24020. Oysters.   (In. No. 293.)
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION FILED : 9-29-55, Dist. Md., against Seacoast Oyster 
Co., Inc., Baltimore, Md., to enjoin the interstate shipment of adulterated 
oysters.
CHARGE: The complaint alleged that the defendant at the time of filing the 
complaint was engaged in the business of processing, preparing, packing into 
hermetically sealed cans, and selling and distributing raw oysters; and, that 
the defendant had been introducing and delivering for introduction into inter- 
state commerce oysters which were adulterated within the meaning of 
402 (b) (2) in that water had been substituted in part for oysters, and 
402 (b) (4) in that water had been added, mixed, and packed with the oysters 
so as to increase their bulk and reduce their quality.
The complaint alleged also that the defendant did not engage in the shucking 
of oysters, but rather purchased shucked oysters in bulk from plants in the 
Pamlico Sound area of North Carolina and from the Chesapeake Bay area in 
Maryland; that after such oysters had been packed by the defendant into 12- 
ounce and one-pint cans they were shipped in interstate commerce; that ex- 
tensive authentic packs of oysters from these areas established that, when 
packed in conformity with existing regulations, not over 5 per cent of drained 
liquid would be found in the oysters within 15 minutes after packing; that 
specific shipping experiments of authentic packs of oysters from these areas 
established that there would be no increase in the drained liquid content of the 
cans of oysters with the passage of time after packing; that samples collected 
from interstate shipments made by the defendant, upon analysis, disclosed the 
presence of amounts of liquid greatly in excess of 5 per cent; and, that such 
analytical findings established that the oysters were adulterated by (1) the 
excessive soaking of the oysters in fresh water before packing to the extent 
that the oysters absorbed a large quantity of water, or (2) the addition of 
water to the oysters at the time of packing, or (3) the inadequate draining 
of the oysters after washing so that a significant proportion of the wash water 
was retained and packed with the oysters, or (4) combinations of the above- 
mentioned factors.
The complaint further alleged that, since the time the defendant commenced 
business in 1952, the Food and Drug Administration had examined 85 inter- 
state shipments of the firm's oysters; that 38 of these shipments (45 percent) 
contained added water, and that, in nearly every case, the oysters were seized ; 
that an additional 21 shipments contained lesser amounts of added water but 
were not seized; that only 26 shipments (30 per cent) complied with the 
requirements of the law; that during the 1952-1953 season, approximately 
3,658 pints of oysters shipped by the defendant, worth approximately $2,839.75, 
were seized because of the presence of added water; that, during the 1953-1954 
season, approximately 1,903 pints of oysters shipped by the defendant, worth 
approximately $1,600.25, were seized because of the presence of added water; 
that, during the 1954-1955 season, approximately 2,273 pints of oysters shipped
by the defendant, worth approximately $1,815.28, were seized because of the 
presence of added water; and, that none of the seizures had been contested.
It was alleged also that the defendant corporation was well aware that its- 
activities resulted in violations of the law; that, in addition to the warnings- 
received ag a result of the seizure proceedings, considerable effort had been 
expended by the Food and Drug Administration to advise the defendant corpo- 
ration relative to legal methods of packing oysters; that, at the time of each, 
factory inspection, in 1952, 1953, and 1954, inspectors of the Food and Drug 
Administration had discussed with responsible officers of the corporation the 
proper method of handling oysters; that the same subject was discussed with 
the president of the corporation when he responded to notices sent to the 
corporation in 1953 and 1955; and, that, notwithstanding such warnings, the 
defendant had failed to correct its method of operation and would continue 
to introduce and cause to be introduced, and deliver and cause to be delivered 
for introduction into interstate commerce raw oysters adulterated as aforesaid. 
DISPOSITION : The Government filed a motion for preliminary injunction, and 
an answer to such motion was filed by the defendant. A hearing in the 
matter was held on 10-10-55. On 11-2-55, the court issued a preliminary 
injunction enjoining and restraining the defendant (until the complaint 
filed by the Government is dismissed upon its motion, or set aside by the 
court upon hearing the complaint for permanent injunction), from directly 
or indirectly introducing or causing to be introduced, or delivering or caus- 
ing to be delivered for introduction into interstate commerce raw oysters; 
or any other such articles of food which are packed in such a manner that over 
5 percent of drained liquid is found in the oysters at any time after fifteen 
minutes after packing and are thus adulterated within the meaning of 402 
(b) (2) and (4).