1. Adulteration of Lash Lure. U. S. v. 23 Boxes of Lash Lure (and 38 other seizure actions against the same product). Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.csnj00001May 1940Lash Lure Cosmetic Manufacturing. Co., Cosmetic Manufacturing Co., or Lash LureLash LureJune 28,1938 ; January 19, 1939Milwaukee, Wis. ; Houston, Tex. ; Detroit, Mich. ; Minneapolis, Minn. ; Waco, Tex. ; Dallas. Tex. ; Oklahoma City, Okla. ; Pittsburg, Kans. ; Kilgore, Tex. ; Brownwood, Tex. ; Beaumont, Tex. ; Winston-Salem, N. C. ; Atlanta, Ga. ; San Angelo, Tex. ; Toledo, Ohio ; Cleveland, Ohio ; Wichita Falls, Tex. ; Birmingham, Ala. ; Shreveport, La. ; Pueblo, Colo. ; Lubbock, Tex. ; Chickasha, Okla. ; Salt Lake City, Utah ; and Buffalo, N. Y.Los Angeles, Calif.Milwaukee, Wis. ; Houston, Tex. ; Detroit, Mich. ; Minneapolis, Minn. ; Waco, Tex. ; Dallas. Tex. ; Oklahoma City, Okla. ; Pittsburg, Kans. ; Kilgore, Tex. ; Brownwood, Tex. ; Beaumont, Tex. ; Winston-Salem, N. C. ; Atlanta, Ga. ; San Angelo, Tex. ; Toledo, Ohio ; Cleveland, Ohio ; Wichita Falls, Tex. ; Birmingham, Ala. ; Shreveport, La. ; Pueblo, Colo. ; Lubbock, Tex. ; Chickasha, Okla. ; Salt Lake City, Utah ; and Buffalo, N. Y.Eastern District of Texas, Middle District of North Carolina, Northern District of Georgia, Northern District of Ohio, Northern District of Alabama, Western District of Louisiana, District of Colorado, Eastern District of Oklahoma, District of Utah, and the Western District of New York1F. D. C. Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 13, 15, 22, 23, 25, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 39, 41, 42, 45, 48, 49, 50, 52, 55, 61, 64, 68, 76, 77, 149,159, 179, 180. Sample Nos. 696-D, 697-D, 1800-D, 9210-D, 9211-D, 9215-D, 15300-D, 15943-D, 15944-D, 15954-D, 15991-D, 19621-D, 21532-D, 22241-D, 23672-D, 23801-D, 23802-D, 23803-D, 23806-D, 23810-D, 23812-D, 23815-D, 238C9-D, 24007-D, 24008-D, 27561-D, 80510-D, 30584-D, 31001-D, 37926-D, 37927-D, 41584-D, 42600-D, 42661-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00001csnj|1. Adulteration of Lash Luft. IT. S. v. 23 Boxes of Lash Lure (and RS otber|?, seixure actions against the same product). Default decrees of condemna-|f tion and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 1. 2, 3, 4, 0. 13, 15, 22. 23. 25. 30. 31, 32,|* 33, 34, 36, 39, 41, 42, 45. 48. 49, 50, 52, 55, 61, 64, 68, 76, 77.149,159.179, 180. Snniple|Nos. 696-D, 697-D, 1800-D, 9210-D. 9211-D, 9215-1). 15300-D. 15943-D, Io044-D.|15954-D, 15991-D, 19621-D, 21532-D, 22241-D, 23672-D, 23801-D. 23802-D,|23803-D, 23806-D, 23810-D, 23812-B, 23815-D, 238C9-D, 24007-D. 24008-D,|27561-D, 80510-D, 30584-D, 31001-D, 37926-D, 37927-D, 41584-D, 42600-D,|42661-D.)|This product contained a poisonous or deleterious substance-paraphenylene- |diamine, which might have rendered it injurious to users under the conditions of |use prescribed in its labeling as quoted and indicated hereinafter or under such |conditions of use as are customary or usual.|Between the dates of July 15, 1938, and March 3, 193a, the United States |attorneys for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Southern District of Texas, |Eastern District of Michigan, District of Minnesota, Western District of Texas, |Northern District of Texas, Western District of Oklahoma, Distilct of Kansas,|^Notices ofjudgment under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act are published In |three series: Foods (F. N. J.) ; Drugs and Devices (D. D. N. J.) ; and Cosmetics (C. N. J.).|2 |POOD, DBUG, AND COSMETIC ACT |[C.?.J.|Eastern District of Texas, Middle District of North Carolina, Northern District |of Georgia, Northern District of Ohio, Northern District of Alabama, Western |District of Louisiana, District of Colorado, Eastern District of Oklahoma, Dis- |trict of Utah, and the Western District of New York filed libels against 762 boxes |and 276 envelopes of Lash Lure in various lots at Milwaukee, Wis.; Houston, |Tex.; Detroit, Mich.; Minneapolis, Minn.; Waco, Tex.; Dallas. Tex.; Oklahoma |City, Okla.; Pittsburg, Kans.; Kilgore, Tex.; Brownwood, Tex.; Beaumont, Tex.; |Winston-Salem, N. C.; Atlanta, Ga.; San Angelo, Tex.; Toledo, Ohio; Cleveland, |Ohio; Wichita Falls, Tex.; Birmingham, Ala.; Shreveport, La.; Pueblo, Colo.; |Lubbock, Tex.: Chickasha, Okla.; Salt Lake City, Utah; and Buffalo, N. Y.; alleg- |ing that the article had been shipped In interstate commerce within the period |from on or about June 28,1938 to on or about January 19, 1939, either under the |name Lash Lure Cosmetic Manufacturing. Co., Cosmetic Manufacturing Co., or |Lash Lure; and charging that it was adulterated for the reasons appearing |hereinbefore.|The article was labeled in part as follows: (Envelopes and boxes) \"\"Lash |Lure the new and improved Eye Brow and Lash Dye * * * Cosmetic Mfg. |Co. * * * Los Angeles, Calif.\"\"|A circular enclosed with all lots, with one exception, contained the following |directions for use: \"\"Empty the entire contents of Lash Lure into a small steril- |ized glass dish. Add about 15 drops of [\"\"fresh\"\" in some circulars] 17 Volume |peroxide to the powder and mix well into a medium paste. Apply any facial |cream to one side of eye-shield (Inclosed in package) and place under each eye |to prevent staining of the skin. Have patron's eyes open while applying |shields. Apply paste to lashes or brows with small round stick (have eyes |closed). Leave on about 2 minutes for brown shade, and from 5 to 6 minutes |for black. Remove paste with cotton moistened with lukewarm water. Im- |portant: Be sure all the lashes are on top of the eyeshields before applying |paste. Keep eyes closed until finished-do not shut too tight. Do not have |swab too wet when removing the paste and don't rub [\"\"too\"\" in some circulars] |hard. Be sure all dye is removed. Wash swab out several times in lukewarm |water while removing the paste. Never apply Lash-Lure to granulated eyelids |or any other inflamed conditions. Lash-Lure is applied only by licensed oper- |ators. If an eye dropper is used, be sure it has not been used for ammonia |or other chemicals. Do not use argyrol or other medication in the eye before |or after Lash-Lure. Do not use any stain remover or soap [\"\"or soap\"\" omitted |from some circulars] near the eye. A skin reaction test should be made before |Lash-Lure is applied to determine any susceptibility to dyes. For the Protec- |tion of Beauty Operators have your patrons sign the enclosed waiver. Our |records show that only one person in several thousand is susceptible to dye, |but warning should be given.\"\"|The remaining lot was accompanied by a circular which contained similar |directions for use.|Between the dates of August 22, 1938, and March 27, 1939, no claimant |having appeared, judgments of condemnation were entered and the product was |ordered destroyed.|2. Adulteration of Lash Lure. U. S. v. Charlotte Kolmitz (Cosmetic Manufacturing Co.). Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $100 on each of 23 counts. Fine remitted with exception of $250.csnj00002May 1940Charlotte Kolmitz, trading as the Cosmetic Manufacturing Co.Lash LureJuly 22, 1938South Carolina ; North Carolina ; Georgia ; Texas ; Kansas ; Missouri ; Oklahoma ; Michigan ; Wisconsin ; OhioCaliforniaSouth Carolina ; North Carolina ; Georgia ; Texas ; Kansas ; Missouri ; Oklahoma ; Michigan ; Wisconsin ; OhioSouthern District of California2F. D. C. No. 89. Sample Nos. 695-D, 696-D, 697-D, 1800-D, 9210-D, 9211-D, 15300-D, 15540-D, 15823-D, 15943-D, 15944-D, 15954-D, 19621-D, 21532-D, 22241-D, 23672-D, 23801-D 23802-D, 23803-D, 28806-D, 23869-D, 24007-D, 24008-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00002csnj|2. Adulteration of Lash Lure. U. S. v. Charlotte Kolmlts (Cosmetic Manu- |facturing Co.). Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $10? on each of 23 |counts. Fine remitted with exception of 9260. (F. D. C. No. 89. Sample |Nos. 695-D, 696-D, 697-D, 1800-D. 9210-D, 0211-D, 15300-D, 15540-D, 15823-D. |15943-D, 15944-D, 15954-D, 19621-D, 21532-D, 22241-D, 23672-D, 23801-D |23802-D, 23803-D, 28806-D, 23869-D, 24007-D, 24008-D.)