21266. Alleged   adulteration   and   Misbranding of   maple-fla-vored   sirup.
V. S. v. 717 Cans of Sirup. Appearance and claim of ownership. 
Tried to the court. Libel ordered dismissed. (F. & D. no. 29785. 
Sample no. 34044-A.)
This case involved an interstate shipment of a product labeled " Maple 
Flavored Syrup", which consisted principally of corn sirup and sugar sirup 
containing a small amount of maple sugar. The article also contained added 
artificial color and flavor.
On January 30, 1933, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of 
Missouri, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the 
district court a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 717 cans of sirup 
at St. Louis, Mo., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate com- 
merce on or about January 9, 1933, by the A. E. Staley Manufacturing Co., from 
Decatur, Ill., and charging adulteration and misbranding in violation of the 
Food and Drugs Act. The article was labeled in part: " Staley's Maple Fla- 
vored Syrup * * * A. E. Staley Man'f'g. Co. Decatur, Ill." The label bore 
the further statement in smaller, less conspicuous type, "Blend of pure corn
syrup and granulated sugar syrup flavored with imitation maple flavor and 
genuine maple sugar."
It was alleged in the libel that the article was adulterated in that an arti- 
ficially colored imitation maple-flavored sirup containing little or no maple 
sugar had been substituted for the article and for the further reason that the 
article had been mixed in a manner whereby inferiority was concealed.
It was further alleged in the libel that the article was misbranded in that 
the statements on the label "Maple Flavored Syrup * * * Genuine Maple 
Sugar", were false and misleading and deceived and misled the purchaser 
when applied to a product containing little or no maple sugar or other true 
maple product, and in that the article was an imitation of and was offered for 
sale under the distinctive name of another article.
On February 18, 1933, the Staley Sales Corporation entered an appearance 
as claimant and filed an answer denying the adulteration and misbranding 
charges in the libel. On April 8, 1933, the case having come on for trial and a 
jury having been waived, evidence was submitted to the court on behalf of the 
Government and the claimant. At the conclusion of the taking of the testi- 
mony, counsel for the claimant, Mr. Williams, moved for dismissal of the case 
upon the pleadings and the evidence, which motion was granted, the court 
ordering the libel dismissed with the following remarks:
THE CouRTiJThere is no question but that that I ought to do that, gentlemen, 
here is such a statute as I have mentioned. Of course, that statute 
which provided power in the Secretary of Agriculture, or in the Department of 
Agriculture, to prescribe the percentages for the various blends and the various 
flavors, and the various distinctions, if there be any, between one sort of sirup 
in interstate commerce and another; if there is such a regulation, and if it is 
so just and fair as to not impinge upon common sense, that would be binding 
upon this court.
Mr. WILLIAMS* I think it might, but the Government disclaims the existence 
of any such.
THE COURT* The Government says there is none such, and I assume that is 
correct, because, while I am required to judicially notice it, I am in fact abso- 
lutely ignorant of it. I would have to do what any other person ignorant about 
a given question would have to do; I would have to go and look it up. Counsel 
tells me there is none in existence.
It is clear here that this label says squarely upon its face, in rather large 
print, that it is " Staley's Maple Flavored Syrup." It further says that it is a 
savory blend of pure corn sirup and granulated sugar sirup flavored with imita- 
tion maple flavor and genuine maple sirup. That quotation may seem, on first 
blush, to contradict a statement the court made awhile ago, but it does not 
do so exactly, for this reason: That it may well be a blend—glucose and 
sucrose—which is ordinary cane or beet sugar, while glucose, as is well known, 
is corn sugar. There might be a blend of corn sirup and granulated sugar 
sirup, and yet be no contradiction as between the ordinary meaning of blend 
and the ordinary meaning of a flavored article. It then proceeds: ' Savory 
blend of pure corn sirup and granulated sugar'; then it goes on and says 
' flavored with imitation maple flavor and genuine maple sirup.' It is shown 
to be flavored with imitation maple flavor—the Government's chemist says it is 
extract of foenugreek and the chemist for the claimant says he does not know 
what particular flavor it is, that is to say, what the flavor is made of, because 
he buys it. And in addition to that flavor, it is genuine maple sirup. It has, 
according to the uncontradicted testimony, about 1.6 percent of maple sirup. 
The Government says 1.7 percent and the claimant says 1.56 percent. So, there 
is maple sirup in it without question; by the uncontradicted evidence, it is put 
in there. It is found in there, by the uncontradicted evidence, upon chemical 
analysis.
So, I am frank to say that I see no basis for this libel, gentlemen. Of course, 
I might say here, to clear the atmosphere, that it does not make a bit of differ- 
ence, in a court of law, whether this prosecution in this case was inspired. 
When it got into court, regardless of the manner of it getting here, it became 
a plain, ordinary lawsuit, as to whether this label is in fact deceptive, and there- 
fore in contradiction of the Pure Food and Drugs Act of the United States.
So, I think the judgment should be for claimant, and that the libel should be 
dismissed, and so it is ordered.
~~~ 
M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.