13720. Adulteration   and   misbranding?   of   Gromeal   feed,   beef   scrap,  and 
tnnkasc     U.   S.  v.   Swift  &   Co.     Plea  of snllty.     Fine  and. costs,
$25.     (F. & D. No. 19342.    I. S. Nos. 10596-y, 12640-v, 22251-v.)
On April 16, 1925, the United States attorney for the District of New Jersey, 
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 Newark, N. J., alleging shipment by said company, 
in various consignments, namely, on or about October 16, 1923, and January 
31, 1924, respectively, from the State of New Jersey into the State of Mary- 
land, and on or about June 6, 1924, from the State of New Jersey into the State 
of Virginia, of quantities of feeds which were adulterated and misbranded. 
The articles were labeled, variously, in part: " Swift's Gromeal * * * Swift 
& Company, Newark, N. J., Guaranteed Analysis Protein 50%," "Beef Scrap 
* * * Guaranteed Analysis Protein 55%," and " Swift's Digester Tankage 
Manufactured by Swift & Company Newark, N. J. Guaranteed Analysis Pro- 
tein 60%."
Analysis by the Bureau of Chemistry of this department of samples of the 
Gromeal, beef scrap, and digester tankage showed that they contained 46.8 per 
cent, 52.7 per cent, and 55.6 per cent, respectively, of protein.
Adulteration of the articles was alleged in the information for the reason 
that substances deficient in protein had been substituted for the respective 
articles.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements, to wit, " Guaran- 
teed Analysis Protein 50%," " Highest Quality Selected Beef Scrap Made From 
Pure Ground Meat Cracklings Guaranteed Analysis Protein 55%," and " Guaran-
teed Analysis Protein 60%," borne on the labels of the respective articles, were- 
false and misleading, in that the said statements represented that the articles 
contained 50 per cent, 55 per cent, or 60 per cent, of protein, as the case might be, 
and for the further reason that they were labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive- 
and mislead the purchaser into the belief that they contained 50 per cent, 55 per- 
cent, or 60 per cent, of protein, as the case might be, whereas the articles did 
not contain the said respective amounts of protein but did contain less amounts. 
On July 20, 1925, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on behalf 
of the defendant company, and the court imposed judgment in the amount of" 
$25, which included fine and costs.
R. W. DTJNLAP, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.