|This product contained a poisonous or deleterious substance-paraphenylene- |diamine, which under the conditions of use prescribed in its labeliog might have |rendered it injurious to users. All lots bore the labeling quoted in No. 1 of this |publication.|On January 9, 1939, the United States attorney for the Southern District of |California, filed an information against Charlotte Kolmltz, trading as the Cos- |metic Manufacturing Co., at Los Angeles, Calif., alleging that the said defend- |ant had introduced and delivered for introduction into interstate commerce, |within the period from on or about June 27 to on or about July 22, 1938, from |the State of California into the States of South Carolina, North Carolina, |Georgia, Texas, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Ohio |quantities of Lash Lure, which was an adulterated cosmetic.|On March 13, 1939, the defendant having entered a plea of nolo contendere, |the court imposed a fine of $100 on each of the 23 counts and ordered that |judgment be satisfied upon payment of $250.|3. Adulteration of Magic-Di-Stik. U. S. v. 68 Cartons of Magic-Di-Stik Lash and Brow Dye (and 18 other seizure actions agrainst the same product). Default decrees of condenmatlon and destruction.csnj00003May 1940Magic-Di-StikMagic-Di-StikJuly 18, 1938 ; June 22, 1938Houston, Tex. ; Memphis, Tenn. ; New Orleans, La. ; Washington, D. C ; Olympia, Wash. ; Detroit, Mich. ; Akron, Ohio ; Indianapolis, Ind. ; Birmingham, Ala. ; St. Louis, Mo. ; Fort Smith, Ark. ; Meridian, Miss. ; San Angelo, Tex. ; Pittsburg, Kans. ; Beaumont, Tex. ; Dallas, Tex. ; Buffalo, N. Y. ; District of Columbia ; and Greenville, S. C.Los Angeles, Calif.Houston, Tex. ; Memphis, Tenn. ; New Orleans, La. ; Washington, D. C ; Olympia, Wash. ; Detroit, Mich. ; Akron, Ohio ; Indianapolis, Ind. ; Birmingham, Ala. ; St. Louis, Mo. ; Fort Smith, Ark. ; Meridian, Miss. ; San Angelo, Tex. ; Pittsburg, Kans. ; Beaumont, Tex. ; Dallas, Tex. ; Buffalo, N. Y. ; District of Columbia ; and Greenville, S. C.Southern District of Texas, Western District of Tennessee, Eastern District of Louisiana, District of Columbia, Western District of Washington, Eastern District of Michigan, Northern District of Ohio, Southern District of Indiana, Northern District of Alabama, Eastern District of Missouri, Western District of Arkansas, Southern District of Mississippi, Northern District of Texas, District of Kansas, Eastern District of Texas, Western District of New York, and Western District of South Carolina3F. D. C. Nos. 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 26, 27, 29, 35, 37, 38. Sample Nos. 694-D, 9207-D, 9208-D, 9209-b, 9468-D, 21533-D, 23804-D, 23806-D, 24006-D, 24021-D, 24544-D, 24545-D, 24773-D, 28519-D, 33834-D, 36401-D, 37617-D, 37754-D, 37801-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00003csnj|3. Adulteration of Magrlc-Dl-Stlk. U. S. v. 68 Cartons of Magrlc-Dl-Stlk Lash |and Brow Dye (and 18 other seizure actions agralnst the same product). |Default decrees of condentnatlon and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 5, 7, 8, 9, |10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 26, 27, 29, 35, 37, 38. Sample Nos. 694-D, |92b7-D\\ 0208-D, 9^09-b, 9468-D, 21533-D, 23804-D. 23806-D, 24006-D, 24021-D, |24544-b, 24545-D, 24773-D, 28519-D, 33834-D. 36401-D, 37617-D. 37754-D, |37801-D.)|This product contained paraphenylenediamine, which might have rendered it |injurious to users under the conditions of use prescribed in the labeling quoted |hereinafter or under such conditions of use as are customary or usual.|Between July 22 and August 5, 1938, the United States attorneys for the |Southern District of Texas, Western District of Tennessee, Eastern District of |Louisiana, District of Columbia, Western District of Washington, Eastern Dis- |trict of Michigan, Northern District of Ohio, Southern District of Indiana, |Northern District of Alabama, Eastern District of Missouri, Western District of |Arkansas, Southern District of Mississippi, Northern District of Texas, Dis- |trict of Kansas, Eastern District of Texas, Western District of New York, and |Western District of South Carolina filed libels against a total of 942 packages |of Magic-Di-Stik Lash and Brow Dye, in various lots, at Houston, Tex.; Mem- |phis, Tenn.; New Orleans, La.; Washington, D. C; Olympia, Wash.; Detroit, |Mich.; Akron, Ohio; Indianapolis, Ind.; Birmingham, Ala.; St. Louis, Mo.; |Fort Smith, Ark.; Meridian, Miss.; San Angelo, Tex.; Pittsburg, Kans.; Beau- |mont, Tex.; Dallas, Tex.; Buffalo, N. Y.; and Greenville, S. C.; alleging that the |article, with the exception of one lot, had been shipped in interstate commerce |within the period from on or about June 27 to on or about July 18, 1938, from |Los Angeles, Calif., by Magic-Di-Stik (or Magic-Di-Stik Co.) ; that one lot had |been shipped on or about June 22, 1938, by Magic-Di-Stik from Los Angeles, |Calif., into the District of Columbia and was in possession of the National |Beauty & Barber Supply at Washington, D. C, intended for sale in the District |of Columbia; and charging that the article was adulterated.|The article was labeled in part: (Envelope) \"\"Magic-Di-Stik Lash and Brow |Dye Caution This product must be applied by licensed beauty operators |only, as per directions inclosed in each box. It must not be sold to or used |by the public for home application\"\"; (circular) \"\"Follow Directions and Cau- |tions Carefully to Insure Perfect Results Directions * * * 2. Apply a |facial cream to one side of eye shield and place under each eye to prevent |staining of skin. Have patrons' eyes open while applying shields, then close |them. 3. Place about 15 drops of fresh 17 volume peroxide in a sterilized glasi |dish. 4. Dip the Magic-Di-Stik in the peroxide and apply to the lashes and |brows (wet the Magic-Di-Stik several times while applying if necessary.) Be |sure the hair is well covered with the dye. 5. Leave on about 7 or 8 minutes |for black and 3 or 4 minutes for brown shade. 6. Wash well with clean cotton |and luke warm water (hold a piece of cotton below the brows to prevent run- |ning into eyes while washing.) Cautions * * * 2. Keep eyes closed until |finished. 3. Never pluck brows before or after applying the dye. Do not apply |to granulated eyelids or any other inflamed conditions. 5. Do not use any |medication in the eyes before or after. 6. To be applied only by licensed beauty |operators. 7. Rare dases of idiosyncrasy may exist that are determuied by a |skin reaction test. 8. Do not use any stain remover near the eyes. 9. Avoid |excessive rubbing of the skin or the use of any chemicals, soaps, or stain re- |movers near the eyes. 10. Obtain the signature of each patron on the waiver |? slips before applying Magic-Di-Stik. Directions for Skin Reaction Test This |product contains a reduced form of an aniline derivative and may cause skin |irritation on certain individuals. Make the following skin reaction test be- |fore applying Magic-Di-Stik: Dip the Magic-Di-Stik in 17 volume peroxide |and apply to the skin behind the ear. After eight minutes, wash with cotton |soaked in warm water. If, within 24 hours a rash appears where the dye |was applied, do not apply Magic-Di-Stik. * * * Manufactured by Depend- |able Concentrated Cosmetics Inc.\"\"|Between the dates of August 18 and December 22, 1938, no claimant having |appeared, judgments of condemnation were entered and the product was ordered |destroyed.|4. Adulteration of Magic-Di-Stik U. S. v. Isaac Dellar and S. Meyer Kolmitz (Magic-Di-Stik). Pleas of nolo contendere. Imposition of sentence suspended and defendants placed on probation for 1 year.csnj00004May 1940Isaac Dellar and S. Meyer Kolmitz, trading as Magic-Di-Stik, Los Angeles, Calif.Magic-Di-StikJuly 14, 1938South Carolina ; Texas ; New York ; Michigan ; Ohio ; Indiana ; Tennessee ; Arkansas ; Missouri ; Washington ; Kansas ; Louisiana ; Mississippi ; AlabamaCaliforniaSouth Carolina ; Texas ; New York ; Michigan ; Ohio ; Indiana ; Tennessee ; Arkansas ; Missouri ; Washington ; Kansas ; Louisiana ; Mississippi ; AlabamaSouthern District of California4F. D. C. No. 90. Sample Nos. 694-D, 9207-D, 9208-D, 9209-D, 9468-D, 21533-D, 23804-D, 23805-D, 24006-D, 24021-D, 24544-D, 24545-D. 24773-D, 24778-D, 28519-D, 36401-D, 37617-D, 37754-D, 37801-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00004csnj|4. Adulteration of Magic-Di-Stilc V. S. v. Isaac Dellar and S. Meyer Kolmitz|(Magic-Di-Stik). Pleas of nolo contendere. Imposition of sentence sus- |pended and defendants placed on probation for 1 year. (F. D. C. No. 90.