32131.  Adulteration   and   misbranding-   of   vinegar.     U.   S.   v.   Lyons   Bros. 
Co., a Corporation.     Plea of grnilty.     Fine, S50 and costs.     (F. & D.
No. 17781.    I. S. No. 9401-v.)
On November 17, 1923, the United States attorney for the Northern Dis- 
trict of Georgia, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in 
the Distict Court of the United States for said district an information against 
the Lyons Bros. Co., a corporation, trading at Atlanta, Ga., alleging shipment 
by said company, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on or about May 
10, 1923, from the State of Georgia into the State of Florida, of a quantity 
of vinegar which was adulterated and misbranded. The article was labeled 
in part: " The Lyons Bros. Co. Gold Dust Vinegar Atlanta, Ga."
Analysis of a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this de- 
partment showed that it was distilled vinegar containing not more than 10 
per cent of apple vinegar, colored with caramel.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the information for the reason 
that a substance, to wit, diluted distilled vinegar, had been mixed and packed 
therewith so as to reduce and lower and injuriously affect its quality and 
strength and had been substituted in part for vinegar, which the said article 
purported to be. Adulteration was alleged for the further reason that the 
article was a product inferior to vinegar, to wit, a mixture composed in part 
of diluted distilled vinegar, and was artificially colored so as to simulate the 
appearance of vinegar and in a manner whereby its inferiority to vinegar was 
concealed.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statement, to wit, " Vinegar," 
borne on the barrel containing the article, regarding the said article, was false 
and misleading, in that it represented that the article consisted wholly of 
vinegar, and for the further reason that the article was labeled as aforesaid 
so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief that it consisted 
wholly of vinegar, whereas, in truth and in fact, it did not so consist but did 
consist in part of diluted distilled vinegar, artificially colored. Misbranding 
was alleged for the further reason that the article was a product composed in 
part of diluted distilled vinegar, artificially colored, prepared in imitation of 
vinegar, and was offered for sale and sold under the distinctive name of an- 
other article, to wit, vinegar.
On March 8, 1924, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on behalf 
of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $50 and costs.
C. F. MAKVIN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.