3487. Adulteration and misbranding of Crompton's headache powders. U. S. v.
Charles Crompton & Sons, Inc., and George Crompton. Pleas of guilty.
Fine of $25 against each defendant. (F. D. C. No. 30003. Sample Nos.
63470-K, 63484-K, 63485-K.)
INFORMATION FILED : January 12,1951, District of Massachusetts, against Charles
Crompton & Sons, Inc., Lynn, Mass., and George Crompton, president-treas-
urer of the corporation.
ALLEGED SHIPMENT : On or about February 6 and April 5 and 8, 1950, from the
State of Massachusetts into the State of Maine.
LABEL, IN PART: "Crompton's Headache Powders Each Dose Contains 2-
Grains Acetanilid With Caffeine, Salol * * * Chas. Compton & Sons, Inc.
Sole Proprietors Lynn, Massachusetts Contents : 9 Powders Of 1 Dose Each
Nine   250 Size   Powders."
NATURE OF CHARGE: Adulteration, Section 501(c), the strength of the article
differed from that which it was represented to possess since each dose of the
article was represented to contain 2*? grains of acetanilid, whereas each dose
of the article contained more than 2? grains of acetanilid.
Misbranding, Section 502 (e) (2), the article was not designated solely by
a name recognized in an official compendium, and it was fabricated from 2
or more ingredients, one of which was acetanilid; and the label of the article
failed to bear a statement of the quantity or proportion of the acetanilid con-
tained therein. The label of the article bore the statement "Each Dose Contains
2? Grains Acetanilid," whereas each dose of the article contained more than
2? grains of acetanilid. Further misbranding, Section 502(c), the information
required by Sections 502 (f) (1) and (2) to appear on the labeling was not
prominently placed on the labeling with such conspicuousness (as compared
with other words, statements, designs, or devices in the labeling) as to render
such information likely to be read and understood by the ordinary individual
under customary conditions of purchase and use since the directions for use re-
quired by Section 502 (f) (1) to appear on the labeling and the warnings against
use required by Section 502 (f) (2) to appear on the labeling were not legibly
printed on the labeling of the article.
DISPOSITION: May 23, 1951. Pleas of guilty having been entered, the court
imposed a fine of $25 against each defendant.