It is held that under this regulation labels which contain statements relating to the name of manufacturer, the place of manufacture, etc., which are not in harmony with the general meaning of the law may be used if on hand on the 1st of January, 1907, the day on which the regulations become effective. Any statement, however, respecting the character of the contents which is false or misleading should be corrected as indicated. The correction should secure the obliteration of the misstatement either by placing the supplemental label or paster over it or obliterating it in some other way. If the goods contain artificial color or preservative other than ordinary condimental substances (salt, sugar, vinegar, wood smoke, spices, and condiments of all kinds), that fact should appear upon the supplemental stamp or paster. If any of the words required to be placed upon drugs and foods in the specific wording of the act do not appear upon the label, such as alcohol, opium, etc., it is held that the correction must include the enumeration of these substances, as provided for in Regulations 28 and 29.
If goods that are packed and sealed in a carton which contains the bottle or other package also sealed and labeled were not in the hands of the manufacturer after January 1, 1907, but had been already delivered to the jobber or dealer, it will be held sufficient to mark the external carton alone, provided the goods are sold only in the unbroken carton. If the container, however, holds a large number of separate packages, it will be necessary that each of the separate packages to be sold as such shall be labeled with the words required specifically by the act.
It must not be forgotten that Regulation 17, section (i), is for the purpose of avoiding the expense of relabeling articles already packed and branded at the time the regulations go into effect and which necessarily could not have been so packed and branded with any intent to evade the provisions of the law, and it is expected that jobbers and dealers will do everything in their power to bring the packages now on hand into as close harmony with the provisions of the act and the regulations made thereunder as possible.
All articles in the hands of manufacturers, jobbers, and dealers on the 1st day of January, 1907, which are sold wholly within the State in which they are found on that date are exempt from the provisions of the act. Thus the use of the supplemental label, stamp, or paster is required only on those articles which on or after the 1st day of January, 1907, enter interstate commerce or are offered for sale in the District of Columbia and the Territories. It is believed that the provisions of Regulation 17, section (i), can be complied with without great annoyance and expense. It will be deemed sufficient if the supplemental pasters and labels are attached at the time the goods are shipped beyond the State line, that is, they need not necessarily be attached to such article on the 1st day of January, but at any time thereafter when prepared for interstate commerce. Thus the labor of meeting this requirement will be distributed according to the exigencies of actual trade. On and after October 1, 1907, the label must be originally properly printed, and no further amendment will be considered.
Approved:
W. M. Hays,
Acting Secretary.
Washington, D. C., November 6, 1906.
F. I. D. 44-45. Issued December 4, 1906.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
BUREAU OF CHEMISTRY,
H. W. WILEY, Chief of Bureau.
From the tenor of many inquiries received in this Department it appears that many persons suppose that the answers to inquiries addressed to this Department, either in letters or in published decisions, have the force and effect of the rules and regulations for the enforcement of the food and drugs act of June 30, 1906. The following are illustrations of the inquiries received by this Department:
Must we stamp all goods as conforming to the drug and food law, whether they have alcohol and narcotics therein, or not?
On a brand of salad oil, which is a winter-strain cottonseed oil, can it be sold under the brand of salad oil, or must it state that it is cottonseed oil?
It seems highly desirable that an erroneous opinion of this kind should be corrected. The opinions or decisions of this Department do not add anything to the rules and regulations nor take anything away from them. They therefore are not to be considered in the light of rules and regulations. On the other hand, the decisions and opinions referred to express the attitude of this Department in relation to the interpretation of the law and the rules and regulations, and they are published for the information of the officials of the Department who may be charged with the execution of the law and especially to acquaint manufacturers, jobbers, and dealers with the attitude of this Department in these matters. They are therefore issued more in an advisory than in a mandatory spirit. It is clear that if the manufacturers, jobbers, and dealers interpret the rules and regulations in the same manner as they are interpreted by this Department, and follow that interpretation in their business transactions, no prosecution will lie against them. It needs no argument to show that the Secretary of Agriculture must himself come to a decision in every case before a prosecution can be initiated, since it is on his report that the district attorney is to begin a prosecution for the enforcement of the provisions of the act.
