11G25. Adnlteration and nii.sl>ran ding of vinegar. V. S. v. Barney C. Bateiw?
and John ?. Bates (Ozarlc Fruit Co.). Pleas of guilty. Fine, $40?
and costs.     (F. & D. No. 17065.     T. S. Nos. 1814-t, 1815-t.)
On March 2, 1923, tlie United States attorney for the Eastern District of?
Arkansas, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the?
District Court of the United States for said district an information against?
Barney C. Bates and John D. Bates, theretofore copartners, trading as Ozark?
Fruit Co., Ft. Smith, Ark., alleging shipment by said defendants, in violation?
of the Food and Drugs Act, on or about March 25, 1922, from the State of?
Arkansas into the State of Oklahoma, of a quantity of vinegar which was?
adulterated and misbranded. The article was labeled in part: " Eng'e?
Brand * * * One Pint 9 Oz. Grain And Sugar Vinegar Compound Output?
Controlled By Ozark Fruit Company, Inc. Sales Division Little Rock. Ark.?
U. S. A."
Analyses of samples of the art'cle by the Bureau of Chemistry of this de??
partment showed that it was a caramel colored distilled vinegar, deficient in?
acid strength.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the information for the reason?
that an artificially colored distilled vinegar, deficient in acid strength, had?
been substituted in whole or in part for grain and sugar vinegar compound?
which the said article purported to be. Adulteration was alleged for the?
further reason that the article was a distilled vinegar, deficient in acid strength,?
an article inferior to grain and sugar vinegar compound, and was artificially?
colored with caramel so as to simulate the appearance of and in a manner?
whereby its inferiority to said grain and sugar vinegar compound was con??
cealed.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statement, to wit, "Grain?
And Sugar Vinegar Compound," borne on the labels attached to the bottles?
containing the article, regarding the article and the ingredients and substances?
contained therein, was false and misleading in that the said statement repre-
N. J. 11601-11650.]    SERVICE  AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS.       337
sented that the article was grain and sugar vinegar compound, and for the?
further reason that it was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead?
the purchaser into the belief that it was grain and sugar vinegar compound,?
whereas, in truth and in fact, it was not but was an artificially colored distilled?
vinegar, deficient in acid strength. Misbranding was alleged for the further?
reason that the article was an artificially colored distilled vinegar, deficient in?
acid strength, prepared in imitation of and offered for sale and sold under?
the distinctive name of another article, to wit, grain and sugar vinegar?
compound.
On April 30, 1923, the defendants entered pleas of guilty to the information,?
and the court imposed fines in the aggregate amount of $40 and costs.
HOWARD M. GOBE, Acting Secretary of Agriculture