23866. Misbranding of  canned  pears, and  adulteration  and misbranding
of canned prunes. U. S. v. 'Washington Canners Cooperative. 
Plea of guilty to certain counts. Plea of nolo contendere to re- 
maining counts. Fine, $80. (F. & D. no. 32126. Sample nos. 29174-A, 
37024-A, 37132-A, 37223-A, 38495-A.)
This case was based on interstate shipments of three lots of canned pears, 
one lot of which was substandard, one of which was short weight and one of 
which was both substandard and short weight The case also covered a ship- 
ment of unpitted canned prunes which were represented to be pitted prunes.
On October 29, 1934, the United States attorney for the Western District of 
Washington, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the 
district court an information against the Washington Canners Cooperative, a 
corporation, Vancouver, Wash., alleging shipment by said company, in violation 
of the Food and Drugs Act as amended, on or about May 17,1933, June 9,1933, 
and March 17,1934, from Vancouver, Wash., to Portland, Oreg., and from thence, 
to Los Angeles, Calif., of quantities of canned pears which were misbranded and 
a quantity of canned prunes which were adulterated and misbranded; and on or 
about April 28, 1933, from the State of Washington into the State of Idaho, of 
a quantity of canned pears which were misbranded. The articles were labeled, 
variously: " Britewest Brand Net Weight 1 Lb. 14 Ozs. [or " 6 Lbs. 4 Ozs."] 
Bartlett Pears * * * Washington Canners Co-Operative Vancouver, Wash- 
ington "; " United Superior Brand Bartlett Pears Net Contents 1 Lb. 14 Oz. 
* * * Packed Expressly for Economy Wholesale Grocers Los Angeles Cali- 
fornia"; "Bestwest Pitted Select Fancy Fresh Prunes * * * Washington 
Canners Co-Operative Vancouver, Washington."
The information charged misbranding with respect to the Superior brand and 
one lot of the Britewest brand canned pears in that the statements, " Net 
Weight 1 Lb. 14 Ozs." or "Net Contents 1 Lb. 14 Oz." borne on the labels, 
were false and misleading; for the reason that the article was labeled so as 
to deceive and mislead the purchaser; and for the further reason that it was 
food in package form and the quantity of the contents was not plainly and con- 
spicuously marked on the outside of the package, since the cans contained less 
than 1 pound 14 ounces, and the statement of the net weight was therefore 
incorrect Misbranding was alleged with respect to both lots of the Brite- 
west brand canned pears for the reason that the article was canned food and 
fell below the standard of quality and condition promulgated by the Secretary 
of Agriculture' and its package or label did not bear a plain and conspicuous 
statement prescribed by regulation of this Department, indicating that it fell 
below such standard, since in one of the lots 90 percent of the solid units were 
not unbroken halves, more than 10 percent consisting of broken halves, and 
more than 10 percent of the units were excessively trimmed, and in the other 
lot the liquid portion read below 13 degrees Brix, 90 percent of the solid units 
were not unbroken halves, more than 10 percent consisting of broken halves, 
more than 10 percent of the unite were excessively trimmed, and the solid 
units were not of normal size and were nonuniform in size.
Adulteration of the canned prunes was alleged for the reason that unpitted 
prunes had been substituted for pitted prunes, which the article purported to be.
Misbranding of the canned prunes was alleged for the reason that the state- 
ment " Pitted * * * Prunes ", borne on the can label, was false and mis- 
leading and for the further reason that the article was labeled so as to deceive 
and mislead the purchaser, since it was not pitted prunes, but was unpitted 
prunes. Misbranding of the canned prunes was alleged for the further reason 
that they were sold under the distinctive name of another article, pitted prunes.
On November 12, 1934, a plea of nolo contendere was entered to the counts 
charging the 2 lots of Britewest pears with being substandard, a plea of 
guilty was entered to the remaining 6 counts, and the court imposed a fine of 
$10 on each count, making a total of $80.
M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.