|Sample Nos. 694-D, 9207-D, 9208-D, 9209-D, 9468-D, 21533-D, 23804-D, |23805-D, 24006-D, 24021-D, 24544-D, 24545-D. 24773-D, 24778-D, 28519-D, |36401-D, 37617-D, 37754-D, 37801-D.)|This product contained a poisonous or deleterious substance, namely, |paraphenylenediamlne, which might have rendered it injurious to users under |the conditions of use prescribed in the labeling. For labeling see No. 3 of this |publication.|On January 9, 1939, the United States attorney for the Southern District of |California filed an information against Isaac Dellar and S. Meyer Kolmitz, |trading as Magic-Di-Stik, Los Angeles, Calif., alleging shipment by said de- |fendants within the period from on or about June 27 to on or about July 14, |1938, from the State of California Into the States of South Carolina, Texas, |New York, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Tennessee, Arkansas, Missouri, Washington, |Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama of quantities of Magic-Di-Stik, |which was an adulterated cosmetic.|On September 11, 1939, the defendants entered pleas,of nolo contendere. Pro- |nouncement of sentence was withheld and the defendants were given 1 year's |probation, concurrently, on each of the 19 counts of the information.|5. Adulteration of Loris Permanent Lash and Brow Colure. U. S. v. 12 Cartons and 9 Boxes of Loris Permanent Lash and Brow Colure. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.csnj00005May 1940Loris LaboratoriesLoris Permanent Lash and Brow ColureJuly 19, 1938Buffalo, N. Y. ; Marquette, Mich.Chicago, Ill.Buffalo, N. Y. ; Marquette, Mich.Western District of New York and the Western District of Michigan5F. D. C. Nos. 24, 46, 47. Sample Nos. 2142-D, 22641-D, 22642-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00005csnj|5. Adulteration of Loris Permanent Lash and Brow Colure. U. S. v. 12 Car |tons and 9 Boxes of Loris Permanent Lash and Brow Colure. Default |decrees of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 24, 46, 47. Sample |Nos. 2142-D, 22641-D, 22642-D.)|This product contained a poisonous or deleterious substance, viz, para- |phenylenediamlne, which might have rendered it injurious to users under the |conditions of use prescribed in the labeling quoted hereinafter.|On or about August 5 and 8, 1938, the United States attorneys for the West- |ern District of New York and the Western District of Michigan filed libels |against 12 cartons of the above-named product at Buffalo, N. Y., and 9 boxes |at Marquette, Mich. J alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate |commerce within the period from on or about July 11 to on or about July 19, |1938, by the Loris Laboratories from Chicago, IlL; and charging that it was |adulterated.|The article was labeled in part: \"\"Put contents of one capsule in mixing |bowl and add 17 volume peroxide to make paste. Apply cream to skin under- |neath the eye to hold eye-shields in place. Cover lashes completely with paste |and leave on about five minutes for deep black. Remove the dye thoroughly |with water and cleanse with a good eye wash. Do not attempt to dye infected |or granulated eyelids and be cautious at all times to insure safety. To obtain |completely satisfactory results it is necessary to use entire contents of one |capsule for each lash and brow dye.\"\"|On September 8 and 19,1938, no claimant having appeared, judgments of con- |demnation were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|12. Adulteration of Dark Eyes. U. S. v. 64 Boxes and 9 1/2 Dozen Packages of Dark Eyes. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.csnj00012May 1940Dark EyesDark EyesJuly 12 and 20, 1938St. Paul, Minn. ; Detroit, Mich.Chicago, Ill.St. Paul, Minn. ; Detroit, Mich.District of Minnesota and the Eastern District of Michigan12F. D. C. Nos. 51, 74. Sample Nos. 19572-D, 19573-D, 21542-D, 21543-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00012csnj|12. Adulteration of Dark Eyes. IT. S. v. 64 Boxes and 9% Dozen Packages of |Dark Eyes. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C.|Nos. 51, 74. Sample Nos. 19572-D, 19573-D, 21542-D, 21543-D.)|This cosmetic contained poisonous and deleterious substances-ammoniated |silver nitrate and pyrogallol, which might have rendered it injurious to users |under the conditions of use prescribed in the labeling quoted hereinafter.|On August 11 and September 16, 1938, the United States attorneys for the |District of Minnesota and the Eastern District of Michigan filed libels against |54 boxes of Dark Eyes at St. Paul, Minn., and 9% dozen packages of the same |product at Detroit, Mich.; alleging that the article had been shipped in inter- |state commerce by Dark Eyes from Chicago, Ill., on or about July 12 and 20, |1938; and charging that it was adulterated.|It was labeled in part: (Carton) \"\" 'Dark Byes' Eyelash and Eyebrow Indelible |Darkener * * * Conforms with rulings of leading boards of health\"\"; |(bottles) \"\"Read directions\"\"; (on some bottles) \"\"Black\"\"; (on other bottles) |\"\"Brown\"\"; (circular enclosed In the packages) \"\" 'Dark Eyes' Indelible Darkener |Directions for use. 1. Cleanse lashes and brows carefully with luke warm |water, using small amount of soap if lashes and brows are oily. 2. Apply |cleansing cream to eyelids, below the eye and around the brows. Be careful |not to allow the cream to touch either lashes or brows. 8. Apply 'Dark Eyes' |No. 1 to the upper lashes with an upward stroke and to the lower lashes by |gently stroking downward. 4. Now use the other brush to apply 'Dark Eyes' |No. 2 to the upper and lower lashes in the same manner as 'Dark Eyes' No. 1. |If after making this application you desire a darker shade, repeat the appli- |cation of 'Dark Byes* No. 1 and No. 2 until the desired shade is obtained. |5. Use moistened cotton to remove excess darkener from the lashes. 6. Now |you are ready to darken the eyebrows. Apply 'Dark Eyes' No. 1 and 'Dark |Eyes' No. 2 to both brows as you did the lashes and remove immediately. We |suggest the use of a cotton swab and cleansing cream, removing the last traces |of the darkener and the cream with cleansing tissues or cotton. 7. During |the treatment should the skin accidentally become stained, apply cream and |wash gently with soap and water. Never mix No. 1 and No. 2 and be sure |to keep the brushes separate.\"\"|On October 12 and 15, 1938, no claimant having appeared, judgments of con- |demnation were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|HAIR DYES|20. Adulteration and misbranding of Othine. U. S. v. 26 Packages and 28 Jars of \"\"Othine, Triple Strength.\"\" Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.csnj00020May 1940Othine Laboratories, Inc.OthineDecember 1, 1938 ; March 15, 1939Boston, Mass. ; Pittsburgh, Pa.Buffalo, N. Y.Boston, Mass. ; Pittsburgh, Pa.District of Massachusetts and the Western District of Pennsylvania20F. D. C. Nos. 213, 214. Sample Nos. 35880-D, 52229-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00020csnj|20. Adulteration and misbranding: of Othine. V. S. ?. 26 Packages and 28 |Jars of \"\"Othine, Triple Strength.\"\" Default decrees of condemnation and |destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 213, 214. Sample Nos. 35880-D, 52229-D.)