8377. Misbranding of Foifat Brand Cotton Seed Meal. U.S. * * * v. Red?
River Oil Co., a Corporation.     Plea of guilty.     Fine, $50 and costs.
(F. & D. No. 11617.    I. S. Nos. 11994-r, 12035-r, 12046-r.)
On April 20, 1920, the United States attorney for the Western District, of?
Louisiana, 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 Red River Oil Co., a corporation, Alexandria, La., alleging shipment by said?
company, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, as amended, on or about?
January 23, February 5, and March 1, 1919, from the State of Louisiana into?
the State of Kansas, of quantities of an article, labeled " Forfat Brand Cotton?
Seed Meal," which was misbranded.
Examination of a representative number of sacks taken from each shipment?
of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this department showed average?
shortages in weight of 4.5, 3.5, and 6.4 pounds, respectively. Analysis of a?
sample taken from the shipment of January 23, 1919, showed that it contained?
37.18 per cent of protein, 5.95 per cent of equivalent nitrogen, and 15.11. per?
cent of crude fiber.
N. J. 8351-8400]      SERVICE AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS.	249
Misbranding of the article with respect to all 3 shipments was alleged in?
the information for the reason that the statement, to wit, " 100 lbs. Gross??
99 lbs. net," borne on the tags attached to the sacks containing the article,?
regarding it and the ingredients and substances contained therein, was false?
and misleading in that it represented that each of the sacks contained 09?
pounds of the article, and for the further reason that it was labeled as afore??
said so as to decefve and mislead the purchaser into the belief that each of the?
sacks contained 99 pounds of the article, whereas, in truth and in fact, each of?
the sacks did not contain 99 pounds of the article, but contained a less amount.?
Misbranding in each instance was alleged for the further reason, that the?
article was food in package form, and the quantity of the contents was not?
plainly and conspicuously marked on the outside of the package. Misbranding?
was further alleged with respect to the shipment of January 23, 1919, for the?
reason that the statement, to wit, " Guaranteed Analysis * * * Protein?
38.55? * * * Crude Fibre 12.00? * * * Equivalent Nitrogen 6.17?,"?
borne on the tags attached to the sacks containing the article, regarding it and?
the ingredients and. substances contained therein, was false and misleading in?
that it represented that the article contained not less than 38,55 per cent of?
protein, not less than 6.17 per cent of equivalent nitrogen, and not more than?
12 per. cent of crude ?fib.ej*, and for the .further reason that the article' was?
labeled a^ aforesaid so as to ?deceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief?
that it contained'not less, than 38.55 per cent of protein, not less than 6.17 per?
cent of equivalent nitrogen,., and not more than 12 per cent of crude fiber,?
whereas, in truth.and in fact, said article contained less than 38.55 per cent of?
protein, less than 6.17 p,er cent of equivalent nitrogen, and more than 12 per?
cent of crude fiber.
On June 28, 1920, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on behalf?
of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $50 and costs.
i,	.-. B.. D. BALI,,: Acting Secretary of Agriculture.