NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 3343.
(Given pursuant to section 4 of the Food and Drugs Act.)
ADULTERATION AND MISBRANDING OF WINTERGREEN EXTRACT.
On November 8, 1912, the United States Attorney for the Southern 
District of Ohio, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agricul- 
ture, filed in the District Court of the United States for said district 
an information against Emil I. Mayer, trading and doing business 
under and by the name of the Cincinati Extract Works, Cincinnati, 
Ohio, alleging shipment by him, in violation of the Food and Drugs 
Act, on February 6, 1912, from the State of Ohio into the State of 
Tennessee of a quantity of wintergreen extract which was adulter- 
ated and misbranded. The product was labeled: " Wintergreen 
Extract—Artificial—The Cincinnati Extract Works Manufacturers 
Cincinnati, Ohio, U. S. A."
Analysis of a sample of the product by the Bureau of Chemistry 
of this Department showed the following results: Alcohol (per cent 
by volume), 47.00; oil of wintergreen (per cent by volume), 0.46; 
color corresponds to amaranth.
Adulteration of the product was alleged in the information for 
the reason that a certain substance, to wit, a dilute artificial winter- 
green extract, was mixed and packed as, for, and with the product 
so as to reduce, lower, and injuriously affect its quality and strength, 
and in that said substance was substituted for genuine full strength 
wintergreen extract which the product by its label purported to be.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the label and brand 
on the product bore a statement regarding it and the ingredients 
and substances contained therein, which said statement, to wit, 
"Wintergreen Extract," was false, misleading, and deceptive, in 
that it conveyed the impression that the product was full strength 
wintergreen extract conforming to the standard therefor, that is to
76650'—No. 2-242—13
say, containing not less than 3 per cent by volume of the oil of win- 
tergreen, whereas in fact it was a dilute wintergreen extract contain- 
ing only 0.46 per cent of the oil of wintergreen. Misbranding was 
alleged for the further reason that the product was labeled and 
branded so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser thereof, in that 
the said label was calculated and intended to convey the impression 
and create the belief in the mind of the purchaser that it was full 
strength wintergreen extract, whereas in fact it was a dilute artificial 
wintergreen extract deficient in the percentage of the oil of winter- 
green.
On November 16, 1912, defendant entered a plea of nolo con- 
tendere to the information and the court imposed a fine of $25, with 
costs of $14.55.
W. M. HAYS, 
Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON^ D. C., January 23, 1913.
2242
o