11910. Misbranding? of lemon filling: and adulteration and misbranding of 
raspberry preserve. U. S. v. Adolpb Ii. Seidel, Louis Seidel, and 
Walter F. Seidel (Ad. Seidel & Sons).    Pleas of guilty.     Fine, $100.
(F. & D. No. 14993.    I. S. Nos. 2063-t. 2065-t)
On January 14, 1922, the United States attorney for the Northern District 
of Illinois, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the 
District Court of the United States for said district an information against 
Adolph L. Seidel, Louis Seidel, and Walter F. Seidel, copartners, trading as 
Ad. Seidel & Sons, Chicago, Ill., alleging shipment by said defendants, in viola- 
tion of the Food and Drugs Act, as amended, from the State of Illinois into the 
State of Indiana, on or about November 1, 1920, of a quantity of lemon filling 
which was misbranded, and on or about January 26, 1921, of a quantity of 
raspberry preserve which was adulterated and misbranded. The articles were 
labeled in part: (Lemon filling) "100% Brand Dry Lemon Filling A delicious 
filling for Pies, Tarts, Layer Cakes    *    *    *    Prepared By Ad. Seidel & Sons
* *    *    Chicago, U. S. A.;" (raspberry preserve) " Contains 30 Lbs. Net 100% 
Brand Fruit Preserve Baspberry   *    *    *   Manufactured Ad Seidel & Sons
* *    *    Chicago, U. S. A."
Analysis of a sample of the lemon filling by the Bureau of Chemistry of this 
department showed that it was a powdered mixture of cornstarch, sugar, and 
tartaric acid, with a faint flavor suggesting lemon oil. Analysis of a sample of 
the raspberry preserve by said bureau showed that it was an artificially colored 
jam-like mixture containing raspberry fruit with cane sugar, added glucose, 
and phosphoric acid.
Adulteration of the raspberry preserve was alleged in the information for 
the reason that glucose in excess of 4 per cent, the amount the article pur- 
ported to contain, had been mixed and packed with the said article so as to 
reduce and lower and injuriously affect its quality, for the further reason that 
glucose, in excess of the labeled proportion, and phosphoric acid, not mentioned 
in the labeling, had been substituted in part for the said article, and for the 
further reason that an artificial coloring, to wit, amaranth, had been mixed 
therewith so as to color the said article in a manner whereby its damage and 
inferiority were concealed.
Misbranding of the raspberry preserve was alleged for the reason that the 
statement, to wit, " 100% Brand Fruit Preserve Raspberry," borne in prominent 
type on the package containing the article, not corrected by the statement in 
inconspicuous type, to wit, " Contains 50% Prime Quality Fruit 46% Sugar 
4% Glucose," borne and labeled on the said package, was false and misleading 
in that it represented that the article was 100 per cent raspberry fruit pre- 
serves, whereas it was not but was an article containing glucose, greatly in 
excess of 4 per cent, and was artificially colored and contained phosphoric acid.
Misbranding of the lemon filling was alleged for the reason that the state- 
ments, " 100% Brand Dry Lemon Filling A delicious filling for Pies," borne 
on the packages containing the article, were false and misleading in that they 
represented the article to be lemon pie filling, to wit, an article containing, 
among other ingredients, lemon juice and eggs, and for the further reason that 
it was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser into the 
belief that it contained, among other ingredients, lemon juice and eggs, whereas, 
in truth and in fact, it contained neither eggs nor lemon juice. Misbranding 
was alleged for the further reason that the article was food in package form 
and the quantity of the contents was not plainly and conspicuously marked on 
the outside of the package.
On October 20, 1923, pleas of guilty to the information were entered by the 
defendants, and the court imposed a fine of $100.
C. F. MARVIN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.