13324. Misbranding' of cottonseed meal. U. S. v. Eastern Cotton Oil Co. 
Plea of guilty. Fine, $220. (P. & D. No. 18577. I. S. Nos. 2798-v, 
13701-v, 15840-v, 15842-v, 15843-v, 15847-v. 15878-v, 15879-v, 10590-v, 
13702-v, 13707-v, 15841-v, 15846-v, 15843-v, 15850-v, 13704-v.)
On December 15, 1924, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of 
North Carolina, 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 Eastern Cotton Oil Co., a corporation, Edenton, N. C, alleging shipment 
by said company, in violation of the food and drugs act as amended, in various 
consignments, between the dates of October 30, 1923, and November 19, 1923, 
from the State of North Carolina into the States of Pennsylvania, Delaware, 
and Maryland, respectively, of quantities of cottonseed jneal which was mis- 
branded. The article was labeled, variously, in part: " Perfection Cotton Seed 
Meal 100 Lbs. Net Manufactured By Eastern Cotton Oil Company * * * 
Guarantee Protein not less than 4L0O% Equivalent to Ammonia 8.00% * * * 
Fibre not more than 10.00% " and " 100 lbs. Net Monarch Brand * ? * 
Prime Cotton Seed Meal * * * Guaranteed Analysis Protein (minimum) 
43.00%)    *    *    *    Crude Fibre (maximum) 10.00%."
Analyses of samples of the Monarch brand meal by the Bureau of Chem- 
istry of this department showed 39.75 per cent of protein and 12.60 per cent 
of crude fiber. Analyses of samples of the Perfection brand meal by said 
bureau showed that it contained from 38.25 per cent to 40.44 per cent of protein, 
from 7.44 per cent to 7.86 per cent of ammonia, and from 10.42 per cent to 
12.54 per cent of crude fiber. Examination by said bureau of the Perfection 
brand meal showed that the sacks in certain of the consignments contained 
less than 100 pounds of the article.
Misbranding of the article was alleged in the information for the reason 
I hat the statements borne on the tags attached to the sacks containing the 
article, namely, " Protein not less than 41.00% Equivalent to Ammonia 8.00% 
Fibie not more than 10.00%," with respect to the Perfection brand meal, the 
statements " 100 Lbs. Net," with respect to a portion of the Perfection brand 
meal, and " Guaranteed Analysis Protein (minimum) 43.00% Crude Fibre 
(maximum) 10.00%," with respect to the Monarch brand meal, were false and 
misleading, in that they represented that the Perfection brand meal contained 
not less than 41 per cent of protein, equivalent to 8 per cent of ammonia, and 
not more than 10 per cent of crude fiber, and that the sacks containing a por- 
tion of the Perfection brand meal contained not less than 100 pounds net 
thereof, and that the Monarch brand meal contained not less than 43 per cent 
of protein and not more than 10 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 the Perfection brand meal contained not less 
than 41 per cent of protein, equivalent to 8 per cent of ammonia, and not more 
than 10 per cent of crude fiber, that the sacks containing the said portion of 
the Perfection brand meal contained not less than 100 pounds net thereof, and 
that the Monarch brand meal contained not less than 43 per cent of protein 
and not more than 10 per cent of crude fiber, whereas the said Perfection 
brand meal contained less than 41 per cent of protein, less than the equivalent 
of 8 per cent of ammonia, and more than 10 per cent of crude fiber, and the 
sacks containing the said portion of the Perfection brand meal contained less 
than 100 pounds net thereof, and the Monarch brand meal contained less than 
43 per cent of protein and more than 10 per cent of crude fiber. Misbranding 
was alleged with respect to the said portion of the Perfection brand meal for 
the further reason that it was food in package form and the quantity of the 
contents was not plainly and conspicuously marked on the outside of the 
package.
On April 13, 1925, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on behalf 
of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $220.
E. W. DUNLAP, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.