621. Adulteration and misbranding of Russian oil and citrate of- magnesia. IT. S.
v.. James J. Kaplan (Diamond Drug & Magnesia Co.). Pica of guilty.
Fine, $30.    (F. D. C. No. 2841.    Sample Nos. S7000-D, 2247-E, 2261-E.)
The mineral oil was represented to be U. S. P. mineral oil, i. e., heavy mineral
oil; whereas it was light mineral oil. The citrate of magnesia contained less
magnesium citrate and less citric acid than the amounts specified by the
United States Pharmacopoeia.
On October 28, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of Massa-
chusetts filed an information against James J. Kaplan, trading as the Diamond
495843-43?8
Drug & Magnesia Co., Boston, Mass., alleging shipment on or about January
20, February 20, and April 4, 1940, from the State of Massachusetts into
the States of Rhode Island and New Hampshire of quantities of the above-
named products which were adulterated and misbranded. The articles were?(
labeled in part: "Genuine * * * Russian Oil Type U. S. P. Mineral Oil
* * * General Drug & Oil Co., Inc."; and "Peerless Effervescing Solution of
Citrate of Magnesia U. S. P. * * * Distributed by General Drug & Oil
Co., Boston, Mass."
The Russian oil was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to be
or was represented as a drug which is recognized in the "United States Phar-
macopoeia, under the names "Liquid Petrolatum" and "White Mineral Oil", but
its strength differed from and its quality fell below the standard set forth in
such compendium, since the specific gravity of samples taken from the two
shipments was 0.8471 and 0.8479, respectively, at 25? C, and the kinematic
viscosity of said samples was 0.173 and 0.1745 at 37.8? C, whereas the phar-
macopoeia specifies that the specific gravity of liquid petrolatum or white min-
eral oil shall be not less than 0.860 at 25? C., and that its kinematic viscosity
shall be not less than 0.381 at 37.8? C, and the respect in which the strength
or quality of the article differed from the standard set forth in said compen-
dium was not plainly stated on the label. It was alleged to be misbranded (1)
in that the statements "Genuine Russian Oil," "U. S. P. Mineral Oil," and "Pure
Russian Oil," together with the design showing a facsimile of the former Rus-
sian emblem, borne on the bottle label, were false and misleading, since they
represented that it consisted of Russian oil, namely, liquid petrolatum or white
mineral oil; whereas it did not so consist, but did consist of light liquid petro-
latum (or light white mineral oil) ; and (2) in that it was light liquid petrolatum
or light white mineral oil and was offered for sale and sold under the name of
another drug.
The citrate of magnesia was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported
to be or was represented as a drug which is recognized in the United States
Pharmacopoeia under the names "Liquor "Magnesia Citratis" and "Solution of
Citrate of Magnesia," but its strength differed from and its quality fell below
the standard set forth in that compendium, since it contained in each 100 cubic
centimeters an amount of magnesium citrate corresponding to not more than
1.53 grams of magnesium oxide and 10 cc. of the article contained citric acid
equivalent to not more than 24.18 cc. of half-normal hydrochloric acid; whereas
the pharmacopoeia specifies that solution of citrate of magnesium shall contain
in each 100 cc. an amount of magnesium citrate corresponding to not less than
1.6 grams of magnesium oxide, and that 10 cc. of the solution shall contain citric
acid equivalent to 26 cc. of half-normal hydrochloric acid, and the difference
in strength and quality from such standard was not plainly stated on the label.
It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements "Solution of Citrate
of Magnesia U. S. P." and "Liquor Magnesia Citratis," borne on the bottle label,
were false and misleading, since they represented that it consisted of solution
of magnesium citrate or liquor magnesii citratis as defined by the United
States Pharmacopoeia, whereas it did not so consist.
On April 7, 1942, the defendant entered a plea of guilty and the court im-
posed a fine of $30.