21136. Adulteration and Misbranding of cottonseed meal and cottonseed
screenings.   U. S. v. Swift & Co.   Plea of guilty.   Fine, $50.     (F. &
D. no. 29349.    I. S. nos. 32638, 47496, 47497, 50958.)
This case was based on several interstate shipments of cottonseed meal 
and cottonseed screenings which contained less than 43 percent of protein, 
the amount declared on the label.
On December 6, 1932, the United States attorney for the Eastern District 
of Arkansas, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the 
district court an information against Swift & Co., a corporation trading at 
Little Rock, Ark., alleging shipment by said company in violation of the Food 
and Drugs Act, on or about February 26, March 10, and March 17, 1932, from 
the State of Arkansas into the State of Kansas, and on or about March 10, 
1932, from the State of Arkansas into the State of Montana, of quantities 
of cottonseed screenings and cottonseed meal which were adulterated and 
misbranded. The articles were labeled, variously: " Guaranteed Analysis 
Protein 43% * * * Manufactured * * * For S. P. Davis, Shipper, 
Little Rock, Ark."; "Hayes Brand Cottonseed Meal and Cracked Screened 
Cottonseed Cake. * * * Guaranteed Analysis Protein 43.00%. * * * 
Manufactured for Hayes Grain & Commission Company, Little Rock, 
Arkansas "; " Cotton Seed Cake and Meal ' Superior Quality' * * * Guar- 
anteed Analysis Protein, not less than 43% * * * Distributed By Superior 
Cake & Meal Co.   *   *   *   Kansas City, Mo."
It was alleged in the information that the articles were adulterated in that 
products deficient in protein, in that they contained less than 43 percent of 
protein, had been substituted for the articles.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements, " Guaranteed 
Analysis Protein 43% " and " Guaranteed Analysis Protein not less than 43% ", 
borne on the tags attached to the sacks containing the articles, were false 
and misleading, and for the further reason that the articles were labeled 
so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since they contained less than 
43 percent of protein.
On June 13, 1933, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on behalf 
of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $50.
M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.