14633. Adulteration and misbranding- of cottonseed meal.    TJ. S. v. Atlanta
Cotton   Oil   Co.     Plea   of  guilty.     Fine,   $100.      (F.   &   D.   No.   19796 
I. S. No. 6628-x.)
On September 25, 1926, the United States attorney for the Northern 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 Atlanta Cotton Oil Co., a corporation, Atlanta, Ga., alleging shipment by said 
company, in violation of the food and drugs act, on or about October 8, 1925, 
from the State of Georgia into the State of North Carolina, of a quantity of 
cottonseed meal which was adulterated and misbranded. The article was 
labeled in part: " Good Cottonseed Meal Manufactured By Atlanta Cotton Oil 
Co. Atlanta, Ga.   Guaranteed Analysis Ammonia 7.00% Protein 36.00%."
Analysis by the Bureau of Chemistry of this department of a sample of the 
article from the shipment showed 6.47 per cent ammonia, equivalent to 33.25 
per cent protein.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the information for the reason 
that a product containing less than 36 per cent of protein and less than 7 per 
cent of ammonia had been substituted for good cottonseed meal, which the 
article purported to be.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements, to wit, " Good 
Cottonseed Meal Guaranteed Analysis Ammonia 7.00% Protein 36.00%," borne 
on the tags attached to the sacks containing the article, were false and mis- 
leading, in that the said statements represented that the article was good 
cottonseed meal containing 7 per cent of ammonia and 36 per cent of protein, 
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 good cottonseed meal con- 
taining 7 per cent of ammonia and 36 per cent of protein, whereas it was not as 
represented but was a cottonseed feed containing less than 7 per cent of am- 
monia and containing less than 36 per cent of protein. Misbranding was 
alleged for the further reason that the article was offered for sale under the 
distinctive name of another article, to wit, cottonseed meal, in that it con- 
tained less than 36 per cent of protein.
On October 12, 1926, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on 
behalf of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $100.
W. M. JARDINE, Secretary of Agriculture.