26163. Misbranding of rubbing alcohol compound and rubbing alcohol. IT. S. 
v. 27 Dozen Bottles of Rubbing Alcohol Compound and Rubbing Alco- 
hol.    Default   decree   of   condemnation,   forfeiture,   and   destruction.
(F. & D. no. 37147.    Sample nos. 65526-B, 65527-B.)
These products contained isopropyl alcohol and were labeled to create the 
erroneous Impression that they contained ethyl alcohol. The labels were fur- 
ther objectionable because they failed to bear a proper declaration of the 
quantity of isopropyl alcohol contained in the articles.
On February 5, 1936, the United States attorney for the District of Massa- 
chusetts, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the dis- 
trict court a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 27 dozen bottles of 
rubbing alcohol compound and rubbing alcohol at Fall River, Mass., alleging 
that the articles had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about No- 
vember 22, 1985, by the Vale Co., from New York, N. Y., Into the State of
Massachusetts, and charging misbranding in violation of the Food and Drugs 
Act. Certain bottles were labeled in part, "Rubbing Alcohol Compound Iso- 
propyl Alcohol 70 Proof * * * Bond Laboratories New York—Chicago"; 
other bottles were labeled in part, "Dr. Wards Rubbing Alcohol 70 Proof 
Isopropyl Alcohol Hospital Brand   *   *   *   Bond Laboratories New York."
Misbranding of the rubbing alcohol compound was alleged in that the state- 
ment on the label "Rubbing Alcohol Compound" was false and misleading, 
since it created the impression that the article contained ordinary (ethyl) 
alcohol; whereas it was a mixture of isopropyl alcohol and water, and the 
erroneous impression thus created was not corrected by the relatively incon- 
spicuous statement on the label, "Isopropyl Alcohol 70 Proof." Misbranding of 
the rubbing alcohol was alleged in that the statement on the label, "Rubbing 
Alcohol," was false and misleading since the article contained no ordinary 
(ethyl) alcohol and consisted essentially of isopropyl alcohol, acetone, and 
water; in that the article was an imitation of and was offered for sale under 
the name of another article. Misbranding was alleged with respect to both 
products for the further reason that the labels failed to bear a statement of 
the quantity or proportion of isopropyl alcohol contained therein, since the 
statement "70 Proof Isopropyl Alcohol" was meaningless.
On March 16, 1936, no claimant having appeared, a default decree of con- 
demnation, forfeiture, and destruction was entered.
HABBT L. BROWN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.