APERIENT CHOCOLATES

Greymouth Evening Star, 29 April 1924, Page 8

APERIENT CHOCOLATES

WANGANUI CHEMIST FINED.

A question of considerable importance to chemists and the general public was dealt with by the Wanganui Magistrate’s Court recently, when George Davidson, chemist, was charged with selling a drug in a package, to wit, a compound of castor oil chocolates, ...ring and having attached thereto u .Ise or misleading statement, word, brand, label, or mark, purporting to indicate the nature, quality,. strength, composition, or proportion of the article contained in the package or of any ingredient thereof, contrary to the provisions of the Sale of 1* ood. and Drugs Act. The accused pleaded not guilty. An entry in tne analyst’s report stated that the material was in the form of chocolate coloured tablets of an average weight of 1.55 grams, and contained matter soluble in petroleum ether 4.4 per cent, and plenolphthalien 7 per cent. Not more tnan half of the tatter soluble in petroleum was castor oil, and it is possible that no castor oil was present. Assuming that the material contained 2.2 per cent of castor oil, 116 tablets would be required to provide a minimum dose of that substance. The dose prescribed for a child of three to ten years was one tablet. I t was therefore evident that the quantity of castor oil present would not have the slightest medicinal action. The active ingredient was plen-. olpthalein. The statement “compound castor oil” tablets, appearing on the original package was therefore misleading and in contravention to beefion 12 of the Sale of Food and Drugs . Act, 1908. 1 The envelope bore a statement on the front “Better than castor oil,” and on the back appeared “superior to castor oil. ’ ’ The directions were : Children one to three years, half a tablet; three to 10 years, one tablet; 10 to 14, one and a-half tablets; above that age, two

to three tablets. Counsel for the defendant said that this was not a case of an ordinary trader seeking to sell something of less value than what was labelled.. The tablets were purchased by_a dispensary from well-known manufacturers in London. The chocolates were not stated to be castor oil chocolates, but compound castor oil chocolates, <and this statement showed that there was something else in the tablets beside castor oil. It was obvious that there was not an ordinary dose of castor oil in the tablets. Assuming that each tablet contained 2 per cent, of castor oil and 7 per cent, of plenolphthalien, the castor oil would constitute 25 per cent of the aperient agency. He. contended that there was no deception of the public as plenolpthalien was more expensive than castor oil. The defendant, in evidence, said that the tablets, were indented from a large manufacturing firm of repute in London. Plenolpthalien was a very mild aperient, and was used in quite a number of powders and tablets in the trade. A compound substance was made up of two or more simple elements. Compound substances were numerous in chemists’ lines. He knew of no case where patent medicines were analysed and the manufacturers’ statement being accepted. He admitted that the castor oil in the tablet was not sufficient as an ordinary dose, but when added to the effect of the chocolate base and. the plenolphthalien he considered the dose prescribed would be sufficient. The Magistrate, in giving his decision, said thdt from the point of view of the man inthe street he would think from seeing the words “compound of castor oil chocolate,” that the effective chemical agency was castor oil, and for that reason the statements on the label were misleading. With regard to the purchase of the tablets, the Magistrate said that this was a- matter to consider when fixing the penalty. The defendants could have protected themselves by warranty or by an anahsis. He found that there was an infringement of the Act on the 'ground that the label was misleading. He did not think the case was one for a severe penalty, and imposed a fine of £1 and costs.