8431.?Adulteration   and   misui'A-uling   of   i"ice   bran.      TJ.   S.      *       *      ?       (r.
Charles J. Freeland and Thomas B. Freelantl (American Itice Mill??
ing Co.). Plea of guilty. Fine, $50 and costs. (F. & D. No. 90CO.?
I.  S. Nos. 15803-p, 15805-p.)
On April 29, 1919, 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?
Charles J. Freeland and Thomas B. Freeland, copartners, trading as the Ameri??
can Rice Milling Co., Crowley, La., alleging shipment by said defendants, in?
violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on or about February 14 and February 27,?
1918, from the State of Louisiana into the State of Texas, of quantities of an?
article, labeled in part " Rice Bran * * * Manufactured by American Rice?
Milling Co., Crowley, La.," which was adulterated and mis-branded.
Analyses of samples of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this depart??
ment showed the following results:
FIRST	SECOND
SHIPMENT.      SHirMEST.
Per cent.	Per cent.
Moisture????
.   8. 48?7. S3
Ether extract?_?
12.03?13.04
Crude fiber__________?
 16. 70?17. 52
Crude protein?
;?10.66?10.88
Ash??
___ 12. 33?12.15
Acid-insoluble ash ??
    7.40?7.32
Results indicate presence of added rice hulls.
'284	
'BUREAU  OF  CHEMISTRY	
[Supplement90,
Adulteration of the article in both shipments was alleged in the information?
for the reason that rice hulls had been mixed and packed therewith so as to?
lower and reduce and injuriously affect its quality and strength, and had been?
substituted in part for rice bran, which the article purported to be.
Misbranding of the article in both shipments was alleged for the reason that?
the- statements, to wit, " Rice Bran * * * Guaranteed Analysis * ::: *?
Protein not less than-12.00 per cent * * * Crude -Fiber not more than 15.00?
per cent," borne on the tags attached to the sacks containing the article, regard??
ing it and the ingredients and substances contained therein, were false and?
misleading in that they represented that said article consisted wholly of rice?
bran, and that it contained not less than 12 per cent of protein and not more?
than 3 5 per cent of crude fiber, and for the further reason that it was labeled?
as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief that said?
article consisted wholly of rice bran, and contained not less than 12 per cent?
of protein and not more than 15 per cent of crude fiber, whereas, in truth and?
in fact, said article did not consist wholly of rice bran, but consisted, in part of?
rice hulls, and did contain less than 12 per cent of protein and more than?
15 per cent of crude fiber, to wit, 10.66 per cent of protein and 16.70 per cent of?
crude fiber, and 10.SS per cent of protein and 17.52 per cent of crude fiber,?
respectively.
On December 36, 11)3 9, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on?
behalf of the defendants, and the court imposed a fine of $50 and costs.
E. D. BALL, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.