|This product was a skin bleach prepared especially for the removal of freckles. |It contained ammoniated mercury, a poisonous or deleterious substance, which |might have rendered it injurious to users under the conditions of use prescribed |or under the conditions of use which are customary or usual. Its labeling bore |directions that it be applied lightly with the finger tips, before retiring after first |. washing the face with soap and warm water and drying it thoroughly; that it |} should not be rubbed in and should be left on all night and washed off in the |morning, and that directions should be followed nightly until entire jar had |been used. The user was cautioned not to apply the cream too close to the eyes |or on eyelids, throat or neck, or near open cuts and not to use it while one has |prickly heat or fresh sunburn. It was directed in the circular that in the |case of sensitive skin showing irritation after first day's applications, that the |treatments should be stopped and a little vaseline applied; and that they should |be resumed after 2 or 3 days with one application every other day until the |skin became used to it, increasing by degrees until one treatment a day could |be given without causing irritation.|On March 30 and 31, 1939, the United States attorneys for the District of |Massachusetts and the Western District of Pennsylvania filed libels against |26 packages of Othine at Boston, Mass., and 28 jars of Othine at Pittsburgh, Pa.; |alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce by the Othine |Laboratories, Inc., from Buffalo, N. T., within the period from on or about |December 1, 1938, to on or about March 15, 1939; and charging that it was |adulterated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be an adulterated cosmetic for the reasons stated |above. It was also alleged to be a misbranded drug as reported in D. D. N. J. |No. 69.|On April 24 and May 1, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgments of |condemnation were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|6. Adulteration of Loris Permanent Lash and Brow Colure. U. S. v. Elmer J. Paine and Russell H. Albin. Plea of nolo contendere by Elmer J. Paine. Plea of guilty by Russell H. Albin. Imposition of sentence suspended and defendants placed on probation for 2 years.csnj00006May 1940Elmer J. Paine and Russell H. Albin, trading at Chicago, Ill.Loris Permanent Lash and Brow ColureJuly 19, 1938MichiganIllinoisMichiganNorthern District of Illinois6F. D. C. No. 93. Sample Nos. 2142-D, 22641-D, 22642-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00006csnj|6. Adulteration of Loris Permanent Lash and Brow Colure. U. S. v. Elmer|J. Paine and Russell H. Albin. Plea of nolo contendere by Elmer J. |Paine. Plea of guilty by Russell H. Albin. Imposition of sentence sus-|fended and defendants placed on probation for 2 years. (F. D. C. No. 93. |ample Nos. 2142-D, 22641-D, 22642-D.)|This product contained paraphenylenediamlne, a poisonous or deleterious |substance that might have rendered it injurious to users under the conditions |of nse prescribed in the labeling. For labeling see No. 5 of this publication.|On February 27, 1939, the United States attorney for the Northern District |of Illinois filed an information against Elmer J. Paine and Russell EL Albin, |trading at Chicago, Ill. alleging shipment by said defendants, within the period |from on or about July 7 to on or about July 19, 1938, from the State of Illinois |into the States of Michigan and New York of quantities of Loris Permanent |Lash and Brow Colure, which was an adulterated cosmetic.|On October 31, 1939, Elmer J. Paine entered a plea of nolo contendere and |on the same date Russell H. Albin entered a plea of guilty. Imposition of sen- |tence was suspended and the defendants were placed on probation for 2 years.|7. Adulteration of Hollywood Lash and Brow Dye. U. S. v. 26 Cartons of Hollywood Lash and Brow Dye (and 2 other seizure actions against the same product). Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.csnj00007May 1940Hollywood Lash Dye Co.Hollywood Lash and Brow DyeJuly 23,1938Bonham, Tex. ; Jacksonville, Fla.Hollywood and Los Angeles, Calif.Bonham, Tex. ; Jacksonville, Fla.Eastern and Northern Districts of Texas and the Southern District of Florida7F. D. C. Nos. 57, 58, 60. Sample Nos. 10151-D, 23813-D, 27546-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00007csnj|7. Adulteration of Hollywood Lash and Brow Dye. TJ. S. v. 26 Cartons of|Hollywood Lash and Brow Dye (and 2 other seizure actions against the |same product). Default decrees of condemnation and destruction. (F. D.|C. Nos. 57, 58, 60. Sample Nos. 10151-D, 23813-D, 27546-D.)|This product contained a poisonous or deleterious substance-paraphenylene- |diamlne, which might have rendered it injurious to users under the conditions |of use prescribed in the labeling quoted hereinafter.|On or aboxit August 19 and 22 and September 1, 1938, the United States |attorneys for the Eastern and Northern Districts of Texas and the Southern |District of Florida filed libels against 26 cartons of Hollywood Lash and Brow |Dye at Bonham, Tex., 18 cartons of the product at Amarillo, Tex., and 15 |cartons at Jacksonville, Fla.; alleging that the article had been shipped in |interstate commerce within the period from on or about July 8 to on or about |July 23,1938, by the Hollywood Lash Dye Co. from Hollywood and Los Angeles, |Calif.; and charging that it was adulterated.|A leaflet contained in the packages bore the following statements: \"\"Directions |1. Wash brows and lashes with cotton and water-remove any mascara. 2. Place |dye powder into sterilized glass dish, add about 15 drops of 17 Volume Fresh |peroxide, mix thoroughly into a medium paste. 3. Have patron in semi-upright |position. 4. Apply any facial cream to one side of eye-shield (inclosed here- |with), place under each eye while patron's eyes are open (this prevents stain- |ing of skin.) 5. (Have Eyes Closed) apply paste to lashes or brows with small |round orange stick-(2 minutes for brown shade)-(4 to 5 minutes if black |is desired.) 6. Remove paste with cotton Moistened In Lukewarm Water. Be |sure all dye is removed. Cautions 1. Keep in dry place. 2. Be Sure all |lashes are on top of eye-shields before applying paste. 3. Keep eyes closed |until finished (Not Too Tight.) 4. When removing paste rub gently-do not |have swab too wet (washing swab several times in lukewarm water.) 5. Do |Not Pluck Brows Before Or After Applying Dye and never to granulated eye |lids or inflamed conditions. 6. Hollywood Lash Dye is applied only by licensed |operators. 7. Rare cases of idiosyncrasy may exist. A skin re-action test |should be made to determine these cases. 8. Do not use argyrol or other medi- |cation in the. eyes before or after Lash Dye. 9. Do not use any stain remover |near eyes-or any eye dropper that has been used for ammonia or other |chemicals.\"\"|On September 28, October 10, and December 12, 1938, no claimant having |appeared, judgments of condemnation were entered and the product was |ordered destroyed.|8. Adulteration of Hollywood Lash and Brow Dye. U. S. v. Burton Lowell (Hollywood Lash Dye Co.). Plea of nolo contendere. Imposition of sentence suspended and defendant placed on probation for 2 years.csnj00008May 1940Burton Lowell, trading as the Hollywood Lash Dye Co.Hollywood Lash and Brow DyeJuly 8 to July 25, 1938FloridaCaliforniaFloridaSouthern District of California8F. D. C. No. 91. Sample Nos. 10151-D, 23813-D, 27546-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00008csnj|8. Adulteration of Hollywood Lash and Brow Dye. V. S. v. Burton Lowell |(Hollywood Lash Dye Co.). Plea of nolo contendere. Imposition of |sentence suspended and defendant placed on probation for 2 years. (F. D.|C. No. 91. Sample Nos. 10151-D, 23813-D, 27546-D.)|This product contained paraphenylenediamine, a poisonous or deleterious |substance which might have rendered it injurious to users under the conditions |of use prescribed in the labeling. For labeling see No. 7 of this publication.|On January 9, 1939, the United States attorney for the Southern District of |California filed an information against Burton Lowell, trading as the Holly- |wood Lash Dye Co., Hollywood, Calif., alleging shipment by said defendant |within the period from on or about July 8 to July 25, 1938, from the State |of California into the States of Florida and Texas of quantities of Hollywood |Lash and Brow Dye, which was an adulterated cosmetic.