21610. Adulteration and misbranding of butter.     U.  S. v. Western  Cream¬
ery Co., Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $32. (F. & D. no. 30192. Sample 
nos. 1200-A, 14605-A, 17227-A, 29838-A.)
This case was based on interstate shipments of butter, samples of which were 
found to contain less than SO percent by weight of milk fat, the standard for 
butter established by Congress.
On June 10, 1933, the United States attorney for the District of Utah, acting 
upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court an 
information against the Western Creamery Co., Inc., a corporation, Salt Lake 
City, Utah, alleging shipment by said company in violation of the Food and 
Drugs Act, in various shipments on or about August 29 and October 3, 1932, and 
March 7, 1933, respectively, from the State of Utah into the State of California, 
of quantities of butter that was adulterated and misbranded. The article was 
labeled in part: (Cartons) " Meadow Brook Butter Packed especially for Holly- 
Mont Market * * * Hollywood, California", or "Meadow Brook Butter 
Packed especially for South Gate Public Market * * * South Gate. L. A. 
Co. California." 
>
It was alleged in the information that the article was 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 March 4, 
1923, which the article purported to be.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statement, " Butter ", borne 
on the label, was false and misleading, and for the further reason that the 
article was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, 
since the statement represented that the article was butter, i.e., a product con- 
taining not less than 80 percent by weight of milk fat as required by law, 
whereas it was not butter, since it contained less than 80 percent by weight of 
milk fat.
On October 21, 1933, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on behalf 
of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $32.
M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.