24197. Adulteration and misbranding of butter.    IT. S. v. The Cudahy Pack¬
ing Company of Nebraska.     Plea of guilty.     Fine, 827.     (F. & D. no.
31526.    Sample no. 23139-A.)
This case was based on an interstate shipment of butter that was deficient 
in milk fat and short weight.
On September 15, 1934, 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 Cudahy Packing Company of Nebraska, a corpora- 
tion, trading at Salt Lake City, Utah, alleging shipment by said company in 
violation of the Food and Drugs Act as amended, on or about May 9, 1933, 
from the State of Utah into the State of Nevada of a quantity of butter which 
was adulterated and misbranded. The article was labeled in part: " Sunlight 
Pasteurized Creamery Butter One Pound Net Sunlight The Cudahy Packing 
Co. General Offices Chicago Distributors."
The article was alleged to be adulterated in that a product containing less 
than 80 percent by weight of milk fat had been substituted for butter, a product 
which should contain not less than 80 percent by weight of milk fat, as pre- 
scribed by the act of Congress of March 4, 1923, which the article purported 
to be.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements, "Butter" and 
" One Pound Net", borne on the package, were false and misleading, and for 
the further1 reason that the article was labeled so as to deceive and mislead 
the purchaser, since the said statements represented that the article was butter, 
a product which should contain not less than 80 percent by weight of milk fat, 
and that each of the packages contained 1 pound net thereof; whereas it did 
not contain 80 percent by weight of milk fat but did contain a less amount and 
each of the packages contained less than 1 pound net of the said article. Mis- 
branding 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 made was incorrect.
On March 16, 1935, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant 
company and the court imposed a fine of $27.
M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.