13900.   Adulteration and misbranding of raspberry preserves.    V. S. v. 199
Cases  of Raspberry Preserves.     Consent  decree of coau^nmaMtm
and forfeiture.     Product released under bond.     (F. & D. No. ^0418.
I. S. Nos. 1451-x, 1452-x, 1454-x.    S. No. C-4797.)
On September 5, 1925, the United States attorney for the Northern District
of Iowa, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
District  Court  of the  United   States  for  said  district  a  libel  praying  the
seizure and condemnation of 199 cases of raspberry preserves, at Sioux City, 
Iowa, alleging that the article had been shipped by the Eigelberner Food 
Products Co., from Chicago, Ill., in part May 12, 1925, and in part July 9, 
1925, and transported from the State of Illinois into the State of Iowa, and 
charging adulteration in violation of the food and drugs act. The article was 
labeled in part:   (Jar)   "Pure Raspberry Preserves 50%  Fruit, 50%  Sugar,"
Adulteration of the article was alleged in substance in the libel for the reason 
that a substance deficient in fruit and containing excessive sugar and added 
acid, with respect to a portion of the product, a substance containing excessive 
sugar, added acid, and loganberry fruit, with respect to a second portion of the 
product, and a substance with added acid, with respect to the remainder of the 
said product, had been mixed and packed therewith so as to reduce, lower, 
or injuriously affect its quality and had been substituted wholly or in part 
for the said article.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statement on the labels 
"Pure Raspberry Preserves 50% Fruit, 50% Sugar" was false and misleading 
and deceived and misled the purchaser, and for the further reason that the 
article was an imitation of and offered for sale under the distinctive name of 
another article, in that it was not pure raspberry preserves.
On October 31, 1925, the Eigelberner Food Products Co., Chicago, Ill., 
claimant, having admitted the allegations of the libel and having consented to 
the entry of a decree, judgment of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, 
and it was ordered by the court that the product might be released to the said 
claimant upon payment of the costs of the proceedings and the execution of 
a bond in the sum of $500, in conformity with section 10 of the act, conditioned 
in part that it be properly relabeled.
C. F. MABVUT, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.