11082. Misbranding of cottonseed, meal. U. S. v. Swift & Co., a Corpora??
tion. Plea of guilty. Fine, $200. (F. & D. No. 15464. I. S. Nos.?
10533-r, 10534-r, 10535-r.)
On April 1, 1922, the United States attorney for the Northern District of?
?Georgia, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the?
District Court of the United States for said district an information against?
Swift & Co., a corporation, trading at Atlanta, Ga., alleging shipment by said?
company in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, in three consignments, on?
or about April 9, April 24, and April 28, 1920, respectively, from the State of
46	
BUREAU   OF   CHEMISTRY.	
[Supplement 152,
Georgia into the State of Alabama, of quantities of cottonseed meal which?
was misbranded. The article was labeled in part: "100 Lbs. Good Cottoa?
Seed Meal    *    *    *    Guaranteed Analysis Protein (minimum)  36.00?."
Analysis, by the Bureau of Chemistry of this department, of a sample taken?
from each of the consignments showed that the said samples contained 33.75.?
33.39, and 31.78 per cent, respectively, of protein.
Misbranding of the article was alleged in the information for the reason,?
that the statements, to wit, " Good Cotton Seed Meal * * * Guaranteed?
Analysis Protein (minimum) 36.00?," borne on the tags attached to the?
sacks containing the said article, regarding the article and the substances and?
ingredients contained therein, were false and misleading in that the said?
statements represented the said article to be good cottonseed meal and guar??
anteed to contain not less than 36 per cent of protein, and for the further?
reason that it was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead the pur??
chaser into the belief that it was good cottonseed meal and that it contained?
not less than 36 per cent of protein, whereas, in truth and in fact, it was not?
good cottonseed meal and did contain less than 36 per cent of protein. Misbrand??
ing was alleged for the further reason that the article was a product containing?
less than 36 per cent of protein and was an imitation of and offered for sale?
under the distinctive name of another article, to wit, cottonseed meal.
On November 1, 1922, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on?
behalf of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $200.
C. F. MABVTN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.