11310.?Misbranding1 of bog feed. U. S. v. Alfocorn Milling Co., a Corpora??
tion. Plea of guilty. Fine, $50 and costs. (F. & D. No. 13087. I. S. No.?
24634-r.)
On October 25, 1920, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of?
Illinois, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the Diss-
N. J. 11301-11350.]     SERVICE AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS.      155
trict Court of the United States for said district an information against the?
Alfocorn Milling Co., a corporation, trading at East St. Louis, 111., alleging ship??
ment by said company, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on or about?
September 2, 1919, from the State of Illinois into the State of Indiana, of a?
quantity of hog feed which was misbranded. The article was labeled in part:?
"Alfocorn Milling Company, of St. Louis, Mo., Guarantees this Alfocorn Hog?
Lasses Feed to contain not less than 5.0 per cent, of crude fat, 16.0 per cent.?
of crude protein, not more than 9.0 per cent of crude fiber."
Analysis of a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this de??
partment showed that it contained 3.67 per cent of fat, 9.27 per cent of crude?
fiber, and 14.69 per cent of protein.
Misbranding of the article was alleged in the information for the reason?
that the statements, to wit, "Alfocorn Milling Company * * * Guarantees?
this * * * Feed to contain not less than 5.0 per cent, of crude fat, 16.0 per?
cent, of crude protein, not more than 9.0 per cent, of crude fiber," borne on the?
tags attached to the sacks containing the article, regarding the said article?
and the ingredients and substances contained therein, were false and mislead??
ing in that the said statements represented that the article contained not less?
than 5 per cent of crude fat, not less than 16 per cent of crude protein, and cot?
more than 9 per cent of crude fiber, and for the further reason that it was?
labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief?
that it contained not less than 5 per cent of crude fat, not less than 16 per cent?
of crude protein, and not more than 9 per cent of crude fiber, whereas, in truth?
and in fact, it did contain less than 5 per cent of crude fat, less than 16 per?
cent of crude protein, and more than 9 per cent of crude fiber, to wit, 3.67?
per cent of crude fat, 14.69 per cent of crude protein, and 9.27 per cent of crude?
fiber.
On December 12, 1922, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on?
behalf of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $50 and costs.
C. W. PUGSLBT, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.