15694.?Adulteration and misbranding- of butter.     U. S. v. Golden State Millc
Products Co. Plea of guilty. Fine, $400. (F. & D. No. 22537. I. S.?
Nos. 11087-x, 11088-x, 11089-x. 11090-x, 12826-x, 12827-x, 12829-x, 12830-x,?
12131-x, 12832-x, 12833-x, 12834-x, 12835-x, 12836-x, 12838-x, 12839-x,?
17172-x.)
At the January, 1928, term of the United States District Court within and?
for the Southern District of California the United States attorney for said?
district, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the?
District Court aforesaid an information against the Golden State Milk Products?
Co., a corporation, El Centro, Calif., alleging shipment by said company, in?
violation of the food and drugs act as amended, in various consignments',?
between the dates of September 30, 1926, and April 21, 1927, from the State of?
California into the States of Arizona, New.Mexico, and.Texas, of quantities of?
butter which was misbranded and a portion of which was also adulterated.?
The article was labeled in part: (Carton) "Golden State Brand Butter Packed
354	
FOOD AND DRUGS ACT	
[N. J., F. D.
and Distributed by Golden State Milk Products Company    *    *    *    San Fran??
cisco   *   * ' *   Net Weight 1 Pound."
Adulteration was alleged in the information with respect to a portion of the?
product for the reason that a substance purporting to be butter, but which was?
not butter, in that it contained less than 80 per cent by weight of milk fat, had?
been substituted for butter, a product which must contain not less than 80 per?
cent by weight of milk fat as required by the act of March 4, 1923.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statement "Net Weight 1?
Pound," borne on the packages containing the article, and the statement?
"Butter," borne on a portion of the said packages, were false and misleading?
in that the said statements represented that the packages each contained 1?
pound of the article and that the article contained therein was butter, to wit,?
an article containing not less than 80 per cent by weight of milk fat as required?
by law, and for the further reason that it was labeled as aforesaid so as to?
deceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief that the packages each con??
tained 1 pound of the article and that the article contained therein was butter,?
to wit, an article containing not less than 80 per cent by weight of milk fat as?
required by law; whereas each of a. number of said packages contained less?
than 1 pound o? the article and a portion of the said article contained less than?
80 per cent by weight of milk fat. Misbranding was alleged for the further?
reason that the article Was food in package form and the quantity of the?
contents was not plainly and conspicuously marked on the outside of the?
package.
On April 2, 1928, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on behalf?
of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $400.
W. M. JARDINE, Secretary of Agriculture.