11321.?Adulteration and misbranding of canned tomatoes. U. S. v. D. B.?
Foote & Co., Inc., a Corporation. Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $25?
and costs.     (F. & D. No. 16571.     I. S. Nos. 7912-t, 7914-t, 8509-t, 9310-t, 9317-1:.)
On December 20, 1922, the United States attorney for the District of Mary??
land, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District?
Court of the United States for said district an information against D. E. Foote?
& Co., Inc, a corporation, trading at Baltimore, Md., alleging shipment by?
said company, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, from the State of Mary??
land, in various consignments, namely, on or about August 19, 1921, into the?
State of Virginia, on or about September 3 and 12, 1921, respectively, into the?
State of Pennsylvania, and on or about September 9, 1921, into the State of?
Georgia, of quantities of canned tomatoes which were adulterated and mis-?
branded. The article was labeled variously, in part: " Tomatoes Packed By?
D. E. Foote & Co. Inc. Baltimore, Md. * * * ' Fox Brand;' " " Foote's?
Best Brand * * * Tomatoes * * * Packed By D. E. Foote & Co.;; "?
" Compass Brand Tomatoes    *    *    *    Packed by D. E. Foote & Co. Inc."
Analyses of samples of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this depart??
ment indicated that water and pur?e, pulp, or juice from skins and cores had?
been added to the said article.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the information for the reason?
that certain substances, to wit, water and purge, pulp, and juice from skins
N.J. 11301-11350.]    SERVICE  AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS.      1(31
and cores, had been mixed and packed therewith so as to lower and reduce?
and injuriously affect its quality and strength and had been substituted in?
part for a product made from whole tomatoes, Avhich the article purported?
to be.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statement, to wit, " Toma??
toes," together with the design and device of a ripe tomato, borne on the cans?
containing the said article, regarding the article and the ingredients and sub??
stance contained therein, were false and misleading in that they represented?
that the article was a product derived from whole tomatoes, and for the fur??
ther reason that the article was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and?
mislead the purchaser into the belief that it was a product composed of whole?
tomatoes, whereas, in truth and in fact, it was not a product composed of?
whole tomatoes but was a mixture composed in part of water and purge, pulp,?
and juice from skins and cores of tomatoes. Misbranding was alleged for?
the further reason that the article was a mixture composed in part of water?
and purge, pulp, and juice from skins and cores of tomatoes, prepared in?
imitation of a product composed of whole tomatoes, and was offered for sale?
and sold under the distinctive name of another article, to wit, tomatoes.
On December 20, 1922, a plea of nolo contendere was entered on behalf of the?
defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $25 and costs.
C. W. PUGSLEY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.