18408.  Misbranding of cottonseed meal.    IT. S. v. Rose City Cotton Oil Co. 
Plea of grullty.    Fine, $100.     (F. & D. No. 25681.    I. S. No. 037377.)
Examination of samples of cottonseed meal from the shipment herein de- 
scribed having shown that the article was deficient in protein and was short 
weight, i. e., it contained less than 43 per cent of protein, and the sacks con- 
tained less than 100 pounds net, the Secretary of Agriculture reported the 
matter to the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
On October 29, 1930, the United States attorney filed in the District Court of - 
the United States for the district aforesaid an information against the Rose 
City Cotton Oil Co., a corporation, Little Bock, Ark., alleging shipment by said 
company, in violation of the food and drugs act, as amended, on or about 
March 29, 1930, from the State of Arkansas into the State of Kansas, of a 
quantity of cottonseed meal which was misbranded. The article was labeled 
in part: " 100 Pounds Net ' Chickasha Prime' * * * Guaranteed Analysis: 
Protein, not less than 43% * * * Manufactured by or for Chickasha Cotton 
Oil Company, Chickasha, Oklahoma."
It was alleged in the information that the article; was misbranded in that 
the statements, to wit, " Guaranteed Analysis: Protein, not less than 43% " 
and " 100 Pounds Net," borne on the tags attached to the sacks containing the 
article, were false and misleading in that they represented that the article 
contained not less than 43 per cent of protein and that each of the sacks con- 
tained not less than 100 pounds net of the article; and for the further reason 
that it was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser 
into the belief that it contained not less than 43 per cent of protein and that 
each of the said sacks contained not less than 100 pounds net of the article; 
whereas it contained less than 43 per cent of protein, namely, 40.19 per cent 
of protein, and each of the sacks did not contain 100 pounds net of the article, 
but did contain a less amount. Misbranding was alleged for the further 
reason that the article was food in package form and the quantity of the 
contents was not plainly and conspicuously marked on the outside of the 
package.
On April 17, 1931, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on behalf 
of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $100.
AETHTCTB M. HYDE, Secretary of Agriculture.