S063. Adulteration and misbrandings ef tanlcage. V. S. * * * v. Pitts-?
lUnrgh Provision ?fe Packing Co., a Corporation. Plea of nolo con??
tendere.    Fine, $50.     (F. & D. No. 9853..   I. S. No. 1561 Q-p.)
On January 28, 1920, tbe United States attorney for tbe Western District of?
Pennsylvania, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the?
District Court of the United States for said district an information against the?
Pittsburgh Provision & Packing Co., Pittsburgh, Pa., alleging shipment by said?
defendant, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on April 4, 1918, from the?
State of Pennsylvania into the State of Ohio, of a quantity of tankage which?
was adulterated and misbranded. The article was labeled in part, "100 Lbs.?
Digestible Tankage Meat & Bone Analysis Protein 32.25? * * * Pittsburgh?
Provision and Packing Co. Pittsburgh, Pa."
N. J. 8051-8100]      SEE VICE AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS.	55
Analysis of a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this depart??
ment showed that it was low in protein and that it contained a large amount of?
salt and glass.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the information in that a substance,?
to wit, salt, had been mixed and packed with the article so as to lower, reduce,?
and injuriously affect its quality and strength. Further adulteration was?
alleged in that a substance, to wit, salt, had been substituted in part for digesti??
ble tankage, meat, and bone, which the article purported to be. Further adul??
teration was alleged in that the article contained an added deleterious ingre??
dient, to wit, glass, which might render the article injurious to health.
Misbranding of the article was alleged in that the statements on the label?
of each sack containing the article, regarding the article, were false and mis??
leading in that they represented that the article consisted wholly of tankage,?
meat, and bone, and contained not less than 82.25 per cent.of protein, whereas,?
in truth and in fact, the article did not consist wholly of tankage, meat, and?
bone, but was a mixture which consisted in large part of salt, and did contain?
less than 32.25 per cent protein, to wit, approximately 24.3 per cent of protein.?
Further misbranding was alleged in that the article was so labeled as to de??
ceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief that the article consisted wholly?
of tankage, meat, and bone, and contained not less than 32.25 per cent of protein,?
whereas, in truth and in fact, the article did not consist wholly of tankage,?
meat, and bone, but contained a large part of salt, and contained less than 32.25?
per cent of protein, to wit, approximately 24.3 per cent of protein.
On February 26, 1920, the defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere to the?
information, and the court imposed a fine of $50.
E. D. BALL, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.