720. Adulteration   and   misbranding   of   hydrogen   peroxide;   misbranding   of
isopropyl alcohol, mineral oil, soda, and olive oil. U. S. v. Raymond
Thomason and Clyde Rutledge (Southwest Products Co.). Pleas of guilty,
Fines, $200. (F. D. C. No. 5565. Sample Nos. 6982-E, 6987-E, 6988-E,
6995-E, 65397-E, 65398-B.)
This case involved hydrogen peroxide which failed to conform to the phar-
macopoeial specifications; mineral oil and soda the labeling of which bore false
and misleading curative claims; and mineral oil, isopropyl alcohol, and olive
oil which were short of the declared volume. The labeling of the soda also
failed to bear adequate directions for use.
On March 2, 1942, the United States attorney for the Northern District of
Texas filed an information against Raymond Thomason and Clyde Rutledge,
trading as Southwest Products Co. at Lubbock, Tex., alleging shipment within
the period from on or about September 16 to on or about November 22, 1940,
from the State of Texas into the State of New Mexico of quantities of the above-
named drugs which were adulterated and/or misbranded.
The hydrogen peroxide was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported
to be and was represented as a drug the name of which is recognized in the
United States Pharmacopoeia but its strength differed from and its quality fell
below the standard set forth therein, since in each 100 cubic centimeters it
contained less than 2.5 grams of hydrogen peroxide (H2Oj), namely, not more
than 1.90 grams of hydrogen peroxide; whereas the United States Pharma-
copoeia specifies that hydrogen peroxide shall contain in each 100 cc. not less
than 2.5 grams of H202, and its difference in strength and quality from such
standard was not plainly stated on the label. It was alleged to be misbranded
in that the statement on the bottle label, "Hydrogen Peroxide U. S. P. * " * *
3? * * * Active Ingredients H2Oa 3?," was false and misleading since it
represented that the article complied with the specifications of the United States
Pharmacopoeia for solution of hydrogen peroxide and contained 3 percent of
hydrogen peroxide; whereas it did not comply with such specifications and it
contained not more than 1.9 percent of hydrogen peroxide.
One shipment of mineral oil was alleged to be misbranded in that the state-
ment on the bottle label, "This oil is used for the treatment of chronic constipa-
tion and * * * for the relief of intestinal indigestion," was false and mislead-
ing since it represented and suggested that the oil would be efficacious for the
treatment of chronic constipation and for the relief of intestinal indigestion;
whereas it would not be efficacious for such purposes. The other shipment of
mineral oil was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement on the bottle label,
"Contents 1 Pint," was false and misleading since the bottles contained less than
1 pint, namely, amounts varying from 14.2 to 15.38 fluid ounces.
The soda was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that the statement, (display
cards) "For Relief of Indigestion, Heartburn, Acid Stomach, Common Colds," was
false and misleading since it represented and suggested that soda was an effica-
cious treatment for indigestion, heartburn, acid stomach, and common colds;
whereas it would not be efficacious for such purposes. (2) In that its labeling
failed to bear adequate directions for use. (3) In that it was in package form and
the package, i. e., envelope, did not bear a label containing the name and place
of business of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor. (4) In that it did not
bear a label containing its common or usual name, i. e., sodium bicarbonate.
The olive oil was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement on the bottle
label, "1? Fl. Oz.," was false and misleading since the bottles contained less
than 1? fluid ounces of olive oil, namely, amounts varying from 1,39 to 1.48
fluid ounces.
The isopropyl alcohol was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement on
the bottle label. "Contents 1 Pint," was false and misleading since the bottles
contained less than 1 pint of the article, namely, amounts varying from 15.2 to
15.85 fluid ounces.
The soda, one shipment of the mineral oil, the isopropyl alcohol, and the olive
oil were alleged to be misbranded further in that they were in package form
and did not bear labels containing accurate statements of the quantity of the
contents.
On April 18, 1942, pleas of guilty were entered by the defendants and the
court imposed a fine of $100 against each.