21781. Adulteration and misbranding of Phenlin Oris. U. S. v. John )9. Wood Co. Plea of guilty. Fine, $75. (P. & D. no. 30299. Sample no. 9347-A.) This case was based on an interstate shipment of a drug preparation known as Phenlin Oris, the label of which bore unwarranted claims as to its effective- ness as an antiseptic and germicide and as a preventive against infection. On November 24, 1933, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court an information against the John H. Wood Co., a corporation, Philadelphia, Pa., alleging shipment by said company in violation of the Food and Drugs Act as amended, on or about January 15, 1932, from the State of Pennsylvania into the State of Massachusetts, of a quantity of Phenlin Oris that was adulterated and misbranded. Analysis of a sample of the article by this Department showed that it con- sisted essentially of an ointment with a petrolatum and paraffin base containing small proportions of cresylic acid and water. Bacteriological tests showed that the article was not antiseptic. 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 an antiseptic for all cracked or roughened conditions of the lips, and a germicide for all germ culture upon the mucous membrane or skin, whereas it was not an antiseptic or germicide as so represented. Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements on the label of the jar containing the article, " Antiseptic for all cracked or roughened conditions of the lips. * * * Rubbed upon mucous membrane or skin it destroys all germ culture ", were false and misleading, since the article was riot antiseptic for all cracked or roughened conditions of the lips and would not destroy all germ culture upon the mucous membrane or skin. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that certain statements, designs, and devices regarding the therapeutic and curative effects of the article, appearing on the label, falsely and fraudulently represented that it was effective as a preventive against infection, whereas the article contained no ingredients or medicinal agents effective as a preventive against infection. On December 11, 1933, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on behalf of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $75. M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.