21034. Adulteration and Misbranding of cottonseed meal and cottonseed
cake. IT. S. v. Standard Cake & Meal Co. Plea of guilty. Fine, 
$50.    (F. & D. no. 28149.    I. S. nos. 45585, 45597, 47484, 47493, 50951.)
This case was based on the interstate shipment of quantities of cottonseed 
meal and cottonseed cake.   Samples taken from each of the shipments were
found to contain less than 43 percent of protein, the amount declared on the 
label.
On August 24, 1932, the United States attorney for the Western District 
of Missouri, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the 
district court of the United States an information against the Standard Cake 
& Meal Co., a corporation, Kansas City, Mo., alleging shipment by said company, 
in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, between the dates of October 20, 1931, 
and February 27, 1932, from the State of Missouri into the State of Kansas, 
of quantities of cottonseed meal and cottonseed cake that were adulterated 
and misbranded. Certain lots were labeled in part: " Standard Quality Cotton 
Seed Meal or Cake * * * Manufactured by Standard Cake and Meal Co., 
Kansas City, Mo. Analysis Protein Basis 43 percent." One lot was further 
labeled: " Interstate Brand 43 percent Protein." The remainder were labeled 
in part: " Cottonseed Cake and Meal ' Superior Quality' * * * Guaranteed 
Analysis Protein, not less than 43% * * * Distributed by Superior Cake 
& Meal Co.   *    *    *    Kansas City, Mo."
It was alleged in the information that the articles were adulterated in that 
a product containing less than 43 percent of protein had been substituted for 
a product containing 43 percent of protein, which the articles purported to be.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements, " Guaranteed 
Analysis Protein, not less than 43% ", and "Analysis Protein Basis 43 percent 
* * * 43% Protein ", borne on the tags attached to the sacks containing the 
articles, were false and misleading and for the further reason that the 
articles were labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since they 
contained less than 43 percent of protein.
On April 27, 1933, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on behalf 
of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $50.
M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.