to its definitions, found that the Century dictionary, Worcester's dictionary, and the Encyclopedia all defined salad oil as olive oil. Webster does not give any definition. So that the dictionary definition apparently defines salad oil as synonymous with olive oil. Now while that is conceded to be true by the defendant, it claims nevertheless that this term 'salad oil' in connection with cottonseed oil has received a wide and distinctive designation; that the dictionary definition is not universal in that the public generally, the buying public generally, understand by the term superimposed or branded upon this can the real meaning, namely, a production of cottonseed oil and not of genuine olive oil; that in fact the term in trade and commerce has come to mean other oils than salad oil. If you believe this to be the fact, that consumers, the public generally, or persons generally who use this commodity would not be misled by this inscription on the container and that the defendant's commodity is not misbranded by the use of the words 'Olio Sopraffino Savoia Brand Salad Oil,' and unless you believe the other words and that the style of the can misleads the user, your verdict should be one of acquittal. On the other hand, if you believe from the testimony of the government and the manner in which this article is put upon the market that people who use this commodity or the public generally are led to believe by reason of the phraseology to which I have already referred and the configuration of the can, that they were actually buying olive oil, whereas in truth and in fact they were only receiving cotton oil or a spurious oil, then your verdict should be in favor of the government. If, therefore, the term 'salad oil' in connection with the other words on the can requires a distinctive trade designation, the defendant is not guilty of misbranding. Upon that subject the defendant has called a number of witnesses, one of them at least a dealer in cotton oil, and he testifies that cotton oil is very largely used in this country, and that it is used as a substitute for olive oil. Perhaps this is some evidence that should be taken into consideration, and yet it would seem to have no particular bearing on the question as to whether the public generally, the people who use this commodity, are misled or not. As to whether the public generally is misled by the article must be taken by you from the evidence as to how the user and consumer of the article views the can and inscription, and upon that subject there is some contradictory testimony, and it is for you to determine it.

"This is a criminal case. The government is required to substantiate the charge contained in the information beyond a reasonable doubt, and likewise the defendant is presumed to be innocent until the contrary is established. Of course, you will bear in mind that Congress in enacting the Pure Food and Drugs Act had in mind the protection of the public, and in mind the punishment of persons who misbrand their merchantable or vendable articles.

"As I have already indicated, it is not claimed that cotton oil is deleterious or harmful to the health of the user, but persons who go into the

market to buy olive oil should not have foisted upon them cotton oil. So that these are matters you have in mind. I don't think I need say anything further. I think you are thoroughly familiar with all the facts, and that you will take the matter and return a verdict as your judgment dictates. Perhaps you should bear in mind that the can contains other words than those I have specifically mentioned. On the lower corner is found the word 'Compound' in parentheses and the 'Winter Pressed Cotton Salad Oil Flavored with Pure Italian Oil.' Then with relation to this inscription, added to the one I have already spoken of, the government claims it is not sufficient and is misleading, and is not a sufficient warning to the purchaser as to the character of the commodity that he is buying." 2 To misbrand an adulterated olive oil as "olive oil" is to misbrand the article.3

§ 369. Salt.

Sacks of salt were labeled "Granulated Liverpool Dairy Salt. Factory filled. Manufactured by Inland Crystal Salt Co., Salt Lake City," with a stamp or branded picture of a crown above said label, with the words "Liverpool Dairy Salt" printed in large and more prominent letters than the other words in the brand. This was held misbranded, because it led to the belief in the purchaser's mind that the salt was from Liverpool, England.1

"Many inquiries have been made of this department respecting the extent to which the term 'sardine' can be used in food products entering into foreign or interstate commerce. The question of the proper labeling of fish of this kind was submitted by the department to the Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Fisheries. After reviewing the nomenclature and trade practices the Department of Commerce and Labor reached the following conclusion:

'Commercially the name sardine has come to signify any small, canned, clupeoid fish; and the methods of preparation are so various that it is impossible to establish any absolute standard of quality. It appears to this 1 N. J. 280.

2 N. J. 832. See Olive Oil, § 355. 3 N. J. 953.

department that the purposes of the pure food law will be carried out and the public fully protected if all sardines bear labels showing the place where produced and the nature of the ingredients used in preserving or flavoring the fish.'

"In harmony with the opinion of the experts of the Bureau of Fisheries, the Department of Agriculture holds that the term 'sardine' may be applied to any small fish described above, and that the name 'sardine' should be accompanied with the name of the country or State in which the fish are taken and prepared, and with a statement of the nature of the ingredients used in preserving or flavoring the fish.

