24657. Misbranding of Dr. Fellows' Headache Powders. U. S. v. Albert H. Clark (Clark Medicine Co.). Plea of nolo .contendere. Fine, $10. (F. & D. no. 33986. Sample no. 68364-A.) This case was based on an interstate shipment of a drug preparation which was misbranded because of false and fraudulent curative claims appearing in the labeling. The product was further misbranded since it contained less- caffeine than declared; it contained acetanilide in excess of the amount declared,, and it was not a safe remedy as claimed, since it contained excessive acet- anilid which might be harmful. On May 13, 1935, the United States attorney for the District of Massachu- setts, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court an information against Albert H. Clark, trading as the Clark Medicine Co., Newburyport, Mass., alleging shipment by said defendant in violation of the Food and Drugs Act as amended, on or about February 15, 1934, from the State of Massachusetts into the State of New Hampshire, of a quantity of Dr. Fellows' Headache Powders which were misbranded. The article was. labeled in part: "Each Powder contains two grains Acetanilide." Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of acetanilide (not less than 40.3 percent or 2.8 grains per powder of average weight), caffeine (not over 8.86 percent or 0.62 grain per powder of average weight) sodium bicarbonate, and ground plant material including ginger. The article was alleged to be misbranded in that certain statements regard- ing its therapeutic and curative effects, appearing on the labels and in a circular shipped with the article, falsely and fraudulently represented that it was effective as a remedy for sick or nervous headache, and cough; effec- tive as a treatment, remedy, and cure for rheumatism and la grippe; and' effective to act freely on the kidneys and as a powerful heart tonic and stimu- lant ; effective to strengthen and sustain the heart; effective to give immediate relief in sick or nervous headache, monthly pains, rheumatism and la grippe p and effective as a relief of pain. Misbranding was alleged for the further- reason that the statements, (circular) "Each powder contains % grain * * *"- caffeine" and "We guarantee them to be absolutely safe for any one to take under any circumstances" (envelop) "A * * * Safe Remedy * * * These powders * * * are warranted safe for any one to take as directed * * * Each powder contains two grains Acetanilide, U. S. P., which combined with; other ingredients makes it a safe * * * remedy", were false and mislead- ing in that the said statements represented that the powders each contained % grain of caffeine and 2 grains of acetanilide; that it was a safe remedy and1 was absolutely safe for anyone to take under any circumstances; whereas- each powder contained less than % grain of caffeine and contained more- than 2 grains of acetanilide, the article was not a safe remedy, was not safe to be used as directed, and was not absolutely safe for anyone to take under any circumstances, since it contained an excessive amount of acetanilide which- rendered it unsafe as a remedy, unsafe to be used as directed, and not safe for any one to take under any circumstances. On June 10, 1935, the defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere and5 the court imposed a fine of $10. W. R. GBEGQ, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.