6548. Adulteration and misbranding of acetphenetidin and salol tablets,? acid acetylsalicylic compound, morphine sulphate hypodermic? tablets, algicide and salol tablets. U. S. * * * v. United States? Drag Manufacturing Co., a corporation. Plea of guilty. Fine, $25. (F. & D. No. 8977. I. S. Nos. 2923-p, 2924-p, 2926-p, 2950-p.) On November 21, 1918, the United States attorney for the Eastern District? of Pennsylvania, 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 United States Drug Manufacturing Co., u corporation doing business at? Philadelphia, Pa., alleging shipment by said company, in violation of the Food? and Drugs Act, from the State of Pennsylvania into the State of New Jersey,? on September 19, 1917, of quantities of acetphenetidin and salol tablets, acid? acetylsalicylic compound tablets, and morphine sulphate hypodermic tablets, and? on November 28, 1917, of a quantity of algieide and salol tablets, which were? adulterated and misbranded. Analyses of?samples of the articles by the Bureau of Chemistry of this de?? partment, showed the following results: THE ACETPHENETIDIN AND SALOL TABLETS. Acetphenetidin (grains per tablet)? 2.008 SaloF (grains per tablet)? 2.056 Average shortage of acetphenetidin (per cent)? ?20.56 Average shortage of salol (per cent)? ?18.24 THE ACID ACETYLSALICYLIC COMPOUND TABLETS. Acetylsalicylic acid (grain per tablet)? ?0.914 Acetanilid (grains per tablet)? ?2.272 Caffeine citrate (grain per tablet)? .704 Average shortage of acetylsalicylic acid (percent)??9.0' Average shortage of acetanilid (per cent)? ?9.52 Average excess of caffeine citrate (per cent)? ?40.2 THE MORPHINE SULPHATE TABLETS. Morphine as morphine sulphate (grain per tablet)? 0.188 Average shortage (per cent)? 62.3 THE ALGICIDE AND SALOL TABLETS. Acetanilid (grains per ounce)? ?154.05 Salol (grains per tablet)? 1.573 Average shortage of acetanilid (per cent)? 10.95 Average shortage of salol (per cent)? 21.4 Adulteration of the acetphenetidin and salol tablets was alleged in the in?? formation for the reason that its strength and purity fell below the professed? standard and quality under which it was sold, in that it was a product which? contained less than 2J grains of acetphenetidin and less than 2? grains of salol? per tablet, to wit, 2.008 grains of acetphenetidin and 2.056 grains of salol per? tablet, and was sold as a product which contained 2\ grains of acetphenetidin? and 2\ grains of salol per tablet. Misbranding of the article was alleged for the reason that the statement, to? wit, " Each tablet contains: Acetphenetidin U. S. P. 2? gr. Salol 2\ gr. * * * ," borne on the label attached to the bottle containing the article? regarding it and the ingredients and substances contained therein, was false? and misleading in that it represented that the tablets contained in the bottle,? each contained not less than two and one half grains of acetphenetidin and'two 52 BUREAU OF CHEMISTRY. [Supplement 61. and one half grains of salol, whereas in truth and in fact, each tablet did not? contain two and one half grains of acetphenetidin and two and one half grains? of salol, but contained a less amount, to wit, 2.008 grains of acetphenetidin and? 2.056 grains of salol, and for the further reason that it contained acetphenetidin,? a derivative of acetanilid, and the label failed to bear a statement that acet?? phenetidin is a derivative of acetanilid and of the quantity or proportion of? acetphenetidin, a derivative of acetanilid, contained therein. Adulteration of the acid acetylsalicylic compound was alleged for the rea?? son that its strength and purity fell below the professed standard and quality? under which it was sold, in that it was a product which contained less than? two and. one half grains of acetanilid and less than one grain of acid acetyl?? salicylic and less than one half grain of caffeine citrate per tablet, to wit, 2.272? grains of acetanilid, 0.914 grain of acid acetylsalicylic and 0.704 grain of? caffeine citrate per tablet, and was sold as a product which contained 2| grains? of acetanilid, 1 grain of acid acetylsalicylic, and \ grain of- caffeine citrate per? tablet. Misbranding of the article was alleged in the information for the reason that? the statement, to wit, " Tablets * * * Acetanilid 2J Grs. Acid Acetylo-? Salicylic 1 Gr. Caffeine Citrat. \ Gr.," borne on the label attached to the bottle? containing the article, regarding it and the ingredients and substances contained? therein, was false and misleading in that it represented that the tablets con?? tained in the bottle each contained not less than 1\ grains of acetanilid, 1 grain? of acid acetylsalicylic and \ grain of caffeine citrate, whereas, in truth and in? fact, each of the tablets did not contain 21 grains of acetanilid, 1 grain of acid? acetylsalicylic and \ grain of caffeine citrate, but contained a less amount, to? wit, 2.27 grains of acetanilid, 0.914 grain of acid acetylsalicylic, and 0.704? of a grain of caffeine citrate per tablet; and for the further reason that it con?? tained acetanilid, and the label failed to bear a statement of the quantity or pro?? portion of acetanilid contained therein. Adulteration of the morphine sulphate hypodermic tablets was alleged for the? reason that its strength and purity fell below the professed standard and quality? under which it was sold, in that it was a product which contained less than \? grain of morphine sulphate per tablet, to wit, 0.188 grain of morphine sulphate? per tablet, and was sold as a product containing \ grain of morphine sulphate? per tablet. Misbranding of the article was alleged for the reason that the statement,? to wit, " Tablets?Morphine Sulphate \ Gr. * * * ," borne on the label? attached to the bottle containing the article, regarding it, and the ingredients? and substances contained therein, was false and misleading in that it repre?? sented that the tablets contained in the bottles each contained \ grain of mor?? phine sulphate, whereas, in truth and in fact, each tablet did not contain i? grain of morphine sulphate, but contained a less amount, to wit, 0.188 grain of? morphine sulphate per tablet; and for the further reason that it contained mor?? phine, and the label failed to bear a statement of the quantity or proportion of? morphine contained theiein. Adulteration of the algicide and salol tablets was alleged for the reason? that its strength and purity fell below the professed standard and quality under? which it was sold in that it was a product which contained less than 173 grains? of acetanilid per ounce and less than 2 grains of salol per tablet, to wit, 154.05? grains of acetanilid per ounce and 1.573 grains of salol per tablet, and was sold? as a product which contained 173 grains of acetanilid per ounce and 2 grains of? salol per tablet. N. J. 6501-6550.] SERVICE AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS. 53 Misbranding of the article was alleged for the reason that the statement,? to wit, " Tablets. Bach ounce contains 173 grs. acetanilid * * * salol 2? grs.," borne on the label attached to the bottle, containing the article, regarding? it and the ingredients and substances contained therein, was false and mislead?? ing in that it represented that each ounce of the article contained 173 grains? of acetanilid and that the tablets contained in each bottle each contained two? grains of salol, whereas, in truth and in fact, each ounce of the article did not? contain 173 grains of acetanilid, and each tablet did not contain two grains of? salol, but contained a less amount, respectively, to wit, 154.05 grains of acetani?? lid to the ounce and 1.573 grains of salol per tablet, and for the further reason? that it contained acetanilid and the label failed to bear a statement of the? quantity and proportion of acetanilid contained therein. On November 29, 1918, the defendant company entered a plea of guilty to the? information, and the court imposed a fine of $25. G. F. MARVIN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture. 54 BUREAU OF CHEMISTRY. [Supplement 61.