20289.  Adulteration and misbrandings of feed; Misbranding of flour.    U.S. 
Šv. Shenandoah milling: Co., Inc.    Flea of guilty.    Fine, $25.    (F. & D.
no. 27509.    I.S. nos. 15906, 15908, 15909, 15910, 15911, 17351, 19179, 27516, 
27519, 27640.)
This action was based on the interstate shipment of quantities of flour which 
was short weight, and of quantities of variously labeled feeds which contained 
less protein and less fat than declared, and portions of which were found to 
consist in whole or in part of an undeclared rye product.
On May 6, 1932, 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, between the dates of February 20, 1931 and June 4, 1931, from 
the State of Virginia into the State of North Carolina, of quantities of feeds 
that were adulterated and misbranded, and of quantities of feeds and flour 
that were misbranded. The articles were labeled in part, variously: " Snowflake 
Flour * * * Shenandoah Milling Co., Inc., Shenandoah, Va. Net 12 Lbs. 
Weight " ; " Red Dog Crude Protein 14.00% Crude Fat 3.00% * * * Ingre- 
dients Low Grade Flour and Red Dog, * * * Made by Shenandoah Milling 
Co., Inc. Shenandoah, Virginia"; "Blue Ridge Feed Analysis Protein 15.00% 
Fat 3.00% * * * Shenandoah Milling Co. Inc."; " Shenandoah Milling 
Company, Inc. None Better Robert B. Lee Finest Patent Flour * * * 24 
Lbs. When Packed"; "48 Lbs. When Packed Shenandoah Milling Company, 
Inc. Stonewall Jackson Finest Patent Flour"; "Big C Hog and Cow Feed 
* * * Guaranteed Analysis Protein not less than 15.00% Fat not less than 
4.25%   *   *   *   Manufactured by Carolina Flour Mills Burlington, N.C."
It was alleged in the information that the Red Dog feed was adulterated 
in that a rye product which contained less than 14 percent of crude protein 
and less than 3 percent of crude fat had been substituted for a product pur- 
porting to be composed of flour and to contain 14 percent of protein and 3 
percent of fat. Adulteration was alleged with respect to one shipment of 
Blue Ridge feed for the reason that a rye product which contained less than 
15 percent of protein and less than 3 percent of fat had been substituted for 
a product purporting to be composed of wheat shipstuff. low-grade flour, mill 
run, and recleaned screenings, and to contain 15 percent of protein and 3 percent 
of fat.
Misbranding of the Red Dog feed was alleged for the reason that the state- 
ments, " Crude Protein 14.00%, Crude Fat 3.00%" and " Ingredients Low Grade 
Flour and Red Dog", borne on the sacks containing the article, were false 
and misleading, and for the further reason that it was labeled as aforesaid so as 
to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since the article contained less than 14 per- 
cent of crude protein, less than 3 perecnt of crude fat, and was composed in whole 
or in part of a rye product. Misbranding of the remainder of the said feeds 
was alleged for the reason that the statements, " Protein 15.00%, Fat 3.00% ",
ith respect to the said Blue Ridge feed, the further statement, " Ingredients:: 
Wheat Shipstuff Low Grade Flour, Mill Run and Recleaned Screenings ", with 
respect to a portion of the said Blue Ridge feed, and the statement, " Protein 
not less than 15.00%, Fat not less than 4.25% ", with respect to the Big C hog- 
and cow feed were false and misleading, and for the further reason that the- 
article was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since 
they contained less protein and less fat than labeled and the said portion 
of the Blue Ridge feed was not composed wholly of the declared ingredients 
but was composed in part of a rye product. Misbranding of the flour was 
alleged for the reason that the statements "Net 12 Lbs. Weight", "24 lbs. 
when packed ", and " 48 Lbs. When Packed ", borne on the labels, were false 
and misleading, and for the further reason that the article was labeled as afore- 
said so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since the sacks contained less- 
than 12 pounds, 24 pounds, and 48 pounds, respectively. Misbranding of the 
flour 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, since the quantity stated was not 
correct.
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.
R. G. TUGWELL, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.