26969. Misbranding of witch hazel)  adulteration and misbranding of rubbing
alcohol compound. U. S. v. Fallis, Inc., and 'William 8. Spero and 
Herman Arkus. Pleas of guilty. Fine, 8200. (F. & D. no. 87993. Sample 
nos. 44028-B,  44029-B, 44030-B, 44035-B,  46136-B,  461S7-B,  60470-B.)
The bottle labels of the witch hazel bore false and fraudulent representations 
regarding its curative and therapeutic effects. The rubbing alcohol compound, 
represented on the label to consist essentially of ethyl alcohol and to be en- 
dorsed by the medical profession, contained isopropyl alcohol but no ethyl 
alcohol, and was not endorsed by the medical profession.
On November 6, 1986, the United States attorney for the Southern District 
of New York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in 
the district court an information against Fallis, Inc., and William S. Spero and 
Herman Arkus, officers of said corporation, New York, N. Y., charging shipment 
by said defendants in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, from the State of 
New York on or about October 26, 1935, into the State of Massachusetts of a 
quantity of witch hazel that was misbranded; and on or about October 28 and 
29 and November 27, 1935, into the States of Massachusetts and California of 
quantities of an article labeled rubbing alcohol compound that was adulterated 
and misbranded.
The witch hazel was alleged to be misbranded in that statements regarding 
its curative and therapeutic effects, borne on the bottle labels, falsely and 
fraudulently represented that it would be effective as a relief and remedy for 
rheumatism and piles.
The rubbing alcohol compound 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 it was represented as rubbing alcohol compound that contained 
70 percent by volume of ethyl alcohol; whereas in fact it was not rubbing 
alcohol compound that contained 70 percent by volume of ethyl alcohol, but 
contained approximately 2 percent by volume of isopropyl alcohol and did not 
contain any ethyl alcohol. Said article was alleged to be misbranded in that 
the statement "Rubbing Alcohol Compound Alcohol—70%" borne on the cartons, 
and the statement "Alcohol-Rub * * * Endorsed by the Medical Profession", 
borne on the bottle labels, were false and misleading in that they represented 
that it was rubbing alcohol compound containing 70 percent by volume of ethyl 
alcohol, that it was an alcohol rub, that is, a product containing 70 percent by 
volume of ethyl alcohol, and that it was endorsed by the medical profession; 
whereas in fact it was not rubbing alcohol compound containing 70 percent by 
volume of ethyl alcohol, it was not an alcohol rub, a product consisting essen- 
tially of ethyl alcohol, but was a product which contained about 2 percent of 
isopropyl alcohol and no ethyl alcohol, and it was not endorsed by the medical 
profession. Said article was alleged to be misbranded further in that it was 
a product which contained isopropyl alcohol and no alcohol, prepared in imita- 
tion of a product which should consist essentially of ethyl alcohol, and was 
offered for sale and sold under the name of another article, "Rubbing Alcohol 
Compound."
On December 28, 1936, pleas of guilty were entered by the defendants and 
the court imposed a fine of $200 on the defendant corporation.
HARRY I>. BROWN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.