10632.?Adulteration    and   misbranding-    of   Wood's    special    concentrated
sweetener. IT. S. * * * v. 3 Cans, et al, of Wood's Special?
Concentrated Sweetener. Default decrees of condemnation, for??
feiture, and destruction. (F. & D. Nos. 12995, 13053. I. S. Nos. 9877-r,?
7451-t, 9350-r.    S. Nos. E-2412, E-2443.)
On July 6 and 20, 1920, respectively, the United States attorney for the?
District of New Jersey, acting upon reports by the Secretary of Agriculture,?
filed in the District Court of the United States for said district libels for the?
seizure and condemnation of 8 cans of Wood's special concentrated sweetener,?
at Asbury Park and Long Branch, N. J., respectively, alleging that the article?
had been shipped by the W. B. Wood Mfg. Co., St. Louis, Mo., on or about?
June 11 and 25, 1920, respectively, and transported from the State of Missouri?
into the State of New Jersey, and charging adulteration and misbranding in?
violation of the Food and Drugs Act. The article was labeled in part: " Wood's?
Special Concentrated Sweetener. * * * W. B. Wood Mfg. Co., St.?
Louis, Mo."
Adulteration of the article was alleged in substance in the libels for the?
reason that saccharin had been mixed and packed with the article so as to?
reduce and lower and injuriously affect its quality and strength and had?
been substituted wholly or in part for the said article. Adulteration was?
alleged for the further reason that the article contained an added poisonous?
or deleterious ingredient, to wit, saccharin, which might render it injurious?
to health.
Misbranding was alleged in substance for the reason that the statement on?
the label of the can containing the article, " * * * Special Concentrated?
Sweetener 500," was false and misleading and deceived and misled the pur??
chaser, in that it represented the article as being 500 times sweeter than?
sugar, when it was not. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason?
that the article was an imitation of, and was offered for sale under the?
distinctive name of, another article.
On July 11, 1921, no claimant having appeared for the property, judgments?
of condemnation and forfeiture were entered, and it was ordered by the?
court that the product be destroyed by the United States marshal.
C. W. PUGSLEY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.