GSOS. Adulteration and misbranding: of oil sweet birch. U. S. * * * v.?
2 Cans of Oil Sweet Birch. Consent decree of condemnation and?
forfeiture.     Product   ordered   released   on  bond.     (F.   &  D.   No.   0211.
I. S. No. 13G07-r.    S. No. E-1081.)
On August S, 1918, the United States attorney for the District of New Jersey,?
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District Court?
of the United States for said district a libel for the seizure and condemnation?
of two cans of oil sweet birch at Linden, N. J., alleging that the article had been?
shipped on or about July 21, 1918, by J. B. Johnson, Hickory, N. C, and trans??
ported from the State of North Carolina into the State of New Jersey, and?
charging adulteration and misbranding in violation of the Food and Drugs Act.
Analysis of a sample of the product by the Bureau of Chemistry of this?
department showed that it consisted in whole or in large part of synthetic?
methyl salicylate.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the libel 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?
test laid down in said Pharmacopoeia, official at the time of the investigation?
of the article, and that the strength and purity of the article fell below the?
professed standard and quality under which it was sold. Adulteration of the?
article was alleged for the further reason that a substance, to wit, synthetic?
methyl salicylate, had been mixed and packed therewith, thereby reducing,?
lowering, and injuriously affecting the quality and strength of the article, and?
had been substituted in part for oil sweet birch, which the article purported?
to be.
Misbranding of the article was alleged for the reason that it was an imita??
tion of, and was offered for sale under the name of, another article, to wit,?
oil sweet birch. Misbranding of the article was alleged for the further reason?
that the statement on the invoice, " Oil Sweet Birch," was false and misleading?
in that it represented that the article invoiced thereon was oil sweet birch;?
and for the further reason that the statement on the invoice as aforesaid?
deceived and misled the purchaser into the belief that it was oil sweet birch,?
whereas, in fact and in truth, it was not, but was a product other than oil?
sweet birch, to wit, a product to which had been added, and with which had?
been mixed and packed, a substance, to wit, synthetic methyl salicylate.
On March 11, 1919, the said J. B. Johnson, claimant, having consented to a?
decree, judgment of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was?
ordered by the court that the product should be released to said claimant upon
310	
BUREAU OF  CHEMISTRY.	
[Supplement 67
the payment of the costs of the proceedings and the execution of a bond in?
the sum of $600, in conformity with section 10 of the act, conditioned in part?
that the product should be relabeled under the supervision of a representative?
of this department as imitation oil of birch.
0. F. MARVIN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.