11761. Adulteration  and  misbranding  of  oil  of  sweet  birch,   and  tvinter-
green oil.     IT.  S. v. Adolphus  A.  Winters.     Plea  of  guilty.     Fine,, 
$25.     (P. & D. No. 14546.    I. S. Nos. 540-r, 541-r.)
On July 2, 1921, the United States attorney for the Western District of 
North Carolina, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed 
in the District Court of the United States for said district an information 
against Adolphus A. Winters, Newland, N. C, alleging shipment by said de- 
fendant, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, as amended, on or about De- 
cember 30, 1919, from the State of North Carolina ? into the State of New 
York, of quantities of oil of sweet birch and wintergreen oil which were 
adulterated and misbranded. The articles were labeled in part, respectively; 
" Oil distilled from Birch bark and small bush - D. A. Winters Montezuma, 
N. C.;" " Oil distilled from Wintergreen leaves. D. A. Winters Montezuma, 
N. C."
Analyses of samples of the articles by the Bureau of Chemistry of this 
department showed that they contained synthetic methyl salicylate and that 
they were not true oils of wintergreen or birch, as the case might be.
Adulteration of the articles considered as drugs was alleged in the in- 
formation for the reason that they were sold under and by names 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, in that the said Pharmacopoeia provides 
that oil of sweet birch, to wit, birch oil, be obtained wholly from Betula 
lenta and that oil of wintergreen be obtained wholly by distillation from 
Gaultheria procumbens,  whereas  the said  articles  were mixtures composed
in part of synthetic methyl salicylate and the standard of the strength, quality, 
and purity of the said articles was not declared on the containers thereof. 
Adulteration was alleged for the further reason that the strength, quality, and 
purity of the articles fell below the professed quality under which they were 
sold in that they were mixtures composed in part of synthetic methyl salicylate 
and were sold as oil distilled from birch bark and small bush, to wit, birch 
bush, or as oil distilled from wintergreen leaves, as the case might be.
Adulteration of the articles considered as foods was alleged for the reason 
that a substance, to wit, synthetic methyl salicylate, had been mixed and 
packed with the said articles so as to lower and reduce and injuriously affect 
their quality and strength and had been substituted in whole or in part for 
oil of wintergreen or birch oil, as the case might be, which the articles pur- 
ported to be. Adulteration was alleged for the further reason that a sub- 
stance, to wit, synthetic methyl salicylate, had been mixed with the respective 
articles in a manner whereby damage and inferiority were concealed.
Misbranding of the articles considered as foods was alleged for the reason 
that the statements, to wit, " Birch Oil," " Oil distilled from Birch bark and 
small bush," "Wintergreen Oil," and "Oil distilled from Wintergreen leaves," 
borne on the cans or boxes containing the respective articles, as the case 
might be, regarding the said articles and the ingredients and substances con- 
tained therein, were false and misleading in that the said statements repre- 
sented that the articles were birch oil distilled from birch bark and small 
birch bush or oil of wintergreen derived wholly from distillation of winter- 
green leaves, as the case might be, and for the further reason that the articles 
were labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser into the 
belief that they were birch oil distilled from birch bark and small birch bush 
or oil of wintergreen derived wholly from distillation of wintergreen leaves, 
as the case might be, whereas, in truth and in fact, they were not but were 
articles composed in part of synthetic methyl salicylate. Misbranding of the 
articles considered as foods was alleged for the further reason that they 
were imitations of oil of sweet birch or wintergreen oil, as the case might be, 
and were offered for sale under the distinctive names of other articles, and 
for the further reason that they were foods in package form, and the quan- 
tity of the contents was not plainly and conspicuously marked on the outside 
of the packages.
Misbranding of the alleged birch oil considered as a drug was alleged for 
the reason that the statements, to wit, " Birch Oil" and " Oil distilled from 
Birch bark and small bush," borne on the labeling of the article, regarding 
the said article and the ingredients and substances contained therein, were 
false and misleading in that they represented that the article was birch oil 
and that it was oil distilled from birch bark and small bush, to wit, birch bush, 
whereas, in truth and in fact, it was not birch oil and was not oil distilled 
from birch bark and small birch bush but was a mixture composed in part 
of synthetic methyl salicylate obtained from a source other than birch bark 
and small bush, to wit, birch bush. Misbranding of the alleged birch oil 
considered as a drug was alleged for the further reason that it was a mix- 
ture composed in part of synthetic methyl salicylate, prepared in imitation 
of birch oil, and was offered for sale and sold under the name of another 
article, to wit, birch oil.
It was alleged in substance in the information that the alleged oil of winter- 
green considered as a drug further violated the said act in that it was a 
product composed in part of synthetic methyl salicylate, prepared in imita- 
tation of oil of wintergreen, and was offered for sale and sold under the name 
of another article, to wit, oil of wintergreen.
On November 14, 1922, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to the infor- 
mation, and the court imposed a fine of $25.
HOWARD M. GOHE, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.