26771. Adulteration and misbranding of Mulford Acidophilus Bacillus Blocks. 
TJ. S. v. 6 Packages, 23 Packages, and 11 Packages of Mulford Acidoph- 
ilus Bacillus Blocks. Default decrees of condemnation and destruc- 
tion. (F. & D. nos. 38228, 38284, 38328. Sample nos. 8123-C, 15608-C, 
15654-C.)
These cases involved interstate shipments of Mulford Acidophilus Bacillus 
Blocks that were capable of providing only a small proportion of the quantity 
of viable acidophilus bacilli represented on the label.
The United States attorney for the District of New Jersey, acting upon 
reports by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court on August 
31, 1936, a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 6 packages; on September 
10, 1936, a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 23 packages; and on 
September 21, 1936, a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 11 packages of 
Mulford Acidophilus Bacillus Blocks. It was alleged in the libels that the 
article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about June 23, July 2. 
July 13, August 28, and September 11, 1936, by Sharp & Dohme, Inc., from 
Philadelphia, Pa., and that it was adulterated and misbranded in violation of 
the Food and Drugs Act.
The article in the lot of 'six packages was alleged to be adulterated in that 
its strength fell below the professed standard or quality under which it was 
sold, namely. "Mulford Acidophilus Bacillus Blocks * * * When properly 
kept, each Block will include, at the time of sale, millions of viable acidophilus 
bacilli * * * Expiration Date Sep 6 1936", in that the number of viable 
lactobacilli did not exceed 50,000 per block and the dosage of viable lactobacilli 
recommended in medical literature was in millions of organisms. The article 
in said six packages was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, (on 
the wrapper of the package) "Mulford Acidophilus Bacilli Blocks * * * 
When properly kept, each Block will include, at the time of sale, millions of 
viable acidophilus bacilli * * * Expiration Date Sep 6 1936", and (in a 
circular accompanying the package, in English and Spanish) "Mulford Acid- 
ophilus Bacillus Blocks are merchandised with an expiration date of six weeks. 
This dating period provides a factor of safety by insuring a sufficient number of 
viable B. acidophilus in the daily dosage as indicated", were false and mis- 
leading in that the number of viable lactobacilli did not exceed 50,000 per 
block and the dosage of viable lactobacilli recommended in medical literature 
was in millions of organisms.
The article in the lot of 23 packages was alleged to be adulterated in that 
its strength fell below the professed standard or quality under which it was 
sold, namely, "Mulford Acidophilus Bacillus Blocks * * * When properly 
kept, each Block will include, at the time of sale, millions of viable acidophilus 
bacilli * * * Expiration date Oct 11 1936", in that the number of viable 
acidophilus bacilli did not exceed 10,000 per block and the dosage of viable 
lactobacilli recommended in medical literature is in millions of organisms. 
The article in said 23 packages was alleged to be misbranded in that the state- 
ments (on the wrapper of the package), "Mulford Acidophilus Bacillus 
Blocks * * * When properly kept, each Block will include, at the time 
of sale, millions of viable acidophilus bacilli * * * Expiration date Oct 11 
1936", and (in a circular accompanying the package, in English and Spanish)
"Mulford Acidophilus Bacillus Blocks are merchandised with an expiration 
date of six weeks. This dating period provides a factor of safety by insuring 
a sufficient number of viable B. acidophilus in the daily dosage as indicated", 
were false and misleading in that the number of viable lactobacilli did not 
exceed 10,000 per block and the dosage of viable lactobacilli recommended in 
medical literature was in millions of organisms.
The article in the lot of 11 packages was alleged to be adulterated in that 
its strength fell below the professed standard or quality under which it was 
sold, namely, "Mulford Acidophilus Bacillus Blocks *. * * When properly 
kept, each Block will include, at the time of sale, millions of viable acidophilus 
bacilli", in that the number of viable lactobacilli in some of the blocks did not 
exceed 40,000 per block and the dosage of viable lactobacilli recommended in 
medical literature was in millions of organisms. The article in said 11 packages 
was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements (on the wrapper of the 
package) "Mulford Acidophilus Bacillus Blocks * * * When properly kept, 
each Block will include, at the time of sale, millions of viable acidophilus 
bacilli * * * Expiration Date Oct 16 1936", and (in a circular accompany- 
ing the package, in English and Spanish) "Mulford Acidophilus Bacillus Blocks 
are merchandised with an expiration date of six weeks. This dating period 
provides a factor of safety by insuring a sufficient number of viable B, aci- 
dophilus in the daily dosage as indicated", were false and misleading in that 
the number of viable lactobacilli in some of the blacks of said article did not 
exceed 40,000 per block and the dosage of viable lactobacilli recommended in 
medical literature is in millions of organisms.
On October 2 and October 21, 1936, respectively, no claimant having appeared, 
judgments of condemnation were entered and it was ordered that the product 
be destroyed.
W. R. GEEGG, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.