26776. Adulteration and misbranding of glycerin, arsenic trioxide, phenol crys¬
tals, sodium borate powder, powdered borax, aromatic spirit of 
ammonia, sodium biphosphate, zinc oxide, liquor cresolis compositus, 
and lemon extract. Misbranding of vanilla extract, syrup of hypo- 
phosphites, hydrogen peroxide solution, oil of cottonseed, and Good's 
Dog Soap. V. S. v. James Good, Inc., and John J. Cram. Pleas of nolo 
contendere. Judgments of guilty. James Good, Inc., fined $300. John 
J. Cram given suspended sentence and placed on probation. (F. & D. 
no. 33867. Sample nos. 41451-A, 41452-A, 50633-A, 56687-A, 58845-A, 
61146-A, 62165-A, 62170-A, 62182-A, 62200-A, 62517-A, 76402-A, 3382-B, 
3912-B, 4013-B, 4503-B, 4663-B, 5080-B, 26099-B, 38558-B.)
This case involved the following products: Glycerin, arsenic trioxide, phenol 
crystals, sodium borate powder, powdered borax, aromatic spirit of ammonia, 
sodium biphosphate, zinc oxide, and liquor cresolis compositus, products 
recognized in the United States Pharmacopoeia but which differed from the 
standards laid down in that authority and were not labeled to show their own 
standards; lemon extract that was deficient in lemon oil and contained less 
alcohol than declared on the label; vanilla extract that was short in volume 
and contained less alcohol than declared; syrup of hypophosphites, hydrogen 
peroxide solution, and oil of cottonseed that were short in volume; and Good's 
Dog Soap the labeling of which contained false and fraudulent curative and 
therapeutic claims.
On March 11, 1936, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of 
Pennsylvania, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in 
the district court an information against James Good, Inc., a Delaware cor- 
poration trading at Philadelphia, Pa., and John J. Oram, factory superin- 
tendent of said corporation, alleging shipment by said defendants in violation 
of the Food and Drugs Act as amended, between the dates of May 11, 1933, 
153095—37 5
and June 27, 1935, from the State of Pennsylvania, into the States of New 
Jersey, Kansas, Texas, Maryland, South Dakota, Ohio, Wisconsin, Colorado, 
Alabama, and the District of Columbia of quantities of the products above 
referred to, of which a part were adulterated and misbranded, and the re- 
mainder were misbranded. The articles were labeled: "James Good, Inc., 
Philadelphia."
Certain of the above-named products were alleged to be adulterated in that 
they were sold under names recognized in the United States Pharmacopoeia, 
and differed from the standard of strength, quality, and purity as determined 
by the test laid down therein in the following respects, and their own stand- 
ard of strength, quality, and purity were not declared on the container:
The glycerin was of a yellow color, had a specific gravity at 25? Centigrade 
of 1.247, possessed a slightly acid reaction to litmus and contained carbonaceous 
and mineral residue amounting to 0.026 percent, readily carbonizable substances 
which with sulphuric acid produced a brown color, and sulphate; whereas the 
pharmacopoeia provides that glycerin shall be colorless, that it shall have a 
specific gravity at 25? Centigrade not below 1.249, that it shall be neutral to 
litmus paper, that it shall contain not more than 0.015 percent of carbonaceous 
and mineral residue, that it shall not contain readily carbonizable substances 
which with sulphuric acid will color the material darker than yellow, and that 
it shall contain no sulphate.
The arsenic trioxide was a gray powder containing particles larger than 
0.0125 millimeter in diameter. The residue upon ignition of 1 gram of the 
powder was not less than 2.36 percent, the arsenic sulphide precipitated by 
hydrogen sulphide from a solution was not completely soluble in an excess of 
ammonium carbonate, and the article when dried to constant weight at 100° 
Centigrade contained not more than 98.7 percent of arsenic trioxide; whereas 
the pharmacopoeia provides that arsenic trioxide shall consist of particles not 
greater than 0.0125 millimeter in diameter, that it shall be a white powder, 
that upon ignition of 1 gram of the powder it shall leave a residue of not 
more than 0.1 percent, that the arsenic sulphide precipitated by hydrogen sul- 
phide from a solution shall be completely soluble in an excess of ammonium 
carbonate, and that when dried to constant weight at 100° Centigrade it shall 
contain not less than 99.8 percent of arsenic trioxide.
The phenol crystals were not colorless, and 5 grams of the article heated on a 
water bath left a residue of more than 0.05 percent, namely, 0.16 percent; 
whereas the pharmacopoeia provides that phenol crystals be colorless, and 
that 5 grams of the article, when heated on a water bath, shall leave a residue 
of not more than 0.05 percent.
The sodium borate powder and the powdered borax contained in 100,000 
parts arsenic equivalent to more than 5 parts of arsenic trioxide; whereas 
the pharmacopoeia provides that sodium borate and powdered borax shall not 
contain arsenic equivalent to more than 1 part of arsenic trioxide per 100,000 
parts.
