12573. Adulteration and misbranding of canned tomatoes.     IT.  S. v. 997  Cases
* * * (and five other seizure actions). (F. D. C. Nos. 21137, 21652, 
21671, 21672, 22209, 22272. Sample Nos. 24997-H, 40504-H, 41302-H, 
49195-H, 50244-H, 51772-H.)
Southern Districts of Texas, Eastern District of Missouri, District of Minne- 
sota, and Northern District of Alabama.
ALLEGED SHIPMENT: Between the approximate dates of August 3 and October 
1,1946, by the Smith Canning Co., from Siloam Springs and Fayetteville, Ark.
PRODUCT: Canned tomatoes. 997 cases at Corsicana, Tex., 1,482 cases at St. 
Louis, Mo., 328 cases at Minneapolis, Minn., 1,538 cases at Galveston, Tex., 
1,800 cases at Birmingham, Ala., and 250 cases at Hannibal, Mo. Bach case 
contained 24   1-pound, 3-ounce Kans.
The Galveston and Minneapolis lots were shipped unlabeled, and no written 
agreement existed between the shipper and the consignee as to the labeling. 
LABEL, IN PART: "Big Smith Brand Hand Packed Tomatoes Contents » 
Lb. 3 Oz.," or "Smith's Beauty Hand Packed Tomatoes Contents 1 Lb. 
3 Oz." 
NATURE OF CHARGE: Corsicana lot. Adulteration, Section 402 (b) (2), water 
had been substituted in part for canned tomatoes. Misbranding, Section 403 
(g) (1), the article failed to conform to the definition and standard of identity 
for canned tomatoes, since it contained added water, a substance not permitted 
in the standard.
Minneapolis lot. Adulteration, Section 402 (b) (2), a product containing 
added water had been substituted in whole or in part for canned tomatoes. 
'Misbranding, Section 403 (e), the article failed to bear a label containing the 
pame and place of business of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor, and an 
accurate statement of the quantity of the contents; Section 403 (g) (1), it 
failed to conform to the definition and standard of identity, since it contained 
added water; and, Section 403 (h) (1), it fell below the standard of quality 
for canned tomatoes because of low drained weight, because of failure to meet 
the test for strength and redness of color, and because of the presence of ' 
excessive tomato peel.   (This lot was unlabeled when shipped.)
Galveston lot. Misbranding, Section 403 (e), the article failed to bear a label 
containing the name and place of business of the manufacturer, packer, or dis- 
tributor, and an accurate statement of the quantity of the contents; Section 
403 (g) (2), it failed to bear the name of the food specified in the definition 
and standard of identity; and, Section 403 (h) (1), it fell below the standard of 
quality with respect to color, and because of the presence of excessive tomato 
peel and excessive blemishes.
St. Louis lot. Misbranding, Section 403 (e) (2), the label failed to bear an 
accurate statement of the quantity of the contents (The product was short- 
weight) ; Section 403 (h) (1), the product was substandard in quality because 
of low drained weight; and, Section 403 (h) (2), it fell below the standard of 
fill of container, since the cans were filled to less than 90 percent of the total 
capacity of the container. .
•See also Nos. 12407-12409, 12518,12566.
Birmingham lot. Adulteration, Section 402 (b) (2), a product containing 
added water had been substituted in whole or in part for canned tomatoes. 
Misbranding, Section 403 (g) (1), the article failed to conform to the definition 
and standard of identity, since it contained added water; and, Section 403 
(h) (1), it was substandard in quality because of low drained weight.
Hannibal lot. Misbranding, Section 403 (h) (1), the product was sub- 
standard in quality because of low drained weight. 
DISPOSITION : December 2 and 12, 1946, and April 14 and 28 and May 15 and 26, 
1947. The Smith Canning Co., Fayetteville, Ark., the Jordan Stevens Co., Min- 
neapolis, Minn., the C. and C. Co., Galveston, Tex., the Retailers Supply Co., 
St. Louis, Mo., and the Wetterau Grocer Co., Inc., Hannibal, Mo., claimants for 
the respective lots of the article, having consented to the entry of decrees, judg- 
ments of condemnation were entered and the product was ordered released 
under bond to be relabeled, under the supervision of the Food and Drug 
Administration.