I12
T H E JOURiYAL OF I N D U S T R I A L A N D ENGINEERING C H E M I S T R Y .
incidentally the treatment of it, in its initial state, to render it more efficient-my process, about to be described, fully effecting both objects by the same steps, acting successively on the same body of animal charcoal in its initial and spent conditions, respectively, or on the latter only if the first application is not deemed essential or desirable for the particular liquid material t o be clarified and decolorized. To these ends the invention consists in the discovery that if a body of animal charcoal of commerce, ground to a granulated condition and confined in a substantially closed vessel with suitable inlet and outlet apertures to connect steam and water pipes thereto, is subjected to the action of a column of live steam blown through it, followed preferably by a washing with a volume of hot water, driven preferably in the opposite direction, through the container vessel, t h a t the animal charcoal will not only be deprived of deleterious impurities, but the steam will deprive it, by chemical action perhaps, of its combined salts, which have never heretofore been removed from i t ; and t h a t ground animal charcoal, so prepared for use as a clarifying and decolorizing medium, is not only more efficient as such, but what is of greater value, the charcoal, after such use, can be perfectly restored and revivified by a repetition of the same steps, thereby wholly saving the labor and expense of washing and reburning it a s now commonly practiced. The accompanying illustration shows a n apparatus in which t h e patentee’s process is practiced.
OFFICIAL REGULATIONS AND RULINGS. --
Only a few of the more important rulings are reported here. For others the reader is referred to the publications of the Board of Food and Drug Inspection and to Treasury Decisions. FOOD INSPECTION DECISION I 12.
Amendment to Regulation 28 (Labeling of Derivatives). Section 8 of the Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 1906, paragraph “Second,” under “Drugs,” provides that a drug shall be deemed t o be misbranded “if the package fail t o bear a statement on the label of the quantity or proportion of any alcohol, morphine, opium, cocaine, heroin, alpha or beta eucaine, chloroform, cannabis indica, chloral. hydrate, or acetanilide, or any derivative or preparation of any such’ substances contained therein.” I n a n opinion rendered January 15, 1909, the AttorneyGeneral held t h a t a derivative within the meaning of this section of the act is a substance which is so related to one of the specified substances “ t h a t it would be rightly regarded by recognized authorities in chemistry as obtained from the latter ‘ b y actual or theoretical substitution,’ and it is not indispensable t h a t it should be actually produced therefrom as a matter of fact;” and, further, t h a t the labeling of ,derivatives, as prescribed by this section, is a proper subject conferred upon them by Section 3 , and that a rule or regulation requiring the name of the specified substance t o follow that of the derivative would be in harmony with the general purpose of t h e act, and an appropriate method by which t o give effect to its provisions. In conformity with this opinion, the Board of Food and Drug Inspection recommends that Regulation 28 of the Rules and Regulations for the enforcement of the Food and Drug Act, published in Circular 2 1 of the Office of the Secretary, be amended by the addition, to follow paragraph ( f ) , of a new paragraph t o be designated as paragraph (g), reading as follows: (g) I n declaring the quantity or proportion of any of the specified substances the names by which they are designated in the act shall be used, and in declaring the quantity or proportion of derivatives of any of the specified substances, in addition t o the trade name of the derivative, the name of the
MU., 1910