In so far as possible it is advisable that the opinions of this Department respecting the questions which arise may be published. It may often occur that the opinion of this Department is not that of the manufacturer, jobber, or dealer. In this case there is no obligation resting upon the manufacturer, jobber, or dealer to follow the line of procedure marked out or indicated by the opinion of this Department. Each one is entitled to his own opinion and interpretation and to assume the responsibility of acting in harmony therewith.
It may be proper to add that in reaching opinions and decisions on these cases the Department keeps constantly in view the two great purposes of the food and drugs act, namely, to prevent misbranding and to prohibit adulteration. From the tenor of the correspondence received at this Department and from the oral hearings which have been held, it is evident that an overwhelming majority of the manufacturers, jobbers, and dealers of this country are determined to do their utmost to conform to the provisions of the act, to support it in every particular, and to accede to the opinions of this Department respecting its construction. It is hoped, therefore, that the publication of the opinions and decisions of the Department will lead to the avoidance of litigation which might arise due to decisions which may be reached by this Department indicating violations of the act, violations which would not have occurred had the opinions and decisions of the Department been brought to the attention of the offender.
James Wilson,
Secretary of Agriculture.
Washington, D. C., December 1, 1906.
Many letters are received by the Department making inquiries concerning the proper method of labeling blended whisky. Manufacturers are anxious to know the construction placed by the Department upon this particular part of the food and drugs act of June 30, 1906, and to ascertain under what conditions the words “blended whisky” or “whiskies” may be used. The following quotation from one of these letters presents a particular case of a definite character:
On account of the uncertainty prevailing in our trade at the present time as to how to proceed under the pure-food law and regulations regarding what will be considered a blend of whiskies, I am taking the liberty of expressing to you to-day two samples of whisky made up as follows:
Sample A contains 51 percent of Bourbon whisky and 49 percent of neutral spirits. In this sample a small amount of burnt sugar is used for coloring, and a small amount of prune juice is used for flavoring, neither of which increases the volume to any great extent.
Sample B contains 51 percent of neutral spirits and 49 percent of Bourbon whisky. Burnt sugar is used for coloring, and prune juice is used for flavoring, neither of which increases the volume to any great extent.
I have marked these packages “blended whiskies” and want your ruling as to whether it is proper to thus brand and label such goods.
My inquiry is for the purpose of guiding the large manufacturing interests in the trade that I represent.
In a subsequent letter from the same writer the following additional statement is made:
The reason for wanting your decision or ruling in this matter is just this: No house in the trade can afford to put out goods and run the risk of seizure and later litigation by the Government on account of the odium that would be attached to fighting the food and drugs act.
The question presented is whether neutral spirits may be added to Bourbon whisky in varying quantities, colored and flavored, and the resulting mixture be labeled “blended whiskies.” To permit the use of the word “whiskies” in the described mixture is to admit that flavor and color can be added to neutral spirits and the resulting mixture be labeled “whisky.” The Department is of opinion that the mixtures presented can not legally be labeled either “blended whiskies” or “blended whisky.” The use of the plural of the word “whisky” in the first case is evidently improper for the reason that there is only one whisky in the mixture. If neutral spirit, also known as cologne spirit, silent spirit, or alcohol, be diluted with water to a proper proof for consumption and artificially colored and artificially flavored, it does not become a whisky, but a “spurious imitation” thereof, not entirely unlike that defined in section 3244, Revised Statutes. The mixture of such an imitation with a genuine article can not be regarded as a mixture of like substances within the letter and intent of the law.
James Wilson,
Secretary of Agriculture.
Washington, D. C., December 1, 1906.
