F. & D. Nos 3247, 3275, 3498, 3144.
I. S. Nos. 1785-d, 1780-d, 1781-d, 1783-d, 1787-d. 1775-d, 1776-d, 1789-d, 1790-d.
Issued January 11 1913.
United States Department of Agriculture,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY.
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 1843.
(Given pursuant to section 4 of the Food and Drugs let.)
ADULTERATION AND MISBRANDING OF CAFFEIN CITRATE TABLETS,?
CALOMEL TABLETS, CALOMEL AND SODA TABLETS, DAMIANA COM??
POUND TABLETS, NITROGLYCERINE TABLETS; ADULTERATION OF?
FLUID EXTRACT GOLDEN SEAL; ADULTERATION AND MISBRAND??
ING OF WINE COCA, SODIUM SALICYLATE TABLETS, STRYCHNINE?
NITRATE TABLETS.
At the May, 1912, term of the District Court of the United States?
for the District of Indiana the grand jurors of the United States?
within and for said district, acting upon reports by the Secretary?
of Agriculture, returned an indictment' against the Goshen Pharma-?
cal Co., a corporation, Goshen, Ind., alleging shipment by said com??
pany, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on July 18, 1911, from?
the State of Indiana into the State of Michigan??
(1) Of a quantity of caffein citrate tablets which were adulter??
ated and misbranded. The product was labeled: " 500 Compressed?
Tablets. Caffeine Citrate, 2 Grain, Serial No. 2270. Guaranteed?
under Food and Drugs Act, June 30, 1906. Manufactured by The?
Goshen Pharmacal Co., Goshen, Indiana."
Analysis of a sample of the product by the Bureau of Chemistry?
of this Department showed that the average amount of caffein, calcu?
lated as caffein citrate, per?tablet was 0.68 grain. Adulteration of the?
product was charged in the indictment for the reason that its?
strength fell below the professed standard under which it was sold,?
said standard being caffein citrate 2 grain, as declared on the label,?
whereas in truth and in fact the tablets did not contain two grains?
of caffein citrate but contained a much less amount, to wit, less than?
one grain of caffein citrate per tablet. Misbranding was charged for?
the reason that the statement " Caffein citrate, 2 grain," printed and?
apparent upon the label regarding the product, was false and mis??
leading in that it conveyed the impression that each tablet contained?
two grains of caffein citrate, whereas in truth and in fact the product?
did not contain two grains of caffein citrate per tablet but a much?
less amount, to wit, less than one grain of caffein citrate per tablet.
65936??No. 1843?13
(2)?Of a quantity of calomel tablets which were adulterated and?
misbranded. The product was labeled: "1000 Compressed Tablets.?
Calomel (Mercury Chloride) 2 Grain. Manufactured by The?
Goshen Pharmacal Co., Goshen, Indiana. Serial No. 2270. Guar??
anteed under Food and Drugs Act, June 30, 1906."
Analysis of a sample of the product by the Bureau of Chemistry?
of this Department showed the following results: Each tablet con??
tains 0.93 grain of calomel. Adulteration was charged in the in??
dictment for the reason that the strength of the product fell below?
the professed standard under which it was sold, said standard being?
calomel (mercury chloride) 2 grains, as declared on the label, whereas?
in truth and in fact the tablets did not contain two grains of calomel?
(mercury chloride) but contained a much less amount, to wit, 0.93?
grain of calomel (mercury chloride) per tablet. Misbranding was?
charged for the reason that the statement " calomel (mercury chlo??
ride) 2 grains " printed and apparent upon the label regarding the?
product was false and misleading in that it conveyed the impression?
that each tablet contained two grains of calomel (mercury chloride),?
whereas in truth and in fact the product did not contain two grains?
of calomel (mercury chloride) per tablet but a much less amount,?
to wit, 0.93 grain of calomel (mercury chloride) per tablet.
(3)?Of a quantity of calomel and soda tablets which were adulter??
ated and misbranded. The product was labeled: " 1000. Com??
pressed Tablets. Calomel and Soda. No. 1. Mercurous Chloride,?
1 grain. Sodium Bi-carbonate, 1 grain. Serial No. 2270. Guaran??
teed under Food and Drugs Act, June 30, 1906. Manufactured by?
The Goshen Pharmacal Co., Goshen, Indiana.    Pink."
Analysis of a sample of the product by the Bureau of Chemistry of?
this Department showed that each tablet contained sodium bicarbon??
ate, 1.01 grains; calomel, 0.62 grain. Adulteration of the product?
was charged in the indictment for the reason that its strength fell?
below the professed standard under which it was sold, said standard?
being " calomel and soda, No. 1, mercurous chloride, 1 grain," as de??
clared on the label, whereas in truth and in fact the tablets did not?
contain one grain of calomel but contained a much less amount, to wit,?
