United States v. Ninety-Five Barrels Alleged Apple Cider Vinegar
Supreme Court held dried-apple vinegar mislabelled as apple cider vinegar.
United States v. Ninety-Five Barrels Alleged Apple Cider Vinegar, 265 U.S. 438 (1924), was an in rem case before the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court ruled that apple cider vinegar made from rehydrated dried apples was mislabelled because it did not come from the expressed juice of apples known as apple cider. The case involved Excelsior and Sun Bright vinegars produced by the Douglas Packing Company.
Quick Facts
- Full name
- United States v. Ninety-Five Barrels
- More or Less
- Alleged Apple Cider Vinegar
- Majority
- Butler
Facts from the source article.
Background
In the early 1900s, food labeling was poorly regulated, and many companies used deceptive wording on products. Congress responded by passing the Pure Food and Drugs Act in 1906, which prohibited misbranding or mislabeling of food and medicine and gave the federal government authority to act against false or misleading labels, even if not entirely false. Before 1924, the Douglas Packing Company shipped ninety-five barrels of apple cider vinegar to St. Louis, labeled "Apple Cider Vinegar Made from Selected Apples," implying the vinegar was made from whole fresh apples. In reality, the vinegar was produced from dried apples soaked in water and then fermented, a process yielding a chemically similar product but with different ingredients and method. The U.S. government seized the barrels and sued under the FDCA, arguing the label misled ordinary consumers into believing the vinegar came from fresh apples. Although the vinegar was safe, the case concerned labeling honesty, not health. The government contended that a label could violate the law even if technically true if it gave consumers a wrong impression. The trial court found no adulteration but ruled the product misbranded; that decision was reversed on appeal, and the government appealed to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court
The Supreme Court found no claim that the dried-apple vinegar was inferior in quality. However, it held that the product was not identical to apple cider vinegar as commonly understood—a product derived from fresh ingredients—and was therefore misrepresented. Fresh apples contain the juice normally used for apple cider vinegar, whereas Douglas Packing added water not part of the original apples and not specified on the label. The claim that the vinegar was made from selected apples misled readers into believing the apples were chosen for fitness in the customary cider process, exacerbating the misrepresentation. These three issues—imitation under the same name, false or misleading ingredient listing, and misleading labeling—constituted misbranding under the statute.
More in Vinegar
Spotted an error? Know more?
Reader corrections go straight into our review queue. Suggest an edit · How this site is sourced