20105. Misbranding and alleged Adulteration of tomato paste. U.S. v. 287 
Cases, et al., of Tomato Paste. Decrees of condemnation entered. 
Product released under bond. (F. & D. Nos. 28492-28496, incl., 28558. 
28559, 28560.    Sample Nos. 7057-A, 7058-A.)
This action involved shipments of two lots of a tomato product sold as 
tomato paste, which was not sufficiently concentrated to be called tomato 
paste. Sample cans taken from one of the shipments were found to contain 
less than the declared weight.
On July 21 and August 1, 1932, the United States attorney for the Southern 
District of Alabama, acting upon reports by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed 
in the District Court of the United States for the district aforesaid libels 
praying seizure and condemnation of 356 cases of tomato paste, remaining in 
the original packages at Mobile, Ala., alleging that the article had been 
shipped in interstate commerce on or about July 5 and July 7, 1932, by A. 
Glorioso, from New Orleans, La., to Mobile, Ala., and charging adulteration 
and misbranding in violation of the Food and Drugs Act as amended. The 
article was labeled in part: " Eagle Brand Tomato Paste * * * Packed by 
A. Glorioso, New Orleans, La."
It was alleged in the libels that the article was adulterated in that an in- 
sufficiently concentrated strained tomato product had been substituted for 
tomato paste, which the article purported to be.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statement on the label, 
"Tomato Paste," was false and misleading and deceived and misled the pur- 
chaser. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the article was 
offered for sale under the distinctive name of another article. Misbranding 
was alleged with respect to a portion of the product 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 in terms of 
weight, since the packages were marked with a weight different from and 
less than the actual and true weight of the contents.
On September 8, 1932, A. Glorioso, New Orleans, La., having appeared as 
claimant for the property and having admitted the allegations of the libels, 
judgments were entered finding the product misbranded and ordering its con- 
demnation. It. was further ordered by the court that the product might be 
released to the said claimant upon payment of costs and the execution of 
bonds totaling $750, conditioned that it be relabeled or reconditioned under 
the supervision of this Department in compliance with the requirements of 
the Federal Food and Drugs Act.
R. G. TTTGWELL, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.