23334. Adulteration and misbranding of beef and bone scrap, and fish meal. U. S. -v. 30 Bags of Beef and Bone Scrap, et al. Default de- crees of condemnation and destruction. (F. & D. nos. 33674, 34103. 34191. Sample nos. 8332-B, 8333-B, 8335-B, 8336-B.) These cases involved interstate shipments of 2 lots of beef and bone scrap and 1 lot of fish meal. Examination showed that both products contained less protein than declared on the label, that 1 lot of beef and bone scrap contained more salt than is found in meat and bone scrap, and that the fish meal con- tained cut hulled barley. On or about October 11, 18, and 26, 1934, the United States attorney for the District of Maryland, acting upon reports by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court libels praying seizure and condemnation of 60 sacks of beef and bone scrap at Maugansville, Md., and 99 bags of beef and bone scrap and 40 bags of fish meal at Berlin, Md., alleging that the articles had been shipped in interstate commerce between the dates of August 15 and October 5, 1934, by the Consolidated By-Product Co., from Philadelphia, Pa., and charging adultera- tion and misbranding in violation of the Food and Drugs Act. The articles were labeled in part: " Consolidated Beef & Bone Scrap * * * Guaranteed Analysis Protein 55% [or " 50% " or " 45% "]. Consolidated Fish Meal. Guar- anteed Analysis Protein 55% Min." A portion of the beef and bone scrap was alleged to be adulterated in that a substance containing excessive salt had been substituted for beef and bone scrap. Adulteration of the fish meal was alleged' for the reason that cut hulled barley had been mixed and packed therewith so as to reduce or lower or in- juriously affect its quality or strength, and had been substituted in part for the article. Misbranding of both products was alleged for the reason that the statements, " Guaranteed Analysis protein 55% " or " 50% " or " 45% ", with respect to the beef and bone scrap, and " Guaranteed Analysis Protein 55% Min." with respect to the fish meal were false and misleading and tended to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since they contained less protein than declared. Mis- branding was alleged with respect to the fish meal and a portion of the beef and bone scrap for the further reason that the statements " Fish Meal" and ?? Beef and Bone Scrap " borne on the labels were false and misleading and tended to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since the fish meal contained a substance other than fish meal and one shipment of the beef and bone scrap contained considerably more ssjt than is normally found in meat and bone scrap. On November 15 and December 3, 1934, no claimant having appeared, judg- ments of condemnation were entered, and it was ordered that the products be destroyed. M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.