13744. Adulteration and misbranding; of cottonseed meal.    U.  S. v. Swift
& Co.    Plea of nolo contendere.    Fine and costs, $25.     (F. & D. No
14323.    1. S. No. 17777-r.)
On April 15, 1921, 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 
Swift & Co., a corporation, trading at Augusta, Ga., alleging shipment by said 
company, in violation of the food and drugs act, on or about April 19, 1919, 
from the State of Georgia into the State of Massachusetts, of a quantity of 
cottonseed meal which was adulterated and misbranded.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the libel for the reason that a 
substance, to wit, cottonseed hulls, had been mixed and packed therewith so 
as to lower and reduce and injuriously affect its quality and strength, and had 
been substituted in part for good cottonseed meal, which the said article 
purported to be. 
/
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements, to wit, " Good 
Cotton Seed Meal" and "Guaranteed Analysis Protein (minimum) 36.00% 
* * * Crude Fibre (maximum) 14.00% * * * Ingredients: Made from 
upland cotton seed only," borne on the tags attached to the sacks containing 
the article, were false and misleading, in that the said statements represented 
that the article consisted wholly of cottonseed meal and contained not less 
than 36 per cent of protein and not more than 14 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 consisted wholly of cottonseed 
meal and contained not less than 36 per cent of protein and not more than 14 
per cent of crude fiber, whereas it did not consist wholly of cottonseed meal 
but did consist in part of cottonseed hulls, and it contained less than 36 per 
cent of protein, to wit, 34.64 per cent of protein, and more than 14 per 
cent of crude fiber, to wit, 17.68 per cent of crude fiber. Misbranding was 
alleged for the further reason that the article was a mixture composed in part 
of cottonseed hulls prepared in imitation of good cottonseed meal, and was 
offered for sale and sold under the distinctive name of another article, to wit, 
good cottonseed meal.
On November 6, 1922, a plea of nolo contendere to the information was 
entered on behalf of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of 
$25, which included the costs of the proceedings.
R. W. DUNLAP, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.