21 U.S.C. § 22 — Barrels misbranded

A barrel of apples counts as "misbranded" under sections 20 to 23 of this title in two situations described below. First, the barrel is misbranded if it carries a label claiming "Standard" grade. This rule applies when the apples inside do not actually meet the grading requirements set out in section 20 of this title. In other words, the label overstates the quality of the apples compared to the legal standard. Second, the barrel is misbranded if it also claims the apples are "Standard" grade, but the barrel fails to state three required facts. The barrel must name the variety of apple. The barrel must also state where the apples were grown. Finally, the barrel must name the packer, or the person under whose authority the apples were packed and the barrel marked. Leaving out any one of these three facts makes the barrel misbranded, even if the apples truly are "Standard" grade.

The record. The source credit indicates that this section was enacted as part of an act of Congress approved August 3, 1912 (chapter 273, section 5, 37 Stat. 251). The credit shows no subsequent amendments, meaning the text has remained in its originally enacted form since 1912. Historical context. The 1912 act is commonly identified as the "Standard Barrel Act" or a related apple-grading measure from the early twentieth century, a period when Congress enacted several statutes establishing uniform standards for agricultural containers and grading terminology in interstate commerce. Such laws are generally understood to have responded to inconsistencies in barrel sizes and grading claims that made it difficult for buyers to know what they were purchasing, particularly as apples and other produce moved through national markets via rail and shipping. The commonly cited purpose of this class of legislation was to protect purchasers—wholesalers, retailers, and consumers—from misleading size or quality representations by requiring standardized dimensions and truthful labeling. Beyond this general understanding of the era's regulatory concerns, the record does not establish the specific legislative deliberations, sponsors, or debates that led to the particular misbranding provisions in this section. No committee reports, floor statements, or other legislative history are reflected in the source credit, so any more detailed account of Congress's specific intent in drafting these two misbranding categories would be speculative.