24539. Adulteration and misbranding of Dr. J. O. Lambert's Syrup. IT. S. 
•v. Albert R. Demers (Dr. J. O. Lambert, Ltd.). Plea of guilty. 
Fine, $100.     (F. & D. no. 33840.    Sample nos. 47194-A, 58038-A, 58046-A.)
This case was based on three shipments of a drug preparation known as 
Dr. J. 0. Lambert's Syrup. Examination showed that the article contained 
less chloroform than declared on the label; that it was not composed of 
vegetable substances only as represented, but contained mineral substances; 
and that the labeling bore unwarranted curative and therapeutic claims.
On February 20, 1935, the United States attorney for the Northern District 
of New York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in 
the district court an information against Albert R. Demers, trading as Dr. J. O. 
Lambert, Ltd., Troy, N. Y., alleging shipment by said defendant in violation 
of the Food and Drugs Act as amended, on or about January 24, October 4, 
and October 26, 1933, from the State of New York into the States of Massachu- 
setts, Vermont, and Rhode Island, respectively, of quantities of Dr. J. O. Lam- 
bert's Syrup which was adulterated and misbranded. The article was labeled 
in part: (Bottle) "The Renowned Vegetable Discovery * * * Chloroform 
U. S. P. one minim"; (carton) "Each Ounce Fluid Contains Chloroform U. S. P. 
Yi Minim."
Analyses showed that the article consisted essentially of chloroform, (samples 
taken from each of the three shipments contained 0.83 minim, 0.91 minim, 
and 0.946 minim, respectively, of chloroform), creosote, volatile oils including 
sassafras oil, menthol, and methyl salicylate, small proportions of magnesium 
sulphate and a benzoate, sugar, and water.
The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength and purity 
fell below the professed standard and quality under which it was sold, since 
it contained less chloroform than declared.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that certain statements appearing in 
the labeling, regarding its curative and therapeutic effects, falsely and fraud- 
ulently represented that it was effective as a relief, treatment, remedy, and cure 
for coughs, catarrh, bronchitis, and asthma. Misbranding was alleged for the 
further reason that the statements, "The Renowned Vegetable Discovery" and 
"Each fluid ounce contains: Chloroform U. S. P. 1% minim", with respect to 
all lots, and the statement "Each Ounce Fluid Contains Chloroform U. S. P. 
one Minim", with respect to one lot, were false and misleading, since the article 
was not composed of vegetable ingredients only, but was composed in part of 
mineral ingredients, and each fluid ounce of the article contained less than 1 
minim of chloroform. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the 
article contained chloroform and the label on the package failed to bear a plain 
and conspicuous statement as to the quantity and proportion of chloroform 
contained therein.
On March 21, 1935, the defendant entered a plea of guilty, and the court 
imposed a fine of $100.
M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.