13226. Adulteration   and   misni-anding'   of   cottonseed   meal.     U.   S.   v.   the 
Buckeye   Cotton   Oil   Co.     Plea   of   guilty.     Fine,   $100   and   costs.
(F, & D. No. 18748.    I. S. Nos. 9001-v, 9002-v.)
On September 23, 1924, the United States attorney for the Western District 
of Tennessee, 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 Memphis, Tenn., alleging 
that on or about March 14, 1923, the said company shipped in interstate com- 
merce from the State of Tennessee into the State of Massachusetts, a quantity 
of cottonseed meal which was adulterated and misbranded in violation of the 
food and drugs act, and that on or about March 24, 1923, a quantity of cotton- 
seed meal was shipped in interstate commerce from the State of Tennessee 
into the State of Massachusetts, which had been theretofore guaranteed by the 
said defendant company to the shipper thereof as not being adulterated or 
misbranded in violation of the food and drugs act, and which was in fact 
adulterated and misbranded in violation of said act. One shipment of the 
article was labeled in part: "Good Cotton Seed Meal * * * Guaranteed 
Analysis Protein (minimum) 36.00% Ammonia (minimum) 7.00%." The 
other shipment of the said article was labeled in part: " Cotton Seed Meal 
Guaranteed Analysis Protein 36.00% Equivalent Nitrogen 5.75% * * * 
Crude Fibre (Max.) 15.00%."
Analyses by the Bureau of Chemistry of this department of samples from 
the first consignment showed that the said samples contained 34.19 per cent of 
protein. Analyses by said bureau of samples from the second consignment 
showed that the said samples contained 30.56 per cent of protein and 16.35 
per cent of crude fiber.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in substance in the information for 
the reason that a substance deficient in protein, and in the case of the con- 
signment of March 24, 1923, containing excessive crude fiber, had been mixed 
and packed therewith so as to reduce and lower and injuriously affect its 
quality and strength and had been substituted wholly for the said article.
Misbranding was alleged in substance for the reason that the statements, to 
wit, " Good Cotton Seed Meal * * * Guaranteed Analysis Protein (mini- 
mum) 36.00% Ammonia (minimum) 7.00%," borne on the tags attached to 
the sacks containing the product consigned March 14, 1923, and the statements, 
to wit, " Cotton Seed Meal Guaranteed Analysis Protein 36.00% Equivalent 
Nitrogen 5.75% * * * Crude Fibre (Max.) 15.00%," borne on the tags 
attached to the bags containing the product consigned March 24, 1923, were 
false and misleading, in that the said statements represented that the former 
contained not less than 36 per cent of protein and not less than 7 per cent of 
ammonia and that the latter contained not less than, 36 per cent of protein, 
equivalent to 5.75 per cent of nitrogen, and not more than 15 per cent of crude 
fiber, and for the further reason that the article was labeled as aforesaid so 
as to deceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief that the former con- 
tained not less than 36 per cent of protein and not less than 7 per cent of 
ammonia and that the latter contained not less than 36 per cent of protein, 
equivalent to 5.75 per cent of nitrogen, and not more than 15 per cent of crude 
fiber, whereas the former consignment contained less than 36 per cent of 
protein and less than 7 per cent of ammonia, and the latter contained less 
than 36 per cent of protein, less than the equivalent of 5.75 per cent of nitrogen, 
.and contained more than 15 per'cent of crude fiber.
On March 30, 1925, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on behalf 
of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $100 and costs.   '
R. W. DUNLAP, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.