13174. Misbranding  of  cottonseed meal.    TJ.  S.  v. Buckeye  Cotton  Oil  Co.
Plea  of gnilty.    Fine,  $100.     (F.  &  D.   No.   16956.    I.   S.   Nos.   6734-t, 
9187-t, 9333-t, 9489-t, 17008-t.)
On September 17, 1923, the United States attorney for the Southern 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 Buckeye Cotton Oil Co., a corporation, trading at Macon, Ga., alleging 
shipment by said company, in violation of the food and drugs act, from the 
State of Georgia, in various consignments, namely, on or about November 2, 
1921, and February 3, 1922, respectively, into the State of Florida, on or about 
November 12, 1921, into the State of Virginia, on or about January 3, 1922, 
into the State of Massachusetts, and on or about January 9, 1922, into the 
State of North Carolina, of quantities of cottonseed meal which was mis- 
branded. The two consignments of the product consigned November 2, 1921, 
and February 3,1922, respectively, into Florida were labeled in part: " Buckeye 
Good Cottonseed Meal Manufactured By The Buckeye Cotton Oil Co. General 
Offices, Cincinnati, Ohio Guarantee Protein 36.00% * * * Ammonia 7.00% 
Fibre 14.00%." The product consigned January 3, 1922, into Massachusetts 
was labeled in part: " Cotton Seed Meal Guaranteed Analysis * * * Pro- 
tein 36.00% * * * Equivalent Nitrogen 5.75%." The product consigned 
January 9, 1922, into North Carolina was labeled in part: " Good Cottonseed 
Meal * * * Manufactured By The Buckeye Cotton Oil Company General 
Offices, Cincinnati, Ohio Shipped By Charlotte, N. C. Mill. Ammonia 7% 
Protein 36%." The product consigned November 12, 1921, into Virginia was 
labeled in part: "Cotton Seed Feed    *    *    *    Protein  (minimum)  36.00%."
Analyses by the Bureau of Chemistry of this department of a sample from 
each of the five consignments showed that the said samples contained 35.31 per 
cent, 34.88 per cent, 34.31 per cent, 35.31 per cent, and 35.19 per cent, respectively, 
of protein. The product consigned January 3, 1922, contained 5.65 per cent of 
nitrogen, and the product consigned February 3, 1922, contained 6.68 per cent of 
ammonia and 14.30 per cent of crude fiber.
Misbranding of the article was alleged in the information for the reason 
that the following statements, to wit, " Guaranteed Analysis * * * Pro- 
tein 36.00% * * * Equivalent Nitrogen 5.75%," with respect to the product 
consigned January 3 into Massachusetts, " Guarantee Protein 36.00%," with 
respect to the product consigned November 2, 1921, into Florida, " Protein 36% 
and " Shipped by Charlotte, N. C. Mill," with respect to the product consigned 
January 9, 1922, into North Carolina, and " Guarantee Protein 36.00% 
* * * Ammonia 7.00%, Fibre 14.00%," with respect to the product con- 
signed February 3. 1922, into Florida, and " Guaranteed Analysis Protein 
(minimum) 36.00%," with respect to the product consigned November 12, 
1921, into Virginia, were false and misleading, in that the said statements 
represented that the article contained not less than 36 per cent of protein, 
that the product consigned January 3, 1922, into Massachusetts contained the 
equivalent of 5.75 per cent of nitrogen, that the product consigned February 3,
1922, into Florida contained not less than 7 per cent of ammonia and not 
more than 14 per cent of crude fiber, and that the product consigned January 
9, 1922, into North Carolina had been shipped from the State of. North Caro- 
lina, 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 contained the 
proportions of protein, nitrogen, ammonia, and fiber declared in the said state- 
ments, and that the product consigned January 9, 1922, into North Carolina 
had been shipped from the State of North Carolina, whereas, in truth and in 
fact, the said article contained less than 36 per cent of protein, the product 
consigned January 3,1922, into Massachusetts contained less than the equivalent 
of 5.75 per cent of nitrogen, the product consigned February 3, 1922, into Florida 
contained less than 7 per cent of ammonia and more than 14 per cent of crude 
fiber, and the product consigned January 9, 1922, into North Carolina was not 
shipped from the State of North Carolina but was shipped from the State of 
Georgia. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the statements, 
" Cotton Seed Meal " or " Good Cotton Seed Meal," as the case might be, borne on 
the labels of the product, with the exception of the consignment of November 
12, 1921, into Virginia were false and misleading, in that the said statements 
represented that the product was cottonseed meal, and for the further reason 
that it was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser 
into the belief that it was cottonseed meal, whereas it was not cottonseed 
meal but was a product inferior to cottonseed meal, to wit, cottonseed feed.
On April 26, 1924, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on behalf 
of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $100.
It. W. DTJNLAP, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.