8872. Adulteration and misbranding of cottonseed ealte. TJ. S. * * *?
v. Lee County Cotton Oil Co., a Corporation. Plea of g-nilty. Fine,?
$50 and costs.     (F. & D. No. 108S1.    I. S. Nos. 5927-r, 10865-r.)
On January 27, 1920, the United States attorney for the Western District of?
Texas, acting upon a report by ihe Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District?
Court of the United States for said district an information against the Lee?
County Cotton Oil Co., a corporation, Giddings, Tex., alleging shipment by said?
company, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, as amended, from the State?
of Texas into the State of Kansas, on or about October 29, 1918, of a quantity?
of cottonseed cake which was misbranded, and on or about November 3G, 1918,?
of a quantity of cottonseed cake which was adulterated and misbranded. The?
consignment of October 29, 1918, was labeled in part, " Protein not less than?
41 per cent." The consignment of November 16, 1918, was invoiced as " 41 per?
cent Cotton Seed Cake."
Analysis of a sample taken from each shipment of the article by the Bureau?
of Chemistry of this department showed that it contained 37 per cent and 39.15?
per cent, respectively, of protein.
26Q	
BUREAU  OF  CHEMISTRY	
[Supplement 108,
Adulteration of the-article in the shipment of November 1G was alleged in the?
information for the reason that a substance, to wit, cottonseed cake low in?
protein, had been substituted in whole or in part for cottonseed cake contain??
ing 41 per cent of protein, which the article purported to be. Misbranding of?
this article was alleged for the reason that it was food in package form, and?
the quantity of the contents was not plainly and conspicuously marked on the?
outside of the package.
Misbranding of the article in the shipment of October 29 was alleged for the?
reason that the statement, to wit, " Protein not less than 41 per cent," borne?
on the tags attached to the sacks containing the article, regarding it and the?
ingredients and substances contained therein, Avas false and misleading in that?
it represented that the article contained not less than 41 per cent of protein,?
whereas, in truth and in fact, it contained less than 41 per cent of protein.
On March 5, 1920, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to the information,?
and the court imposed a fine of $50 and costs.
E. D. BALL, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.