specified substance shall also be stated, so as to indicate clearly t h a t the product is a derivative of the particular specified substance. This paragraph (g) prescribes, in effect, that in labeling derivatives the name of the specified substance must be stated, so as t o clearly indicate t h a t the product is a derivative of the particular substance named in the act. Regulation 28 as amended shall be effective on and after April I , 1910, and the regulation in full shall read as follows: Regulation 28.-Substances Named in Drugs or Foods. (Section 8, second under “ Drugs; ’’ second under “Foods.”) ( a ) The term “alcohol” is defined to mean common or ethyl alcohol. No other kind of alcohol is permissible in the manufacture of drugs except as specified in the United States Pharmacopoeia or National Formulary. ( b ) The words alcohol, morphine, opium, etc., and the quantities and proportions thereof, shall be printed in letters corresponding in size with those prescribed in Regulation 1 7 , paragraph (c). (c) A drug, or food product, except in respect of alcohol, is misbranded in case it fails to bear a statement on the label of the quantity or proportion of a n y alcohol, morphine, opium, heroin, cocaine, alpha or beta eucaine, chloroform, cannabis indica, chloral hydrate, or acetanilide, or a n y derivative or preparation of any such substances contained therein. ( d ) A statement of the maximum quantity or proportion of any such substances present will meet the requirements, provided the maximum stated does not vary materially from the average quantity or proportion. ( e ) I n case the actual quantity or proportion is stated it shall be the average quantity or proportion with the variations noted in Regulation 29. (f)The following are the principal derivatives and preparations made from the articles which are required to be named upon the label: ALCOHOL,ETHYL(Cologne’spirits, grain alcohol, rectified spirits, spirits, and spirits of wine): DerivativesAldehyde, ether, ethyl acetate, ethyl nitrite, and paraldehyde. Preparations containing alcoholBitters, brandies, cordials, elixirs, essences, fluid extracts, spirits, sirups, tinctures, tonics, whiskies, and wines. MORPHINE, ALKALOID: DerivativesApomorphine, dionine, peronine, morphine, acetate, hydrochloride, sulphate, and other salts of morphine. Preparations containing morphine or derivatives of mor’ phineBougies, catarrh snuff, chlorodyne, compound powder of morphine, crayons, elixirs, granules, pills, solutions, sirups, suppositories, tablets, triturates and troches. OPIUMGUM: Preparations o j opiumExtracts, denarcotized opium, granulated opium, and powdered opium, bougies, brown mixture, carminative mixtures, crayons, dover’s powder, elixirs, liniments, ointments, paregoric, pills, plasters, sirups, suppositories, tablets, tinctures, troches, vinegars, and wines. DerivativesCodeine, alkaloid, hydrochloride, phosphate, sub phate, and other salts of codeine. Preparations containing codeine or its saltsElixirs, pills, sirups, and tablets.
OFFICIAL REGULATIONS A N D RULIiVGS. COCAINE,ALKALOID: DerivativesCocaine hydrochloride, oleate, and other salts. Preparations colztaining cocaine or salts of cocaineCoca leaves, catarrh powders, elixirs, extracts, infusion of coca, ointments, paste, pencils, pills, solutions, sirups, tablets, tinctures, troches, and wines. HEROIN: Preparations contailzing heroinSirups, elixirs, pills, and tablets. ALPHA AND BETA EUCAINE: PreparationsMixtures, ointments, powders, an$ solutions. CHLOROFORM: Preparations containing ckloroformChloranodyne, elixirs, emulsions, liniments, mixtures, spirits, and sirups. CANNABIS IXDICA: Preparations of cannabis mdicaCorn remedies, extracts, mixtures, pills, powders, tablets, and tinctures. CHLORAL HYDRATE (Chloral, U. S.Pharmacopoeia, 1890) : Deriz‘atcJesChloral actophenonoxim, chloral alcoholate, chloralamide, chloralimide, chloral orthoform, chloralose, dormiol, hypnal, and uraline. Preparations containing chloral hydrate or its derivativesChloral camphorate, elixirs, liniments, mixtures, ointments, suppositories, sirups, and tablets. ACETANILIDE( Antifebrine, phenylacetamide) : DerivatkesAcetphenetidine, citrophen, diacetanilide, lactophenin, methoxy-acetanilide, methylacetanilide, para-iodoacetanilide, and phenacetine. Preparatzons containing acetanilide or derivotivesAnalgesics, antineuralgics, antirheumatics, cachets, capsules, cold remedies, elixirs, granular eff ervescing salts, headache powders, mixtures, pain remedies, pills, and tablets. (g) In declaring the quantity or proportion of any of the specified substances the names by which they are designated in the act shall be used, and in declaring the quantity or proportion of derivatives of any of the specified substances, in addition t o the trade name of the derivative, the name of the specified substance shall also be stated, so as to indicate clearly t h a t the product is a derivative of the particular specified substance. H. W. WILEY, F. L. DUNLAP, GEO. P. MCCABE, Board of Food and Drug Inspection. Approved: FRAKKLIN MACVEAGH, Secretary of the Treasury. JAMES WILSON, Secretary of Agriculture. CHARLES NAGEL, Secretary af Commerce and Labor. WASHINGTON, D. C., January 6 , 1910. NOTICE OF JUDGMENT, 1.30, FOOD AND DREGS ACT.