F. I. D. 46, as amended. Issued March 22, 1907.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
BUREAU OF CHEMISTRY,
H. W. WILEY, Chief of Bureau.
F. I. D. 46, Issued on December 13, 1906, on the Subject of Fictitious Firm Names, is Hereby Amended to Read as Follows, for the Purpose of Obviating Any Ambiguity That May Have Existed in the Original Decision. The Amended Portion is Set in Italics.
The following extract from a letter is typical of a question frequently asked:
In connection with our manufacture of flavoring extracts, we produce an article containing a certain percentage of artificial coumarin and vanillin. This product has been placed on the market under the name of ———— and Company, a fictitious firm, although dealers have always understood that it was our product. Is there any objection to our continuing to brand the product as manufactured by ———— and Company?
The same question has frequently been asked by importers who state that they desire to assume the responsibility for particular brands.
It has been held by the Attorney-General (F. I. D. 2) that—
the words “... Daisy Sugar Corn, ———— ———— Company, Milwaukee, Wis.,” clearly imply that the goods referred to are manufactured or prepared by that company in Wisconsin. The general public, unfamiliar with trade practices, would inevitably reach that conclusion.
Regulation 18 provides that if the name of the manufacturer and the place of manufacture be given, they must be the true name and the true place. If would appear, therefore, that the use of a fictitious name in such a manner that it would be understood to be the name of the manufacturer would be clearly a violation of Regulation 18. It is apparent that the provisions of Regulation 18 will not be fulfilled by the nominal incorporation of a fictitious firm. The regulations require that goods must be actually manufactured by the firm represented on the label as the manufacturer.
When a proper name, other than that of the manufacturer, is placed upon a label it must not be used in the possessive. For instance,
CHARLES GASTON’S
OLIVE OIL
BORDEAUX
can only be properly used on an oil manufactured by Charles Gaston at Bordeaux. The same is true if the designation
GASTON’S
OLIVE OIL
BORDEAUX
be employed.
On the other hand, the word “Gaston” might be used in an adjective sense, and not in the possessive case as qualifying the words “olive oil,” in a manner that would indicate that it represented a brand and not a manufacturer, as
GASTON OLIVE OIL.
Or,
OLIVE OIL, GASTON BRAND.
In such case, however, neither given name nor initials should be employed. The word “Gaston” should be in the same type as “olive oil” and in equal prominence, thus forming a part of the label.
The phrase “Olive Oil, Charles Gaston Brand,” may be used, in which case the name of the actual manufacturer should appear, in order that no false indication of the name of the person or firm manufacturing the product may be given.
James Wilson,
Secretary of Agriculture.
Washington, D. C., February 21, 1907.
The percentage of alcohol is not required to be stated in the case of extracts sold for the preparation of foods only. It is held, however, that extracts which are sold or used for any medicinal purpose whatever should have the percentage of alcohol stated on the label.
Numerous inquiries are received regarding the proper designation of products made in imitation of flavoring extracts or in imitation of flavors. Such products include “Imitation vanilla flavor,” which is made from such products as tonka extract, coumarin, and vanillin, with or without vanilla extract. They may also include numerous preparations made from synthetic fruit ethers intended to imitate strawberry, banana, pineapple, etc. Such products should not be so designated as to convey the impression that they have any relation to the flavor prepared from the fruit. Even when it is not practicable to prepare the flavor directly from the fruit, “imitation” is a better term than “artificial.”
These imitation products should not be designated by terms which indicate in any way by similarity of name that they are prepared from a natural fruit or from a standard flavor. The term “venallos,” for instance, would not be a proper descriptive name for a preparation intended to imitate vanilla extract. Such products should either be designated by their true names, such as “vanilla and vanillin flavor,” “vanillin and coumarin flavor,” or by such terms as “imitation vanilla flavor” or “vanilla substitute.”
