10847. Adulteration and misbranding of pinlt root. TJ. S. v. H. R. Latbrop? & Co., Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $25. (F. & D. No. 15999. I. S. No.? 7873-t.) On March 20, 1922, 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 H. R.? Lathrop & Co., Inc., a corporation,, doing business at New York, N. Y., alleging? shipment by said company in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on March. 8,? 1921, from the State of New York into the State of Pennsylvania of a quantity? of pink root which was adulterated and misbranded. Analysis of a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of thisf? department showed the presence of 10.2 per cent of genuine pink root, that is,? the rhizomes and roots of Spigelia marylandica L., and 89.8 per cent of the? rhizomes and roots of Ruellia ciliosa, Pursh. Adulteration of the article 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 test laid down in said Pharmacopoeia, official at the time of investigation? of the article, in that said article consisted in large part of a mixture of more? than 10 per cent of foreign matter, namely, 89.8 per cent of the rhizomes and? roots of Ruellia ciliosa, whereas said Pharmacopoeia provides that pink root is? the dried rhizome and roots of Spigelia marylandica Linn? (Fam. loganiaceae),? without the presence or admixture of more than 10 per cent of stems or other? foreign matter, and the standard of strength, quality, and purity of the said? article was not declared on the container thereof. Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statement, to wit, " 221 Lbs.? Pink Rt," borne and labeled upon the said bale concerning the article and the? substances and ingredients contained therein, was false and misleading in that? said statement represented said bale as containing 221 pounds of pink root, to? wit, 221 pounds of an article consisting of the dried rhizomes and roots of? Spigelia marylandica, Linne (Fam. loganiaceae), without the presence or admix?? ture of more than 10 per cent of stems or other foreign matter, whereas, in truth? and in fact, said article did not consist of pink root, to wit, the dried rhizomes? and roots of Spigelia marylandica Linn? (Fam. loganiaceae), without the pres?? ence or admixture of more than 10 per cent of stems or other foreign matter,? but consisted practically wholly of a mixture of more than 10 per cent of foreign? matter, namely, 89.8 per cent of the rhizomes and roots of Ruellia ciliosa, and? for the further reason that said article was a product consisting practically? wholly of the rhizomes and roots of Ruellia ciliosa, prepared in imitation of and? offered for sale under the name of another article, to wit, pink root, which the? article purported to be. On March 20, 1922, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on behalf? of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $25. O. W. PUGSLEY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture. V. J. 10801-10850.] SERVICE AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS. 469