8978.?Adulteration and misbranding of oil of birch.   V. S.   *   *   *   v. 1 Can   *   *   *   of a
Product Purporting to be Oil of Birch. Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture,?
and destruction.   (Fi & D. No. 13861.. I. S. No. Q463-t.   S. No. E-2874.)
On November 15, 1920, the United States attorney for the Southern District of?
New York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District?
Court of the United States for said district a libel for the seizure and condemnation of
N. J. 8951-0000.]     SERVICE AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS.	337
1 can containing 55 pounds of a product purporting to be oil of birch, remaining unsold?
in the original unbroken package at New York, N. Y., alleging that the article had?
been shipped on or about October 28, 1920, by T. J. Ray, from Johnson City, Tenn.,?
and transported from the State of Tennessee into the State of New York, and charging?
adulteration and misbranding in violation of the Food and Drugs Act. The article?
was labeled in part, "(Oil Sweet Birch) * * * From T. J. Ray Medicinal Crude?
Drugs and Essential Oils Newland, North Carolina."
Analysis of a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this department?
showed that it contained synthetic methyl salicylate.
Adulteration of the article, considered as a drug, was alleged in the libel for the?
reason that it was sold under and by a name recognized in the United States Phar??
macopoeia and differed from the pharmacopoeial standard of strength, quality, and?
purity as determined by the tests laid down in the said United States Pharmacopoeia,?
official at the time of investigation, and its own standard of strength, quality, and?
purity was not plainly stated upon the container thereof, and for the further reason that?
its strength and purity fell below the professed standard and quality under which it?
was sold. Adulteration of the article, considered as a food, was alleged for the reason?
that a substance, to wit, synthetic methyl salicylate, derived from a source other than?
birch trees, had been mixed and packed with, and substituted in part for, the article.
Misbranding of the article, considered as a drug, was alleged for the reason that it?
was an imitation of, and was offered for sale under the name, of, another article, to?
wit, oil of birch. Misbranding of the article, considered as a food, was alleged for?
the reason that it was an. imitation of, and was offered for sale under the distinctive?
name of, another article, to wit,' oil of birch.
On December SI, 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.