Adulteration and Misbranding of Lemon Extract. I n accordance with the provisions of Sectiofi 4 of the Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 1906, and of Regulation 6 of the rules and regulations for the enforcement of the act, notice is given t h a t on the 9th day of June, 1909, in thecircuit Court of the United States for the eastern district of Louisiana, in a prosecu-
1I 3
tion against Albert Mackie Grocer Company (Limited), a corporation of New Orleans, La. (F. &. D. No. 482), for violation of Section 2 of the aforesaid act in shipping and delivering for shipment from Louisiana to Mississippi, a n adulterated and misbranded lemon extract, the said Albert Mackie Grocer Company (Limited) entered a plea of guilty, whereupon t h e Court imposed upon it a fine of $IO and costs of the prosecution. The facts in the case were a s follows: On April 7 , 1908, a n inspector of the United States Department of Agriculture purchased from N. B. Whalen, McComb City, Miss., a sample of lemon extract, labeled “McE. Brand Flavoring Extract of Lemon. Albert Mackie Grocer Co., Ltd., New Orleans, La.,” which had been manufactured and shipped by the Albert Mackie Grocer Company (Limited), from New Orleans, La., to the said dealer on or about August 15, 1907. The sample was analyzed in the Bureau of Chemistry of the United States Department 3f Agriculture, and the following results obtained and stated: 0.9614 Specific gravity (15 5 ’ C , ) , ,..................... Alcohol by volume (per cent.), . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.35 0.46 Solids (grams per 100 cc ) , ...................... Lemon oil (by polarization) (pel cent.) Lemon oil (by precipitation). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Color. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coal tar
Lemon extract, as recognized by the Department of Agriculture and reputable manufacturers in the United States?% the flavoring extract prepared from oil of lemon or from lemon peel, or both, and contains not less than 5 per cent. by volume of lemon oil. It was evident that the product was both adulterated and misbranded within the meaning of Sections 7 and 8 of the act; adulterated, because a substance had been substituted in whole or in part for oil of lemon, and because it was a n imitation extract colored with a coal-tar dye to give it the color of genuine lemon extract, thereby concealing inferiority; and misbranded, because labeled “ Extract of Lemon,” whereas it was not lemon extract. The Secretary of Agriculture having, on September 30, 1908, afforded the manufacturers a n opportunity to show any fault or error in the aforesaid analysis, and they having failed to d o SO, the facts were reported to the Attorney-General and the case referred t o the United States attorney for the eastern district of Louisiana, who filed a n information against the Albert JIackie Grocer Company (Limited), with the result hereinbefore stated. JAMES WILSOX, Secretary of Agriculture. WASHINGTON, D. C., January IO, 1910. Adulteratiolz of Milk. I n accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of the Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 1906, and of Regulation 6 of the rules and regulations for the enforcement of the act, notice is given of the judgments of the Court in the cases of the United States ”is.RI. Boyle (F. & D. No. 439), United States z’s. C. E . Williams (F. 8z D. KO.440), and United States vs. J. C. Kotzenberg (F. & D. No. ++I), prosecutions lately pending in the District Court of the United States for the eastern district of Wisconsin for violations of Section 2 of the aforesaid act in the shipment from Wisconsin t o Illinois by the aforesaid defendant, M. Boyle, of milk which was adulterated within the meaning of Section 7 of the act, in that water had been mixed with, and substituted in part for, the milk, thereby lowering and reducing its quality and strength; and in the shipment by the aforesaid defendants, Williams and Kotzenberg, from \\‘isconsin to Illinois, of milk which was adulterated within the meaning of Section 7 of the act, .in that cream, a valuable constituent thereof, had been abstracted therefrom. On June 2 6 , 1909, the defendant, M. Boyle, having been arraigned upon an information alleging
114
T H E J O U R N A L OF I N D U S T R I A L A N D E N G I N E E R I N G C H E M I S T R Y .
t h e aforesaid shipment by him of adulterated milk, entered his plea of guilty and was sentenced by the Court to pay a fine of $25. On April 16, 1909, the defendants, C. E. Williams and J. C. Kotzenberg, having been arraigned upon information alleging the aforesaid shipments by them of adulterated milk, entered their pleas of guilty and were sentenced by the Court t o pay a fine of $25 each and stand committed t o jail until such fine should be paid. These cases were based upon samples of milk procured by inspectors of the United States Department of Agriculture on August 28, 1908, from the shipping cans after the milk had reached Chicago from the respective consignees and points of shipment, namely, M. Boyle, Woodworth, Wis. ; C. E. Williams, Genoa Junction, Wis.; and J. C. Kotzenberg, Bassett, \Vis., for delivery t o J. H. Tylen, F. Deitmer, and Theodore Renz, respectively. The inspectors saw the said several shipments of milk delivered to the railroads a t the points of shipment, identified each shipment with its consignor, and accompanied them to Chicago. The aforesaid samples were duly analyzed in the Bureau of Chemistry of the United States Department of Agriculture, and it was found t h a t those taken from the milk shipped by the said Williams and Kotzenberg contained, respectively, a n average of a little less than 8 . 7 0 per cent. of sold s-not-fat and z .6 per cent. of milk-fat, and 8.50 per cent. of solids-not-fat and 2 , 6 per cent. of milk-fat, indicating that t h e milk had been skimmed and that those taken from the milk shipped by said Boyle contained a little less than 7.36 per cent. of solids-not-fat and 3 . I per cent. of milk-fat, indicating that water had been added t o the milk. It appear.ng from the aforesaid analyses that the milk was adulterated, the Secretary of Agriculture gave notice to the respective parties and gave them a n opportunity t o be heard, but the said parties having failed to show any fault or error i n the result of the said analyses and it being determined that the milk was adulterated, the said Secretary, on February 17, 1909, reported the facts and evidence t o the AttorneyGeneral, by whom they were referred t o the United States attorney for the eastern district of Wisconsin, who filed informations against the aforesaid defendants, with the result hereinbefore stated. JAMES WILSON, Secretary of Agriculture. WASHIKGTON, D. c., January I O , 1910.
