10561.?Adulteration and misbranding of rice bran.    IT. S.     *     *     *     v. Ben?
edict Commission Co., Ltd., a Corporation. Plea of guilty- Fine,?
$30.     (F. & D. No. 10788.    I. S. No. 16229-r.)
On October 18, 1919, the United States attorney for the Eastern 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 the?
Benedict Commission Co., Ltd., a corporation, New Orleans, La., alleging ship-
N. J. 10551-10600]   SERVICE AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS.	317
ment by said company, on or about December 3, 1918, in violation of the Food?
and Drugs Act, as amended, from the State of Louisiana into the State of?
South Carolina, of a quantity of rice bran which was adulterated and mis-?
branded.
Analysis of a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this?
department showed that it contained added ground rice hulls.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the information for the reason?
that a substance, to wit, ground rice hulls, had been mixed and packed there??
with so as to lower and reduce and injuriously affect its quality and had been?
substituted in part for bran, which the said article purported to be.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statement, to wit, " Bran,"?
borne on the sacks containing the article, regarding the article and the?
ingredients and substances contained therein, was false and misleading in?
that it represented that the said article was bran, and for the further reason?
that the article was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead the pur??
chaser into the belief that it was bran, whereas, in truth and in fact, the said?
article was not bran but was a product containing added ground rice hulls.?
Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the article was a product?
containing added ground rice hulls and was prepared in imitation of, and sold?
under the distinctive name of, another article, to wit, bran; and for the?
further 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.
On December 6, 1921, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on?
behalf of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $30.
C. W. PUGSLEY, Acting- Secretary of Agriculture.