18939. Misbranding of  Phen-Amy-Caps.    U.   S.  v.   58  Packages,  et  al.,  of
Phen-Amy-Caps. Default decrees of condemnation, forfeiture, 
and destruction. (F. & D. Nos. 27043, 27081. I. S. Nos. 38809, 38814. 
S. Nos. 5221, 5316.)
Examination of the drug product Phen-Amy-Caps showed that the labeling 
of the article bore statements representing that it possessed curative and thera- 
peutic properties which, in fact, it did not possess. The article contained 
phenacetin, a derivative of acetanilid, and failed to bear on the label a state- 
ment of the quantity or proportion of the said phenacetin contained therein, 
since the declaration was inconspicuously made in small type on the back of the 
box and did not include a statement to the effect that phenacetin is a derivative 
of acetanilid.
On October 6 and October 15, 1931, respectively, the United States attorney 
for the District of Massachusetts, acting upon reports by the Secretary of Agri- 
culture, filed in the District Court of the United States for the district afore- 
said libels praying seizure and condemnation of 166 packages of Phen-Amy-Caps, 
remaining in the original unbroken packages at Boston, Mass., alleging that the 
article had been shipped by the Franklin Laboratory from Portland, Me., on or 
about September 4 and September 5, 1931, and had been transported from the 
State of Maine into the State of Massachusetts, and charging misbranding in 
violation of the food and drugs act as amended.
Examination of a sample of the article showed that it consisted of capsules 
containing in each acetphenetidin (60 milligrams), amidopyrine (223 milli- 
grams), caffeine (26 milligrams), and an extract of a mydriatic drug such as 
hyoscyamus.
It was alleged in the libels that the article was misbranded in that the label 
failed to bear a statement of the quantity or proportion of phenacetin contained 
in the said article, since the statement declaring the presence of phenacetin was 
not plainly and conspicuously made on the label and, further, in that the label 
did not bear a statement that phenacetin is a derivative of acetanilid. Mis- 
branding was alleged for the further reason that the following statements ap- 
pearing on the tin container and display carton, regarding the curative or 
therapeutic effects of the article, were false and fraudulent, since it contained no 
ingredient or combination of ingredients capable of producing the effects 
claimed: "To Relieve Pain * * * Used In the Treatment of * * * 
Toothache, Neuritis, Rheumatism, Periodical Pains."
On November 9, 1931, no claimant having appeared for the property, judg- 
ments of condemnation and forfeiture were entered, and it was ordered by the 
court that the product be destroyed by the United States marshal.
ABTHTTB M. HYDE, Secretary of Agriculture.