21148. Adulteration and Misbranding of candy (Orange Frolics).    U. S. v.
Joseph G. Dubin & Sons, Inc. Plea of guilty to counts 1 and 2 
of  information.   Remaining  counts   dismissed.   Fine, $100.     (F.  &
D. no. 30161.    I. S. no. 48644.)
This action was based on an interstate shipment of hard candies called 
" Orange, Lime, Wild Cherry, or Lemon Frolics ", which contained added unde- 
clared tartaric acid, and no true fruit juices. The orange, lime, and wild 
cherry "Frolics" were also artificially colored.
On May 9, 1933, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of New 
York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district 
court an information against Joseph G. Dubin & Sons, Inc., Brooklyn, N. Y., 
alleging shipment by said company in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, 
on or about December 19, 1931, from the State of New York into the State of 
Connecticut, of a quantity of candies that were adulterated and misbranded. 
Each package of the shipment contained a number of variously named candies 
labeled in part: " Orange [or " Lemon ", " Lime ", or " Wild Cherry "] Frolics, 
Jos. G. Dubin & Sons, Inc., Brooklyn, N. Y.", together with designs of oranges, 
lemons, limes, or wild cherries.
It was alleged in count 1 of the information that the pieces, labeled " Orange ", 
were adulterated in that a substance, hard candy containing no orange juice 
hut containing undeclared artificial color and tartaric acid, had been substituted 
for hard candy containing orange juice, which the article purported to be. 
Adulteration was alleged for the further reason that the article had been 
mixed and colored with undeclared tartaric acid and artificial color in a manner 
whereby its inferiority to candy containing orange juice was concealed.
Misbranding of the product labeled " Orange " was alleged in count 2 for the 
reason that the statement "Orange", together with the design of oranges 
borne on the wrappers, were false and misleading, and for the further reason 
that the article was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since 
the said statement and design represented that the article contained orange 
juice in its composition, whereas it did not. Misbranding was alleged for the 
further reason that an article containing undeclared artificial color and tartaric 
acid and having no orange juice in its composition had been offered for sale 
under the distinctive name of another article, namely, orange. Adulteration 
and Misbranding of the remaining products was charged in counts 3 to 8, 
inclusive, of the information.
On June 20, 1933, a plea of guilty to counts 1 and 2 of the information was 
entered on behalf of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of 
$100.   The remaining counts were dismissed.
M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.