20558. Misbranding and alleged Adulteration of Tablets Flu-Enza. U.S. 
v. 425 Tablets Flu-Enza. Adulteration charge dismissed. Mis- 
branding charge confessed. Decree of condemnation and for- 
feiture. Product released to be relabeled. (F. & D. no. 24499. I.S. 
no. 011586.    S. no. 2737.)
Examination of the drug preparation Tablets Flu-Enza disclosed that the 
article contained no ingredient or combination of ingredients capable of pro- 
ducing certain curative and therapeutic effects claimed on the bottle label. 
The sample of the article analyzed contained less than 3.15 grains of phenacetin, 
the amount declared on the label.
On February 3, 1930, the United States attorney for the District of Massa- 
chusetts, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in 
the District Court of the United States for the district aforesaid a libel pray- 
ing seizure and condemnation of 425 Tablets Flu-Enza at Springfield, Mass., 
alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or 
about November 15, 1929, by the Direct Sales Co., Inc., from Buffalo, N. Y., to 
Springfield, Mass., and charging adulteration and misbranding in violation 
of the Food and Drugs Act as amended. In the libel as originally filed it 
was alleged that the bottle label bore the statement, " Phenacetin 3.5 grains." 
The libel was subsequently corrected to read " Phenacetin 3.15 Grains, etc."
Analysis of a sample of the article by this Department showed that it con- 
tained 2.79 grains acetphenefidin and 2.8 grains salol per tablet, and a small 
proportion of mercuric iodide.
It was alleged in the libel that the article was adulterated in that it was 
sold under its own standard of strength, (bottle label) "Phenacetin 3.15 
grains to each tablet", and fell below such professed standard.
It was further alleged that the article was misbranded in that the statement, 
" Phenacetin 3.15 grains to each tablet," was false and misleading, and in that 
the label failed to bear a statement of the quantity or proportion of acetphe- 
netidin (phenacetin) a derivative of acetanilid, contained in the article, since 
the statement made was incorrect. Misbranding was alleged for the further- 
reason that the following statements on the bottle label, regarding the curative 
and therapeutic effects- of the article, were false and fraudulent: " For Grippe, 
Influenza, Pneumonia, and other forms of Pulmonary Inflammation and 
congestion."
On February 15, 1930, the Direct Sales Co., Inc., Buffalo, N.Y., filed an 
answer to the libel denying the adulteration and misbranding charges. On 
March 29, 1933, the charges in the libel based on the alleged shortage in 
phenacetin were dismissed. On the same date the misbranding charge based on 
the curative and therapeutic claims having been admitted by the claimant, judg- 
ment of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered by the 
court that the product be released to the claimant to be relabeled under the 
supervision of this Department.
R. G. TUGWELL, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.