3903. Adulteration and misbranding of turpentine. U. S. v. George J. Fox (Carolina Pine?
Products Co ). Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $35 and costs. (F. & D. No. 4432. I. S.?
No. 3479-d.)
On January 20, 1913, the United States attorney for the Northern District of Ohio,?
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court of the?
United States for said district an information against George J. Fox, trading as the?
Carolina Pine Products Co., Cleveland, Ohio, alleging shipment by said defendant,?
in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on or about November 18, 1911, from the?
State of Ohio into the State of Missouri, of a quantity of turpentine, which was adul??
terated and misbranded. The product was labeled: (On one end of barrel) "St. Louis?
Transfer Co., St. Louis, Mo. St. Louis Co. For ? Carolina Pine Products Co.,?
Gross 407, Tare 60." (Other end) "Carolina Pine Products Co., St. Louis. Turpen??
tine. S. L. Not for medicinal use. The standard of quality and purity of the tur??
pentine contained in this package is guaranteed and sold in accordance with the?
following chemical analysis: Specific gravity, 862 or 32?? B.; distillation percentage?
under 300? F., none; distillation percentage under 363? F., 80 to 90 per cent; per??
centage unpolymerizable, 25 to 35 per cent; flash point, 100? F. Warning: This label?
must be defaced or destroyed before this package is again used. Any disregard of this?
warning will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.    Carolina Pine Products Co."
Analysis of a sample of the product by the Bureau of Chemistry of this department?
showed the following results:
Unpolymerized oil (per cent)?
      29. 6
Refractive index of oil at 20? C?
    1. 442
Mineral oil present (per cent) not less than?
Adulteration of the product was alleged in the information for the reason that it?
was sold under and by a name recognized in the United States Pharmacopoeia official?
at the .time of the investigation, and it differed from the standard of strength, quality,?
and purity as determined by the test laid down in said Pharmacopoeia in that it con??
tained a large proportion of mineral oil, and neither was its own standard of strength,?
quality, or purity plainly stated upon the container. Misbranding was alleged for?
the reason that the statement on the label, "Turpentine," was false and misleading,?
as the product was not turpentine, but a mixture of turpentine and mineral oil.
1914.]	SERVICE AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS.	133
On May 21, 1913, the defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere to the information?
and the court imposed a fine of $25 and costs.
B. T. GALLOWAY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.?
WASHINGTON, D. C, February 18, 1914.