15164. Adulteration and Misbranding of fruit sirup. TJ. S. v. Lash's Prod
ucts Co. Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $50. (F. & L>. No. 215$ 
I. S. No. 13631-x.)
'J
On April 7, 1927, the United States attorney for the Southern District of Ne| 
York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the Distrie 
Court of the United States for said district an information against the Lash*: 
Products Co., a corporation, trading at New York, N. Y., alleging shipment bj 
said company, in violation of the food and drugs act, on July 15, 1926, from t& 
State of New York into the State of New Jersey, of a quantity of fruit sirujj 
which was adulterated and misbranded. The article was labeled in part: (juf 
"Lash's * * * Sangaree Syrup Certified Food Color Red Cherry (Trt| 
Fruit) Flavor Fruit Acid Added * * * Lash's Products Company Nej 
York-Chicago-San Francisco."
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the information for the reason th| 
a substance, to wit, an imitation cherry-flavored sirup, artificially colored, ha 
been substituted for red cherry sirup, true fruit flavor, which the said artic! 
purported to be. Adulteration was alleged for the further reason that the prod 
uct was an article inferior to red cherry sirup, true fruit flavor, to wit, a prod 
uct composed in large part of an imitation cherry-flavored sirup, and was artJ 
ficially colored with a certain coal-tar dye, to wit, Amaranth S & J 107, so as I 
simulate the appearance of red cherry sirup, and in a manner whereby ^ 
inferiority to red cherry sirup was concealed. 
-j
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statement, to wit, " Syr,us 
* * * Red Cherry (True Fruit) Flavor," borne on the label of the said ju| 
was false and misleading in that the said statement represented that the artici 
was red cherry sirup, true fruit flavor, and for the further reason that it vri 
labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser into the belli 
that it was red cherry sirup, true fruit flavor, whereas it was not, but wasl 
mixture composed in large part of an imitation cherry-flavored sirup, artificial!) 
colored. Misbranding wa<4 alleged for the further reason that the article was*j 
product deficient in fruit juice, artificially flavored and colored, and was pri 
pared in imitation of red cherry sirup, true fruit flavor, and was sold under ti| 
distinctive name of another article, to wit, red cherry sirup, true fruit flavor.i!
On April 25, 1927, a plea of nolo contendere to the information was enterej 
on behalf of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $50.      >s
W. M. JARDINB, Secretary of Agriculture.'