9574. Adulteration and Misbranding of tankage. U. S. * * * v. Morris & Co.; a Corporation. Plea of guilty. Fine, $20. (F. & D. No. 9303. I. S. No. 19715-m.) On January 14, 1919, the United States attorney for the District of Nebraska, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District Court of the United States for said district an information against Morris & Co., a corporation, trading at Omaha, Nebr., alleging shipment by said company, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on or about December 8, 1916, from the State of Nebraska into the State of Iowa, of a quantity.of tankage which was adulterated and misbranded. The article was labeled in part, " * * * Morris & Company's Big Brand Meat Meal Digester Tankage * * * Guar- anteed Analysis Protein 60% * * *" Analysis of a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this de- partment showed that it contained approximately 47.44 per cent of protein. Mechanical examination showed the presence of approximately 0.16 per cent of ground glass that could be separated out. Adulteration of the article was alleged in the information for the reason that a substance, to wit, glass, had been mixed and packed with the .said article so as to lower and reduce and injuriously affect its quality, and had been substituted in part for meat meal, which the article purported to be. Adulteration was alleged for the further, reason that the article contained an added deleterious ingredient, to wit, glass, which rendered it injurious to health. Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements, to wit, "Meat Meal," " Guaranteed Analysis Protein 60%," and " Meat Products," borne on the sacks containing the article, regarding it and the ingredients and substances contained therein, were false and misleading in that they represented that the said article consisted wholly of meat products and that it contained not less than 60 per cent of protein, and for the further reason that the article was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief that it consisted wholly of meat products and that it contained not less than 60 per cent of protein, whereas, in truth and in fact, it did not consist wholly of meat products but did consist in part of glass, and the said article contained less than 60 per cent of protein, to wit, approximately 47.44 per cent.. On April 5, 1921, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on behalf of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $20. C. W. PUGSLEY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.