0622. Adulteration and misbranding1 of cottonseed meal. tJ. S. * * * v. 
The Buckeye Cotton Oil Co., a Corporation. Plea of nolo conten- 
dere.     Fine, $100 and costs.     (P. & D. No. 11217.     I. S. No. 10707-r.)
On January 27, -1920, the United States attorney for the Northern District 
of Mississippi, 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 Buckeye Cotton Oil Co., a corporation, having a place of business at Green- 
wood, Miss., alleging shipment by said company, in violation of the Food and 
Drugs Act, on or about December 16, 1918, from the State of Mississippi into 
the State of Indiana, of a quantity of cottonseed meal which was adulterated 
and misbranded. The article was labeled in part, " Buckeye Good Cottonseed 
Meal    *    *    *."
Analysis of a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this de- 
partment showed that it contained 34.5 per cent of protein, 15.65 per cent of 
crude fiber, and approximately 38 per cent of cottonseed hulls.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the information for the reason 
that a substance, to wit, cottonseed hulls, had been substituted in part for 
cottonseed meal, which the said article purported to be, and had been mixed 
and packed therewith so as to reduce, lower, and injuriously affect its quality 
and strength.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements appearing on 
the label of the sacks containing the article, to wit, " * * * Cottonseed 
Meal * * * Protein 36% * * * Fibre 14% * * *," were false and 
misleading in that they represented to the purchasers that the said article 
consisted solely of cottonseed meal and contained not less than 36 per cent of 
protein and not more than 14 per cent of fiber, and for the further reason that 
it was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead the purchasers into 
the belief that it contained not less than 36 per cent of protein and not more 
than 14 per cent of fiber and consisted solely of cottonseed meal, whereas, in 
truth and in fact, it contained less than 36 per cent of protein, more than 14 
per cent of fiber, and was not cottonseed meal.
On January 24, 1921, a plea of nolo contendere to the information was en- 
tered on behalf of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of 
$100 and costs.
C. W. PTIGSUEY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.