30649, Adulteration and misbranding of ether U. S. P. 10 (ethyl oxide TJ. S. P.
XI). U. S. v. 27 Cans of Ether XJ. S. P. lO (and 4 other seizure actions 
against the same product). Default decrees of condemnation and 
destruction. (F. & D. Nos. 45067, 45141, 45222, 45243, 45250, 45251, 45252. 
Sample Nos. 43477-D, 50197-D, 51423-D. 51424-D. 51426-D, 60417-D, 
65666-D.)
This product had been shipped in interstate commerce and remained unsold 
and in the original packages. Ten cans were collected from each of the seven 
shipments. When examined, 51 of the 70 samples were found to contain 
peroxide; one also contained aldehyde.
On various dates between March 23 and April 29, 1939, the United States 
attorneys for the Eastern District of Louisiana, District of Connecticut, 
Northern District of Georgia, Northern District of California,, and the Eastern 
District of Pennsylvania, acting upon reports by the Secretary of Agriculture, 
filed in their respective district courts libels praying seizure and condemnation 
of 147 cans of ether in various lots at New Orleans, La., New Haven, Conn., 
Atlanta, Ga., San Francisco, Calif., and Philadelphia, Pa.; alleging that>the 
article had been shipped in interstate commerce within the period from on 
or about December 10, 1938, to on or about February 15, 1939, from St. Louis, 
Mo., New York, N. Y., Rahway, N. J., and Brooklyn, N. Y., by Merck & Co., 
Inc.; and charging adulteration and misbranding in violation of the Food 
and Drugs Act On May 11 and 19, 1939, the libels filed in the Eastern Dis- 
trict of Louisiana and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania were amended in 
order to eliminate the allegations that the article was adulterated and mis- 
branded at the time of shipment.
Adulteration was alleged in that the article was sold under names recog- 
nized in the United States Pharmacopoeia, namely, ether and ethyl oxide, but 
differed from the standard of strength, quality, and purity as determined by 
the tests laid down therein, and its own standard of strength, quality, and 
purity was not stated on the label. A further allegation of adulteration was 
that its strength and purity fell below the professed standard and quality 
under which it was sold, namely, "Ether U. S. P. 10," since the article did not 
conform to the specifications of the tenth revision of the United States Phar- 
macopoeia for ether in that it contained peroxide. 
r
Misbranding was alleged in that the statement "Ether U. S. P. 10 * * * 
(Ethyl Oxide U. S. P. XI)," appearing in the labeling, was false and mis- 
leading, since the article did not conform to the specifications of the tenth 
revision of the pharmacopoeia for ether, nor to those of the eleventh revision 
for ethyl exide.
On May 11, 15, and 29, 1939, no claim having been filed, judgments of con- 
demnation were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.
HABBT L. BROWN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.