14189. Misbranding of cottonseed meal. U. S. v. South Texas Cotton Oil 
Co. Plea of guilty. Fine, $25. (F. & D. No. 19655. I. S. Nos. 
2469-v, 2470-v.)
On August 13, 1925, the United States attorney for the Southern District of 
Texas, 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 South Texas Cotton Oil Co., a corporation, Victoria, Tex., alleging ship- 
ment by said defendant, in violation of the food and drugs act, in two con- 
signments, on or about August 15 and 19, 1924, respectively, from the State 
3f Texas into the State of New York, of quantities of cottonseed meal which 
was misbranded. The shipment of August 15, 1924, was labeled in part: 
(Tag) "100 Lbs. Net * * * Cotton Seed Meal * * * Guaranteed 
Analysis Ammonia 8.37% Protein 43.00% * * * Nitrogen 6.88% Fibre 
10.00%." The shipment of August 19, 1924, was labeled in part: (Sack) 
'100 Pounds (Net) 43% Protein Cotton Seed Meal Prime Quality Manufac- 
:ured by South Texas Cotton Oil Company Victoria, Texas. Guaranteed 
Analysis: Crude Protein not less than 43.00 Per Cent * * * Crude Fiber 
lot more than 12.00 Per Cent."
Examination by the Bureau of Chemistry of this department of 50 sacks 
from the shipment of August 15 showed an average net weight of 97.39 
pounds.
Misbranding of the articles was alleged in substance in the information for 
the reason that the statements, to wit, " Guaranteed Analysis Ammonia 8.37% 
Protein 43.00% * * * Nitrogen 6.88% Fibre 10.00%" and "100 Lbs. Net," 
borne on the tags attached to the sacks containing the product shipped August 
15, 1924, and the statements, " 43% Protein Cotton Seed Meal *. * * 
Guaranteed Analysis: Crude Protein not less than 43.00 Per Cent * * * 
Crude Fiber not more than 12.00 Per cent" and "100 Pounds (Net)," borne- 
on the labeling of the remaining shipment, were false and misleading, in that 
the said statements represented that the article contained ammonia, protein, 
nitrogen, and fiber, in the percentages declared on the labels, and that the 
sacks in the shipment of August 15 contained 100 pounds of the said article, 
and for the further reason that it was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive 
and mislead the purchaser into the belief that it contained the said ingredi- 
ents in the percentages declared on the labels, and that the sacks contained 
100 pounds of the article, whereas the article did not contain the said ingredi- 
ents in the percentages declared in that the product consigned August 15, 
1924, contained 7.64 per cent of ammonia, approximately 39.26 per cent of 
protein, 6.29 per cent of nitrogen, and approximately 14.55 per cent of fiber, 
and the product consigned August 19, 1924, contained approximately 38.53 
per cent of crude protein and approximately 13.92 per cent of crude fiber, 
and the sacks in. the shipment of August 15 did not contain 100 pounds net 
of the article but did contain a/ less amount. 
Misbranding was alleged with respect to the product shipped August 15 
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 February 23, 1926, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on 
behalf of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of .$25.
C. F. MARVIN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.