## Facts

- The United States filed an in rem libel under the Food and Drugs Act of 1906 seeking condemnation of 95 barrels labeled “Douglas Packing Company Excelsior Brand Apple Cider Vinegar Made from Selected Apples Reduced to 4 Percentum.”
- Douglas Packing Company made vinegar both from fresh apples (in season) and from evaporated apples (out of season).
- For the seized barrels, the company reconstituted evaporated apples by adding water, then fermented the resulting solution into vinegar.
- The government alleged the product was (1) adulterated under § 7 and (2) misbranded under § 8 because the label was false and misleading and offered an imitation under the distinctive name “apple cider vinegar.”
- The claimant admitted using evaporated apples and using the stated label, but denied adulteration and misbranding and asserted the product was “pure cider vinegar.”
- The case was tried without a jury on pleadings and an agreed statement of facts.
- The district court found no adulteration but found misbranding and ordered condemnation; the court of appeals reversed; the Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether vinegar produced by fermenting a solution made from rehydrated dried apples is misbranded under § 8 when labeled “Apple Cider Vinegar Made from Selected Apples.”
2. Whether “misbranding” under the Food and Drugs Act reaches labeling that may be literally accurate in parts but is likely to mislead ordinary purchasers about the product’s identity.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the condemnation judgment.
- The Court held that vinegar made from rehydrated dried apples is not the same article as vinegar made from the expressed juice of apples (cider) as that term is understood by consumers.
- The label “Apple Cider Vinegar Made from Selected Apples,” without disclosure that dried apples were used, was misleading and therefore misbranding under § 8, even if the product was wholesome and similar in composition.

## Legal Principles

- Misbranding under the Food and Drugs Act prohibits misleading labeling as well as statements that are outright false.
- The misbranding inquiry turns on the overall impression the label would make on ordinary purchasers, not on technical or chemical equivalence.
- A product may be condemned as misbranded when it is marketed under the distinctive name of another article in a way that conveys a false impression about identity or method of production.
- Wholesomeness, safety, and similarity to the genuine article do not defeat a misbranding finding where the label misleads as to what the product is.

## Conclusion

The Court held that labeling vinegar made from reconstituted dried apples as “apple cider vinegar made from selected apples” was misleading to ordinary buyers and therefore misbranding under the Food and Drugs Act, warranting condemnation despite the product’s wholesomeness and similarity to cider-derived vinegar.


United States v. Ninety-Five Barrels, More or Less, Alleged Apple Cider Vinegar, 265 U.S. 438 (1924)