20824. Adulteration and Misbranding of tomato paste.     V. S. v.  5  Cases
and 8% Cases of Tomato Paste. Default decrees of condemnation, / 
forfeiture, and destruction. (F. & D. nos. 28680, 29127. Sample nos. > 
13258-A, 16944-A.)
These actions involved shipments of a product represented to be tomato paste, 
but which was insufficiently concentrated to be deemed tomato paste. Sample 
cans taken from one of the shipments were found to contain less than the 
declared weight.
On August 19, 1932, the United States attorney, for the Northern District 
of Alabama, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the 
District Court a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 5 cases of tomato 
paste at Birmingham, Ala. On October 27, 1932, a libel was filed in the 
Southern District of Mississippi against 8% cases of tomato paste at Gulfport, 
Miss. It was alleged in the libels that the article had been shipped in inter- 
state commerce, in part on or about June 10, 1932, and in part on or about 
June 15, 1932, by the Uddo-Taormina Corporation, from New Orleans, La., and 
that it was adulterated and misbranded in violation of the Food and Drugs Act 
as amended. A portion of the article was labeled in part: " Big 5 Color Added 
Tomato Paste * * * Packed By Uddo-Taormina Corporation, New Orleans, 
La." The remainder was labeled in part: " Net contents 5 ounces Baby Brand 
Tomato Paste Color Added Salsa Di Pomidoro Colole Aggiunto Packed by Uddo 
Bros. Co., Inc., [or "Uddo-Taormina Corp."], New Orleans, La."
The libels charged that the article was adulterated in that an insufliciently 
concentrated strained tomato product had been substituted for tomato paste.
Misbranding of both lots was alleged for the reason that the statements, 
" Tomato Paste * * * Salsa Di Pomidoro ", borne on the labels, were false 
and misleading and deceived and misled the purchaser, and for the further 
reason that the article was offered for sale under the distinctive name of 
another article. Misbranding was alleged with respect to the product seized in 
the Southern District of Mississippi for the further reason that the state- 
ment, "Net Contents 5 ounces", was false and misleading and deceived and 
misled the purchaser, and for the further reason that the article was in package 
form and the quantity of the contents was not plainly and conspicuously marked 
on the outside of the package, since the statement made was incorrect. ;
On February 27, 1933, no claimant having appeared for the property, judgment 
of condemnation and forfeiture was entered in the case instituted in the 
Southern District of Mississippi, and the court ordered the product destroyed. 
On March 22, 1933, a decree ordering condemnation and forfeiture of the prod- 
uct seized in the Northern District of Alabama was entered.
R. G. TUGWELL, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.