F. & D. No. 2655.
I. S. No. 653-c.	
Issued July 19,1912.
United States Department of Agriculture,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY.
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 1539.
(Given pursuant to section 4 of the Food and Drugs Act.)
ADULTERATION AND MISBRANDING OF HYDROGEN PEROXIDE.
On September 9, 1911, the United States Attorney for the Eastern?
District of Missouri, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agri??
culture, filed in the District Court of the United States for said dis??
trict an information against the Meyer Bros. Drug Co., a corporation,?
St. Louis, Mo., alleging shipment by it, in violation of the Food and?
Drugs Act, on or about September 9, 1910, from the State of Missouri?
into the State of Nebraska, of a consignment of hydrogen peroxide?
which was adulterated and misbranded. The product was labeled:?
"One Pound Medicinally Pure Peroxide of Hydrogen (H202) (Aqua?
Hydrogenii Dioxidi, U. S. P.) with. 187 grain Acetanilide to fluid?
ounce. Can be used internally as well as externally with perfect?
safety. We guarantee our Hydrogen Peroxide to be full strength?
when bottled and to.be unsurpassed in keeping qualities and purity.?
Hydrogen Peroxide loses strength with age. Manufactured and guar??
anteed by Meyer Brothers Drug Co. Manufacturing Chemists, Saint?
Louis, Under the Food and Drugs Act, June 30, 1906. No. 55."?
" Peroxide of Hydrogen.''
Examination of the product by the Bureau of Chemistry of this?
Department showed the following results: Appearance, straw-col??
ored yellow solution; residue in 20 cc, 0.0199 gram; acidity in 25 cc,?
2.4 cc. N/10 NaOH; heavy metals, traces; acetanilid, present;?
chlorides, negative; phosphates, present; fluorides, negative; alco??
hol, negative; sulphates, trace; arsenic, positive (greater than 2 parts?
in 100,000). Adulteration was charged in the information for the?
reason that the product was sold under and by a name recognized?
by the United States Pharmacopoeia, to wit, the name peroxide of?
hydrogen, or aqua hydrogenii dioxidi, and that said product differed?
from the standard of strength, quality, and purity as determined?
by the test laid down in said Pharmacopoeia at the time of said ship??
ment, in that said Pharmacopoeia specifies that said product shall?
contain not more than one part per 100,000 arsenic, whereas it con??
tained arsenic in excess of one part in 100,000; and that it was further
44652??No. 1539?12
adulterated in that its purity fell below the professed standard and?
quality under which it was sold. Misbranding was alleged for the?
reason that the label upon the bottle in which the product was con??
tained was false and misleading in that the product was not of?
medicinal purity, as stated on said label, but contained an amount of?
arsenic greatly in excess of the amount permitted in the United States?
Pharmacopoeia, and to such an extent as to render the product?
medicinally impure.
On March 21, 1912, the defendant company entered a plea of?
guilty and the court imposed a fine of $10 and costs on each count,?
the first count charging adulteration and the second misbranding of?
the product.
W. M. HAYS,?
Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C, May 10, 1912.
1539