22591. Adulteration and misbranding of C. C. Tonic and misbranding of
C.  C. Special.    V. S. -r.  Supto  Manufacturing; Co.     Plea  of guilty. 
Fine, ?SO and costs.    (F. & D. no. 31321.   Sample nos. 35842-A, 35843-A.)
This case was based on interstate shipments of drug preparations labeled 
with false and fraudulent curative and therapeutic claims. It was also claimed 
for one of the products, C. C. Tonic for Baby Chicks, that it contained cod- 
liver oil and would raise more chicks; whereas it contained no cod liver and 
would not raise more chicks.   Both products contained undeclared alcohol.
On March 7, 1934, the United States attorney for the Southern District of 
Iowa, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district 
court an information against the Supto Manufacturing Co., a corporation, Des 
Moines, Iowa, alleging shipment by said company, in violation of the Food and 
Drugs Act, as amended, from the State of Iowa into the State of Missouri, on 
or about January 26, 1933, of a quantity of C. C. Special which was misbranded, 
and on or about February 27, 1933, of a quantity of C. C. Tonic which was 
adulterated and misbranded.
Analyses of samples of the article by this Department showed that the C. C. 
Tonic consisted essentially of small proportions of magnesium sulphate, ex- 
tracts of plant drugs including catechu, a lactate, sodium benzoate and alcohol 
(1.5 percent by volume), and water approximately 97 percent (cod-liver oil 
was not present) ; and that the C. C. Special consisted essentially of small pro- 
portions of magnesium sulphate, extracts of plant drugs including catechu, a 
lactate, alcohol (1.7 percent) by volume, and water (approximately 97 per- 
cent), colored with a red dye.
It was alleged in the information that the C. C. Tonic 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 cod-liver oil, whereas 
it contained no cod-liver oil.
Misbranding of the C. C. Tonic was alleged for the reason that the state- 
ments, " C. C. Tonic raises more chicks " and " Ingredients * * * cod liver 
oil", borne on the bottle label, were false and misleading, since the article 
contained no cod-liver oil and would not produce more chicks. Misbranding 
of both products was alleged for the reason that certain statements, designs, 
and devices, regarding the therapeutic and curative effects of the articles 
falsely and fraudulently represented that the C. C. Tonic would be effective
as a tonic for baby chicks; effective as a preventive for all bowel troubles; 
effective to help maintain health and vigor in adult birds; effective as a treat- j 
lent of birds out of condition; and effective as a treatment for disease; and 
that the C. C. Special was effective when used alone or in connection with 
C. C. Tonic, as a worm preventive and as a treatment for infested birds. Mis- 
branding of both products was alleged for the further reason that they con- 
tained alcohol and the label on the package failed to bear a statement of the 
quantity and proportion of alcohol contained therein.
On May 18, 1934, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant 
company, and the court imposed a fine of $80 and costs.
M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.