21526. Misbranding of Rinex.     V. S. v. 37 Bottles and 142 Bottles of Rinex. 
Default   decree    of    condemnation,   forfeiture,   and   destruction.
(P. & D. no. 30982.    Sample no. 40856-A.)
Examination of the drug preparation Rinex disclosed that it contained no 
ingredient or combination of ingredients capable of producing certain curative 
and therapeutic effects claimed in the labeling. It was also claimed for the 
article that it was harmless and would produce no ill effects or bad after-effects, 
whereas it contained drugs which might be harmful. The article also con- 
tained acetphenetidin, a derivative of acetanilide, which was not properly de- 
clared on the labels.
On August 26, 1933, the United States attorney for the Northern District of 
Illinois, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the 
district court a libel praying seizure and condemnation! of 179 bottles of Rinex 
at Chicago, Ill., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate com- 
merce, on or about April 21, 1933, by the Rinex Laboratories Co., from Cleve- 
land, Ohio, and charging misbranding in violation of the Food and Drugs Act 
as amended.
Analysis of a sample of the article by this Department showed that it con- 
sisted of capsules and tablets. Each capsule contained acetphenetidin, a deriva- 
tive'of acetanilide (1 grain), acetylsalicylic acid (2.3 grains), quinine (0.17 
grain), camphor, and an extract of a laxative plant drug. Each tablet con- 
tained approximately 4 grains of sodium bicarbonate and starch.
It was alleged in the libel that the article was misbranded in that the state- 
ments appearing in the circular accompanying the article, " The Rinex prescrip-
tion is harmless and may be taken as long as necessary or repeated at intervals 
without ill effects ", and " Leaves no bad after-effects", were false and mis- 
leading, since the article contained acetphenetidin and aspirin, which might 
cause harm if taken in overdosage. Misbranding was alleged for the further 
reason that the package failed to bear on its label a statement of the quantity 
or proportion of an acetanilide derivative (acetphenetidin) contained in the 
article, since the declaration on the bottle label and retail carton was not 
accompanied by a statement to the effect that acetphenetidin is a derivative 
of acetanilide, and the declaration on the carton was inconspicuous. Misbrand- 
ing was alleged for the further reason that the bottle and carton labels and 
the circular contained statements regarding the effectiveness of the article in 
the treatment of hay fever, asthma, and catarrh in patients of all ages, head 
colds, and rose fever, which were false and fraudulent.
On October 9, 1933, no claimant having appeared for the property, judgment 
of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered by the court 
that the product be destroyed by the United States marshal.
M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.