|On September 11, 1939, the defendant entered a nlea of nolo contendere. On |September 18, 1939, the court announced that imposition of sentence would |be suspended for 2 years on condition that the defendant did not manufacture |the lash dye involved during that period.|9. Adulteration of Mary Luckie Improved Lash and Brow Dye. U. S. v. 24 Pacfcagres of Mary Lnekie Improved Lash and Brow Dye (and 8 other seizure actions against the same product). Default decrees of condemnation, and destruction.csnj00009May 1940Mary Luckie, Inc.Mary Luckie Improved Lash and Brow DyeAugust 23, 1938Dallas, Fort Worth, Lubbock, Tyler, Kilgore, Amarillo, and Houston, Tex.\NDallas, Fort Worth, Lubbock, Tyler, Kilgore, Amarillo, and Houston, Tex.Northern, Eastern, and the Southern Districts of Texas9F. D. C. Nos. 78 to 86. incl., 88. Sample Nos. 9216-D, 9217-D, 23820-D, 23829-D, 23830-D, 23831-D, 23832-D, 23833-D, 27599-D, 30627-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00009csnj|8. Adulteration of Mary Luckie Improved Lash and Brow Dye. U. S. v. 24 |Pacfcagres of Mary Lnekie Improved Lash and Brow Dye (and 8 other |seizure actions against the same product). Default decrees of condemna- |tion, and destruction. (F. D, C. Nos. 78 to 86. tod., 88. Sample Nos. 9216-D, |9217-D, 23820-D, 23829-D, 23830-D, 23831-D, 23832-D, 23833-D, 27599-D, |30627-D.)|This product contained paraphenylenediamine and hydrogen peroxide, and |was an adulterated cosmetic as explained hereinafter.|Between October 21 and October 29, 1938, the United States attorneys* for |the Northern, Eastern, and the Southern Districts of Texas filed libels against |122 packages of Mary Luckie Improved Lash and Brow Dye in various lots at |Dallas, Fort Worth, Lubbock, Tyler, Kilgore, Amarillo, and Houston, Tex.; |alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce within the |period from on or about July 5 to on or about August 23, 1938, by Mary |Luckie, Inc.; and charging that it was adulterated.|The article was labeled in part: (Circular) \"\"Directions in the Use of |Mary Luckie Lash And Brow Dye To Be Applied by Registered Licensed Beauty |Operator Only Use glass, china or wooden dish to mix, as follows: Mix one |spoonful of No. 3, No. 4, No. 5 (spoon enclosed in unit). This fs the Dye|Mixture. Next prepare patron. Drop two drops of contents of bottle No. 1 |into eyes. This is a medically approved Eye Wash. Use cotton to remove all |Eye Wash from around eyes. Next make a swab of cotton on a small orange |stick, dip in bottle No. 2 and cover brow, lashes and skin around eye. Apply |freely in and through the brows, as this oil will prevent the dye staining the |skin, at the same time will permit the lashes and brows to dye. Next place |the paper plaques (enclosed in unit) underneath lower lash-then ask patron |to close eyes and relax. Next, with dean orange stick apply the mixture |from the dish to lashes first, then the brows. Leave 5 to 10 minutes after the |dye is on brows. It is not necessary to leave on longer. Have cotton wet |with cold water, gently remove brow application first, then working down- |ward on lashes, remove all of the dye mixture on the paper plaque, then remove |plaque. Patron's eyes must be dosed until you have removed all the mixture |from upper and lower lashes. Last, drop more Eye Wash from bottle No. 1 |with eye-dropper enclosed in unit This will deanse eye. Keep dropping in |Eye Wash until eye feels dean and clear. Use no soap. * * * You are at |liberty to make the paste thicker using more of the powder from No. 3\"\"; |(circular accompanying most shipments) \"\"Warning Mary Luckie Lash and |Brow Dye is to be applied only by a licensed beauty operator, who has been |taught to give primary dye tests. \"\"Mary Luckie, Inc., requests thdt you use the |following method: Follow the directions endosed in each and every unit of |Mary Luckie Lash and Brow Dye to mix No. 3, 4 and 5. Apply a generous |amount of this mixture to the skin back of the ear lobe then seal with gauze |and tape and leave for 24 hours. If patron is allergic the skin will show |pink and no lash and brow dye should be given until this test repeated shows |negative. This is not a test of Mary Luckie Lash and Brow Dye but a test |of the patron as many people have an idiosyncrasy for any dye.\"\"|Adulteration of all lots, with the exception of two seized in the Eastern |District of Texas, was alleged in that the article contained paraphenylenedia- |mine and hydrogen peroxide, poisonous and deleterious substances which might |have rendered the use of the said artide injurious to users under the conditions |of use prescribed in the labeling or under such conditions of use as are cus- |tomary or usual. The libels filed in the Eastern District of Texas alleged |adulteration in that the article contained a poisonous or deleterious substance, |paraphenylenediamine, which might have rendered it injurious to users under |the conditions of use prescribed in the labeling.|Between the dates of November 10, 1938, and May 19, 1939, the consignees |of three of the lots seized at Dallas, Tex., having admitted the allegations of |the libels and having consented to the entry of decrees and no appearance |having been entered in the remaining cases, judgments of condemnation were |entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|10. Adulteration of Ideal Lash and Brow Dye. U. S. v. George W. Eilert (Ideal Lash & Brow Co.). Plea of nolo contendere. Imposition of sentence suspended and defendant placed on probation for 1 year.csnj00010May 1940George W. Eilert, trading as the Ideal Lash & Brow Co.Ideal Lash and Brow DyeJuly 21, 1938NevadaCaliforniaNevadaSouthern District of California10F. D. C. No. 92. Sample No. 36326-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00010csnj|10. Adulteration of Ideal Lash and Brow Dye. V. S. v. Georgre W. Eilert |(Ideal Lash & Brow Co.). Plea of nolo contendere. Imposition of sen- |tence suspended and defendant placed on probation for 1 year. (F. D. C.|No. 92. Sample No. 36326-D.)|This product contained a poisonous or deleterious substance, namely, para- |phenylenediamine, which might have rendered it injurious to users under the |conditions of use prescribed in the labeling quoted below.|On March 6, 1939, the United States attorney for the Southern District of |California filed an information against George W. Eilert, trading as the Ideal |Lash & Brow Co., Los Angeles, Calif., alleging shipment by said defendant on |or about July 21, 1938, from the State of California into the State of Nevada |of a quantity of Ideal Lash and Brow Dye, which was an adulterated cosmetic.|The article was labeled in part: \"\"Ideal Lash & Brow Co. Manufactured by |the Originator and Inventor of Lash Lure. Directions for Ideal Lash and |Brow Dye Apply cold cream around brows and lashes, keeping cream off hair |line; then mix enough peroxide to contents to make a paste, and apply to |brows and lashes; leave on five minutes for deep black, then remove with clear |water.\"\"|On September 11, 1939K the defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere. On |September 25, 1939, the court suspended imposition of sentence and placed the |defendant on probation for 1 year upon condition that he did not again violate |this act.|11. Adulteration of Andree Bye Lash and Brow Colure. U. S. v. 72 Capsules of Andree Permanent Eye Lasb and Eye Brow Colnre. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.csnj00011May 1940Metropolitan Beauty Shop, Washington, D. C.Andree Bye Lash and Brow ColureSeptember 7,1939District of ColumbiaDistrict of ColumbiaDistrict of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia11F. D. C. No. 562. Sample No. 47483-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00011csnj|11. Adulteration of Andree Bye Lash and Brow Colure. IT. S. v. 72 Capsules |of Andree Permanent Eye Lasb and Eye Brow Colnre. Default decree of |condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 562. Sample No. 47483-D.)