Articles in the preparation of which such substitutes are employed should not be labeled as if they were prepared from standard flavors or from the fruits themselves. For instance, ice cream flavored with imitation strawberry flavor should not be designated as “strawberry ice cream.” If sold as strawberry ice cream without a label the product would appear to be in violation of Regulation 22.
Artificial colors should be declared whenever present.
James Wilson,
Secretary of Agriculture.
Washington, D. C., December 13, 1906.
The following letter was recently received at the Department of Agriculture:
We import a preparation of gelatin preserved with sulfurous acid for the purpose of fining wine. This gelatin is not used as a food and does not remain in the wine, although a small amount of the sulfurous acid may be left in the wine. Please inform us if the sale of this product is a violation of the food law.
It is held that the products commonly added to foods in their preparation are properly classed as foods and come within the scope of the food and drugs act. The Department can not follow a food product into consumption in order to determine the use to which it is put. Pending a decision on the wholesomeness of sulfurous acid as provided in Regulation 15 (b), its presence should be declared.
James Wilson,
Secretary of Agriculture.
Washington, D. C., December 13, 1906.
F. I. D. 49-53. Issued February 18, 1907.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
BUREAU OF CHEMISTRY,
H. W. Wiley, Chief of Bureau.
49. Time Required to Reach Decisions on Different Problems Connected with the Food and Drugs Act, June 30, 1906. 50. Imitation Coffee. 51. Coloring of Butter and Cheese. 52. Form of Label. 53. Formula on the Label of Drugs.
Many letters have reached the Department asking for action on very important questions connected with the food and drugs act which require much study and time to secure all the facts necessary to the rendering of a just decision. It is quite impossible to answer all such letters in detail. The following general statement shows the attitude of the Department on questions of this kind:
All manufacturers and dealers have copies of the law and regulations or can secure them and study them carefully. Each manufacturer and dealer should conduct his business as nearly as possible in harmony with the law as he interprets it. When each particular problem involved reaches a solution in this Department, it is hoped it will be found that the manufacturers and jobbers have come also to a similar decision in the matter. Public notice will be given of each decision as it is issued, that the manufacturers and dealers may be informed and be able at once to place themselves in line with the decisions of the Department. In this way it is hoped that all injustice will be avoided in the execution of the law and everyone be given an opportunity to put himself right and to have due notice of decisions which may be made.
The Department will use every endeavor to reach prompt decisions, but must take time to collect the facts and subject them to a proper study; otherwise the decisions would not have the value which should attach to them in important matters affecting the execution of the law.
James Wilson,
Secretary of Agriculture.
Washington, D. C., January 8, 1907.
A manufacturer writes as follows:
We beg to ask for your opinion as regards the hyphenated word “Cereal-Coffee,” and whether or not we are entitled to its use for a cereal substitute for coffee.... In our opinion the term “Cereal-Coffee” would come under the so-called trade-name and distinctive name.
It is held that since the product mentioned is not a coffee it can not properly be called by the term mentioned. Regulation 20 (d) provides that a distinctive name shall give no false indication of character. The use of the name “cereal-coffee” might be taken to indicate that the product is coffee or has the properties of coffee, and hence the use of this term does not comply with the definition of distinctive name. Even if the product consist in part of coffee, the name would not be correct. It is suggested that products of this nature be designated as “imitation coffee,” as provided in Regulation 21 (f). In such case the word “imitation” should be in uniform type, on uniform background, and should be given equal prominence with the word “coffee.”
James Wilson,
Secretary of Agriculture.
Washington, D. C., January 18, 1907.
Numerous inquiries, of which the following is an illustration, have been received by the Department:
Will you kindly inform me concerning the coloring of butter and cheese under the pure-food law? Would it be unlawful to color butter and cheese as now practiced?
