MISLEADING LABEL.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 18235, 20 November 1924, Page 7

MISLEADING LABEL.

"THE PUBLIC MUST KNOW." CHEMIST CONVICTED. An interesting test case was heard by Mr Wyvern S.M., in the Magistrate's Court yesterday, when a Christchurch chemist was- proceeded against for having sold tablets in ' a packet bearing a misleading statement. Cyril Price, a chemist, Christchurch, pleaded not guilty-to .a charge of having sold a drug, namely Phenolphthaleih, in a package which had attached thereto a misleading statement purporting to indicate the nature of the article contained in the package, to wit, "Compound castor oil chocolates. Better than castor oil."

Mr A. W. Brown prosecuted on behalf of the Health Department, and Mr H. H. Hanna represented the defendant.

Mr Brown said it rested entirely with his Worship to decide whether the label on the package was misleading or not. The analyst reported, that there ' was little if any castor oil in the tablets, and the amount of phenolphthalein was about 8 per cent. On those grounds it would appear that a correct label would indicate the active element; instead of stating only castor oil of which there was little or none.

Mr Hanna said the case was being defended on bclialf of Price by the Chemists' Protection Association because it was of great importance to chemists all over the Dominion. Counsel submitted that, there . was one and a half per cent, of castor oil in the tablets. The properties of phenolphthalein were exactly the same as castor oil, and the effect was about the same. It was a British preparation, and similar tablets were sold in England without any restriction. He contended that the label was not misleading. The use of the word "compound" indicated that the contents were a mixture. ■ The words ?'better than castor oil" indicated to the buyer that he was getting something different from plain castor oil. . He did not think •that the public health, or the public -pocket, for that matter, was affected in any way.

Alexander A. Biekerton, Government Analyst, who had analysed the tablets, said he found the amount of castor oil ao small that @t was of no use medicinally—it was just a question whether the amount justified the label. Roughly, there was about 8 per cent. of. phenolphthalein and one or two per cent, of chocolate; the remainder was sugar. The Magistrate said it seemed to him that the statement "Compound castor oil chocolates. Better than castor oil," was misleading to the purchaser. The largest type on the package was "castor oil," while the word compound was mueh smaller and less likely to be noticed. The castor oil that was in the tablet had no medicinal value,. and therefore the chemist was really selling another drug in the place of castor oil, although it was not suggested that the drug was a harmful one. "However," : said his Worship, "the public must know what it is buying. The active ingredient in these tablets is a drug (a produef of. coal tar), and not castor oil. The defendant must be convicted, but .as *he case is a test one, he will be or" le'red to pay costs only.". . . '