3198. Misbranding of Super Culture all purpose feed and Special dairy feed.
U. S. v. William Hite (Super Culture Sales Co.);  (2 informations).
Plea of guilty.   Imposition of sentence suspended and defendant placed
on probation for 2 years.    (F. D. C. Nos. 25567, 25575.    Sample Nos.
24397-K to 24399-K, incl.)
INFORMATIONS  FILED :    November 24,  1948,  and  March  14,  1949, District  of
Minnesota, against "William Hite of Mankato, Minn., trading as the Super
Culture Sales Co. at Sioux City, Iowa.
INTERSTATE SHIPMENT :    On or about December 9, 1946, and July 2 and Septem-
ber 22, 1947, from the State of Iowa into the State of Minnesota.
ALLEGED  VIOLATION:    (First  information).    Between   the  approximate  dates
of December 15, 1946, and December 12, 1947, while the Super Culture all
purpose feed was being held for sale after shipment in interstate commerce,
the  defendant,  at Lake  Crystal,  Minn.,  caused certain  circulars  entitled
"Super Culture Feed" and "Guarantee And Refund Contract" to accompany
the article, which act resulted in the article being misbranded.
(Second information). On or about September 23, 1947, the defendant
received a quantity of Special dairy feed in interstate commerce at Mankato,
Minn., from Sioux City, Iowa, and proffered and delivered such article for
pay or otherwise.
PRODUCT : Analyses disclosed that the Super Culture all purpose feed consisted
of a reddish-colored mixture containing protein (14.90? and 16.51?, re-
spectively, in 2 samples), crude fiber and crude fat, together with salt, soda,
iron oxide, and cereal bran; and that the Special dairy feed consisted essen-
tially of a reddish-colored mixture containing 18.60? sulfanilamide and 10.00-
protein, and crude fiber and crude fat, together with salt, soda, iron oxide,
cereal bran, and anise.
NATURE OF CHARGE : Super Culture all purpose feed. Misbranding, Section 502
(a), certain statements in the circulars accompanying the article were false
and misleading. The statements represented and suggested that the article
would be efficacious in the cure, mitigation, and treatment of flu, spleen
trouble, rickets, abortion, jaundice, worms, and necro in hogs; that the article
would get hogs in a healthy condition; that it would prevent bowel trouble
in chicks and increase the egg production of hens; that the article when used
in conjunction with a product known as "Special Dairy Culture" or "Special
Dairy Feed" would be efficacious in the cure, mitigation, treatment, and pre-
vention of mastitis; that the article would eliminate and correct 80 percent
of the dietary troubles and diseases which produce unthriftiness in hogs; and
that it would be efficacious in the prevention of white diarrhea, necro, enlarge-
ment of the spleen, flu, and worms in brood sows, pigs, and shoats. The article
would not be efficacious for the purposes so represented and suggested.
Special dairy feed. Misbranding, Section 502 (a), certain statements on
bags containing the article and upon tags attached to such bags were false
and misleading. The statements represented and suggested that the article
would be efficacious in the treatment of mastitis, whereas the article would not
be efficacious for that purpose.
The articles were alleged to be misbranded also under the provisions of the
law applicable to foods, as reported in notices of judgment on foods.
DISPOSITION: On June 7, 1950. A plea of guilty having been entered, the
court suspended the imposition of sentence on each information and placed
the defendant on probation for 2 years.