£1372. Adulteration and Misbranding of butter. U. S. v. Geld Seal 
Creamery. Plea of guilty. Pine, $250. (F. & D. no. 30220. Sample 
nos. 1483-A, 1485-A, 1486-A,  1487-A, 1488-A.)
This case was based on interstate shipments of butter, sample cartons of 
which were found to contain less than 1 pound, the declared weight. Certain 
lots of the product also were found to contain less than 80 percent by weight 
of milk fat, the standard for butter established by Congress.
; On July 20, 1933, the United States attorney for the District of Oregon, act- 
ing upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court an 
information against the Gold Seal Creamery, a corporation, Medford, Oreg., 
alleging shipment by said company in violation of the Food and Drugs Act as 
amended, in part on or about September 6, 1932, and in part on or about Septem- 
ber 12. 1932, from the State of Oregon into the State of California, of quanti- 
ties of butter which was misbranded and a portion of which was adulterated. 
A portion of the article was labeled in part: (.Carton) " Net Weight One Pound 
* * * One Pound Standard Grade Butter"; (wrapper) "Weight One Pound 
Standard Grade Butter * * * Gold Seal Creamery * * * Gold Seal 
Creamery, Medford, Ore." The remainder was labeled in part: " Maid Sweet 
Cream Butter Manufactured by Gold Seal Creamery * * * Net Weight One 
Pound."
It was alleged in the information that certain lots of the " Gold Seal" butter 
were adulterated in that a product deficient in milk fat, since it contained less 
than 80 percent by weight of milk fat, had been substituted for butter, a product 
which must contain not less than 80 percent by weight of milk fat, as required 
by the act of Congress of March 4, 1923, which the article purported to be.
Misbranding of the said lots of " Gold Seal" butter was alleged - for the 
reason that the statements, " Butter ", and " Standard Grade Butter", borne 
on the cartons and 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 statements represented that the article was butter, a product which 
must contain not less than 80 percent by weight of milk fat; whereas it was not 
butter, since it contained less than 80 percent by weight of milk fat. Mis- 
branding was alleged with respect to all lots of the product for the reason that 
the statements regarding the weight, " Net Weight One Pound" and " One 
Pound ", borne' on the wrappers and cartons, were false and misleading and for 
the further reason that the article was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the 
purchaser, since each of a large number of the packages in all lots was found to 
contain less than 1 pound net. 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, since the 
statement of weight was incorrect.
On August 8, 1933, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on behalf 
of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $250.
M. Li. WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.