13166. Adulteration of canned tomato paste and tomato sauce and misbranding
of canned fruit cocktail. U. S. v. Hunt Foods, Inc. Plea of nolo con- 
tendere. Fine, $600. (F. D. C. No. 21519. Sample Nos. 27S76-H, 29514-H, 
30780-H, 37434-H, 45539-H, 46612-H, 46801-H.)
INFORMATION FILED : February 5, 1947, Northern District of California, against 
Hunt Foods, Inc., Hay ward, Calif.
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS : The defendant shipped adulterated tomato -sauce and 
tomato paste and misbranded fruit cocktail between the approximate dates 
of August 10, 1945, and April 2, 1946, from the State of California into the 
States of Washington, Nevada, and Montana, and the Territory of Puerto Rico. 
In addition the defendant was charged with giving a false guaranty. The 
guaranty was given to Better Buy Wholesale Grocers, of Fresno, Calif., on or 
about August 13,1945, and provided that the article comprising each shipment 
or delivery made by the defendant to the latter firm would be neither adul- 
terated nor misbranded within the meaning of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
Cosmetic Act. On or about December 10,1945, the defendant sold and delivered 
to Better Buy Wholesale Grocers a number of cans of tomato sauce which was 
adulterated. On or about December 10,1945, the Better Buy Wholesale Grocers 
sold the cans of tomato sauce to the Banton Corporation, of San Francisco, 
Calif.; and on or about December 18,1945, the Banton Corporation shipped the 
tomato sauce from California to San Juan, Puerto Rico.
H. S California Tomato Paste * * * Made by California Conserving Co. 
Incorporated San Francisco, California," or "Val Vita Fancy Brand Fruit 
Cocktail * * * Packed for Val Vita Food Co. Main Office San Fran- 
cisco, California."
NATURE OF CHARGE: Tomato sauce and tomato paste. Adulteration, Section 
402 (a) (3), the products consisted in part of decomposed substances by reason 
of the presence of decomposed tomato material.
Fruit cocktail, 1 lot. Misbranding, Section 403 (a), the label statement 
"Fancy" was false and misleading, since the product was not of fancy quality, 
because of the presence of pear core, stems, and peel, and because of an 
excessive percentage by weight of peach and pear units which were off-size 
or -shape. Further misbranding, Section 403 (h) (1), the product failed to 
conform to the standard of quality for canned fruit cocktail, since it contained 
excessive pear peel; the cherry ingredient was excessively blemished; the 
product contained units of peach and pear in excess of the size, and varying 
in shape, from that permitted for canned fruit cocktail; and it failed to bear 
the substandard legend.
Fruit cocktail, remaining lot. Misbranding, Section 403 (h) (2), the product 
fell below the standard of fill of container for canned fruit cocktail, since 
the fill of container of the food was less than 65 percent of the water capacity 
of the container.
DISPOSITION : October 24, 1947. A plea of nolo contendere having been entered, 
the defendant was fined $600.