C636. Adulteration and misbranding' of quinine sulphate and calomel tab??
lets. V. S. * ' * v. The Dx-?s Products Co., a corporation. Plea?
of guilty.     Fine, $20.     (F. & D. No. 8880.     I. S. Nos. 1118-p, 1120-p.)
On May 7, 1918, the United States attorney for the Southern District of New?
York, acting upon a veport by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District?
Court of the United States for said district an information against The Drug?
Products Co., a corporation, New York, N. Y., alleging shipment by said com??
pany, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act (two shipments), on September?
25, 1917, from the State of New York into the State of New Jersey, of quanti??
ties of articles labeled in part, " Tablets * * * Quinine Sulphate," and?
"Tablets    >:'    *    *    Calomel," which were adulterated  and misbranded.
Analyses of samples of the articles by the Bureau of Chemistry of this depart??
ment showed the following results:
QUININE  SULPHATE TABLETS.
Quinine equivalent to quinine sulphate  +7H20   (grains?
per tablet)?
1. 54
CALOMEL TABLETS.?
Calomel  (grain per tablet)?
0.156
Adulteration of the " Quinine Sulphate " was alleged in the information for?
the reason that its strength fell below the professed standard or quality under?
which it was sold, in that it was a product which contained less than 2 grains?
of quinine sulphate per tablet, to wit, 1.54 grains of quinine sulphate per?
tablet, and was sold as an article which contained 2 grains of quinine sulphate?
per tablet.
Misbranding of the article was alleged for the reason that the statement,?
" Each tablet contains quinine sulphate 2 grains," borne on the label attached?
to the bottle containing the article, regarding it and the ingredients and sub??
stances contained therein, was false and misleading in that it represented that?
each tablet of the article contained 2 grains of quinine sulphate, whereas, in?
truth and in fact, each did not. but contained a less amount, to wit, 1.54 grains?
of quinine sulphate.
Adulteration of the " Calomel" was alleged for the reason that its strength?
fell below the professed standard of quality and purity under which it was sold,?
in that it was a product which contained less than { grain of calomel per tablet,?
to wit, 0.156 grain of calomel per tablet, and was sold as an article which con??
tained i grain of calomel per tablet.
Misbranding of the article was alleged for the reason that the statement,?
" Bach tablet contains calomel i grain," borne on the label attached to the bottle?
containing the article, regarding it and the ingredients and substances contained?
therein, was false and misleading, in that it represented that each tablet of the?
article contained i graiu of calomel, whereas, in truth and in fact, each did not,?
but contained a less amount, to wit, 0.156 grain of calomel per tablet.
On December 11, 1918, the defendant company entered a plea of guilty to the?
information, and the court imposed a fine of $20.
C. F. MAKVIN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
N. J. 6601-6650.]   SERVICE  AND  REGULATORY  ANNOUNCEMENTS.	161