1054. Adulteration and misbranding of effervescing solution citrated magnesia.
U. S. v. Henry Perlmuter (Crystal Drug and Magnesia Co., and White-
Stone Laboratories). Plea of guilty. Fine, S50. (F. D. C. No. 9655.
Sample No. 19441-F.)
On June 22, 1943, the United States attorney for the District of Massachu-
setts filed an information against Henry Perlmuter, trading as the Crystal
Drug  and   Magnesia  Co,   and  as the White-Stone  Laboratories,  Dorchester,
Mass., alleging shipment on or about August 5, 1942, from the State of Massa-
chusetts into the State of Rhode Island of a quantity of the above-named product.
The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to be solution
of magnesium citrate, a drug the name of which was recognized in the United
States Pharmacopoeia (eleventh revision), an official compendium, but its
strength differed from and its quality fell below the standard set forth therein,
since the compendium provided that solution of magnesium citrate should con-
tain, in each 100 cc, an amount of magnesium citrate corresponding to not less
than 1.6 gram of MgO (magnesium oxide), and should contain citric acid and.
syrup in the proportion of 33 grams of citric acid and 60 cc. of syrup to each
350 cc, whereas the article contained little if any magnesium citrate, but did
contain magnesium sulfate, a substance which is not contained in solution of
magnesium citrate compounded in accordance with the standard set forth in
the compendium, in an amount corresponding to 1.14 grams of magnesium oxide
per iOO cc.; and the article contained citric acid in the proportion of not more
than 2 grams per 350 cc, and syrup in the proportion of not more than 29 cc.
to each 350 cc.; and its difference in strength, quality, and purity from the stand-
ard set forth in the compendium was not stated on its label.
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that its label failed to bear ade-
quate warnings against use in those pathological conditions wherein its use
might be dangerous to health, and against unsafe dosage or duration of adminis-
tration, in such manner and form as are necessary for the protection of users,
since the article was a laxative and its labeling failed to bear a warning that
it should not be taken when nausea, vomiting, abdominal pains, or other symp-
toms of appendicitis are present; and that frequent or continued use of the
article might result in dependence on laxatives to move the bowles.
On July 6, 1943, the defendant having entered a plea of guilty, the court
imposed a fine of $25 on each of 2 counts, a total fine of $50.