|This cosmetic contained paraphenylenediamine, a poisonous or deleterious |substance, which might have rendered it injurious to users under the conditions |of use prescribed- in its labeling, or under such conditions of use as are |customary or usual.|On September 7,1939, the United States attorney for the District of Columbia |filed a libel against 72 capsules of the above-named product at Washington, |D. O.; alleging that the article was being offered for sale in the District of |Columbia at the Metropolitan Beauty Shop, Washington, D. C.; and charging |that it was adulterated. The article was received by the dealer in box labeled |in part: \"\"Andree Permanent Eye Lash and Brow Colure. This Colure Con- |tains No Lead Nor Silver. Andree Laboratories P. O. Box 253 Ooatesville, |Penna.\"\"|On September 25, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna- |tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|13. Adulteration of Eau Sublime Hair Coloring. U. S. v. 11 Dozen Packages of Eau Sublime Instantaneous Hair Coloring. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.csnj00013May 1940Guilmard Co., Inc.Eau Sublime Hair ColoringDecember 9, 1938Philadelphia, Pa.New York, N. Y.Philadelphia, Pa.Eastern District of Pennsylvania13F. D. C. No. 144. Sample No. 42092-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00013csnj|13. Adulteration of Eau Sublime Hair Coloring*. IT. S. v. 11 Dozen Packages |of Eau Sublime Instantaneous Hair Coloring:. Default decree of condem- |nation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 144. Sample No. 42092-D.)|Each carton of this product contained two bottles, one labeled \"\"A\"\" contained |paraphenylenediamine and the one labeled \"\"B\"\" contained a solution of approx- |imately 0 percent of hydrogen peroxide. It was a hair dye and was not |labeled in the manner required by law.|On January 30, 1939, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of |Pennsylvania filed a libel against 11 dozen packages of Eau Sublime Instan-|taneous Hair Coloring at Philadelphia, Pa.; alleging that the article had been |shipped on or about December 9, 1938, by the Guilmard Co., Inc., from New |York, N. Y.; and charging that it was adulterated. The article was labeled in |part: (Carton) \"\"Jet Black No. 1 Eau Sublime Instantaneous Hair-Coloring |Net Weight 2 Ounces * * * Caution:-This product contains an aniline |derivative which may cause skin irritation on certain individuals, and a pre- |liminary test according to accompanying directions should first be made. * * * |Manufactured by The Guilmard Co., Inc. New York.\"\"|Adulteration was alleged in that the article contained hydrogen peroxide and |paraphenylenediamlne, which might have rendered it injurious to users under |the conditions of use prescribed in the labeling, and the carton label and the |label of bottle \"\"B\"\" did not bear the statement \"\"Caution-this product contains |ingredients which may cause skin irritation cm certain individuals and a pre- |liminary test according to accompanying directions should first be made. This |product must not be used for dying the eyelashes or eyebrows. To do so may |cause blindness,\"\" required by the act|On February 24, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna- |tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|14. Adulteration of Madam Marva Hair Coloring. U. S. v. 62 Packages of Madam Marva Hair Coloring. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.csnj00014May 1940Madam Marva Products Co.Madam Marva Hair ColoringOctober 27, 1938Chicago, Ill.St. Louis, Mo.Chicago, Ill.Northern District of Illinois14F. D. C. No. 108. Sample No. 46330-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00014csnj|14. Adulteration of Madam Marva Hair Coloring:. U. S. v. 02 Packages of |Madam Marva Hair Coloring:. Default decree of condemnation and |destruction. (F. D. C. No. 108. Sample No. 46330-D.)|This product was a hair dye containing paraphenylenediamlne and was |not labeled in the manner required by law in the case of such preparations.|On January 7, 1939, the United States attorney for the Northern District of |Illinois filed a libel against 62 packages of Madam Marva Hair Coloring at |Chicago, Ill.; alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce |on or about October 27,1938, by the Madam Marva Products Co. from St. Louis, |Mo.; and charging that it was adulterated.|The article was labeled in part: (Carton) \"\"Important Because a few |people cannot use certain foods or drugs with immunity the instructions and |directions on the enclosed folder must be read and followed carefully. Beauty |operators using this preparation in their shops must comply specifically with |the conditions on the enclosed fplder. The perishable nature of the contents |of this package makes it necessary that for the most efficient results it should |be used prior to Sep. 39\"\"; (circular) \"\"This Preparation Is Not Intended For |Use On Eyelashes Or Eyebrows. Important Instructions A few people ac- |cording to medical authorities have an idiosyncrasy towards certain foods, |drugs and chemicals. As an example, so harmless afpod_as Strawberries may |cause certain people to 'break out' with a rash. Likewise, Quinine a very |widely used drug will occasionally cause a rash or \"\"breaking out'. To determine |whether you are susceptible to this type of dye, mix same as stated in direc- |tions, now moisten a piece of cotton with this mixture and apply it to a washed |surface of the skin on the inside fold of the elbow. Allow this cotton to remain |in place by bandaging over night and if at any time during this period irri- |tation should occur, remove the cotton immediately and wash with soap and |water. This indicates that you cannot use this type of dye, and it should |not be applied to the hair. If no reaction occurs proceed to dye hair as stated |in the directions. Notice To Hairdressers Beauty operators using this prepa- |ration in their establishments must instruct their customer as to the proper- |ties of this dye, and must require the customer to sign this direction and |instruction sheet, after carefully reading and making the test as called for. |Failure to do so will place responsibility for its use with you. Madame Marva |Products Co. St. Louis, Mo.\"\"|Adulteration was alleged in that the article contained paraphenylenediamlne, |which might have rendered it injurious to users under conditions of use pre- |scribed in the labeling, its label did not bear the statement, \"\"Caution-This |product contains ingredients which may cause skin irritation on certain indi- |viduals and a preliminary test according to accompanying directions should first |be made. This product must not be used for dyeing the eyelashes or eyebrows; |to do so may cause blindness,\"\" and Its labeling did not bear adequate direc- |tions for such preliminary testing.|On March 6, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation |was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|15. Adulteration and misbranding of Posner's Black Hair Coloring. U. S. v. 65 Cartons of Posner's Black Instantaneous Hair Coloring. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.csnj00015May 1940I. PosnerPosner's Black Hair ColoringDecember 12, 1938, and January 3, 1939Newark, N. J.New York, N. Y.Newark, N. J.District of New Jersey15F. D. C. No. 170. Sample No. 69651-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00015csnj|15. Adulteration and misbranding; of Posner's Black Hair Colorlnar. . V. S. v.|65 Cartons of Posner's Black.Instantaneous Hair Coloring. Default de- |cree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 170. Sample No. |69651-D.)|Bach carton of this product contained two bottles; one labeled \"\"A\"\" contained |paraphenylenediamine and the other labeled \"\"B\"\" contained a solution of ap- |proximately 5 percent of hydrogen peroxide. It was a hair dye and was |not labeled in the manner required by law.