19697. Adulteration and Misbranding of butter. U. S. v. Swift & Co. Plea 
of guilty. Pine, $600 and costs. (F. & D. No. 27443. I. S. No. 
21806.)
This action was based on the interstate shipment of a quantity of butter, 
samples of which were found to contain less than 80 per cent by weight of 
milk fat, the standard prescribed by Congress. Samples of the article also 
were found to be short weight.
On December 15, 1931, the United States attorney for the District of Colorado, 
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District Court 
of the United States for the district aforesaid an information against Swift & 
Co., a corporation, Denver, Colo., alleging shipment by said company, in viola- 
tion of the food and drugs act as amended, on or about March 17, 1931, from 
the State of Colorado into the State of Texas, of a quantity of butter that was 
adulterated and misbranded. The article was labeled in part: " 1 lb. Net Weight 
Distributed by Swift & Company   *    *    *    Cresta Creamery Butter."
It was alleged in the information that the article was adulterated in that a 
product which contained less than 80 per cent by weight of milk fat had been 
substituted 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, which the article 
purported to be.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements, to wit, " Butter " 
and " 1 lb. Net Weight," were false and misleading, and for the further reason 
that the article was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead the 
purchaser, in that they represented that the article was butter, a product which 
should contain not less than 80 per cent by weight of milk fat, and that each 
package contained 1 pound net weight, whereas it contained less than 80 per 
cent of milk fat and the packages contained less than 1 pound net weight. Mis- 
branding was alleged for the further reason that the article was food in pack- 
age form and the quantity of the contents was not plainly and conspicuously 
marked on the outside of the package, since the. statement made was incorrect.
On April 2, 1932, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on behalf of 
the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $600 and costs.
HENBY A.  WALLACE,  Secretary of Agriculture. 
160367—33 2