14771. Adulteration and misbranding of ether.    U. S, v. 990 Tins of Ether.
Consent decree adjudging: product adulterated and misbranded 
and ordering its release under bond. (F. & D. No. 21048. I. S. Nog. 
4510-x,  4512-x.     S. No.  C-5084.)
On April 28, 1926, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of 
Missouri, acting upon .a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the 
District Court of the United States for said district a libel praying seizure and 
condemnation of 990 tins of ether, remaining in the original unbroken packages 
at St. Louis, Mo., alleging that the article had been shipped by Merck & Co.,
from Rahway, N. J., on or about October 16, 1925, and transported from the 
State of New Jersey into the State of Missouri, and charging adulteration and 
misbranding in violation of the food and drugs act. A portion of the article 
was labeled: (Tin) "% lb. Ether Merck * * * U. S. P." The remainder 
of the said article was labeled: (Tin) " % lb. Ether Merck For Anesthesia. 
It is purer    *    *    *    than the U. S. Pharmacopoeia, Ninth Revision, requires."
Analysis by the Bureau of Chemistry of this department of a sample 
of the article labeled "Ether Merck * * * U. S. P. It" showed that it 
contained peroxide, non-volatile matter and had an acid reaction. Analysis 
by said bureau of a sample of the article labeled " Ether Merck For Anesthesia " 
showed that it contained peroxides, aldehydes, and non-volatile matter.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the libel for the reason that it 
fell below the professed standard under which it was sold.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements on the respective 
labels, " U. S. P. It " and " Ether For Anesthesia. It is purer * * * than 
the U. S. Pharmacopoeia, Ninth Revision, requires," were false and misleading.
On January 5, 1927, Merck & Co., St. Louis, Mo., claimant, having admitted 
the material allegations of the libel and having consented that judgment 
of condemnation be entered, a decree was entered, adjudging the product 
adulterated and misbranded, and it was ordered by the court that it be 
released to the claimant upon payment of the costs of the proceedings and 
the execution of a bond in the sum of $125, conditioned in part that it be 
dumped into one or more other lots of ether intended to be used and sold 
for technical purposes.
W. M. JARDINE, Secretary of Agriculture.