|On February 15, 1939, the United States attorney for the District of New |Jersey filed a libel against 65 cartons of the above-named cosmetic at Newark, |N. J.; alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or |about December 12, 1938, and January 3, 1939, by I. Posner from New York, |N. Y.; and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded. It was labeled |in part: (Carton) \"\"Posner's Black Instantaneous Hair Coloring Leaves the hair |soft and glossy Caution-This product contains an aniline derivative or an |amine, which may cause skin irritation on certain individuals and a preliminary |test according to accompanying directions should first be made I. Posner Per- |fumer New York\"\"; (bottles \"\"A\"\" and \"\"B\"\") \"\"Black Posner's Instantaneous Hair |Coloring By one single application will color gray, faded or bleached hair to |its original shade. Natural and durable colors. Directions inside. Sold by |all Druggists. Hair Dealers and Department Stores. This dye cannot be |washed off or bleached out\"\"; (bottle \"\"A\"\" only) \"\"Caution: This product contains |an aniline derivative or an amine, which may cause skin irritation on certain |individuals and a preliminary test according to accompanying directions should |be made. This product must not be used for dyeing the eyelashes or eyebrows; |to do so may cause blindness.\"\"|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it contained a poisonous nr |deleterious substance-paraphenylenediamine, which might have rendered it |injurious to users under the conditions of use prescribed in the labeling or |under such conditions of use as are customary or usual, and the label did not |bear the \"\"Caution\"\" statement in the form prescribed by law, namely, |\"\"Catition-This product contains ingredients which may cause skin irritation |on certain individuals and a preliminary test according to accompanying direc- |tions should first be made. This product must not be used for dyeing the eye- |lashes or eyebrows; to do so may cause blindness,\"\" either on the carton or |bottle \"\"A\"\"; while bottle \"\"B\"\" bore no \"\"Caution\"\" statement at all.|Misbranding was alleged in that the \"\"Caution\"\" required by law was not |prominently placed on the labeling with such conspicuousness (as compared |with other words, statements, designs, or devices in the labeling) and in such |terms as to render it likely to be read and understood by the ordinary individual |under customary conditions of purchase and use.|On March 18, 1989, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation |was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.\"\"|LIPSTICKS|16. Adulteration of Guerlain Lipsticks. U. S. v. 40,270 Lipsticks. Consent decree of condemnation. Product released under bond conditioned that it be removed from containers, placed in mass form, and reshipped to country of origin.csnj00016May 1940Guerlain, Inc.Guerlain LipsticksSeptember 29,1936 ; January 13, 1939New York, N. Y.EuropeNew York, N. Y.Southern District of New York16F. D. C. No. 233. Sample Nos. 60146-D, 60148-D, 60152-D, 60159-D, 60160-D, 60161-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00016csnj|16. Adulteration of Guerlain Lipsticks. V. S. v. 40,270 Lipsticks. Consent|decree of condemnation. Product released under bond conditioned that it |be removed from containers, placed in mass form, and resblpped to coun- |try of orteln. (F. D. C. No. 233. Sample Nos. 60146-D, 60148-D, 60152-D, |60159-D, 601GO-D, 60161-D.)|This product was a cosmetic containing cadmium and selenium-poisonous or |deleterious substances which might have rendered it injurious to users under the |conditions of use prescribed in the labeling or under such conditions of use as |-are customary or usual.|On June 16,1939, the United States attorney for the Southern District of New |York filed a libel against 40,270 lipsticks at New York, N. Y.; alleging that the |article had been shipped from Europe to New York, N. Y? within the period from |on or about September 29,1936, to on or about January 13, 1939; and charging |that it was adulterated. The article was labeled variously: (Cartons) \"\"Rouge |A Levres Clair Guerlain No. 144\"\"; \"\"Rouge A Levres Mandarin Guerlain No. 160\"\"; |\"\"Rouge A Levres Medium Guerlain No. 145\"\"; \"\"Pomades Rouges Medium |Guerlain * * * Paris\"\"; (some containers) \"\"Guerlain Paris France.\"\"|On August 16,1939, Guerlain, Inc., New York, N. Y., claimant, having admitted |the allegations of the libel, judgment of condemnation was entered, and the |product was ordered released under bond conditioned that it be removed from|the containers and placed in mass form for reshipment to Paris, France, and |that the containers be salvaged.|CREAMS AND LOTIONS|17. Adulteration and misbranding of Madam C. J. Walter's Tan-Off. U. S. 717 Tins of Madam C. J. Walker's Tan-Off. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.csnj00017May 1940Madam C. J. Walker Manufacturing Co.Madam C. J. Walter's Tan-OffFebruary 2, 1939Cleveland, OhioIndianapolis, Ind.Cleveland, Ohio:Northern District of Ohio17F. D. C. No. 187. Sample No. 29486-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00017csnj|17. Adulteration and misbranding of Madam C. J. Walter's Tan-Off. TJ. S. - |717 Tins of Madam C. J. Walker's Tan-Off. Default decree of condemna- |tion and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 187. Sample No. 29486-D.)|This product was recommended in its labeling for brightening sallow or dark |skin, for the treatment of freckles and skin-blotch, and for clearing the com- |plexion. It was directed in the labeling that it be applied with the tips of the |fingers before retiring and allowed to remain on the skin overnight and that |after washing in the morning it be applied and allowed to remain from 5 to 10 |minutes. It contained ammoniated mercury, a poisonous or deleterious sub- |stance, which might have rendered it injurious to users under the conditions of |use prescribed in its labeling or under such conditions of use as are customary or |usual.|On March 3, 1939, the United States attorney for the Northern District of |Ohio filed a libel against 717 tins of the above-named product at Cleveland, Ohio: |alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about |February 2, 1939, by the Madam C. J. Walker Manufacturing Co. from Indian- |apolis, Ind.; and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated under the provisions of the law |applicable to cosmetics for the reasons stated above. It was also alleged to be |misbranded under those applicable to drugs, as reported in D. D. N. J. No. 67.|On September 8, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna- |tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|18. Adulteration and misbranding of Miller's Anti-Mole. U. S. v. 21 Packages of Miller's Anti-Mole. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.csnj00018May 1940Miller Manufacturing Co.Miller's Anti-MoleMarch 13, 1939Kansas City, Mo.Lincoln, Nebr.Kansas City, Mo.Western District of Missouri18F. D. C. No. 228. Sample No. 66601-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00018csnj|18. Adulteration and misbranding of Miller's Anti-Mole. U. S. v. 21 Packages|of Miller's Anti-Mole. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 228. Sample No. 66601-D.)|This product was recommended in the labeling for use on the face, neck, scalp, |arms, or any part of the body for the removal of warts and moles. It contained |nitric and acetic acid, poisonous or deleterious substances, which might have |rendered it injurious to users under the conditions of use prescribed in the |labeling or under such conditions of use as are customary or usual. The labeling |bore directions that it be applied with a hardwood toothpick, used very spar- |ingly so that all the liquid applied would be absorbed; that small warts on the |scalp usually could be rubbed off with the first application, a large one- requiring |more thorough treatment; and that one application was sufficient to remove |warts when used properly. It was further directed that the user pick genfly so |that the liquid would penetrate the skin if the growth treated was very small, |that when the skin turned yellow no more should be applied; but that with a large |wart enough should be used to turn it dark; that about two hours after applying, |the growth should be greased with vaseline to keep it soft and to prevent sore- |ness. Users were cautioned not to use the preparation on themselves unless the |growth was on arm, leg, or where freely accessible; that the scab should not be |picked off; that a little vaseline should be placed around the growth to keep the |liquid from spreading; and that the product should not be permitted to enter |the eye. The labeling also bore the word \"\"Poison\"\" and external and internal |antidotes.