The coloring of butter is specifically permitted in the law of August 2, 1886 (24 Stat., 209), and the coloring of cheese in the law of June 6, 1896 (29 Stat., 253). It is held by the Department that the food and drugs act does not repeal the provisions of the acts referred to above and the addition of harmless color to these substances may be practiced as therein provided, and that the presence of coloring matter specifically recognized by acts of Congress as a constituent is not required to be declared on the label.
James Wilson,
Secretary of Agriculture.
Washington, D. C., January 18, 1907.
The following is an extract from a letter recently received.
We do not understand the requirements of the regulations respecting the arrangement of labels; that is, the order in which the various features of the label should be arranged.
To meet the requests for the opinion of the Department regarding the proper arrangement of a label, the following order is suggested:
1. Name of substance or product.
2. In case of foods, words which indicate that the articles are compounds, mixtures, or blends, and the word “Imitation,” “Compound,” or “Blend,” as the case may be.
3. Statements designating the quantity or proportion of the ingredients enumerated in the law, or derivatives and preparations of same,[51] as mentioned under Regulation 28; also statements of other extraneous substances whose presence should be declared, such as harmless coloring matter, or any necessary statement regarding grade or quality.
[51] Attention is called to the fact that the declaration of alcohol and its derivatives is not required in foods.
(The statements specified in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3, should appear together without any intervening descriptive or explanatory matter.)
4. Name of manufacturer (if given).
5. Place of manufacture (if given, or when required in case of food mixtures or compounds bearing a distinctive name).
It is stated in Regulation 17 that if the name of the manufacturer and place of manufacture be given they should appear upon the principal label. Although the law does not require that the name of the manufacturer be given, or the place of manufacture, except in case of food mixtures and compounds having a distinctive name, it is held that if they are given they must be true, and should be placed with the required information on the principal label. The arrangement of the label is the same for both food and drug products and an example of each is given.
| Sample label for food product. | |
|---|---|
| [Name of product.] | KETCHUP. |
| [Declaration required by paragraphs 2 and 3.] | ARTIFICIALLY COLORED. |
| [Descriptive matter, if desired, but preferably at bottom of label.] | |
| [Name of manufacturer, if given.] | BLANK & CO., |
| [Place of manufacture, if given.] | PORTLAND, ME. |
| [Descriptive matter, if desired.] | |
| Sample label for drug product. | |
|---|---|
| [Name of product.] | COUGH SYRUP. |
| [Declarations required by paragraphs 2 and 3.] | ALCOHOL, 10 PERCENT. |
| MORPHIN, 1⁄2 GRAIN PER OUNCE. | |
| CHLOROFORM, 40 MINIMS PER OUNCE. | |
| [Descriptive matter, if desired, but preferably at bottom of label.] | |
| [Name of manufacturer, if given.] | JOHN JONES & CO., |
| [Place of manufacture, if given.] | WASHINGTON, D. C. |
| [Descriptive matter, if desired.] | |
Any descriptive or explanatory matter that may appear on the principal label, therefore, should be placed at the bottom of the label, or between No. 3 and No. 4, and should be clearly separated from other features of the label by means of a suitable line or space. Statements regarding the reason for using alcohol, artificial coloring matter, and other extraneous substances, come under the head of descriptive or explanatory matter, and should not be interspersed with the declarations required under Nos. 2 and 3.
The information called for under No. 3 should be so worded as to give only the required information, as, for example, “alcohol 17 percent” or “artificially colored.” All numbers used in expressing quantity or proportion of substances required to be stated (see Regulation 28) should be expressed in the Arabic notation.
Each substance required to be declared under No. 3 should be printed on a separate line and in type specified in Regulation 17 (c).
James Wilson,
Secretary of Agriculture.
Washington, D. C., January 18, 1907.