(N. J. 133.) Adulteration and Misbranding of Olizle Oil. (A Mixture of Cottonseed and Olive Oils.) I n accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of the Food a n d Drugs Act of June 30, 1906, and of Regulation 6 of the rules and regulations for the enforcement of the act, notice is given that on the 15th day of June, 1909, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the eastern district of Louisiana, in a prosecution by the United States against King Brothers, Shilstone & Saint (Limited), a corporation of New Orleans, La. (F. & D. No. z95), for violation of Section 2 of the aforesaid a c t in shipping and delivering for shipment from Louisiana t o Texas a n article of food labeled “ Balbiani & Cie. Huile d’Olive Superfine Raffinee,” which was adulterated and misbranded within the meaning of Sections 7 and 8 of the act, the said defendant having entered a plea of guilty, the Court imposed upon it a fine of $IO and costs, The facts in the case were as follows: On January 28, 1908, a n inspector of the Department of Agri-
Mar., 1910
culture purchased from Ullman, Stern & Krausse, Galveston, Tex., a sample of oil contained in bottles upon the principal label of which was printed “Balbiani & Cie. Huile d’Olive Superfine Raffinee,” and upon a supplemental label, “This product is a compound of salad oil and imported olive oil, packed by King Bros., Shilstone & Saint, Ltd., New Orleans, La.” On the back of each bottle was a label printed in Italian, French, and English to the effect t h a t the oil of the new firm of Balbiani & Cie was guaranteed free from mixture. This sample was part of a shipment made on or about October 29, 1907, by the manufacturers, King Brothers, Shilstone & Saint (Limited), from New Orleans, La., t o said Ullman, Stern & Krausse. The sample was analyzed in the Bureau of Chemistry of the United,States Department of Agriculture, and the following results obtained and stated: Specific gravity ( 1 5 . 5 ’ C.).. . . Index refraction (15 . S a C ) . , ,
....................... ........................
Villavecchia test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Renard test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A d d terant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
104.89 Positive Negative Kegative Cottonseed oil
It was evident from this analysis t h a t the article was a mixture of cottonseed oil and olive oil, the former predominating. It was therefore adulterated n?ithin the meaning of Section 7 of the act, in t h a t cottonseed oil had been substituted in part for olive oil, which it purported t o be, and cottonseed oil had been mixed with olive oil so as t o reduce its quality and strength, and was misbranded within the meaning of Section 8 of the act, in that the statements and representations on the labels that i t was olive oil and a foreign and imported article produced by a foreign company, Balbiani & Cie, and guaranteed free from mixture, were false, misleading and deceptive. The statement on the supplemental label that the product was packed by King Brothers, Shilstone & Saint (Limited) did not cure the false, misleading and deceptive character of the principal and secondary labels, since the packing of the oil by King Brothers, Shilstone & Saint could not be inconsistent with the representation that the oil was produced in a foreign country by a foreign company, nor was the statement on the label that it was a compound of salad oil and imported olive oil true, because the usual acceptation of the term “salad oil” does not include cottonseed oil. It appearing from the aforesaid analysis that the article was adulterated and misbranded, the Secretary of Agriculture gave notice t o Ullman, Stern & Krausse, the dealer from whom the sample was purchased, as well also as to the manufacturer and shipper, King Brothers, Shilstone & Saint (Limited), and gave them a n opportunity t o be heard. King Brothers, Shilstone & Saint being the party solely responsible for the adulteration and misbranding of the article and failing to show any fault or error in the result of the aforesaid analysis, and i t being determined that the article was adulterated and misbranded, on December 30, 1908, the said Secretary reported t h e facts and evidence to the Attorney-General, by whom they were referred to the United States attorney for the eastern district of Louisiana, who filed a n information against the said King Brothers, Shilstone & Saint, with the result hereinbeJAMES WILSON, fore stated. Secretary of Agriculture. ~\TASHINGTOK,D. e . , January I O , 1910.
.
