67S6. Adulteration and misbranding of Smith's Grippe Tablets, Smith's? Salol ami Phenacetine Tablets, Smith's Ammosol Tablets, Smith's? Congh Tablets, and Smith's Anunosol-Codeia Tablets. U. S. * * *? v. Carroll Dnnhain Smith Pharmacal Co., a corporation. Plea of? guilty. Fine, $25. (F. & D. No. 9252. 1. S. Nos. 1155-p, 1157-p, 1158-p,? 1159-p, 1162-p.) On March. 5, 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? Carroll Dunham Smith Pharmacal Co., a corporation, New York, N. Y., alleging? shipment by said company, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on No?? vember 14, 1917, from the State of New York into the State of New Jersey, of? quantities of articles, labeled in part " Smith's Grippe Tablets," " Smith's Salol? and Phenacetine Tablets," " Smith's Ammosol Tablets," " Smith's Cough Tab?? lets," and " Smith's Ammosol-Codeia Tablets," which were adulterated and mis-? branded. Analyses of samples of the articles by the Bureau of Chemistry of this de?? partment showed the following results: GRIPPE TABLETS. Acetphenetidin (grain per tablet)? 0.255 Deficiency (per cent)? 7-1 Sodium salicylate: Present. Tablets deficient in acetphenetidin. SALOL AND PHENACETIN TABLETS. Salol (grains per tablet)? 2.018 Deficiency (per cent)? Phenacetin (grain per tablet)? 0.85 Deficiency (per cent)? Acetanilid (grains per tablet)? 3.04 Not declared on label. AMMOSOL TABLETS. Acetanilid (phenylacetamide) (grains per tablet)? 1.95 Deficiency (per cent)? Ammonium salicylate (grain per tablet)? 0.059 COUGH TABLETS. Terpin hydrate (grains per tablet)? 1.81 Deficiency (percent)? Heroine (grain per tablet)? 0.03 Deficiency (per cent)? AMMOSOL-CODEIA TABLETS. Acetanilid (phenylacetamide) (grains per tablet)?1.48 Deficiency (per cent)? ^?26 Codeine (grain per tablet)? 0.15S Deficiency (per cent)? Ammonium salicylate (grain per tablet)? 0.046 292 BUREAU OF CHEMISTRY. [Supplement 06, Adulteration of the article labeled " Grippe Tablets" was alleged in the? information for the reason that its strength- and purity fell below the professed? standard and quality under which it was sold, in this, that it was a product? which contained less than one grain of acetphenetidin, to wit, 0.255 grain? acetphenetidin, and was sold as a product which contained one grain? of acetphenetidin. Misbranding of the article was alleged for the reason that the statement,? to wit, " 1 gr. Acetphenetidin," borne on the label attached to the bottle con?? taining the article, regarding it and the ingredients and substances contained? therein, was false and misleading in that it represented that the article con?? tained one grain acetphenetidin, whereas, in truth and in fact, it did not, but? contained a less amount, to wit, approximately 0.255 grain acetphenetidin, and? for the further reason that the label did not indicate that acetphenetidin is a? derivative of acetanilid. Adulteration of the article labeled '' Salol and Phenacetinc Tablets " was al?? leged for the reason that its strength and purity fell below the professed? standard and quality under which it was sold, in this, that it was a product? which contained less than 2h grains phenacetin per tablet, and less than 2?? grains of salol per tablet, to wit, approximately 0.85 grain of phenacetin per? tablet, and approximately 2.018 grains salol per tablet, and was sqld as a? product which contained 2J grains of phenacetin per tablet, and 2J grains salol? per tablet. Misbranding of the article was alleged for the reason that the statement, to? wit, "Phenacetin 2-1/2 gr. Salol 2-1/2 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 said bottle each contained not less than 2i grains phenacetin? and 21 grains salol, whereas, in truth and in fact, each of said tablets did not? contain 2^ grains phenacetin, and did not contain 2\ grains salol, but con?? tained a less amount, to wit, approximately 0.85 grain of phenacetin and 2.03 8? grains salol, and for the further reason that it contained acetanilid, and the? label failed to bear a statement of the quantity or proportion of acetanilid? contained therein, and for the further reason that the label did not indicate? that acetphenetidin is a derivative of acetanilid. Adulteration of the article labeled "Ammosol 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 2J grains of phenylacetamide per tablet, to wit, 1.95 grains of? phenylacetamide per tablet, and was sold as a product which- contained 2\? grains of phenylacetamide per tablet. Misbranding of the article was alleged for the reason that the statement, to? wit, " Phenylacetamide 2\ gr. * * * ," borne on the label attached to the bottle? containing the article, regarding it and the ingredients and substances con?? tained therein, was false and misleading in this, that it represented that the? tablets contained in said bottle each contained not less than 2\ grains of? phenylacetamide, whereas, in truth and in fact, each of said tablets did not? contain 2\ grains of phenylacetamide, but contained a less amount, to wit,? approximately 1.95 grains of phenylacetamide, and for the further reason that? it contained acetanilid, and the label failed to bear a statement of the quantity? or proportion of acetanilid contained therein. Adulteration of the article labeled " Cough Tablets " was alleged for the? reason that its strength and purity fell below the professed standard and? quality under which it was sold in this, that it was a product which contained N. J. G751-6800] SERVICE AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS. 293 less than A grain of heroine per tablet, and less than 2 J grains of terpin hydrate? per tablet, to wit, 0.03 grain of heroine per tablet and 1.81 grains of terpin? hydrate per tablet, and was sold as a product which contained -iz grain of? heroine per tablet, and 1\ grains of terpin hydrate per tablet. Misbranding of the article was alleged for the reason that the statement, to? wit, " Heroin -fa, gr. Terpin Hydrate 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 said bottle each contained not less than -h. grain of heroine? and not less than 21 grains of terpin hydrate, whereas, in truth and in fact,? each of said tablets did not contain i? grain of heroine, and did not contain? 21 grains of terpin hydrate, but contained a less amount, to wit, approxi?? mately 0.03 grain of heroine and approximately 1.81 grains of terpin hydrate,? and for the further reason that it contained heroine, and the label failed to? bear a statement of the quantity or proportion of heroine contained therein. Adulteration of the article labeled "Ammosol-Codeia Tablets " was alleged for? the reason that its strength and purity fell below the professed standard and? quality under which it was sold, in this, that it was a product which con?? tained less than 2 grains of phenylacetamide per tablet, and less than 0.25 grain? of codeia per tablet, to wit, 1.48 grains of phenylacetamide per tablet, and 0.158? grain of codeia per tablet, and was sold as a product which contained 2? grains of phenylacetamide per tablet, and 0.25 grain of codeia per tablet. Misbranding of the article was alleged for the reason that the statement,? to wit, " Codeia J gr. * * * Phenylacetamide 2 grains," 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 this, that it? represented that the tablets contained in said bottles each contained not less? than \ grain of codeia and 2 grains of phenylacetamide, whereas, in truth and? in fact, each of said tablets did not contain J grain of codeia and 2 grains of? phenylacetamide, but did contain a less amount, to wit, approximately 0.158? grain of codeia, and 1.48 grains of phenylacetamide; and for the further reason? that it contained acetanilid, and the label failed to bear a statement of the? quantity or proportion of acetanilid contained therein; and for the further? reason that the label did not indicate that codeia is a derivative of morphine. On March 12, 1919, the defendant company entered a plea of guilty to the? information, and the court imposed a fine of $25. J. R. RIGGS, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.