17330. Adulteration and Misbranding of cottonseed meal.  . V. S. "v. Plant 
ers Oil Co.    Pleas of nolo contendere.    Fines, 8350.     (F. & D. Nos.
22590, 23760. I. S. Nos. 8607-x, 14633-x, 18503-x, 18505-x, 22202-v, 02259, 
02260, 02294, 05590, 05591, 05594, 05596.)
On March 20, 1929, and December 18, 1929, respectively, the United States 
attorney for the Middle District of Georgia, acting upon reports by the 
Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District Court of the United States for 
said district two informations againt the Planters Oil Co., a corporation, 
Albany, Ga., alleging shipment by said company in violation of the food and 
drugs act, in various consignments, on or about September 9 and October- 3, 
1927, from the State of Georgia into the State of Massachusetts; on or 
about October 4, 1927, from the State of Georgia into the States of Maine 
and Rhode Island; on or about October 7, 1927,  September 28, 1928,  and
January 31, February 13, and February 15, 1929, from the State of Georgia 
into the State of Florida; and on or about October 15, 1928, from the State 
of -Georgia into-the State of Alabama, of quantities of cottonseed meal whicn 
was adulterated and misbranded. The article was labeled in part, variously: 
" Second Class Cotton Seed Meal Manufactured- by Planters Oil Co., Albany, 
Ga, Analysis [or "Guaranteed Analysis"] Ammonia (Actual & Potential) 
7.00% (Equivalent to Protein 36.00%) ;" "Standard Cotton Seed Meal Guar- 
anteed Analysis Ammonia 7.00% Protein 36.00% * * * Fibre 14.00% 
* * * Manufactured by Planters Oil Co., Albany, Ga.;" "Choice-Prime 
' Dixie Brand' * * * Guaranteed Analysis Min. Protein 41.12;" " Nina 
Columbus Brand Cotton Seed Meal * * * Guaranteed Analysis Protein 
(minimum)  36.00   *    *    *   Fibre (maximum)  14.00%."
It was alleged in substance in the informations that the article was adul- 
terated in that certain substances had been substituted for cottonseed meal, 
labeled as above, which the said articles purported to be, namely, a cottonseed 
meal containing less than 41.12 per cent of protein had been substituted for 
the said Dixie brand cottonseed meal; a cottonseed feed containing less than 
7 per cent of ammonia-the equivalent of 36 per cent of protein-had been 
substituted for the said second-class cottonseed meal; a cottonseed feed con- 
taining less than 36 per cent of protein and less than 7 per cent of ammonia 
and more than 14 per cent of fiber had been substituted for the said standard 
cottonseed meal; and a cottonseed feed containing less than 36 per cent of 
protein and more than 14 per cent of fiber, had been substituted for the said 
Nina Columbus brand cottonseed meal.
Misbranding was alleged in substance for the reason that the statements, 
to wit, " Guaranteed Analysis Min. Protein 41.12%," " Cotton Seed Meal * * * 
Guaranteed Analysis Ammonia (actual & Potential) 7.00% (Equivalent to 
Protein 36.00%)," "Cotton Seed Meal * * * Analysis Ammonia (Actual & 
Potential) 7.00% (Equivalent to Protein 36.00%),"'" Standard Cotton Seed 
Meal Guaranteed Analysis Ammonia 7.00% * * * Protein 36.00%, Fibre 
14.00%," and "Cotton Seed Meal * * * Guaranteed Analysis Protein (Min- 
imum) 36% * * * Fibre (maximum) 14.00%," borne on the tags attached 
to the sacks containing the respective lots of the said article, were false and 
misleading in that the said statements represented that the article Avas cotton- 
seed meal containing the amount of protein and ammonia declared on the 
label, and with respect to a portion of the article not more than 14 per cent 
of 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 cotton- 
seed meal containing the amount of protein and ammonia declared on the 
label and that a portion of the article contained not more than 14 per cent 
of fiber, whereas the said Dixie brand was a cottonseed meal containing 
less than 41.12 per cent of protein, and the remainder of the article was not 
cottonseed meal, but was a cottonseed feed containing less protein and am- 
monia than declared, and the said standard meal and Nina Columbus 
brand meal contained more than 14 per cent fiber. Misbranding was al- 
leged with respect to the products, with the exception of the Dixie brand, 
for the further reason that it was offered for sale under the distinctive name 
of another article, to wit, cottonseed meal.
On April 10, 1930, a plea of nolo contendere to each information was entered 
on behalf of the defendant company, and the court imposed fines totaling $350.
ABTHUB, M. HYDE, Secretary of Agriculture.