13062. Adulteration and misbranding of cottonseed meal.    V. S. sr. Empire
Cotton Oil Co. Plea of guilty. Fine, $450. (F. & D. No. 18092. I. S. 
Nos.   3168-v,  3173-v,  3196-v.)
On April 17,  1924,  the  United  States  attorney  for the  Southern  District
of Georgia, acting upon a report by the* Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
' District Court of the United States for said district an information against
the Empire Cotton Oil Co., a corporation, trading at Cor dele, Ga., alleging
shipment by said company, in violation of the food and drugs act, in various
consignments, namely, on or about October 27, November 20, and November
27, 1922, respectively, from the State of Georgia into the State of Florida, 
of quantities of cottonseed meal which was adulterated and rnisbranded. One 
consignment of the product was labeled in part: (Tag) "Gilt Edge Brand 
Cotton Seed Meal Manufactured By Empire Cotton Oil Co. Home Office, At- 
lanta, Ga. Guaranteed Analysis: Protein (6.25 times Nitrogen) 36.00% 
(Equivalent to Ammonia 7.00%) Fibre 14.00%." Another consignment of the 
product was labeled in part: (Tag) " Second Class Cotton Seed Meal * * * 
Guaranteed Analysis Protein  (minimum)  36.00%   (Equivalent 7% ammonia)
* * * Crude Fibre (maximum) 14.00%." The remaining consignment of 
the product was labeled in part:  (Tag)   "Second Class  Cotton   Seed  Meal
* * * Guaranteed Analysis 100 lbs. Ammonia (actual and potential) 7.00% 
(Equivalent to 36% protein)."
Analyses of samples of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this 
department showed that the consignment of October 27, 1922, contained 35 
per cent of protein, 6.8 per cent of ammonia, and 14.9 per cent of fiber, the 
consignment of November 20, 1922, contained 34.5 per cent of protein, 6.7 per 
cent of ammonia, and 14.9 per cent of crude fiber, the consignment of November 
27, 1922, contained 35 per cent of protein and 6.8 per cent of ammonia.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the information for the reason 
that cottonseed feed had been substituted for cottonseed meal, which the said 
article purported to be.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements, to wit, " Cotton 
Seed Meal * * * Guaranteed Analysis: Protein (6.25 times Nitrogen) 
36.00%   (Equivalent to Ammonia 7.00%)   Fibre 14.00%,"  "Cotton  Seed Meal
* * * Guaranteed Analysis Protein (minimum) 36.00% * * * Crude 
Fibre (maximum) 14.00%," and "Cotton Seed Meal * * * Guaranteed 
Analysis Ammonia (actual and potential) 7.00% (Equivalent to 36% protein)," 
borne on the tags containing the respective consignments of the product, were 
false and misleading, in that the said statements represented that the article 
was cottonseed meal, to wit, a product which should contain not less than 
36 per cent of protein, that it contained not less than 36 per cent of protein, 
equivalent to 7 per cent of ammonia, and that the consignments of October 27 
and November 20, 1922, respectively, contained not more than 14 per cent 
of crude fiber, and for the further reason that the article was labeled as 
aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief that it 
was cottonseed meal, to wit, a product which should contain not less than 36 
per cent of protein, that it contained not less than 36 per cent of protein, 
equivalent to 7 per cent of ammonia, and that the consignments of October 27 
and November 20, 1922, respectively, contained not more than 14 per cent of 
crude fiber, whereas the said article was not cottonseed meal, in that it con- 
tained less than 36 per cent of protein, and the said consignments of October 
27 and November 20, 1922, respectively, contained more than 14 per cent of 
crude fiber. Misbranding was alleged with respect to the product consigned 
November 20, 1922, for the further reason that it was a product which con- 
tained less than 36 per cent of protein, prepared in imitation of cottonseed 
meal, a product which should contain not less than 36 per cent of protein, 
and was offered for sale and sold under the distinctive name of another 
article, to wit, cottonseed meal.
On January 7, 1925, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on 
behalf of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $450.
R. W. DTJNLAP, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.