13849. Adulteration and misbranding of hominy feed.    TJ. S. v. the  Corno 
Mills Co.    Plea of guilty.     Fine, $200.     (F. & D. No. 19620.    I. S. No.
22262-v.)
On August 7, 1925, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of 
Illinois, 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 Corno Mills Co., a corporation, East St. Louis, Ill., alleging shipment by 
said company, in violation of the food and drugs act, on or about June 11, 
1924, from the State of Illinois into the State of Maryland, of a quantity 
of hominy feed which was adulterated and misbranded. The article was 
labeled in part: "Corno Hominy Feed Guaranteed Analysis: Protein 10.00 Fat 
7.00    *    *    *    Made By The Corno Mills Co. Address: East St. Louis, Ill."
Analysis by the Bureau of Chemistry of this department of a sample of the 
article showed that it contained 8.69 per cent of protein, 1.95 per cent of fat, 
noticeable amounts of wheat, and an oat by-product.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the information for the reason 
that very noticeable amounts of a wheat and oat by-product had been mixed 
and packed with the said article so as to reduce and lower and injuriously 
affect its quality and strength, and for the further reason that a substance 
containing a wheat and oat by-product and containing less than 10 per cent 
of protein and less than 7 per cent of fat had been substituted for hominy 
feed guaranteed to contain 10 per cent of protein and 7 per cent of fat, which 
the said article purported to be.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements, to wit, "Hominy 
Feed Guaranteed Analysis: Protein 10.00 Fat 7.00," borne on the sacks con- 
taining the article, were false and misleading, in that the said statements rep- 
resented the article to be hominy feed containing 10 per cent of protein and 
7 per cent of fat, 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 hominy 
feed containing 10 per cent of protein and 7 per cent of fat, whereas it was 
a food containing very noticeable amounts of a wheat and oat by-product, and 
it contained less than 10 per cent of protein and less than 7 per cent of fat. 
Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the article was an imi- 
tation of and was offered for sale under the distinctive name of another article.
On September 2, 1925, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on 
behalf of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $200.
R. W. DUNLAP, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.