Many inquiries are received relative to the necessity of giving the formula of medicinal remedies on the label. The following is typical:
I should like to know if it will be necessary for me to state on a label the name of the products from which I prepare my proprietary medicine in order to conform with the pure food and drugs act. If I do this, it will prohibit me from manufacturing and selling a remedy which is a secret of my own; and anyone buying it could, from the label, tell what ingredients were used in its preparation and make his own supply of this medicine. How does the United States Government expect to protect those who have secret medicinal preparations they wish to sell at a profit? If the Pure Food Commission desires, I will send them a sample bottle of my medicine for their inspection and approval.
The food and drugs act, June 30, 1906, does not require the formula of drug products to be given on the label, but requires only that the quantity or proportion of the ingredients enumerated in the law, and derivatives and preparation of same (Regulation 28), shall be clearly set forth on the label or labels of all preparations used for the treatment or prevention of disease, either internally or externally, for man or other animals. This includes sample packages as well as regular trade packages.
The question is also frequently asked whether a medicinal preparation would be exempt from the operation of the law if the formula were given on the label. The formula on the label is very desirable, but this information is not required by the law. The act forbids the use of any statement, design, or device in connection with any drug product which is false or misleading in any particular. A defect of this kind would not be corrected by giving the formula on the label. If the formula is given, it must be the correct and complete formula. It is held that, in addition to those substances required by the act to be named, if only a part of the active medicinal agents used in the manufacture of a drug product are set forth on the label, such a procedure is misleading and therefore forbidden by the law. All drug products and their labels must conform to the act, whether the formula is or is not given on the label.
James Wilson,
Secretary of Agriculture.
Washington, D. C., January 28, 1907.
F. I. D. 54-59. Issued March 23, 1907.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
BUREAU OF CHEMISTRY,
H. W. Wiley, Chief of Bureau.
54. Declaration of the quantity or proportion of alcohol present in drug products. 55. Method of stating quantity or proportion of preparations (containing opium, morphin, etc.) used in manufacturing other preparations. 56. Names to be employed in declaring the amount of the ingredients as required by the law. 57. Physicians’ prescriptions: The status of packages compounded according to physicians’ prescriptions and entering into interstate commerce. 58. The labeling of products used as food and drugs as well as for technical and other purposes. 59. National Formulary appendix.
The question of stating the percentage of alcohol present in drug products has caused a multitude of inquiries. The following questions along this line serve as examples:
Is it necessary to give the amount of alcohol present in U. S. Pharmacopœial or National Formulary products? It seems to me that such a requirement is absurd, and not contemplated within the spirit of the act. None of them are patent medicines. Will I be compelled to tell how much alcohol is present in such goods?
If we apply for and obtain a serial number, must we in addition to putting this number on our labels state the percent of alcohol?
Will it be necessary to give the percent of alcohol present in such products as ether, chloroform, collodion, spirit of nitrous ether, and similar preparations?
The law is specific on the subject of declaring the amount of alcohol present in medicinal agents, as can readily be seen from the following language: “An article shall also be deemed misbranded ... if the package fail to bear a statement on the label of the quantity or proportion of any alcohol ... contained therein. No medicinal preparations are exempt, whether they are made according to formulæ given in the U. S. Pharmacopœia or National Formulary or formulæ taken from any other source. The serial number, with or without the guarantee legend, does not exempt a preparation from this requirement. The law does not make any statement as to the amount of alcohol that may or may not be employed. It requires, however, that whatever amount be present shall be set forth on the label. The percentage of alcohol given on the label should be the percentage of absolute alcohol by volume contained in the finished product. The manner in which it should be printed is shown in F. I. D. 52.
James Wilson,
Secretary of Agriculture.
Washington, D. C., March 13, 1907.
Many inquiries are received as to the method of stating the quantity or proportion of preparations (containing opium, morphin, etc.) used in the manufacture of other preparations. Of these the following are typical:
If the label on the bottle were to bear the words “Tincture of Opium,” I reason that as this is a definite preparation, constituting a preparation of opium, and so definite as to its composition that to any intelligent person it expresses definitely all that it is desirable to express, the use of this title alone should be sufficient. I feel that as a preparation it is distinct from opium, and if this particular tincture is used in the manufacture of a preparation the mention of it alone should be sufficient.