"It is held that a small fish of the clupeoid family, caught upon or near the shores of and packed in oil in Norway, or smoked and packed in oil, is properly labeled with the phrase 'Norwegian Sardines in Oil,' or 'Norwegian Smoked Sardines in Oil,' the nature of the oil being designated. In like manner a small fish of the clupeoid family caught upon or near the shores of and packed in France may be called 'French Sardines in Oil,' the nature of the oil being specified. Following the same practice, a fish of the clupeoid family caught on or near the shores of and packed in the United States may be labeled 'American Sardines Packed in Oil,' or 'Maine Sardines Packed in Oil,' or be given some similar appellation, the nature of the oil being stated. It is suggested that the name of the particular fish to which the term sardine is to be applied should also be placed upon. the label-for example, 'Pilchard,' 'Herring,' etc."

§ 371. Syrup.

To brand a syrup as "Cane Syrup" in which there is glucose in an amount over 14 percent than the amount specified on the label, is to mislabel it. To label a product as "Topmost Cane and Maple Syrup. This syrup is composed of the following ingredients and none other: Cane syrup 60 percent, maple syrup 40 percent," when it contains very little maple syrup is to mislabel it. So to label a product as

1 F. I. D. 64. See Fish, § 329.

1 N. J. 106; N. J. 127.

2 N. J. 271; N. J. 458; N. J. 469.

"Aunt Jemima's Sugar Cream, a Blend of Rock Candy and Maple Syrup Cream," is to mislabel it when it contains. 12.9 percent of glucose. Such a product is offered for sale under the distinctive name of another product.

§ 372. Syrups, Mixtures of Cane and Maple.

"The director of the agricultural station at Orono, Maine, in a recent letter made the following statement:

"There are in Maine many syrups which are labeled something like this: “A Fancy Quality Syrup Made from Pure Maple and White Sugar." Many of these syrups carry but little maple, one company saying that in a syrup analogous to this they put ninety percent of cane sugar and ten percent of maple.'

"When both maple and cane sugars are used in the production of syrup the label should be varied according to the relative proportion of the ingredients. The name of the sugar present in excess of 50 percent of the total sugar content should be given the greater prominence on the label; that is, it should be given first. For example, a syrup the sugars of which consist of 51 percent cane sugar and 49 percent maple sugar would be properly branded as 'Syrup Made from Cane and Maple Sugar,' or as 'Cane and Maple Syrup.' The terms 'maple sugar' and 'maple syrup' may only be used on the label as part of the name when those substances are present in substantial qualities as ingredients. They should not appear on the label as part of the name when only a small quantity of those substances is used to give a maple flavor to the product. A cane syrup containing only enough maple syrup or maple sugar to give a maple flavor is properly labeled as 'Cane Syrup, Maple Flavor' or 'Cane Syrup Flavored with Maple.'

"Whenever it is necessary to declare cane sugar (sucrose) on a label it should be declared as cane sugar and not as white sugar.'

3 N. J. 325.

991

1 F. I. D. 75. See also N. J. 1015 and Section 349.

§ 372a. Soda Water Syrup Cola.

A substance labeled "Soda Water Syrup Cola" is misbranded if it contains coca leaf alkaloids, including cocaine. and a minute quantity of caffein.1

§ 373. Stearin.

Stearin is not admitted into the United States unless accompanied by a certificate, in the prescribed form, showing its freedom from disease, as in the case of meats and meat food products of cattle, sheep, swine and goats. Meat products of horses and dogs are not allowed entry into the United States.2

§ 374. Stock and Poultry Feed.

"This department has frequently received inquiries in regard to the labeling of bran, of which the following is a fair sample:

'Can the screenings of wheat, consisting principally of shrunken seed, etc., be put in the bran and it still be called bran, etc.'

"Since the above is clearly in violation of those provisions of the law requiring that a food product be true to label, the department is of the opinion that it will be necessary to label such a mixture as 'Bran and Screenings.'

"It has recently come to the attention of the department that a number of the cattle and poultry foods sold on the American market contain enough poisonous weed seeds, such as corn cockle and jimson weed (Jamestown weed), to have a more or less toxic effect on poultry, cattle, etc. Poultry and cattle foods which contain poisonous weed seeds in appreciable quantities will be considered as adulterated in accordance with those provisions of the Food and Drugs Act, June 30, 1906, forbidding the presence of poisonous or deleterious ingredients.

1 N. J. 1031.

1 F. I. D. 116, revoking so much

of F. I. D. 74 as permits their importation without a certificate.

2 F. I. D. 74.