8587. Misbranding of cottonseed cake. V. S. * * * v. Planters Cotton.?
Oil Co., a Corporation. Plea of guilty. Fine, $50. (F. & D. No.?
12108.    I. S. No. 12037-r.)
On August 31, 1920, the United States attorney for the Southern District of?
Texas, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the Dis??
trict Court of the United States for said district an information against the?
Planters Cotton Oil Co., a corporation, Navasota, Tex., alleging shipment by?
said company, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, as amended, on or about?
February 7, 1919, from the State of Texas into the State of Kansas, of a?
quantity of cottonseed cake which was misbranded. The article was labeled in?
part, "Texas Brand Cotton Seed Cake    *    *    *    100 Pounds Net."
Analysis of a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this de??
partment showed that it contained 38.97 per cent of crude protein and 13.22?
per cent of crude fiber. Weighing showed an average shoi'tage in net weight?
of 2.47 pounds per sack.
Misbranding of the article was alleged in the information for the reason that?
the statements, to wit, " Shippers Guaranteed Analysis: Protein not less than
N. J. 8551-8600. J       SERVICE J1A3STO REGULATORY AKNOUlsrCEMENTS.	51
43? * * * Crude Fibre not more than 12? " and " 100 Pounds Net," borne?
on the tags attached to the sacks containing the article, regarding it and the?
ingredients and substances contained therein, were false and misleading in?
that they represented that the article contained not less than 43 per cent of?
protein and not more than 12 per cent of crude fiber, and that each of the sacks?
contained 100 pounds net of the article, and for the further reason, that it was?
labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief?
that the article contained not less than 43 per cent of protein and not more than?
12 per cent of crude fiber, and that each of the sacks contained 100 pounds net?
of the article, whereas it contained less than 43 per cent of protein and more?
than 12 per cent of crude fiber, and each of the sacks contained less than 100?
pounds of the article. Misbranding 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.
On September 27, 1920, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on?
behalf of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $50.
B. D. BALL, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.