21143. Adulteration of cottonseed cake and Misbranding of cottonseed 
meal. U. S. v. National Cottonseed Products Corporation. Plea 
of guilty.   Fine, $25.     (F. & D. no. 28085.    I. S. nos. 23813, 23814.)
This case was based on the interstate shipment of a lot of short-weight 
cottonseed meal and of a lot of weevil-infested cottonseed cake.
On September 14, .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 the- National Cottonseed Products 
Corporation, trading at Morrillton, Ark., alleging shipment by said company 
in violation of the Food and Drugs Act as amended, on or about August 14, 
1931, from the State of Arkansas into the State of Missouri, of a quantity of 
cottonseed meal which was misbranded, and on or about August 25, 1931, 
from the State of Arkansas into the State of Kansas, of a quantity of cotton- 
seed cake which was adulterated. The meal was labeled in part: " Hayes Brand 
Cottonseed Meal * * * Net Weight 100 Pounds * * * Manufactured 
for Hayes Grain & Commission Company, Little Rock, Arkansas." The cake 
was labeled: "Cottonseed Cake * * * Distributed by Superior Cake & 
Meal Co.   *   *   *   Kansas City, Mo."
It was alleged in the information that the cottonseed cake was adulterated 
in that a weevil-infested product had been substituted in whole and in part 
for cottonseed cake which the article purported to be; and for the further 
reason that the article consisted in part of a filthy, decomposed, and putrid 
vegetable substance.
Misbranding of the cottonseed meal was alleged for the reason that the 
statement " Net Weight 100 Pounds ", borne on the tag, was false and mislead-
ing, and for the further reason that the article was labeled so as to deceive 
and mislead the purchaser, since the sacks contained less than 100 pounds. 
Misbranding of the meal 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 June 27, 1933, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on behalf 
of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $25.
M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.