1396. Adulteration and misbranding of vanilla flavor.    IT. S. v. 5 Gross Cartons
of Vanilla Flavor.    Default decree  of condemnation.'    Product ordered 
delivered to a Federal institution.     (F. D. C. No. 2027.     Sample No. 4027-E.)
This product was a water-alcohol solution of vanillin and coumarin, which
resembled -pure vanilla extract in color, but contained little, if any, vanilla.
It was deceptively packaged in paneled, thick-walled, and long-necked bottles 
enclosed in unnecessarily large cartons. It also failed to comply with certain 
other labeling requirements of the law, described in the misbranding paragraph 
of this notice.
On May 25, 1940, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Michi- 
gan filed a libel against 5 gross cartons of vanilla flavor at Detroit, Mich., 
alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about 
March 27, 1940, by the Empire Spice Mills Manufacturing Co. from Chicago, Ill.; 
and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded. It was labeled in part: 
(Bottle) "Middle-West Brand Pure Vanilla Flavor * * * Middle-West Bag 
& Paper Co. Chicago."
The article was alleged to be adulterated in that a hydro-alcoholic solution 
of vanillin and coumarin containing little, if any, vanilla had been substituted 
wholly or in part for pure vanilla flavoring; and in that inferiority had been 
concealed.
It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, "Flavoring Ex- 
tract * * * Pure Extract * * * Guaranteed to comply with all require- 
ments of the Pure Food Laws" and "Pure Vanilla Flavoring Alcohol 30% Middle- 
West Bag & Paper Co. Chicago," were false and misleading as applied to a hydro- 
alcoholic solution of vanillin and coumarin containing little, if any, vanilla 
and as applied to an article that did not comply with all the requirements of the 
law and did not contain 30 percent of alcohol but did contain a smaller amount. 
It was alleged to be misbranded further in that it was offered for sale under 
the name of another food; in that it was an imitation of another food and its 
labeling failed to bear in type of uniform size and prominence the word "imita- 
tion" and immediately thereafter the name of the food imitated; in that its 
containers were so made, formed, or filled as to be misleading; in that it was in 
package form and its carton failed to bear the name and place of business of the 
manufacturer, packer, or distributor; in that it was in package form and the 
carton failed to bear an accurate statement of the quantity of the contents; in 
that the information required by law to appear on the label or labeling was 
not prominently placed thereon with such conspicuousness (as compared with 
other words, statements, designs, or devices in the labeling) as to render it likely 
to be read by the ordinary consumer under customary conditions of purchase 
since a portion of the bottle label was obscured by the [open-fruit] carton; and 
in that it was fabricated from two or more ingredients and its label failed to 
bear the common or usual name of each ingredient.
On July 8, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation 
was entered and the product was ordered delivered to a Federal institution.