6875.  Adulteration,   antf   mislH-ai*flii).jg   of   Dalo-mol-Ciilomel   auul   D-oloisiol-?
loctofo-rnt.     If.   S.    *   *    *   -\.   P-nivola   Cfeeiwiessl   Co.,   a   coi-poratloii?
Plea, of gmdlty.    Fine, $35.     (F. & I). No. 9231.    I. S. Nos. 3913-p, 3914-p.)
On November 14, 191S, the United States attorney for the District of New?
Jersey, acting upon a report bj the Secretary of Agriculture, tiled in the Dis??
trict Court of the United States for said district an informal ion against the?
Ptslvola Chemical Co., a corporation, Jersey City, N. J., alleging shipment by?
said company, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on or about February?
21, 1918, team the State of New Jersey into the State of New York, of quantities?
otf articles, labeled in part " Daloraol-CaloBaeV' and " Dolomol-Iodoforro," which?
were adulterated and misbranded.
Analyses of samples of the articles by the Bureau of Chemistry of this?
department showed that the Dolomol-Calomel contained 10.99 per cent of?
calomel, and that the DolomoModoform contained 7.09 per cent of iodoform.
Adulteration of Dolomol-Calomel' 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 that it was sold as a product which con??
tained 25 per cent of calomel, whereas, in truth and in fact, it contained less?
than 25 per cent of calomel, to wit, approximately 10.99 pet* cent of calomel.
Misbranding of the article was alleged for the reason that the statement, to?
wit, " Calomel 25 Per Cent," borne on the labels attached to the cans containing?
the article, regarding it and the ingi-edieuls and substances contained therein,?
was false and misleading in that it represented that the article contained no?
less than 25 per cent of calomel, whereas, in truth and in fact, it contained less?
than 25 per cent of calomel, to wit, approximately 10.99 per cent of calomel.
Adulteration of Dolomol-Iodoforiu 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 a product which contained not less than 10 per cent?
of iodoform, whereas, in truth and in fact, it contained less than 10 per cent?
of iodoform, to wit, approximately 7.09 per cent of iodoform.
Misbranding of the article was alleged for the reason that the statement, to?
wit, " Iodoform * * * 30 Per Cent/' borne on the labels attached to tire?
cans, was false and misleading, in that it represented that the article con??
tained not less than 10 per eent of iodoform, whereas, it* truth and m fact,?
it contained less than 10 per cent of iodoform, to -nit, approximately 7.09 per?
cent of iodoform.
On December 2, 191S> the defendant company entered a plea of guilty to?
the information, and the court imposed a line of $25.
C. F. MARVIN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
N. J. 6831-G900]      SERVICE AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS.
361