THE SOLICITOR. 771 



cider," and in large print "distilled vinegar" contended that when 

 the ingredients of a food are stated and the term "blend" is also 

 displayed on the label, such food can not be held to be misbranded or 

 adulterated, because, in conformity with the act, they are labeled so 

 as to indicate that they are blends and the word blend is plamly 

 stated on the packages in wliich they are offered for sale. In over- 

 ruhng claimant's exceptions to the libel, it was held that inasmuch 

 as the word "blend" is construed by the act to mean a mixture of like 

 substances, the word "blend" is a representation that a mixture 

 consists of like substances, and in the present case conveyed the 

 impression that the article was a mixture of distilled vinegar and cider 

 vinegar; and, since no cider vinegar was present, the label was mis- 

 leading and deceptive and the mixture therefore misbranded (185 

 Fed., 403). 



The case of the United States v. 40 Barrels and 20 Kegs of Coca 

 Cola, tried in the district court of the United States, at Chattanooga, 

 Tenn., resulted in a verdict, under the instructions of the court, 

 adverse to the Government. Condemnation of the coca cola was 

 sought under section 10 of the act on the ground that it was adulter- 

 ated because it contained an added poisonous and added deleterious 

 ingredient, viz, caffein, which mi^ht render it injurious to health, 

 and because it had been mixed, colored, and stained so as to conceal 

 damage and inferiority, and on the further ground that it was mis- 

 branded because the coca cola was an imitation of and offered for sale 

 under the distinctive name of other articles, and because the packages 

 and labels bore fafse and misleading statements regarding the coca 

 cola and its ino;redients. After evidence had been presented by both 

 parties the claimants moved the court for instructions to the jury to 

 return a verdict in their favor, counsel for the claimants urging that 

 the coca cola was sold under its own distinctive name and not under 

 the distinctive name of other articles, that the caffein in coca cola 

 was not an added ingi-edient, but an essential ingredient of the mix- 

 ture as compounded and sold for many years, and consequent!}'-, as 

 matter of law, that the coca cola was neither adulterated nor mis- 

 branded in view of the proviso contained in paragraph 4 of section 8 

 of the act in the case of foods, wherein it is provided that an article 

 of food which does not contain any added poisonous or deleterious 

 ingredients shall not be deemed to be adulterated or misbranded in 

 the case of mixtures or compounds which may be now or from time 

 to time hereafter known as articles of food, under their own distinctive 

 names, and not in imitation of, or offered for sale under the distinctive 

 name of another article, if the name be accompanied on the same label 

 or brand with a statement of the place where such article has been 

 manufactured or produced. 



Construing the meaning of the word "added" in the proviso, the 

 court held, in effect, that an ingredient which habituall}^ enters into a 

 mixture or compounded food in the form and with the characteristics 

 with which the mixture has acauired its distinctive name and become 

 known to the public, is not added to the mixture, and the mixture 

 can not be said to contain an added ingredient on account of tlie 

 presence of on > of its normal and usual constituents. In other words, 

 it was held that the terms of the proviso assimilate compounds and 

 mixtures labeled and sold under their own distinctive names to natu- 

 ral articles of food, and that such articles, therefore, can not be 

 deemed to be adulterated, whatever the character of their ingredients, 



