18851. Adulteration and Misbranding of linseed meal and beef scrap, and 
Misbranding of beef and bone scrap. U. S. v. Consolidated By- 
product Co. Plea of gruilty. Fine, 950. (F. & D. No. 26534. I. S. 
Nos. 015260, 015262, 015264, 015272, 028182, 028192, 028306, 028329, 18551, 
18556.)
The products covered by the interstate shipments herein described consisted 
of linseed meal, beef scrap, and beef and bone scrap. One consignment of the 
linseed meal contained animal matter and was low in fat and high in fiber; the 
remainder of the linseed meal contained less protein than declared and of these, 
certain lots were also low in fat. The beef and bone scrap contained less pro- 
tein than declared, and the so-called beef scrap was found to consist in part of 
ground fish.
On August 10, 1931, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of 
Pennsylvania, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the 
District Court of the United States for the district aforesaid an information 
against the Consolidated By-Product Co., a corporation, Philadelphia, Pa., 
alleging shipment by said company, in violation of the food and drugs act, 
between the dates of March 4, 1930 and August 2, 1930, from the State of Penn- 
sylvania into the States of Virginia, Delaware, New Jersey, and Maryland of 
quantities of linseed meal, which was misbranded and a portion of which was 
also adulterated; on or about March 27, 1930, from the State of Pennsylvania 
into the State of Delaware of a quantity of beef and bone scrap which was mis- 
branded; and on or about October 11, 1930, from the State of Pennsylvania 
into the State of Maryland of a quantity of beef scrap that was adulterated 
and misbranded. The linseed meal was labeled in part: " Linseed Meal Guar- 
anteed Analysis Protein 34% Min. [or "32.0% Min."] Fat 6.2% Min. Fiber 
8.4% Max. Manufactured by Consolidated By-Product Co. * * * Philadel- 
phia." The beef and bone scrap was labeled in part: " Consolidated Beef & 
Bone Scrap Guaranteed Analysis Protein 50% Min. - * * * Manufactured 
by Consolidated By-Product Co. * * * Phila." The beef scrap was labeled 
in part: " Consolidated Beef Scrap Guaranteed Analysis Protein 50% Min."
Adulteration was alleged in the information with respect to one lot of the lin- 
seed meal for the reason that a product composed in part of bone, dried blood, 
and flesh tissue had been mixed and packed therewith so as to lower and reduce 
and injuriously affect its quality and strength, and had been substituted for 
linseed meal, which the article purported to be. Adulteration of the so-called 
beef scrap was alleged for the reason that a product composed in part of ground 
fish had been mixed and packed with the article so as to reduce and lower and 
injuriously affect its quality and strength, and had been substituted in part for 
beef scrap which the said article purported to be.
Misbranding of the said one. lot of linseed meal was alleged for the reason 
that the statements, to wit, "Linseed meal" and " Guaranteed Analysis * * * 
Fat 6.2% Min., Fiber 8.4% Max.," borne on the tags attached to the sacks con- 
taining the article, were false and misleading in that the said statements rep- 
resented that the article consisted wholly of linseed meal and that it contained 
not less than 6.2 per cent of fat and not more than 8.4 per cent of fiber; and for 
the further reason that it was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mis- 
lead the purchaser into the belief that it consisted wholly of linseed meal and 
contained not less than 6.2 per cent of fat and not more than 8.4 per cent of 
fiber; whereas the article did not consist wholly of linseed meal but did consist 
in part of bone, dried blood, and flesh tissue, and it contained less fat and more 
fiber than declared, namely, approximately 4.06 per cent of fat, and approxi- 
mately 9.99 per cent of fiber. Misbranding was alleged with respect to the 
remaining lots of linseed meal for the reason that the statements, "Guaranteed 
Analysis Protein 34% Min. [or 32.0% Min.], Fat 6.2% Min.," were false and mis- 
leading in that the said statements represented that the article contained the 
amounts of protein and fat declared on the label; 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 the amounts of protein and fat declared; whereas 
it did not, the 6 lots of linseed meal labeled as containing 34 per cent of pro- 
tein having been found to contain approximately 30.88, 29.52, 29.52, 32.60, 29.81 
and 30.26 per cent, respectively, of protein, while 3 of the said 6 lots contained 
5.68, 5.17, and 5.48 per cent, respectively of fat, instead of the 6.2 per cent de- 
clared. One lot of the linseed meal labeled as containing 32 per cent of pro- 
tein was found to contain approximately 29.66 per cent of protein. Misbrand- 
ing of the said beef scrap was alleged for the reason that the statement " Con- 
solidated Beef Scrap," borne on the label, was false and misleading in that the 
said statement- represented that the article consisted wholly of beef scrap; and 
for the further reason that it was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mis- 
lead the purchaser into the belief that it consisted wholly of beef scrap; whereas 
it did not so consist, but did consist ir "t of ground fish. Misbranding of 
said beef scrap was alleged for the furL.v.*?reason that it was a product com- 
posed in part of ground fish and was offered for sale and sold under the dis- 
tinctive name of another article, to wit, Consolidated beef scrap. Misbranding 
of the said beef and bone scrap was alleged for the reason that the statement, 
" Guaranteed Analysis, Protein 50% Min.," was false and misleading in that it 
represented that the article contained not less than 50 per cent of protein, 
whereas it contained approximately 46 per cent of protein.
On September 29, 1931, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on 
behalf of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $50.
ARTHUR M. HTDB, Secretary of AffriouUure.