31145. Adulteration and misbranding of wheat gray shorts and screenings. 
U. S. v. Charles B. Stout (Majestic Flour Mill). Plea of nolo con- 
tendere.    Fine, $50.    (F. &. D. No. 42749.    Sample No. 3919-D.)
This product contained a smaller percentage of crude protein and crude fat 
and a larger percentage of crude fiber than those declared on the label. It 
consisted of wheat brown shorts and. screenings' and not of wheat gray shorts and 
screenings^ as labeled.
On October 13, 1939, the United States attorney for the Western District of 
Missouri .filed an-information against Charles B>. Stout, trading as Majestic Flour 
Mill, Aurora, Mo., alleging shipment on or about January 12, 1939, from the 
State of Missouri into the State of Texas of a quantity of wheat gray shorts and 
screenings which were adulterated and misbranded.
The article was alleged- to be adulterated in that wheat brown shorts and 
screenings had been substituted in whole or in part for wheat gray shorts and 
screenings, which it purported to be.
It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, "Wheat Gray Shorts and 
Screenings" and "Crude protein not less than 17.00 Per Cent Crude Fat not 
less than 4.00 Per Cent Crude Fiber not more than 6.00 Per Cent," borne on 
the label were false and misleading, and in that, it was labeled so as to deceive 
and mislead the purchaser since the said statements represented that it consisted 
of wheat gray shorts and screenings and contained the amount of crude protein, 
crude fat, and crude? fiber represented on the label; whereas it consisted of wheat 
brown shorts and screenings and contained not more than 15.86 percent of crude 
protein, not more than 3.79 percent of crude fat, and not less than 7.11 percent 
of crude fiber.
On January 10, 1941, the defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere and 
the court imposed a fine of $50-.
31146* Unlawful and unauthorized use of seafood inspection legend. V. Si v. 
Max Pinkus (John Price & Co.). Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $1,000, 
of which $750 was remitted.     (F. & D. No. 42806.    Sample No. 54447-E.)
This case represented unlawful and unauthorized use of the seafood inspection 
legend.
On August 11, 1942, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of 
Pennsylvania filed an information against Max Pinkus, trading as John Price 
& Co., Philadelphia, Pa., alleging that the defendant had labeled and caused 
to be labeled a quantity of shrimp that had been shipped in interstate commerce 
in unlabeled jars by affixing and causing to be affixed to the jars a label bearing, 
among others, the following statements: "Garden Brand Shrimp. Production 
supervised! by United States Food'and1 Drug Administration. Packed for John 
Price & Co., Phila, Pa." The information alleged further than the defendant, 
by so labeling and'causing the article to be &o .labeled, unlawfully used a label 
authorized by the Food and Drugs Act of 1906 without proper authority to do so, 
since the statement "Production Supervised by United States Food and Drug 
Administration" represented that the article had' been handled; prepared, and 
packed in' compliance with the requirements of said act of Congress as amended 
and all'regulations promulgated thereunder, namely, that the premises, equip- 
ment, sanitation, methods of handling, containers, and labeling used in the pro- 
duction* of the'article'had'been examined and inspected by inspectors designated 
By the'Administrator of the Federal Security Agency for such purposes; whereas 
it had not been handled, prepared, and packed in compliance with said act" of 
Congress.
The information also charged the defendant with misbranding the article in 
violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as reported in food 
notices of judgment published under that act.
On September 9, 1942, a plea of nolo contendere was entered and the court 
imposed a fine of $1,000 on each of the 2 counts and remitted $750 of each fine.