19673. Adulteration and Misbranding of Runners extract of cod-liver oil 
cordial. V. S. v. C. H. Griest Co. (Inc.). Plea of nolo contendere. 
Fine, $5.     (F. & D   No. 26655.    I. S. No. 28253.)
This action was based on interstate shipments of quantities of a drug product, 
known as Runners extract of cod-liver oil cordial, which purported to be 
an extractive of cod liver. Examination showed that 100 grams of the article 
were not equal to 1 gram of good cod-liver oil as a source of vitamin A. The 
carton and bottle labels also bore unwarranted curative and therapeutic 
claims.
On October 29, 1931, the United States attorney for the Northern District 
of West Virginia, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed 
in the District Court of the United States for the district aforesaid an informa- 
tion against C. H. Griest Co. (Inc.), a corporation, Wheeling, W. Va., alleging 
shipments by said company in violation of the food and drugs act as amended, 
on or about December 24, 1930, and February 12, 1931, from the State ot 
West Virginia into the State of Pennsylvania of a quantity of the said 
Runners extract of cod-liver oil cordial that was adulterated and misbranded.
Analysis of a sample of the article by this department showed that it con- 
sisted essentially of compounds of phosphorous, calcium, sodium, potassium, 
iron, and manganese, and traces of quinine and strychnine alkaloids, wild 
cherry, sugar, alcohol, and water, flavored with orange and cassia oils. Bio- 
logical examination showed that 100 grams of the article were not equal to 
1 gram of good cod-liver oil as a source of vitamin A.
It was alleged in the information that the article was adulterated in that 
its strength and purity fell below the professed standard and quality under 
which it was sold, since it was represented to be extract of cod-liver oil 
cordial which contained a solution of an extractive from fresh cod livers, 
whereas it was not an extractive of cod-liver oil cordial and did not contain 
a solution of an extractive from fresh cod livers.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements, "Extract of 
Cod Liver Oil Cordial * * * Contains a Solution of an Extractive from 
Fresh Cod Livers," borne on the carton and bottle labels,* were false and 
misleading, since the said article was not extract of cod-liver oil cordial which 
contained a solution of an extractive from fresh cod livers. Misbranding was 
alleged for the further reason that certain statements regarding the thera- 
peutic and curative effects of the article, appearing on the bottle and carton 
labels, falsely and fraudulently represented that the article was effective as a 
reconstructive and as a digestive; effective to protect health; and effective / 
when taken regularly and according to directions as a remedy to produce 
health; whereas the article contained no ingredients or medicinal agents 
effective for the said purposes.
On May 18, 1932, a plea of nolo contendere to the information was entered 
on behalf of the defendant company,
' and the court imposed a fine of $5.
ABTHTJB M. HYDE, Secretary of Agriculture.