26792. Adulteration and misbranding of Anocaine Solution BM and Anocaine 
Solution BE!; Misbranding of Anocaine Solution BI. IT. S. v. Reliance 
Dental Manufacturing Co., Inc.    Plea of guilty.    Fine, $25 and costs.
F. & D.  no.  37967.    Sample nos. 44954-B, 44956-B, 51012-B, 52422-B.)
This case involved three consignments of procaine hydrochloride solution, 
labeled "Anocaine Solution BM", "Anocaine Solution M", and "Anocaine So- 
lution BE." The Anocaine Solution BM in one of the consignments contained 
less procaine hydrochloride than the quantity represented on the label; and 
in the other two consignments it was misbranded as to the quantity of con- 
tents of the package. The Anocaine Solution M was misbranded as to the 
quantity of contents, and the Anocaine Solution BE contained less procaine 
hydrochloride than the quantity represented on the label.
On September 24, 1936, the United States attorney for the Northern District 
of Illinois, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the 
district court an information against the Reliance Dental Manufacturing Co., 
a corporation, Chicago, Ill., charging shipment by said corporation in violation 
of the Food and Drugs Act on or about November 6, 1934, from the State 
of Illinois into the State of Tennessee of a quantity of Anocaine Solution BM, 
and of Annocaine Solution M which were misbranded; on or about September 
18, 1935, from the State of Illinois into the State of Ohio of a quantity of 
Anocaine Solution BE which was adulterated and misbranded; and on or 
about October 4, 1935, from the State of Illinois into the State of Pennsyl- 
—vania- of—aniuanlily <^ AuTrcaTn^^SolutioirrBM^vrhtch^wus-^mis^bTaTiTled^ and 
from the State of Illinois into the State of Ohio of a quantity of Anocaine 
Solution BM that was adulterated and misbranded.
The Anocaine Solution BM in one of the three consignments was alleged 
to be misbranded in that the statement, "Anocaine Solution BM * * * 
Extractotubes, Approx. 2.5 cc. each", borne on the cartons containing the ex- 
tractotubes of the article, was false and misleading in that it represented that 
each of said extractotubes contained approximately 2.5 cubic centimeters of 
Anocaine Solution BM; when in fact each of said extractotubes contained not 
more than 2.15 cubic centimeters of Anocaine Solution BM. The article in 
another one of the three consignments was alleged to be misbranded in that 
the statement, "Anocaine Solution BM * * * Extractotubes Contain Ap- 
prox. 2.15 to 2.55 cc. each", borne on the cartons, was false and misleading in 
that it represented that each of said extractotubes contained approximately 
2.15 to 2,5 cubic centimeters of Anocaine Solution BM; when in fact each of said 
extractotubes contained not more than 2 cubic centimeters of Anocaine So- 
lution BM. The Anocaine Solution BM in the remaining consignment was 
alleged to be adulterated in that its strength and purity fell below the pro- 
fessed standard and quality under which it was sold, in that each cubic 
centimeter of the article was represented to contain 0.02 gram of procaine 
hydrochloride; when in fact each cubic centimeter of the article contained 
not more than 0.0145 gram of procaine hydrochloride. Said article was alleged 
to be misbranded in that the statement, "Anocaine Solution BM Each cc. 
Contains: Procaine Hydrochloride .02 gas.", borne on the package labels was 
false and misleading in that it represented that each cubic centimeter of the 
article contained 0.02 gram of procaine hydrochloride; when in fact each 
cubic centimeter of the article contained not more than 0.0145 gram of procaine 
hydrochloride.
The Anocaine Solution M was alleged to be misbranded in that the state- 
ment, "Anocaine Solution M * * * Extractotubes, Approx. 2.5 cc. each", 
borne on the cartons, was false and misleading in that it represented that each 
of said extractotubes contained approximately 2.5 cubic centimeters of Anocaine 
Solution M; when in fact each of said extractotubes contained not more than 
2.12 cubic centimeters of Anocaine Solution M.
The Anocaine Solution BE was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength 
and purity fell below the professed standard and quality under which it was 
sold, in that each cubic centimeter of the article was represented to contain 
0.02 gram of procaine hydrochloride; when in fact each cubic centimeter of* 
the article contained not more than 0.01612 gram of procaine hydrochloride. 
Said article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement, "Anocaine 
BE Each cc. Contains: Procaine Hydrochloride .02 gas.", borne on the pack- 
age labels, was false and misleading in that it represented that each cubic 
centimeter of the article contained 0.02 gram of procaine hydrochloride; when 
in fact each cubic centimeter of the article contained not more than 0.016 gram 
of procaine hydrochloride.
On November 16,1936, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant 
corporation and the court imposed a fine of $25 and costs.
W. R. GREGG, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.