3246. Adulteration and misbranding of cottonseed feed meal. U. S. v. 700?
Sacks of Cottonseed Feed Meal. Consent decree. Product released?
on bond.     (F. & D. No. 5557.    S. No. 2096.)
On January 28, 1914, the United States attorney for the Middle District of?
Alabama, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the?
District Court of the United States for said district a libel for the seizure and?
condemnation of 700 sacks, each containing 100 pounds of cottonseed feed meal,?
remaining unsold in the original unbroken packages and in the freight ware??
house of the Louisville & Nashville It. R. Co., at Montgomery, Ala., alleging?
that the product had been shipped by the Memphis Mfg. Co., Memphis, Tenn.,?
300 of the sacks on December 11, 1913, consigned to W. D. Stegall, and 400?
sacks on December 18, 1913, consigned to the Winter-Loeb Gro. Co., both of?
Montgomery, Ala., and transported from the State of Tennessee into the State?
of Alabama, and charging adulteration and misbranding in violation of the?
Food and Drugs Act. The product was labeled: " 100 Pounds Imperial Brand?
Cotton Seed Feed Meal for stock feed only Manufactured by Memphis Manu??
facturing Co., Memphis, Tenn. Mixture of Cotton Seed Meal and Hull Bran?
Guaranteed Analysis: Protein 22? Fat 5? Fibre 22? Carbohydrates 38?."
426	
BUREAU  OF  CHEMISTRY.	
[June, 1914.
It was alleged in the libel that the product was adulterated and misbranded?
in that it was largely deficient in the principal and valuable ingredients of ani??
mal food, in this, that it contained a smaller percentage of protein than it was?
branded to contain; that it contained a smaller percentage of fat than it was?
branded to contain; which two constituents of animal food were material and?
valuable, and that said cottonseed feed meal contained a larger percentage of?
fiber than it was branded to contain, which said constituent of animal food?
was not a valuable constituent of animal food entering into the composition or?
manufacture of said cottonseed feed meal, and said cottonseed feed meal was?
adulterated in that it contained a larger percentage of fiber than it was branded?
to contain, and a smaller percentage of fat than it was branded to contain. It?
was further alleged in the libel that 300 sacks of the product were misbranded?
in that they did not contain protein, 22 per cent, fat, .05 per cent [5 per?
cent (?)], fiber, 22 per cent, but that they did contain, to wit, protein, 19.75?
per cent, fat, 3.87 per cent, and fiber, 27.67 per cent, and, further, that the 400?
sacks of the product were misbranded in that they did not contain protein, 22?
per cent, fat, .05 per cent [5 per cent (?)], fiber, 22 per cent, but that they?
contained, to wit, protein, 20.75 per cent, fat, 4.36 per cent, and fiber, 25.15?
per cent
On January 31, 1914, Charles E. Mitchell, claimant, having confessed the?
allegations in the libel, and the matter being submitted for final decree, and?
it appearing to the court that the product was not of a poisonous or deleterious?
character, was not adulterated, but was only misbranded in the matter of the?
correct percentage of the constituent elements of the product, and said claimant?
proposing to give bond in accordance with section 10 of the Food and Drugs?
Act, and the bond having been executed and approved, it was ordered by the?
court that the product should be delivered to said claimant upon, payment of?
the costs of the proceedings.
B. T. GALLOWAY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C, June 8, 1914-