When a label with letters of proper size and legibility contains the statement that it [the food product] is colored with sulfate of copper we consider that the conditions required by law are fulfilled. This statement, however, should not be in any way connected with any other matters. If the importers desire to put additional labels on, stating “This tin contains 3⁄4 grain of copper,” we should have no objections thereto. If, also, they should desire to add to the label required the phrase, “Prepared with the addition of an infinitesimal amount of sulfate of copper not exceeding 3⁄4 grain per tin,” we could not reasonably object. This descriptive matter, however, should not be connected with the label required, namely, “COLORED WITH SULPHATE OF COPPER.” The fact that the people of this country might object to eating goods thus marked is the strongest argument you could give showing the justice of the marking. The object of the law was to prevent deception being practiced upon our people.
If any added supplementary statement is shown to be false by the results of the analysis it would be considered then as a misbranding, and treated accordingly.
(F. I. D. 19.)
FALSE BRANDING OF MUSHROOMS.
LETTER OF IMPORTER.
April 25, 1905.
We acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 18th advising that a certain shipment of mushrooms consigned to us ... are misbranded, for the reason that the tins contain nothing but stems and scraps from the cannery.
In answer we beg to advise you that the goods in question are not sold by us as regular mushrooms to the trade. This particular packing is used by only the hotel and restaurant trade for the purpose of making a sauce, and on this account are branded “Hotels.” This is the trade-name given to the character of the goods in question, and it is always understood that they contain nothing but stems and pieces which are left over in the packing of the other grades.
Under these conditions we cannot believe that we are importing goods that are misbranded, and would ask you to kindly release the shipment in question.
DECISION OF DEPARTMENT.
April 29, 1905.