5582*  Misbranding of hign protein, tanfcjage meat residue JteedL amd  S*l*-
J*ea?g'?:v*s meat scraps. U. S. * * * v. Salabeigear ?fc Sam-s Co., a 
eovp4*ra/ti<m. Flea ?f gaflty, Fine, $200. (J\ & D. No. 7138. I. S. 
Nos. 13527-fe, 13531-k.)
On March 28, 1916, tile United States attorney for the Northern District of 
Illinois, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the 
District Court of the United States for said district an information against 
Sulzberger & Sons- Co., a corporation, doing business at Chicago, Ill., alleging 
shipment by said company, in violation of the Food and Drugs A ct, on or about 
January 21, 191-5, and March 11, 1015, from the State of Illinois into the State 
of Indiana, of quantities of articles labeled in part: " High P rotein Tankage 
Meat Residue Feed " and " Sulzberger's Meat Scraps," which were misbrandecl.
Analysis of a sample of the high protein tankage meat residue feed by the 
Bureau of Chemistry of this department showed 49.8 per cent of protein.
Misbranding of the article was alleged in substance in the information for 
the reason that the statement regarding the article and the ingredients and 
substances ea&fcaiaed therein, appearing on the label, to wit, " Guaranteed 
Analysis Pure Protein 66*%," was false and misleading in that it indicated to 
purchasers thereof that said artrcte contained 60 per cent protein; and for the 
further reason that it was- labeled as- aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead 
the purchasers into the belief that said article contained 60 per cent of pure 
protein, when, in truth and in fact, it did not, but contained a less amount 
thereof, to wit, 49.8 per cent protein.
Analysis of a sample of the meat scraps by the said Bureau of Chemistry 
showed 2.16 per cent of crude fiber and 42.0 per cent of protein.
Misbranding of this article was alleged for the reason that the statement 
regarding the article and the ingredients and substances contained therein, 
t-ppearing on the label, to wit, " Guaranteed Analysis Protein 50% * * * 
Crude Fiber (Maximum) 1% * * *," was false and misleading in that 
ir indicated to purchasers thereof that said article contained 50 per cent of 
protein and not more than 1 per cent of crude fiber; and for the further rea- 
son that it was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead the purchasers 
into the belief that it contained 50 per cent of protein and not more than 1 
per cent of crude fiber, when, in truth and in fact, it did not contain 50 per cent 
of protein and contained more than 1 per cent of crude fiber.
On March 17, 1917, the defendant company entered a plea of guilty to the 
Information, and on April 9, 1917, the court imposed a fine of $200.
CARL VEOOMAN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture,