"That the term "misbranded" as used herein shall apply. . . to any food or drug product which is falsely branded as to the State, Territory, or country in which it is manufactured or produced.'

"The labeling of rices which have come to be known under geographical names, and which are not grown in the State or country which the names indicate, is covered by Regulation 19 paragraph (c), reading as follows:

The use of a geographical name in connection with a food or drug product will not be deemed a misbranding when by reason of long usage it has come to represent a generic term and is used to indicate a style, type, or brand; but in all such cases the State or Territory where any such article is manufactured or produced shall be stated upon the principal label.'

"To meet the requirements of this regulation rices grown within the United States, labeled 'Japan Rice,' should have also plainly stated on the label 'Grown in the United States;' rices grown in Mexico or Louisiana, for example, labeled 'Honduras Rice,' should also have stated plainly on the label 'Grown in Mexico,' or 'Grown in Louisiana,' as the case may be.

"There are also on the market varieties of rice labeled 'Carolina White' and 'Carolina Gold,' which are grown in North and South Carolina, and also in any other States from Carolina seed. The board is of the opinion that the names 'Carolina White' and 'Carolina Gold' by long usage have come to mean particular varieties of rice rather than rice grown in North or South Carolina, and such rices will not be held to be misbranded if plainly labeled 'Carolina White' or 'Carolina Gold,' as the case may be, whether qualified or not, as growers or packers may see fit, by a statement of the name of the locality where the rice is actually grown. On the other hand, if it is desired to designate rices grown from Carolina seed in States other than North and South Carolina as 'Carolina Rice,' there should also be plainly stated on the label the name of the locality where the rice is actually grown, as, for example, 'Carolina Rice, Grown in Arkansas'.""

3 F. I. D. 123.

§ 364. Rice, Polishing and Coating.

"It has been represented to the department that it is a very common practice in this country in the preparation of rice for commerce to treat it in the following manner:

'1. The rough rice is passed through a series of set stones, or shellers, which removes the hull.

2. The product is subjected to a series of scouring machines by which the bran and cuticle are removed.

3. The rice is passed through a machine that is known as the brush, which removes a portion of the flour, or more commonly known as polish. '4. The rice is introduced into a warm revolving drum or cylinder holding as much as 4,000 pounds, and glucose and talc are added in the following manner and in about the following proportion: As the rice is fed into the drums a small proportion of glucose and talc are applied, namely, glucose one one-thousandth and tale one three-thousandth part of the whole. The object of the glucose is to form a coating by means of which a part of the tale is held on the surface of the rice.'

"It is stated that the rice is coated for the following rea

sons:

1. The coating makes the rice less susceptible to dust and other foreign matter during transportation and storage.

2. It is, in a measure, a preventive against the attack of the weevils and worms which are so destructive in warm climates.'

"It has also been represented that in some instances paraffin is used instead of glucose and that rice starch is sometimes used in place of tale for the purpose of finishing rice according to the method described above.

"In submitting these representations it has been asked if the process above described is permitted under the Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 1906. It is not clear to the department that coating rice in this way protects it in any manner from dust. Evidence of an expert character is also on file in the department showing that unpolished rice is no more subject to the ravages of the weevil than the polished article.

"It is the opinion of the department that no coating of any kind can be used in the manner indicated if the product 'be mixed, colored, powdered, coated, or stained in a man

ner whereby damage or inferiority is concealed.' In each case whether or not such a result be secured is a question of fact to be decided by the evidence.

"It is held by the department that rice treated in the manner indicated above with glucose and starch should be labeled in all cases with the name of the extraneous substances, as

"COATED WITH GLUCOSE AND STARCH.

"In such declarations all of the food substances used for coating should be mentioned. Any coloring matter or other substances that may be employed to change the tint of the rice should be declared on the label.

"The question of the wholesomeness of paraffin, talc, or other nonfood substances used is to be construed in such a way as to protect the health of those most susceptible to their influences. Rice is a diet often prescribed for those suffering from impaired digestion. The use of paraffin in such cases is at least of questionable propriety, and in the opinion of the department it should be excluded from food products. Under the fifth provision of foods, section 7 of the Food and Drugs Act, June 30, 1906, and under Regulation 14 the use of tale is permitted, provided that each package be plainly labeled with the name of this preservative and the proper directions for removal be given."" A product consisting in part of rice and in part of two other substances known as glucose and talc can not be labeled rice.2

A "soft drink" called "Rococola" was found to contain caffein and cocaine. Nothing was said of this fact on the label. It was held that the product was mislabeled.1

§ 366. Rye.

