tained; little or no egg, prepared in imitation of and offered for sale and sold?
under the distinctive name of another article, to wit, noodles. Misbranding was?
alleged with respect to the macaroni and a portion of the noodles for the?
further reason that it was food in package form, and the quantity of the con??
tents was not plainly and conspicuously marked on the outside of the package.?
On July 26, 1922, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to the information,?
and the court imposed a fine of $50 and costs.
C. W. PUGSLEY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.