3494. Alleged misbranding of Dodson's remedy.   U. S. v. Dodson's Remedy Co.   Tried to?
the court and a jury.   Verdict of not guilty.   (F. & D, No. 2584.   I. S. No. 8004-c.)
On June 13, 1911, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia,?
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District Court of the?
United States for said district an information against Dodson's Remedy Co., a corpo??
ration, Norfolk, Va., alleging shipment by said company in violation of the Food and?
Drugs Act, on July 25,1910, from the State of Virginia into the State of Massachusetts,?
of a quantity of a certain drug known as Dodson's remedy, which was alleged to have?
been misbranded. The product was labeled: (Design of a Maltese cross.) "Dod??
son
s Remedy. Prompt and Effectual. For headache, toothache, nervousness,?
sciatica, neuralgia, earache, rheumatic pains, lumbago, etc. * * * Phenylace-?
tamid 12 grs. to the fluid oz. with 30? alcohol. * * * Contains no chloral or?
morphia, and is perfectly safe, and may be taken without injury if used according to?
directions."    (On circular) "This remedy contains no habit-forming drugs."
718	
BUREAU-OP   CHEMISTRY.	
[September, 1914.
Analysis of a sample of the product by the Bureau of Chemistry of this department?
showed the following results:
Acetanilid (per cent)?
?2. 22
Caffein?
??0.41
Salicylic acid (per cent)?
?2. 26
Potassium bromid (per cent)?
?3.93
Misbranding af the product was alleged in the information for the reason that the?
label on each of the packages bore false and misleading statements: (1) The said?
statement that the article, that is to say, Dodson's remedy, was an effectual remedy?
for headache, toothache, and other disorders, was false and misleading, in that it?
conveyed the impression that said article possessed therapeutic properties with?
effectual remedial action in the disorders enumerated as above, whereas, in fact, said?
preparation did not possess therapeutic properties with effectual remedial action, in?
the case of headache or any other of the said enumerated disorders. (2) The said?
statement that said remedy contained no habit-forming drugs was false and misleading,?
in that said preparation in fact contained caffein and acetanilid, both of which sub??
stances are habit-forming drugs. (3) The said statement that said preparation "is?
perfectly safe and may be "taken without injury if used according to directions" was?
false and misleading, in that it conveyed the impression that the product contained?
no harmful ingredients, or ingredients which might be harmful if indiscriminately?
used, where[as], in fact said preparation contained, as above stated, caffein and?
acetanilid, each of which is a harmful and dangerous substance when used indiscrimi??
nately and without competent medical direction. (4) Each of the said packages?
failed to bear a statement on the label affixed thereto of the quantity and proportion of?
acetanilid contained in the contents thereof, whereas, in fact, of the the contents of?
each of said packages, 2.22 per cent was acetanilid.
On June 11, 1914, the case having come on for trial before the court and a jury, after
the submission of evidence and argument by counsel, the case was given to the jury,
and after due deliberation the jury returned into the court with its verdict of not
guilty.
D. F. HOUSTON, Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C, October IS, 1914.