United States v. Technical Egg Products, Inc.
| Citation | 171 F. Supp. 326 |
| Decision Date | 06 February 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 796.,796. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. TECHNICAL EGG PRODUCTS, INC., a Corporation, and Curtis-Parks, Jr. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia |
Charles D. Read, Jr., Acting U. S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for the United States.
Howard T. Overby, Gainesville, Ga., for defendants.
This proceeding is brought under § 302(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. § 332(a)) in which the United States seeks to restrain alleged violations of § 301 of the Act (21 U.S.C. § 331).
The United States contends that the defendant, Technical Egg Products, Inc., and the individual defendant, as manager of the Gainesville plant of the corporate defendant, are engaged in the business of purchasing, receiving, candling and packing a product known in the trade as incubator reject shell eggs and that the defendants have been and are now introducing and causing to be introduced and delivered for introduction into interstate commerce such incubator reject shell eggs which the United States contends are adulterated within the meaning of § 402(a) (3) of the Act (21 U.S.C. § 342(a) (3)).
The defendants by their answer admit that they are engaged in the business of purchasing, receiving, candling and packing incubator reject shell eggs and admit that they are causing them to be introduced and to be delivered for introduction into interstate commerce, but they deny that such reject shell eggs are a food and deny that their operation is in violation of any provision of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C.A. § 301 et seq.).
A show cause order was issued and on January 30, 1959, the matter came on to be heard, the evidence being presented by affidavit. Affidavits were introduced by plaintiff and defendants, briefs and statements of counsel have been received and the matter is now before the Court for determination and the Court makes the following findings.
1. Incubator reject shell eggs are shell eggs that have been placed in incubators and kept under a constant temperature of 98 degrees Fahrenheit for varying numbers of days up to 20, but resemble in external appearance shell eggs as commercially marketed and are a food within the meaning of § 201(f) of the Act (21 U.S.C.A. § 321(f)).
2. A large percentage of the incubator reject eggs are inedible and fall within the classification of inedible eggs, i. e. mixed rots, black rots, blood rings and dead embryos and are therefore adulterated within the meaning of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, § 402(a) (3) (21 U.S.C.A. § 342(a) (3)).
3. The defendants are introducing and causing to be introduced and delivered for introduction into interstate commerce, incubator reject eggs which are adulterated.
4. The Court finds that there is danger of such adulterated food being diverted to food use by breaking out and otherwise removing the egg from the shell and mixing the egg with magma and freezing in cans for distribution to bakeries and similar food industries that customarily use frozen eggs as a raw material.
This Court has jurisdiction of the case by virtue of the provisions of Title 21 U.S.C.A. § 332.
Section 331 of Title 21 U.S.C.A. prohibits the introduction into interstate commerce of adulterated foods and § 342(a) (3) provides "food shall be deemed to be adulterated * * * (3) if it consists in whole or in part of any filthy, putrid or decomposed substance, or if it is otherwise unfit for food." (Emphasis supplied.)
The affidavit of the defendant, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
US v. 789 CASES, Civ. No. 90-1777 (JP).
...like a food and smells like a food is not a food because it was not intended for consumption," citing, United States v. Technical Egg Prods., Inc., 171 F.Supp. 326, 328 (N.D.Ga.1959)). See also, National Nutritional Foods Assoc. v. Mathews, 557 F.2d 325, 333 (2d IV. ALL OF THE SEIZED ARTICL......
-
American Health Products Co., Inc. v. Hayes, 82 Civ. 4492 (ADS).
...See 1 H. Toulmin, The Law of Foods, Drugs and Cosmetics §§ 4.10, .15 (1963 & Supp.1969); cf. United States v. Technical Egg Products, Inc., 171 F.Supp. 326, 328 (N.D.Ga.1959) (item normally used for food is regulable as food under Act even though not intended for human The government's sugg......
-
Nutrilab, Inc. v. Schweiker
...which looks like food and smells like food is not food because it was not intended for consumption. In United States v. Technical Egg Prods., Inc., 171 F.Supp. 326 (N.D.Ga.1959), the defendant argued that the eggs at issue were not adulterated food under the Act because they were not intend......