20207. Adulteration and Misbranding of shipstuff with screenings.    U.S. v.
Shenandoah Milling Co., Inc.    Plea of guilty.    Fine, 825 and costs.
(F. & D. no. 25734.    I.S. no. 3978.)
This action was based on the interstate shipment of a quantity of feed de- 
scribed as shipstuff with screenings, which contained less protein and fat than 
labeled.   The net weight of the article was not properly declared on the label.
On June 1, 1931, the United States attorney for the Western District of 
Virginia, 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 Shenandoah Milling Co., Inc., a corporation, Shenandoah, Va., 
alleging shipment by said company in violation of the Food and Drugs Act 
as amended, on or about September 26, 1930, from the State of Virginia into 
the State of North Carolina, of a quantity of the said shipstuff with screenings 
that was adulterated and misbranded. The article was labeled in part: (Tag) 
" 100 Lbs. Net Weight When Packed Shipstuff With Screenings Not Exceeding 
Mill Run Crude Protein 16.00 per ct. Crude Fat 4.00 per ct. * * * Manu- 
factured by Shenandoah Milling Company, Inc., Shenandoah, Virginia."
It was alleged in the information that the article was adulterated in that a 
feeding substance, shipstuff and screenings containing less than 16 percent of 
crude protein and less than 4 percent of crude fat, had been substituted for 
the said article.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements, " Crude Protein 
16.00 per ct." and " Crude Fat 4.00 per ct.", borne on the tag, were false and 
misleading, and for the further reason that the article was labeled so as to 
deceive and mislead the purchaser; since it contained less than 16 percent of 
crude protein and less than 4 percent of crude fat. Misbranding was alleged 
for the further reason that the article was food in package form and the quan- 
tity of the contents was not plainly and conspicuously marked on the outside 
of the package, since the statement " 100 Lbs. Net Weight When Packed", 
appearing on the tag, was not a statement of the quantity of the contents of 
each of the respective sacks, but was a statement having reference to a former 
time, namely, when the article was packed.
On October 31,1932, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on behalf 
of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $25 and costs.
R. G. TUGWELL, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.