22743. Adulteration and misbranding of chocolate coating.    XT. S. v. 2 Cases
and 2 Cases of Chocolate Coating.     Consent decree of condemna- 
tion.    Product released under bond to be relabeled.     (F. & D. no.
32428.    Sample nos. 48203-A, 48204-A.)
This case involved a product sold under labels which indicated that it was 
milk chocolate. Examination showed that the article contained skim milk 
solids and was deficient in butterfat.
On March 29, 1934, the United States attorney for the District of Oregon, 
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court 
a libel praying seizure and condemnation of four cases of chocolate coating 
at Portland, Oreg., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate 
commerce, on or about February 23, 1934, by the Guittard Chocolate Co., from 
San Francisco, Calif., and charging adulteration and misbranding in violation 
of the Food and Drugs Act. A portion of the article was labeled: (Case) 
"May Milk Chocolate Coating"; (slab) "May Milk with Cocoa Butter Added 
Improving Smoothness Guittard Chocolate Co. San Francisco." The remain- 
der was labeled:  (Case)  "Milkote   *   *   *   Chocolate";   (slab)   "Milkote."
It was alleged in the libel that the article was adulterated in that a sub- 
stance deficient in butterfat and containing skim milk solids had been substi- 
tuted for the article.
Misbranding was alleged with respect to a portion of the article for the 
reason that the statement, " May Milk Chocolate Coating ", was false and mis-
leading and tended to deceive and mislead the purchaser, and for the further 
reason that it was sold under the distinctive name of another article. Mis- 
branding of the remainder was alleged for the reason that the following 
statements, (case) "Milkote * * * Chocolate", (slab) "Milkote", appear- 
ing in the labeling, were false and misleading and tended to deceive and mis- 
lead the purchaser, since they implied that the article was milk chocolate.
On June 14, 1934, the Guittard Chocolate Co., claimant, having consented to 
the entry of a decree, judgment of condemnation was entered and it was 
ordered by the court that the product be released to the claimant, upon payment 
of costs and the execution of a bond in the sum of $60, conditioned that it be 
relabeled in a manner satisfactory to this Department.
M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.