22068. Adulteration and misbranding of  preserves.    U.   S. v.  Eigelberner
Food Products Co.    Plea of guilty.    Fine, $150.     (F. & D. no. 30253. 
Sample nos. 18952-A, 18953-A, 18958-A.)
This action involved quantities of preserves that were deficient in fruit and 
contained undeclared pectin, the strawberry and blackberry also containing 
added tartaric acid.
On September 22, 1933, the United States attorney for the Northern District 
of Illinois, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed, in the 
district court an information against the Eigelberner Food Products Co., a 
corporation, Chicago, Ill., alleging shipment by said company in violation of 
the Foods and Drugs Act, on or about April 6, 1932, from the State of Illinois 
into the State of Iowa, of quantities of raspberry, strawberry, and blackberry
preserves that were adulterated and misbranded. The articles were labeled in 
part: " Plee-Zing Pure Preserves Raspberry [or " Strawberry " or " Black- 
berry "]    *   *   *   Eigelberner Food Products Co."
It was alleged in the information that the articles were adulterated in that 
excess sugar and water and added pectin had been mixed and packed with the 
articles so as to reduce, lower, and injuriously affect their quality. Adultera- 
tion was alleged for the further reason that mixtures of fruit and sugar with 
excess water and added pectin containing less fruit and more sugar than pure 
preserves, and 4B the case of the strawberry and blackberry, containing added 
tartaric acid had been substituted for raspberry, strawberry, and blackberry 
preserves, which the articles purported to be. Adulteration was alleged for the 
further reason that the article had been mixed in a manner whereby inferiority 
was concealed.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements " Pure Preserves 
Raspberry " [or " Strawberry " or " Blackberry"] borne on the labels, were 
false and misleading, for the further reason that the articles were labeled so as 
to deceive and mislead the purchaser, and for the further reason that they were 
imitations of other articles and were sold under the distinctive names of other 
articles.
On February 14, 1934, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on 
behalf of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $150.
M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.