19355. Adulteration and Misbranding of Nestor emulsion of pure cod- 
liver oil. U. S. v. Nestor Drag: & Chemical Co. Flea of guilty. 
Fine, $200.    (F. & D. No. 26586.    I. S. No. 8158.)
Examination of a drug product, labeled " Nestor Emulsion of Pure Cod 
Liver Oil With Eggs and Hypophosphites of Lime and Soda," showed that 
the article contained less cod-liver oil and alcohol than labeled. The labeling 
contained unwarranted curative and therapeutic claims for the article.
On October 10, 1931, the United States attorney for the Northern District 
of Illinois, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the 
District Court of the United States for the district aforesaid an information 
against the Nestor Drug & Chemical Co., a corporation, Chicago, Ill., alleging 
shipment by said company, in violation of the food and drugs act as amended, 
on or about October 9, 1930, from the State of Illinois into the State of 
Tennessee, of a quantity of the said Nestor emulsion of pure cod-liver oil that 
was adulterated and misbranded.
Analysis of a sample of the article by this department showed that it con- 
sisted essentially of cod-liver oil (39.94 per cent), small proportions of calcium 
and sodium compounds, hypophosphites, egg yolk, alcohol (8.4 per cent), and 
water, flavored with methyl salicylate.
It was alleged in the information that the article was adulterated in that 
its strength and purity fell below the professed standard and quality under 
which it was sold, in that it was represented to contain 50 per cent of cod-liver 
oil and 12% per cent of alcohol, whereas it contained not more than 39.94 
per cent of cod-liver oil and not more than 8.4 per cent of alcohol.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements, " Cod Liver 
Oil 50% " and " 12%% Alcohol," borne on the bottle label, were false and mis- 
leading in that the said statements represented that the article contained 
50 per cent of cod-liver oil and 12% per cent of alcohol, whereas it contained 
less cod-liver oil and alcohol than so declared. Misbranding was alleged for 
the further reason that the article contained alcohol and the label failed to 
bear a statement of the quantity and proportion of alcohol contained therein, 
since the statement made on the bottle label was not correct. Misbranding 
was alleged for the further reason that certain statements, designs, and de- 
vices regarding the therapeutic and curative effects of the article, amending 
on the bottle labels, falsely and fraudulently represented that the article was, 
in whole or in part, composed of or contained ingredients or medicinal agents 
effective as a reliable preparation for many forms of pulmonary diseases and
other lung troubles, and effective as a remedy for coughs and general debility, 
whereas it contained no ingredient or medicinal agents effective as a reliable 
preparation for many forms of pulmonary diseases or effective as a remedy 
for other lung troubles, coughs, or general debility.
On December 16, 1931, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on 
behalf of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $200.
ABTHTJB, M. HYDE, Secretary of Agriculture.