S3-1G. Adulteration and misbranding of Pcpso-Laxatonc, U. S. * * * v.?
10 Dojsen Bottles of Drug's Called IJep?o-l,axatosie. Default decree?
of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (F. & D. No. 11S70.?
I.  Sj-  No.  Sei-r,     S.  No. 12-1919.)?\
On January 7, 1920, the United States attorney for the Northern District of?
Georgia, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the Dis??
trict Court of the United States'for said district a libel for the seizureand con??
demnation of a certain quantity of a certain article, labeled." Pepso-Laxatone,"?
at Atlanta, Ga., consigned by the Burlingame Chemical Co., Los Angeles, Calif.,?
alleging that the article had been shipped on or about August 13, 1919, and?
transported from the State of California into the State of Georgia, and charg??
ing adulteration and misbranding in violation of the Food and Drugs Act.
Analysis of a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this depart??
ment showed that it consisted of a solution composed essentially of extractives?
of cascara sagrada, hydrochloric and lactic acids, sugar, alcohol, and water,?
with not to exceed 0.006 gram of pepsin per fluid ounce and not more than a?
trace of pancreatin and diastase.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the libel in that the strength of the?
article fell below the professed standard and quality under which it was sold.
Misbranding of the article was alleged in that the statement on the labels and?
packages containing the article, regarding it, to wit, " Pepso-Laxatone is a solu??
tion of Pepsin, Diastase, Pancreatine," was false and misleading in that it?
represented that the product" contained a substantial amount of pepsin, diastase,?
and pancreatin, whereas, in truth and in fact, the article contained not more?
than a trace of pepsin, and not more than a trace of pencreatin and diastase.
Further misbranding was alleged in that the statements on the labels and on?
the packages, regarding the curative and therapeutic effects of the article, falsely
222	
BUREAU  OF  CHEMISTRY.	
[Supplement 97,"
and fraudulently represented the article to be effective as a permanent relief for?
habitual constipation, gastric disorders, and indigestion, whereas, in truth and?
in fact, it was not effective.
On June 24, 1920, no claimant having appeared for the property, judgment of?
condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered by the court that?
the product be destroyed by the United States marshal.
E. D. BALL, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.