Where extract or tincture of cannabis indica, or extract of opium, is employed in making other drug products, would it not be complying with the law if the use of such articles be clearly indicated on the label as prescribed by the law, or is it necessary to give the actual amounts of the drugs themselves represented by these preparations?
Names of drug products bearing any of the names of the ingredients enumerated in the act are construed as representing “preparations” within the meaning of the act; and if the same are clearly declared upon the label as required by Regulations 17 and 30, it will not be necessary to give the actual amount of the primary drugs used or represented by such article. It is desirable, however, that the word or words used in the law shall constitute the first part of the name of the product. For example: “Opium, Tincture of;” “Cannabis Indica, Extract of,” followed by the amount of tincture or extract used.
James Wilson,
Secretary of Agriculture.
Washington, D. C., March 13, 1907.
Many inquiries are coming to this Department relative to the names that may be employed in declaring the quantity or proportion of the ingredients, as required by Congress.
The following are representative:
The word “alcohol” has received so much unfavorable notoriety during the last few years that we hesitate to place it upon our labels. Could we not employ some other words in place of it, such as “cologne spirits,” “spirits of wine,” “pure grain alcohol,” etc.?
Would it be satisfactory for us to use “Phenylacetamid,” or the following formula, C6H5(CH3CO), for the chemical acetanilid?
One of our preparations contains trichlorethidene ethyl alcoholate, which would undoubtedly under the law be considered a derivative of chloral hydrate. Will it be satisfactory for us to use this name on our trade packages in giving the amount of this chemical present in the product?
In the manufacture of some of our products we use opium. It would, however, be a financial loss to state this fact on the label. Could we not say this preparation contains 20 grains of the concentrated extract of the Papaver somniferum to the fluid ounce?
Dover’s powder is mentioned in the regulations as one of the preparations of opium. It would seem sufficient at first glance that Dover’s powder as a preparation, if mentioned on the label, would be all that could be required as to opium.
One of the objects of the law is to inform the consumer of the presence of certain drugs in medicines, and the above terms do not give the average person any idea as to the presence or absence of such drugs. In enumerating the ingredients, the quantity or proportion of which is required to be given upon the principal label of any medicinal preparation in which such ingredients may be present, the act uses only common names, and the permission to use any but such common names for any ingredients required to be declared upon the label is neither expressed nor implied in any part of the law.
The term used for acetanilid is “acetanilid” and not phenylacetamid. No reference is made to the use of the chemical formula in designating the presence of chemicals. The words “chloral hydrate” appear in the act, but not the chemical name trichlorethidene glycol. It can readily be seen that if the act were not closely adhered to in this connection there would soon be such a confusion and multiplicity of names and phrases that one of the objects of the act would be defeated.
The names to be employed in stating the quantity or proportion of the ingredients required by the act to appear on the label of all medicinal preparations containing same are—
First. Those used in the law for the articles enumerated; example, “alcohol,” not “spiritus rectificatus.”
Second. In the case of derivatives: (a) The name of the parent substance used in the act should constitute part of the name; example, “chloral acetone,” not “trichlorethidene dimethyl ketone.” (b) The trade-name, accompanied in parentheses by the name of the parent substance; example, “dionin (morphin derivative).”
Third. Names of preparations containing the name of some ingredient used in the act. In such cases the name used in the act should constitute the first portion of the name of the preparation. (See F. I. D. 55.)
Fourth. Common names (such as laudanum, Dover’s powder, etc.) of preparations containing an ingredient enumerated in the law, provided such name or names are accompanied in parentheses by some such phrase as “preparation of opium” or “opium preparation,” followed by the number of minims or grains, as specified in the regulations; for instance, “laudanum (preparation of opium), 40 minims per ounce.”