0.62 grain of calomel per tablet. Misbranding was charged for the?
reason that the statement " calomel and soda, No. 1, mercurous chlo??
ride, 1 grain," printed and apparent on the label, regarding the prod??
uct, was false and misleading in that it conveyed the impression that?
each tablet contained one grain of calomel, whereas in truth and in?
fact the product did not contain one grain of calomel per tablet, but?
a much less amount, to wit, 0.62 grain of calomel per tablet.
(4)?Of a quantity of damiana compound tablets which were adul??
terated and misbranded. The product was labeled: "Compressed?
Tablets.    Damiana Compound.    No. 1.    Phosphorous, 1/30 grain.
1843
Extract Nux Vomica, 1/4 grain. Extract Damiana, 2 grains. Serial?
No. 2270. Guaranteed under Food and Drugs Act, June 30, 1906.?
Manufactured by The Goshen Pharmacal Co., Goshen, Indiana."
Analysis of a sample of the product by the Bureau of Chemistry?
of this Department showed the following results: Analysis shows the?
product to contain approximately two-twenty-fifths grain of extract?
nux vomica per tablet anoj only a trace of phosphorus. Adulteration?
of the product was charged in the indictment for the reason that its?
strength fell below the professed standard under which it was sold,?
said standard being " phosphorus one-thirtieth grain, extract nux?
vomica one-fourth grain," as declared on the label, whereas in truth?
and in fact the tablets did not contain one-thirtieth grain of phos??
phorus and one-fourth grain of extract of nux vomica, but contained?
a much less amount, to wit, two-twenty-fifths grain extract of nux?
vomica, and only a trace of phosphorus per tablet. Misbranding was?
alleged for the reason that the statement, phosphorus one-thirtieth?
grain, extract nux vomica one-fourth grain, printed and apparent?
upon the label regarding the product, was false and misleading in?
that it conveyed the impression that each tablet contained one-thir??
tieth grain of phosphorus and one-fourth grain extract of nux vomica,?
whereas in truth and in fact the product did not contain one-thirtieth?
grain phosphorus and one-fourth grain extract nux vomica per tablet,?
but a much less amount, to wit, two-twenty-fifths grain extract of?
nux vomica and only a trace of phosphorus per tablet.
(5) Of a quantity of nitroglycerine tablets which were adulterated?
and misbranded. The product was labeled: "1000 Compressed Tab??
lets Nitroglycerine 1-50 Grain. Serial No. 2270. Guaranteed under?
Food and Drugs Act, June 30, 1906. Manufactured by the Goshen?
Pharmacal Co., Goshen, Indiana."
Analysis of a sample of the product by the Bureau of Chemistry?
of this Department showed the following results: Nitroglycerin per?
tablet not more than 0.0016 grain. Adulteration was charged in the?
indictment for the reason that the strength of the product fell below?
the professed standard under which it was sold,- said standard being?
"Nitroglycerin one-fiftieth grain," as declared on the label, whereas?
in truth and in fact the tablets did not contain one-fiftieth grain of?
nitroglycerin, but a much less amount, to wit, less than 0.0016 grain?
of nitroglycerin per tablet. Misbranding was charged for the reason?
that the statement "Nitroglycerine, one-fiftieth grain," printed and?
apparent on the label regarding the product, was false and mislead??
ing in that it conveyed the impression that each tablet, contained?
one-fiftieth grain of nitroglycerin, whereas in truth and in fact the?
tablets did not contain one-fiftieth grain of nitroglycerin, but a much?
less amount, to wit, less than 0.0016 grain of nitroglycerin per tablet.
1843
(6)?Of a quantity of fluid extract golden seal which was adulter??
ated. The product was labeled: " Fluid Extract Golden Seal (Hy??
drastis Canadensis) Alcohol, 60 per cent. Dose, 30 to 60 m. Med.?
Prop. Alterative and Tonic. * * * Serial No. 2270. Guaranteed?
under Food and Drugs Act, June 30, 1906. Manufactured by The?
Goshen Pharmacal Company, Goshen, Indiana."
