24646. Adulteration  and misbranding of pituitary  extract and  sodium  caco- 
dylate.    U. S. v. William A. Fitch, Inc.    Plea of guilty.    Fine, $200.
(F. & D. nos. 30332, 33843.    Sample nos. 207lO^A, 52053-A.)
This case was based on an interstate shipment of pituitary extract which had 
a potency below that prescribed by the United States Pharmacopoeia, arid of 
sodium cacodylate ampoules that contained a smaller amount of sodium caco- 
dylate than declared on the label.
On May 7, 1935, the United States attorney for the Southern District of 
New York, acting upon reports by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the 
district court an information against William A. Fitch, Inc., New York, N. Y„ 
alleging shipment by said company in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, 
from the State of New York into the State of New Jersey, on or about July 2, 
1932, of a quantity of pituitary extract, and on or about October 31, 1933, of a 
quantity of sodium cacodylate which products were adulterated and mis- 
branded. The articles were labeled in part: "Pituitary Extract Fitch Double 
Strength"; "Solution Sodium Cacodylate Fitch   1 Gm. (lS1^ grs.)."
The pituitary extract was alleged to be adulterated in. that it was sold 
under a name recognized in the United States Phamacopoeia and differed 
from the standard of strength, quality, and purity as determined by the test 
laid down in the said pharmacopoeia official at the tune of investigation, in 
that its potency was below the staridard prescribed in that authority, and the 
standard of strength, quality, arid purity of the article was not declared on 
the container. Adulteration of the pituitary extract was alleged for the 
further reason that its strength or purity fell below the professed standard 
and quality under which it was sold, since it was represented to be pituitary 
extract of double strength, whereas it was not.
49173—36 3
Adulteration of the sodium cacodylate was alleged for the reason that Its 
strength and purity fell below the professed standard and quality under 
which it was sold in that each 2 cubic centimeters of the article was repre- 
sented to contain 1 gram (15% grains) of sodium cacodylate; whereas each 
2 cubic centimeters of the article contained less than so represented, namely, 
not more than 0.822 gram (12.68 grains) of sodium cacodylate.
Misbranding of the pituitary extract was alleged for the reason that the 
statement, "Pituitary Extract * * * Double Strength", borne on the label, 
was" false and nrislewdim*. since the article was not pituitary extract of double: 
strength. Misbranding of the sodium cacodylate was alleged for the reason 
that the statement "2 cc * * * Sodium Cacodylate * * * 1 Gm. (15% 
grs.)", borne on the label, was false and misleading, since 2 cubic centimeters 
of the article did not contain 1 gram of sodium cacodylate, but did contain 
a less amount.
On May 20, 1935, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant 
company and the court imposed a fine of $200.
W. R. GBEGQ, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.