Rye flour branded as "Rye Flour," but having wheat flour in it is misbranded.1

1 F. I. D. 67.

2 N. J. 1030.

1 N. J. 466.

1 N. J. 69.

§ 367. Sago and Tapioca.

"It has come to the attention of the Board of Food and Drug Inspection that there exists among the trade in various parts of the United States a very general misunderstanding with respect to sago and small pearl tapioca. Sago is prepared from the starch obtained from the pith found in the stem of several species of palm trees, natives of the East Indies, and tapioca is prepared by heating in a moist state the starch made from the root of the cassava or tapioca plant, which is indigenous to certain South American countries. Both products ordinarily reach the consumer in granulated form and are designated as 'pearl sago' and 'pearl tapioca,' respectively. While 'pearl sago' and 'pearl tapioca' are separate and distinct articles of commerce, each resembles the other closely in appearance, and fine pearl tapioca frequently has been labeled and sold as sago.

"Under the Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 1906, articles of food are misbranded if the labels or packages contain statements which are false or misleading, or if particular articles are imitations of or offered for sale under the distinctive names of other articles. In the opinion of the board, the name 'sago,' or 'pearl sago,' without qualification, means the product obtained from the pith of East Indian palm trees, and starch products of different origin will be held to be misbranded under the Act if labeled or offered for sale as 'sago,' 'pearl sago,' etc. The prepared starch product derived from the root of the cassava plant is tapioca, and should be sold and labeled as such.

"There is also on the market an imitation sago made from potato starch. Imitation food products are misbranded under the Act unless they are labeled so as to indicate plainly that they are imitation products and unless the word 'imitation' is plainly stated on the packages in which imitation products are offered for sale. Potato or other starch prepared to resemble pearl sago, therefore, should be labeled, for example, 'Imitation sago. Made from potato starch,' the words 'imitation' and 'Made from potato starch' being de

clared as plainly and conspicuously as the word 'sago.' The word 'Imitation' must appear on the label, but an equivalent expression may be substituted for 'Made from potato starch,' which will indicate unmistakably that the product is not made from the pith of East Indian palm trees, but is derived from a different source. 971

§ 368. Salad Oil.

Oil was labeled as follows: "Olio per Insalata Sopraffine Vival Brand Cotton Salad Oil Extra Qualita." The Italian thus used means "Salad Oil, superfine, extra quality." It was held that the oil was mislabeled. The court charged the jury that it was a "notorious fact salad oil prima facie means olive oil," and this was held not error, although the defendant was permitted to show if he could that "it means something else because of recent events which have perhaps rendered olive oil more difficult to obtain or that other food elements have come to be known as salad oil." Proof to that effect, however, was not introduced.1 In one case the court instructed the jury as follows, resulting in a verdict of guilty:

"Gentlemen of the Jury, this is another case of so-called misbranding of things sent from New York State into another State. It is conceded by the defendant that the article in question is cottonseed oil; that it contains five percent of olive oil and ninety-five percent of cottonseed oil, and the government claims that the branding of the article, or branding on the container, the words 'Olio Sopraffino Savoia Brand Salad Oil,' deceives the public and leads the ordinary purchaser to believe that he was getting olive oil of a foreign production when in fact he was getting a spurious article.

"Now, the witness Eginton, who gave testimony for the government, substantially testified, if I recall his testimony that salad oil is commonly known in the trade as olive oil, and other witnesses for the government have testified that by the mere words 'Olio Sopraffino Savoia Brand Salad Oil,' Italians or persons of Italian birth, believe that olive oil is meant by such designation. Now, the term olive oil has a dictionary definition, and Judge Lacombe not long since had occasion to examine into a similar question that was presented to him, and upon looking at the dictionaries as

1 F. I. D. 128.

PURE FOOD-27.

1 N. J. 473. See Olive Oil, § 355.