Analysis of a sample of the product by the Bureau of Chemistry?
of this Department showed it to contain 56.8 per cent of alcohol by?
volume, 17.73 per cent total solid matter, and by assay was shown to?
contain 0.97 gram of hydrastine in 100 cc. Adulteration was charged?
in the indictment for the reason that the strength of the product fell?
below the standard prescribed by the United States Pharmacopoeia?
for said preparation and drug product in that it did not contain two?
grams of hydrastine per cc. but in truth and in fact contained 0.97?
gram of hydrastine per cc. It should have been charged in the in??
dictment that the product did not contain two grams of hydrastine?
per 100 cc. but in truth and in fact contained 0.97 gram of hydras??
tine per 100 cc.
(7)?Of a quantity of wine coca which was adulterated and mis-?
branded. The product was labeled: " Wine Coca. Erythroxylon?
Coca. Alcohol 15 per cent. The dose for adults is from 1 to 2 fluid?
drachms. Serial No. 2270. Guaranteed under Food and Drugs Act,?
June 30, 1906. Manufactured by The Goshen Pharmacal Company,?
Goshen, Indiana."
Analysis of a sample of the product by the Bureau of Chemistry?
of this Department showed that the wine coca was a liquid contain??
ing 24.7 per cent alcohol by volume and one-sixty-fourth grain cocain?
and cocain derivatives per fluid ounce. Adulteration was charged?
in the indictment for the reason that the strength of the product fell?
below the professed standard under which it was sold, said standard?
being alcohol 15 per cent, as declared on the label, whereas in truth?
and in fact the product did not contain 15 per cent of alcohol but a?
much greater amount of alcohol, to wit, 24.7 per cent. Misbranding?
was charged for the reason that the statement " alcohol 15? " printed?
and apparent upon the label regarding the product was false and mis??
leading in that the product contained a greater amount of alcohol,?
to wit, 24.7 per cent, and the product contained cocain and cocain?
derivatives, the quantity or proportion of which was not declared?
upon the package or its label.
(8)?Of a quantity of sodium salicylate tablets which were adul??
terated and misbranded. The product was labeled: " 500 Com??
pressed Tablets. Sodium Salicylate. 3 Grain. Serial No. 2270.?
Guaranteed under Food and Drugs Act, June 30, 1906. Manufac??
tured by The Goshen Pharmacal Co. Goshen, Indiana."
1843
Analysis of a sample of the product by the Bureau of Chemistry?
of this Department showed the following results: 1 tablet contains?
1.82 grains sodium salicylate. Adulteration was charged in the in??
dictment for the reason that the strength of the product fell below?
the professed standard under which it was sold, said standard being?
sodium salicylate 3 grain," as declared on the label, whereas, in?
truth and in fact, the tablets did not contain three grains of sodium?
salicylate but contained a much less amount, to wit, 1.82 grains?
sodium salicylate per tablet. Misbranding was charged for the rea??
son that the statement " sodium salicylate, 3 grain" printed and?
apparent upon the label regarding the product was false and mis??
leading in that it conveyed the impression that each tablet contained?
three grains of sodium salicylate, whereas, in truth and in fact, the?
product did not contain three grains of sodium salicylate per tablet,?
but a much less amount, to wit, 1.82 grains of sodium salicylate per?
tablet.
(9) Of a quantity of strychnine nitrate tablets, which were adul??
terated and misbranded. The product was labeled: " 500 Com??
pressed Tablets. Strychnine Nitrate. 1/40 gr. Manufactured by?
The Goshen Pharmacal Co., Goshen, Ind. Guarantee No. 2270.?
Guaranteed under the Food and Drugs Act, June 30, 1906."
Analysis of a sample of the product by the Bureau of Chemistry?
of this Department showed the following results: Sample contains?
approximately one-seventieth grain of strychnin nitrate per tablet.?
Adulteration was charged in the indictment for the reason that the?
strength of the product fel] below .the professed standard under?
which it was sold, said standard being, " strychnine nitrate one-for??
tieth grain," as declared on the label, whereas, in truth and in fact,?
the tablets did not contain one-fortieth grain of strychnin nitrate?
but contained a much less amount, to wit, one-seventieth grain of?
strychnin nitrate per tablet. Misbranding was charged for the rea??
son that the statement " strychnine nitrate one-fortieth grain " printed?
and apparent upon the label regarding the product was false and mis??
leading in that it conveyed the impression that each tablet contained?
one-fortieth grain of strychnin nitrate, whereas, in truth and in?
fact, the product did not contain one-fortieth grain of strychnin?
nitrate but a much less amount, to wit, one-seventieth grain of?
strychnin nitrate per tablet.
On May 28, 1912, the defendant company entered a plea of guilty?
to the indictment and the court imposed a fine of $100 and costs.
W. M. HAYS,?
Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C, October ? 1912.
1843
WASHINGTON : GOVERNMENT PRINTING OVfflCB : 191?