Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 1906." An analysis showed it contained benzoic acid, saccharine, capsicum and caramel. It was held that it was mislabeled because it did not show those elements.1 Barrels containing a product were labeled: "The Beaufont Lithia Water Co.-12 Doz. Pints Beaufont Ginger Ale-Delicious Flavor-Perfect Quality-Richmond, Va." Each of the bottles in these barrels was labeled as follows: "The Perfection of Purity and Excellence-Beaufont Medicinal Ginger Ale-Highest Quality-Refreshing Invigorating-The Beaufont Lithia Water Co., Richmond, Va., U. S. A." An analysis of the product showed the presence of ginger and capsicum and also showed that there was nothing used in the manufacture of the product which would entitle it to be termed "the perfection of purity and excellence," nor the "highest quality," nor "medicinal," as stated on the labels. The court held that the product was misbranded.2

§ 338. Glucose.

A substance labeled "Gilt-edge Brand Wet Mincemeat" is mislabeled if commercial glucose be used in it instead of sugar.1

§ 339. Gluten Flour and Gluten Farina.

A product labeled "Gluten Farina" and "Gluten Flour" which does not contain gluten as the principal ingredient and not sufficient to entitle the product to that name, is mislabeled.1 Gluten flour is the clean, sound product made from flour by the removal of starch and contains not less than five and six-tenths percent of nitrogen and not more than ten percent of moisture. Therefore to label a product containing 12.80 percent of moisture and 1.53 percent of nitrogen as "Gluten Flour" is to mislabel it.2

1 N. J. 741.

2 N. J. 1026.

1 N. J. 639.

1 N. J. 250.

2 F. I. D. 3.

§ 340. "Hen-E-Ta Bone Grits."

A substance labeled "Hen-E-Ta Bone Grits, 30 percent pure bone ash" is mislabeled if it has a substance substituted for the bone.1

§ 341. Honey.

A product containing invert sugar and glucose can not be labeled as "Honey.""

§ 342. Ice Cream.

A product out of which the cream has been abstracted and gelatin substituted can not be labeled "ice cream.

§ 343. Jam.

991

A substance labeled "Choice Home Made Pure Currant Jam. Made from fresh fruit" is mislabeled if not made from fresh fruit, and if it contain a mixture of water, sugar, dried currants, and apple juice.1 Where the label on a jam jar indicated that it contained 30 percent of granulated sugar and 8 percent of corn syrup, when as a matter of fact it contained 59.4 percent of glucose and only 2.17 percent sugar, it is mislabeled. Jam made out of logan berries can not be labeled "strawberry jam.''

§ 344. Jelly.

A product containing glucose can not be labeled "Made of Apple Juice and Sugar."" A product labeled "Currant Jelly," followed by the words in small type, "blended with apple and other fruit juices" is mislabeled.2 Jelly labeled as containing 40 percent of glucose is mislabeled when it contains 70.70 percent of it. To label a jelly in such a man

1 N. J. 625.

1 N. J. 18; N. J. 19; N. J. 20;

N. J. 21; N. J. 269.

1 N. J. 438.

1 N. J. 641.

2 N. J. 476.

8 N. J. 602.

1 N. J. 238; N. J. 872.

2 N. J. 415.

3 N. J. 552.

ner as to lead one to believe it was made by a particular person, when in fact it was not made by him, is to mislabel it.1

§ 345. Kola Syrup.

Jugs were labeled "Dr. Don's Kola: Directions-Carbonate at 60 lbs. pressure, throwing one ounce to a half pint bottle." It was found to be a syrupy liquid consisting essentially of caffein 0.09 percent, cocaine, phosphoric acid, sugar, flavoring and coloring agents, and water. It was held to be misbranded, because it contained no substance derived from the cola-nut or cola-plant, and because it contained no statement that it contained caffein, cocaine and cocaine derivatives and phosphoric acid.1

§ 346. Lemon Oil.

A product in which sesame oil has been mixed can not be labeled as "Lemon Oil.'

§ 347. Linseed Meal.

A label on a product was as follows: "Pure old process Linseed Meal. Guaranteed Analysis: Protein 34 percent, crude fat and oil 9 percent, crude fiber 8 percent." It contained moisture 9.87 percent, ether extract 9.53 percent, protein 31.66 percent and crude fiber 7.96. It was held mislabeled as to the protein.1

§ 348. Macaroni.

