8270.?Adulteration and misbranding of cottonseed feed meal.     U. S. v. 800
Sacks of Cottonseed Feed Meal. Consent decree of condemnation?
and forfeiture. Product released on bond. (F. & D. No. 220-c,?
S. No. 2124.)
On February 17, 1914, the United States attorney for the Middle District of?
Alabama, acting upon a report by the State Commissioner of Agriculture and?
Industries of Alabama, authorized 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 800 sacks, each containing 100 pounds of cottonseed feed meal,?
remaining unsold in the original unbroken packages in the freight warehouse?
of the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Co. at Montgomery, Ala., alleging that?
the product had been shipped on December 31,1913, by the Memphis Manufactur??
ing Co., 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. Guaranteed Analysis: Protein 22?, Fat?
05? [5? (?)], Fibre 22?. Manufactured by Memphis Manufacturing Co.,?
Memphis, Term."
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?
animal food, in this, to wit: 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 are?
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 is not a valuable constituent of animal food entering into the com??
position or manufacture of said cottonseed feed meal, and the same was adul??
terated in that it contained a larger percentage of fiber than it was branded to?
contain, and a smaller percentage of protein and fat than it was branded to
436	
BUREAU  OF  CHEMISTRY.	
[June, 1914.
contain. It was further alleged in the libel that 400 sacks of the product were?
misbranded in that they did not contain protein, 22 per cent, fat, 05 per cent?
[5 per cent (?)], and fiber, 22 per cent, but that they did contain protein, 16.75?
per cent, fat, 4.07 per cent, and fiber, 25.75 per cent, and that the balance of?
said cottonseed feed meal, to wit, 400 sacks or packages, were misbranded in?
that they did not contain protein, 22 per cent, fat, 05 per cent [5 per cent ( ?) ],?
and fiber, 22 per cent, but that they contained, to wit, protein, 18.56 per cent,?
fat, 4.17 per cent, and fiber, 25.20 per cent.
On February 17, 1914, Chas. E. Mitchell, claimant, having intervened and?
confessed the libel, and it appearing to the court that the product was not of?
a poisonous or deleterious character, and was not adulterated, but was only?
misbranded in the matter of the correct percentage of the constituent elements?
thereof, and the claimant having executed bond in conformity with section 10?
of the act, it was ordered by the court that the product should be delivered to?
said claimant upon payment of the costs of the proceeding.
B. T. GALLOWAY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C, June 8, 1914.