The aromatic spirit of ammonia contained in each 100 cubic centimeters 
less than 1.84 grams, namely, not more than 1.54 grams of ammonia; whereas 
the pharmacopoeia provides that aromatic spirit of ammonia shall contain not 
less than 1.84 grams of ammonia per 100 cubic centimeters.
One gram of the sodium biphosphate yielded more chlorides than correspond 
to 0.2 cubic centimeter of fiftieth-normal hydrochloric acid; whereas the 
pharmacopoeia provides that 1 gram of sodium biphosphate shall yield no more 
chlorides than corresponds to 0.2 cubic centimeter of fiftieth-normal hydro- 
chloric acid.
Two grams of zinc oxide mixed with 10 cubic centimeters of distilled water, 
to which was added 30 cubic centimeters of diluted sulphuric acid, did not 
make a solution that was clear and colorless, and 2 grams of the article, added 
to 20 cubic centimeters of distilled water and 5 cubic centimeters of glacial 
acetic acid and warmed on a water bath, produced a precipitate upon the addi- 
tion of 5 drops of potassium chromate T. S., indicating the presence of lead; 
whereas the pharmacopoeia provides that 2 grams of zinc oxide mixed with 
10 cubic centimeters of distilled water, to which is added 30 cubic centimeters 
of diluted sulphuric acid, heated on a water bath, shall make a solution which 
is clear and colorless and that 2 grams of zinc oxide added to 20 cubic centi- 
meters of distilled water and 5 cubic centimeters of glacial acetic acid, warmed 
on a water bath, and to which is added 5 drops of potassium chromate T. S.. 
will produce no precipitate indicating lead.
The liquor cresolis compositus contained oil other than linseed oil; whereas 
the pharmacopoeia mentions only linseed oil as an ingredient of liquor cresolis 
compositus. Adulteration of the products sold under names recognized in the 
United States Pharmacopoeia was alleged for the further reason that the 
strength and purity of the articles fell below the professed standard and 
quality under which they were sold.
Adulteration of the lemon extract was alleged in that a product deficient 
in lemon oil had been substituted for pure extract lemon, which the article 
purported to be.
Misbranding was alleged with- respect to the products sold under names 
recognized in the pharmacopoeia in that the following statements borne on the 
label were false and misleading: "Glycerin, U.S.P."; "Arsenic Trioxide, U.S.P."; 
"Phenol Crystals, U.S.P."; "Sodium Borate Powder, U.S.P."; "Powdered 
Borax, U.S.P."; "Aromatic Spirit of Ammonia, U.S.P."; "Sodium Diphosphate, 
U.S.P."; "Zinc Oxide, U.S.P."; "Liquor Cresolis Compositus, U.S.P."
Misbranding was alleged with respect to the lemon extract in that the 
statements "Extract, Flavoring, Lemon", borne on the carton, and the state- 
ments "Pure Extract Lemon", "Alcohol 80%", borne on the bottle label, were 
false and misleading and were applied to the article so as to deceive and mis- 
lead the purchaser since they represented that it was pure extract of lemon 
and contained 80 percent of alcohol; whereas it was not pure extract of lemon, 
but was a product deficient in lemon oil and did not contain 80 percent of 
alcohol, but did contain a less amount.
Misbranding was alleged with respect to the vanilla extract in that the 
statements "24 4-Ounce bottles", borne on the carton and "4 Fluid Ounces, 
Net Alcohol 40%", borne on the bottle label, were false and misleading and 
were applied to the article so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser in that 
they represented that the bottles contained 4 fluid ounces of the article, and 
that the article contained 40 percent of alcohol; whereas each of said bottles 
contained less than 4 fluid ounces of the article, and the article contained less 
than 40 percent of alcohol. Misbranding of the vanilla extract was alleged 
for the further reason that it was food in package form and the quantity of 
the contents was not plainly and conspicuously marked on the outside of the 
package.
Misbranding of the syrup of hypophosphites, hydrogen peroxide solution, and 
the oil of cottonseed was alleged for the reason that the statements "1 Pint", 
with respect to the syrup of hypophosphites, "1 Gallon", with respect to the 
hydrogen peroxide solution, and "1 Quart", with respect to the oil of cotton- 
seed, borne on the labels of the bottles containing the articles, were false and 
misleading since the said bottles contained less than declared.
Misbranding of the dog soap was alleged in that certain statements, designs, 
and devices, regarding its curative and therapeutic effects, borne on the car- 
tons containing the article and in a circular enclosed therein, falsely and 
fraudulently represented that the article was effective as an aid in keeping 
the skin in a healthy condition; was effective to heal sores, to promote the 
healing of many sores and eruptions, and to make hair grow; was effective 
as a treatment of eczema sores and certain other skin ailments; and was 
effective to insure health.
The information also charged adulteration and misbranding of the liquor 
cresolis compositus and misbranding of Good's Dog Soap in violation of the 
Insecticide Act of 1910, reported in notices of judgment published under that 
act.
On January 15, 1937, the defendants entered pleas of nolo contendere. 
Judgments were entered finding the defendants guilty and imposing a fine of 
$300 on James Good, Inc., for violation of both acts. John J. Cram was given 
a suspended sentence and placed on probation for 1 year.
W. R. GREGG, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.