The use of a label as follows: "Macaroni Savoia Brand Gragnano," and had between the words "Savoia" and "Gragnano" the shield of Italy, together with a representation of a mountain or volcano and a castle, is a violation of the statute when the macaroni thus labeled was made in the United

4 N. J. 580. 1 N. J. 784.

1 N. J. 505. See Extract of Lemon, § 318.

1 N. J. 728.

States. The use of foreign words upon domestic macaroni which leads the purchaser to believe it is a foreign production is prohibited. A product was labeled "Trinacria Macaroni Works Pasta Extra Sicilia," with word "Style" inconspicuously placed at the bottom of the label. It was made in America. It was held to be misbranded.3

§ 349. Maple Sugar.

The court condemned Where a product was the jury to determine

Pails of sugar were labeled "Vermont Sugar." It was made in Vermont, and had the appearance of maple sugar. It bore no label, brand, or device of any kind showing the true character of the article. It was a mixture of cane and maple sugar of nearly equal parts. the entire lot, and ordered it sold. branded "Mapleine" it was left to whether it was the intention of the manufacturers to give a purchaser the impression that it was maple sugar; and if the product was not maple sugar, it was misbranded. To brand a jar as "Maple Syrup'," when only 50 percent of it is such, is to misbrand it. To brand a product as "Maple Sugar 40 percent, Cane Sugar 60 percent," when it contains no maple sugar is to mislabel it. So to brand a product composed in part of sucrose syrup as "Pure Vermont Maple Syrup" is to mislabel it. Likewise to label a product as "Baker & Co.'s Cane and Maple Sugar Syrup," so placing the words "cane and" thereon as to be practically invisible, and it consists almost entirely of cane sugar syrup, is to mislabel it. Labeling a product "Maple Syrup" when it contains glucose is a violation of the statute. So if it con

8

tains cane syrup, or 52 percent water."

1 N. J. 167; N. J. 262; N. J. 776.

2 N. J. 487; N. J. 600.

3 N. J. 804.

1 N. J. 107; F. I. D. 47; N. J. 802; N. J. 1015, § 330; N. J. 928.

2 N. J. 163.

3 N. J. 469; N. J. 107; N. J.

PURE FOOD-26.

4 N. J. 98. See also Section 372. 5 N. J. 198.

6 N. J. 209.

7 N. J. 290; N. J. 403.

8 N. J. 591; N. J. 412.
9 N. J. 603.

A substance was labeled as follows:

"Aunt Jemima's Sugar Cream A blend of rock candy and maple syrup creamed Dainty Desserts made from Aunt Jemima's Sugar Cream a blend of rock candy and maple syrup creamed. Aunt Jemima's Sugar Cream."

"Aunt Jemima's Sugar Cream. A delicious sauce for table use, pancakes, biscuits, waffles, puddings, etc. For layer cake it makes an excellent filler and icing. For icing cakes it should be slightly warmed by immersing can in hot water. If syrup separates to top of eream stir with table knife until uniform."

It actually consisted of rock candy, maple syrup and glucose. It was held that it was not labeled correctly.10 A product was labeled "Western Reserve Ohio Blended Maple Syrup. Guaranteed absolutely pure." The mixture was composed largely of refined cane sugar flavored with extract of maple wood. It was held that there had not been a violation of the statute, because of the use of the word "blend," the court saying:

"In the argument at bar of the case it was contended for the respondent that there is a distinct and substantial difference in the labeling upon the cases and that upon the boxes; that in the former the word 'Maple' is used, and in the latter, the case of the bottles, that word is omitted, as a qualifying word in the description of the syrup. Without again quoting the words of the labeling, but referring again to them as above set out in this opinion, it will be seen that, while the word 'Maple' is not used as a qualifying word to syrup, yet further on in the words of the label it is found that respondent describes itself as blenders of 'Fancy Maple Syrup and Maple Sugar,' so that, when all the words of the label put upon the bottles are seen, and its full meaning comprehended, I think the same meaning was intended in the use of both labels, and from either of them, that upon the cases and that upon the bottles, a person of ordinary intelligence, after reading them or either of them, would infer the same meaning that the bottles, as well as the boxes, contained blended maple syrup. So it seems to me that the contention of the respondent that the label upon the boxes, which alone was intended to induce the purchasers, even conceding this, is without force. It then being determined that the labeling upon the cases and upon the bottle mean the same thing, namely, that each contained blended maple syrup, it only remains to decide whether, in view of the other averments of the libel, a violation of the statute is shown. "If the brands or labels correctly or truthfully disclose the contents

10 N. J. 384; N. J. 325.