22359.  Adulteration   and misbranding of   fluidextract   aconite.   17.    S.   v. 
Sntliff & Case Co., Inc.     Plea of guilty.   Fine, ?70 and costs.    (F. &
D. no. 30211.    Sample no. 25508-A.)
This case was based on an interstate shipment of fluidextract aconite that 
was represented to conform to the standard established by the National Formu- 
lary. Tests of the article showed that it had a potency of about one-third the 
requirement of the said formulary.
On September 25, 1933, the United States attorney for the Southern District 
of Illinois, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the 
district court an information against Sutliff & Case Co., Inc., a corporation, 
Peoria, Ill., alleging shipment by said company in violation of the Food and 
Drugs Act, on or about August 23, 1932, from the State of Illinois into the 
State of Missouri, of a quantity of fluidextract of aconite which was adul- 
terated and misbranded. The article was labeled in part: "Fluid Extract 
Aconite, N. F.    *    *    *    Physiologically Standardized.    Sutliff & Case Co."
It was alleged in the information that the article was adulterated in that it 
was sold under a name recognized in the National Formulary, and differed from 
the standard of strength, quality, and purity as determined by the test laid 
down in the said formulary official at the time of investigation, since the 
article, when administered subeutaneously to guinea pigs, had a minimum 
lethal dose of 0.00012 cubic centimeter for each gram of body weight of guinea 
pig; whereas the formulary provides that fluidextract of aconite, when admin- 
istered subeutaneously to guinea pigs, has a minimum lethal dose of not more 
than 0.00004 cubic centimeter for each gram of body weight of guinea pig, and 
the standard of strength, quality, and purity of the article was not declared on 
the container. Adulteration was alleged for the further reason that the strength 
and purity of the article fell below the professed standard and quality under 
which it was sold.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements, " Fluid Extract 
Aconite, N. F." and " Physiologically Standardized ", borne on the bottle label, 
were false and misleading, since the article was not fluidextract of aconite that
conformed to the standard laid down in the National Formulary, and was not 
physiologically standardized.
On May 16, 1934, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant 
company, and the court imposed a fine of $70 and costs.
M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.