F. & D. No. 3268.
I. S. No. 1327-d.	
Issued August 30, 1912.
United States Department of Agriculture,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY.
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 1606.
(Given pursuant to section 4 of the Food and Drugs Act.)
ADULTERATION AND MISBRANDING OF SO-CALLED CASTOR OIL.
On February 6, 1912, the United States Attorney for the Eastern?
District of Louisiana, acting upon a report by the Secretary of?
Agriculture, filed in the District Court of the United States for?
said district an information against Charles H. Adams Co. (Ltd.),?
a corporation, New Orleans, La., alleging shipment by it, in viola??
tion of the Food and Drugs Act., on or about January 30, 1911, from?
the State of Louisiana into the State of Texas, of a quantity of so-?
called castor oil, which was adulterated and misbranded. The?
product was labeled " Cooper Brand Castor Oil," and in inconspicu??
ous type, " Castor oil, about 33?, Cottonseed oil, about 67?, Guaran??
teed by Charles H. Adams Co., Ltd., Serial No. 4048,. New Orleans."
Analysis of a sample of the product by the Bureau of Chemistry?
of this Department showed the following results: Iodin value, 108.8;?
acetyl value, 62.25; solubility in 85 per cent alcohol and high acetyl?
value shows the presence of castor oil. Cottonseed oil present as?
shown by the Halphen reaction. The amount of castor oil present?
is approximately 33.5 per cent, of cottonseed oil, approximately 66.5?
per cent. Adulteration was alleged for the reason that the product?
was sold under and by a name recognized in the United States?
Pharmacopoeia or National Formulary, that is, as castor oil5 and?
said product differed from the standard of strength, quality, and?
purity of castor oil, as determined by the test laid down in said?
Pharmacopoeia or Formulary, which was official at the time of ship??
ment, and that the standard of strength, quality, and purity of the?
product was not plainly stated upon the container thereof, and?
that the use of the label in small and inconspicuous type stating
61099??No. 1606?12
that the product consisted partly of castor oil and partly of cotton??
seed oil, following the statement made in large and conspicuous?
type that the drug was castor oil, was likely to be unnoticed by the?
purchaser, and was not sufficient to correct the statement so made in?
large and conspicuous type, that the product was castor oil, when?
in truth and in fact it was not, and the product was further adul??
terated in that its strength and purity fell below the professed?
standard of quality under which it was sold, namely, as castor oil,?
whereas in truth and in fact it was not castor oil, but a mixture of?
castor oil and cottonseed oil, the larger portion of which was cot??
tonseed oil. Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the label?
on the product was false and misleading, in that it stated in large?
and conspicuous type that the product was castor oil, which was?
false and misleading, and untrue, and that the remaining portion?
of the label purporting to show that the product-consisted partly of?
castor oil and partly of cottonseed oil was in much smaller and?
more inconspicuous type, which was likely not to be noticed by the?
purchaser, and was not sufficient to correct the false statement con??
tained in the first part of the label, in which it was stated in large?
and' conspicuous type that the product was castor oil.
On February 13, 1912, the defendant corporation entered a plea?
of guilty, and the court imposed a fine of $10 and costs.
W. M. HAYS,?
Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C.^ June 18, 1912.
1606