6779. Adulteration of Powdered Licorice Root Spanish, Granulated Bine?
Cohosh, Granulated Black Haw Bark of Root, and Granulated Pink;?
Root. TJ. S. * * * v. J. L. Hopkins & Co. Plea of gmilty. Fine,?
f20.     (F. & D. No. 0238.    I. S. Nos. 2438-m, 4744-m, 4745-m, 4747-m.)
On January 18, 1919, the United States attorney for the Southern District?
of New York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in?
the District Court of the United States for said district an information against?
J. L. Hopkins & Co., a corporation, New York, N. Y., alleging shipment by said?
company, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on May 8, 1917, from the?
State of New York into the State of Georgia, of a quantity of " Powdered?
Licorice Root Spanish," and on April 6, 1917 (2 shipments), and April 7,?
1917, from the State of New York into the State of Maryland, of quantities of?
articles, labeled in part " Granulated Blue Cohosh, " Granulated Black Haw?
Bark of Root," and " Granulated Pink Root," all of which were adulterated.
Analyses of samples by the Bureau of Chemistry of this department showed?
the articles yielded percentages of ash as follows:
Powdered licorice root Spanish?
11. 3
Granulated blue cohosh?
10. 41
Granulated pink root?
17.12
The granulated black haw bark of root contained 7.49 per?
cent of sand.
Adulteration of the " Powdered Licorice Root Spanish " was alleged in the?
information for the reason that it was sold under and by a name recognized?
in the United States Pharmacopoeia, and differed from the standard of strength,?
quality, and purity as determined by the tests laid down in said Pharmaco??
poeia, official at the time of investigation of the article, in that said article?
yielded 11.3 per cent of ash, whereas said Pharmacopoeia provides that said?
article should yield not more than 7 per cent of ash, and the standard of the?
strength, quality, and purity of the article was not declared on the container?
thereof.
Adulteration of the " Granulated Blue Cohosh " was alleged for the reason?
that it was sold under and by a name recognized in the National Formulary,?
and differed from the standard of strength, quality, and purity as determined?
by the tests laid down in said National Formulary, official at the time of the*?
investigation of the article, in that it yielded 10.41 per cent of ash, whereas?
said National Formulary provides that the article should yield not more than?
6 per cent of ash.
Adulteration of the " Granulated Black Haw Bark of Root" 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 sold as black haw bark root,?
whereas it was a product which was composed in part of sand.
Adulteration of the " Granulated Pink Root" was alleged for the reason?
that it was sold under and by a name recognized in the United States Pharma??
copoeia, and differed from the standard of strength, quality, and purity as de??
termined by the tests laid down in said Pharmacopoeia, official at the time of?
the investigation of the article, in that said article yielded 17.12 per cent of?
ash, whereas said Pharmacopoeia provides that it should not yield more than?
10 per cent of ash.
On February 26, 1919, the defendant company entered a plea of guilty to the?
information, and the court imposed a fine of $20.
J. R. RIGGS, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
N. J. 6751-6800]      SERVICE AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS.        287