3887. Misbranding of "Purity Milk Maker," so-called.   U, S. v. Frank Chesbro et al. (Chestoa?
Milling Co.).   Plea of guilty.   Fine, $15.   (F. & D. No. 4041.   I. S. No. 9141-d.)
On November 12, 1912, the United States attorney for trie Western District of New?
York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District Court?
of the United States for said district an information against Prank Ohesbro, George?
Chesbro, and Loren Chesbro, a copartnership, doing business under the name of?
Chesbro Milling Co., Salamanca, N. Y., alleging shipment by said defendants, in?
violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on November 10, 1911, from the State of New-?
York into the State of Maine, of a quantity of so-called "Purity Milk Maker, " which?
was misbranded. The product was labeled: "Purity Milk Maker. 100 Lbs. net.?
Protein 24? to 26?. Fat 7 to 8?. Fiber 7 to 9?. Manufactured Expressly for?
Wm. S. Hills Co. Boston, Mass. Protein 26 ?; Fat 8 ?; Fiber 9 ?. Made from Brewers?
Grains, Cotton-seed Meal, Malt Sprouts, 0. P. Oil Meal, Gluten Feed, Hominy or?
Kiln Dried Com Meal."
Analysis of a sample of the product by the Bureau of Chemistry of this department?
showed the following results:
Nitrogen (per cent)?
    3.56
Protein (per cent)?
 22. 25
Fiber (per cent)?
    8. 64
Fat (per cent)?
    6. 36
Misbranding of the product was alleged in the information for the reason thai it bore?
the label in the words and figures as aforesaid, which said label was false and,mis??
leading in that said food product In fact consisted essentially of nitrogen 3.56 per cent,?
protein 22.25 per cent, fiber 8.64 per cent, fat 6.36 per cent, and the statement"Protein?
24? to 26?," borne on the package containing such product, and the statement?
"Protein 26?, " borne on the tag attached to said package, were false and misleading,?
because, as a matter of fact, said product did not contain 26 per cent protein or 24 to 26?
per cent protein, but a less amount, to wit, 22.25 per cent protein.    Misbranding was?
alleged for the further reason that the statement "Fat 7 to 8?, " borne on the package?
, containing the product, and the ^statement "Fat 8?, " borne on the tag attached to?
 said package, were false and misleading, because, as a matter of fact, sa'd food product?
did not contain 8 per cent of fat or 7 to 8 per cent of fat, but a less amount, to wit, 6.36?
I per cent of fat. ? Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the product was?
, so labeled or branded as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, it being labeled or?
branded "Protein 24? to 26?," "Protein 26?," "Fat 7 to 8?," and "Fat 8?,"?
which form of labeling or branding misled and deceived the purchaser because, as a?
matter of fact, said food product did not contain 8 per cent of fat or 7 to 8 per cent of?
fat and 26 per cent of protein or 24 to 26 per cent of protein, but less amounts of fat and?
protein, to wit, 6.30 [6.36] per cent of fat and 22.25 per cent protein.    It was further?
alleged in the information that the statements on said label were false and misleading?
and constituted a misbranding of said food product contained in said packages.
On April 6, 1915, the defendants entered pleas of guilty to the information, and the?
court imposed a fine of $15.
CAEL VROOMAN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.?
WASHINGTON, D. C, May 28, 1915.
N. I. 3851-39QQ ]    SERVICE  AND BE.GTJLA.TOBY ANlSrOUN'CEMENTS.	47&