3003. Adulteration and misbranding of acetanilid compound tablets. TJ. S. v. Burrougn? Bros. Mfg. Co. Plea of guilty. Fine, $20. (P. & D. No. 4908. I. S. No. 817-d.) On July 18, 1913, the United States attorney for the district of Maryland, acting? upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District Court of the United? States for said district an information against the Burrough Bros. Manufacturing Co.,? a corporation, Baltimore, Md., alleging shipment by said company, in violation of the? Food and Drugs Act, on May 6, 1911, from the State of Maryland into the State of? Nebraska, of a quantity of compressed tablets, acetanilid compound No. 5, which were? adulterated and misbranded. This product was labeled: "Guaranteed under the? Food and Drug Act, June 30th, 1906. Serial No. 2085. 500 91024 Compressed Tab?? lets. Acetanilid Comp. No. 5. Acetanilid, 2 1-2 grs. Camph. Monobrom., 1-2 gr.? Sodium Salicylate, 1 gr. Ext. Hyoscyamus, 1-8 gr. Tinct. Gelsemium, 2 min. Bur-? rough Bros. Mfg. Co., Chemists, Baltimore, Md." Analysis of a sample of the product by the Bureau of Chemistry of this department? showed the following results: Acetanilid (grains per average tablet)? ?1. 849 Sodium salicylate (grains per average tablet)? ?0. 903 Shortage of acetanilid (per cent)? ?26 Shortage of sodium salicylate (per cent)? ?10 Adulteration of the product was alleged in the information for the reason that its? strength fell below the professed standard of strength under which it was sold in that Supplement.] SERVICE AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS. 235 it was stated in substance and effect on the label of the-bottle containing the tablets? that the acetanilid content of each tablet was 2\ grains of acetanilid, whereas in truth? and in fact the acetanilid content of each tablet was not 2\ grains, but was, on the con?? trary, only 1.847 grains. Adulteration was alleged for the further reason that the? strength of the product fell below the professed standard of strength under which it? was sold in that it was stated in substance and effect on the label of the bottle contain?? ing the tablets that the sodium salicylate content of each tablet was 1 grain, whereas? in truth and in fact the sodium salicylate content of each tablet was not 1 grain, but? was, on the contrary, only 0.903 grain. Misbranding was alleged for the reason that? it was stated on the label of the bottle containing the tablets, in substance and effect,? that the acetanilid content of each tablet was 2 J grains and the sodium salicylate con?? tent of each tablet 1 grain, which said statements were false and misleading in that? the acetanilid content of each tablet was but 1.847 grains and the sodium salicylate? content of each tablet but 0.903 grain. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason? that the product was labeled and branded so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser? in that it was stated upon the label of the bottle containing the tablets, in substance? and effect, that the acetanilid content of each tablet was 2\ grains and the sodium? salicylate content of each tablet 1 grain, whereas in truth and in fact the acetanilid? content of each tablet was but 1.847 grains and the sodium salicylate content of each? tablet but 0.903 grain. On October 10, 1913, the defendant company entered a plea of guilty to the informa?? tion and the court imposed a fine of $20. B. T. GALLOWAY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture. WASHINGTON, D. C, March 80, 1914.