12132. Adulteration, and misbranding1 of cottonseed meal.     V. S. v. Atlanta
Cotton   Oil   Co.,   a   Corporation.     Plea   of   guilty.     Fine,   8150   and 
costs.     (F. & D. No. 17777.    I. S. No. 3385-v.)
On November 17, 1923, 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 the Atlanta Cotton Oil Co., a corporation, Atlanta, Ga., alleging ship- 
ment by said company, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on or about 
December 28, 1922, from the 'State of Georgia into the State of North Caro- 
lina, of a quantity of cottonseed meal which was adulterated and misbranded. 
The article was labeled in part: (Tag) " 100 Lbs. Good Cottonseed Meal Guar- 
anteed Analysis Ammonia 7.00% Protein 36.00% Manufactured By Atlanta 
Cotton Oil Co. Atlanta, Ga."
Analysis of a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this 
department showed that it contained 6.38 per cent of ammonia and 32.81 
per cent of protein.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the information for the reason 
that a product inferior to good cottonseed meal, to wit, a product deficient 
in protein and ammonia, had been substituted for good cottonseed meal, 
which the said article purported to be.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements, to wit, "Good 
Cottonseed Meal Guaranteed Analysis Ammonia 7.00% Protein 36 00%," 
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 misleading, in that they represented that the said article was good cot- 
tonseed meal and that it contained not less than 7 per cent of ammonia and 
not less than 36 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 was good cottonseed meal and that it contained not 
less than 7 per cent of ammonia and not less than 36 per cent of protein, 
whereas, in truth and in fact, it was not good cottonseed meal but was a 
product inferior to good cottonseed meal, to wit, a product deficient in am- 
monia and protein, and did contain less than 7 per cent of ammonia and less 
than 36 per cent of protein, to wit, approximately 6.38 per cent of ammonia 
and approximately 32.81 per cent of protein.
On March 8, 1924,i a plea of guilty to the information was entered on 
behalf of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $150 and 
costs.
C. F. MARVIN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.