13475. Adulteration   and   misbranding   of   butter.     XJ.   S.   v.   the   Merchants
Creamery Co.    Plea of guilty.    Fine, $25.     (F. & D. No. 19265.    I. S.
Nos. 12578-v, 12585-v.)
On January 26, 1925, the United States attorney for the Southern District 
of Ohio, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the 
District Court of the United States for said district an information against 
the Merchants Creamery Co., a corporation, Cincinnati, Ohio, alleging ship- 
ment by said company, in violation of the food and drugs act as amended, in 
two consignments, namely, on or about March 18 and 25, 1924, respectively, 
from the State of Ohio into the State of West Virginia, of quantities of 
butter, one shipment of which was adulterated and misbranded and the other 
shipment of which was misbranded. The consignment of March 25, 1924, 
was labeled in part: " Rose Brand Creamery Butter The Merchants Creamery 
Company Cincinnati, O. One Pound Net." The consignment of March 18, 
1924, was labeled in part: " Creamery Butter."
Examination by the Bureau of Chemistry of this department of 60 packages 
of the Rose brand butter showed that the average net weight was 15.63 
ounces. Analyses of 7 samples from the remaining consignment showed an 
average of 79.5 per cent of milk fat.
Adulteration was alleged with respect to the consignment of March 18 for 
the reason that a product deficient in milk fat had been substituted for butter, 
which the article purported to be, and for the further reason that a product 
which contained less than 80 per cent by weight of milk fat had been substi- 
tuted for butter, a product which should contain not less than 80 per cent by 
weight of milk fat, as prescribed by the act of March 4, 1923.
Misbranding of the Rose brand butter was alleged in the information for 
the reason that the statement " One Pound Net," borne on the packages con- 
taining the article, was false and misleading, in that it represented that each
of the packages contained 1 pound of butter, and for the further reason that 
the article was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser 
into the belief that each of the said packages contained 1 pound of butter, 
whereas each of the packages did not contain 1 pound of butter but did con- 
tain a less amount. Misbranding of the said Rose brand butter was alleged 
for the further reason that it was food in package form and the quantity of 
the contents was not plainly and conspicuously marked on the outside of the 
package.
Misbranding was alleged with respect to the consignment of March 25 for 
the reason that the statement " Butter," borne on the packages containing 
the article, was false and misleading, in that the said statement represented 
that the article consisted wholly of butter, and for the further reason that it 
was labeled " Butter " so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser into the 
belief that it consisted wholly of butter, whereas it did not so consist but did 
consist of a product deficient in milk fat. Misbranding was alleged for the 
further reason that the statement, to wit, "Butter," borne on the said packages, 
was false and misleading, in that it represented that the article was butter, 
to wit, a product which should contain not less than 80 per cent by weight of 
milk fat, as prescribed by the act of March 4, 1923, whereas it was a product 
which did not contain 80 per cent by weight of milk fat but did contain a less 
amount.
On June 5, 1925, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on behalf 
?of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $25.
C. F. MARVIN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.