11200.?Adulteration and misbranding- of meat scraps.     U. S. v. Darliatg- A
Co., a Corporation.     Plea of guilty.     Fine, S50.     (F.  & D. No.  9441.
I. S. Nos. 15135-p, 15137-p, 15158-p.)
On March 20, 1919, the United States attorney for the Northern District of?
Illinois, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the Dis??
trict Court of the United States for said district an information against Darling?
& Co., a corporation, Chicago, 111., alleging shipment by said company, in viola??
tion of the Food and Drugs Act, in various consignments, namely, on or about?
July 21, August 30, and December 20, 1917, respectively, from the State of Illi??
nois into the State of Indiana, of quantities of meat scraps which were adulter??
ated and misbranded. The article was labeled in part: " Darling's High Protein?
Meat Scraps for Poultry Guaranteed Analysis Protein' Min. 55.0? * * *?
Meat Product Manufactured by Darling & Company, Union Stock Yards, Chi??
cago, 111."
Analyses, by the Bureau of Chemistry of this department, of samples of the?
article taken from each of the consignments showed the presence of 50.6, 48.9,?
and 52.6 per cent, respectively, of protein and 32.0, 30.6, and 28.2 per cent, respec??
tively, of total ash.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the information for the reason that?
extraneous materials high in ash had been mixed and packed therewith so as
110	
BUREAU OF  CHEMISTRY.	
[Supplement 154,
to lower and reduce and injuriously affect its quality and strength and had been?
substituted in part for meat scraps which the said article purported to be.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements, to wit, " High?
Protein Meat Scraps," " Guaranteed Analysis Protein Min. 55.0?," and " Meat?
Product," borne on the sacks containing the article, regarding the said article?
and the ingredients and substances contained therein, were false and mislead??
ing in that the said statements represented that the article consisted wholly of?
meat products and contained not less than 55 per cent of protein, and for the?
further reason that it was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead the?
purchaser into the belief that it consisted wholly of meat products and contained?
not less than 55 per cent of protein, whereas, in truth and in fact, it did not?
consist wholly of meat products, but did consist in part of extraneous materials?
high in ash, and each of the various consignments contained less than 55 per?
cent of protein, to wit, 50.6, 48.9, and 52.6 per cent of protein, respectively.
On January 10,1923, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on behalf?
of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $50.
C. W. PUGSLET, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
S. R. A.—Chem. Suppl. 155.