|On May 16, 1939, the United States attorney for the Western District of |Missouri filed a libel against 21 packages of Miller's Anti-Mole at Kansas City, |Mo.; alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on er- |about March 13, 1939, by the Miller Manufacturing Co. from Lincoln, Nebr.; and |charging that it was adulterated and misbranded.|It was alleged to be an adulterated cosmetic for the reasons given above. It |was also alleged to be a misbranded drug as reported in D. D. N. J. ~8o. 71.|On July 21,1989, no claimant having appeared, judgment ofreondemnation was |entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|19. Adulteration and misbranding of O. J.'s Beauty Lotion. U. S. v. 428 Bottles of O. J.'s Beauty Lotion. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.csnj00019May 1940O. J.'s Beauty Lotion Co.O. J.'s Beauty LotionMay 8, 1939Dallas, Tex.Shreveport, La.Dallas, Tex.Northern District of Texas19F. D. C. No. 242. Sample No. 62843-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00019csnj|19. Adulteration and misbranding of O. J.'s Beauty Lotion. TJ. S. v. 428 Bot |tles of O. J.'s Beauty Lotion. Default decree of condemnation and |destruction. (F. D. C. No. 242. Sample No. 62843-D.)|This product contained mercuric chloride, a poisonous and deleterious |Ingredient.|On August 8, 1939, the United States attorney for the Northern District of |Texas filed a libel against 428 bottles of O. J.'s Beauty Lotion at Dallas, Tex.; |alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate comnterce by O. J.'s|/|Beauty Lotion Co. from Shreveport, La. (consigned about May 8, 1939); and |charging that it was adulterated and misbranded. It was labeled in part: \"\"O. J.'s |Beauty Lotion Cleanses, Clears, Bleaches, Beautifies * * * Manufactured and |guaranteed by O. J. Parham for O. J.'s Beauty Lotion Co., Shreveport, La.\"\"|Adulteration was alleged in that the article was a cosmetic and contained |mercuric chloride, a poisonous and deleterious substance which might have ren- |dered It injurious to users under the conditions of use prescribed In the labeling |or under such conditions of use as are customary or usual. It was recommended |in its labeling for the removal of externally caused pimples, freckles, superficial |discoloration, tan, and sunburn. The circular accompanying it bore directions |that in the beginning of the treatment the preparation be used sparingly once or |twice a day and that the frequency of application be increased, if desired, until |a roughness or slight reddening of the skin was experienced; that if the skin was |supersensitive and the irritation became annoying a small amount of cold cream |should be applied and the treatment discontinued for 24 hours; that it be used |daily as a cleansing agent; its astringent and beneficial qualities making it espe- |cially desirable for such purposes. It stated that frequent use of the article would |remove superficial imperfections, contract the pores and correct oiliness; that it |contained ingredients recognized and used by physicians and prescription drug- |\\ gists as a bleaching agent; that it had gained supremacy in the most difficult |' sun country-the South-and if used full strength daily, would remove freckles |and similar spots or blemishes and the coarsening effects of tan by sun and wind. |It stated that the lotion be used full strength as an application to the scalp |before shampooing and three or four times a week on the scalp in a solution |of one part of the lotion to three parts of water applied with fingertips or |brush; that it was a delightful after-shaving lotion and would tend to close large |pores and leave the face clean and cool; that- it was a desirable application for |cuts, scratches, and abrasions of the skin for which it should be used full |strength; that its astringent properties would prevent collection of foreign matter |and excessive oily secretions. Its labeling bore the word \"\"Poison\"\" and directions |that-it should not be taken internally and should be kept out of the hands of |children.|It was also alleged to be a misbranded drug, as reported in D. D. N. J. No. 72.|On September 20,1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation |was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|21. Adulteration and misbranding of Palmer's Antiseptic Skin Lotion. U. S. v. 36 Bottles of Palmer's Antiseptic Skin Lotion. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.csnj00021May 1940Solon PalmerPalmer's Antiseptic Skin LotionNovember 25, 1938Richmond, Va.New York, N. YRichmond, Va.Eastern District of Virginia21F. D. C. No. 183. Sample No. 35008-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00021csnj|21. Adulteration and misbranding: of Palmer's Antiseptic Skin Lotion. TJ. S. v.|SO Bottles of Palmer's Antiseptic Skin Lotion. Default decree of con- |demnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 183. Sample No. 3500S-D.)|This product contained mercuric chloride (corrosive sublimate), a poisonous |or deleterious substance, which might have rendered it injurious to users, under |the conditions of use prescribed in the labeling in which it was recommended |for use after shaving and as a beautifier by removing eczema, pimples, dandruff, |and itching scaly eruptions. Its labeling failed to reveal facts material with |respect to the consequences which might result from its use under the conditions |of use prescribed in the labeling or under such conditions of use as are customary |or usual.|On March 3, 1939, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of |Virginia filed a libel against 36 bottles of Palmer's Antiseptic Skin Lotion at |Richmond, Va.; alleging that th? article had been shipped in interstate com- |merce on or about November 25, 1938, by Solon Palmer from New York, N. Y,; |and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded. It was alleged to be |an adulterated cosmetic for the reasons stated above. It was also alleged to |be a misbranded drug, as reported in D. D. N. J, No. 68.|It was also alleged to be adulterated and misbranded in violation of the |Food and Drugs Act of 1906, reported in notice of judgment No. 30883 published |under that act.|On May 31, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation |was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|22. Adulteration and misbranding of Sonle's External Lotion. U. S. v. 5 Bottles and 8 Bottles of Soule's External Lotion. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.csnj00022May 1940L. M. Brock & Co.Soule's External LotionFebruary 1 and April 18, 1939Jacksonville, Fla.Lynn, Mass.Jacksonville, Fla.Southern District of Florida22F. D. C. Nos. 221, 220. Sample Nos. 10474-D. 1S696-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00022csnj|22. Adulteration and misbrandins: of Sonle's External Lotion. TJ. S. v. 5 Bottles|and 8 Bottles of Seule's External Lotion. Default decrees of condemna- |tion and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 221, 220. Sample Nos. 10474-D. 1S696-D.)|This product was recommended in its labeling as a treatment for moth, tan, |freckles, and pimples. It contained mercuric chloride, a poisonous or deleterious |substance, which might have rendered it injurious to users under the conditions |of use prescribed, or under such conditions of use as are customary or usual. |For the treatment of moth it was directed that a soft cloth be moistened with |the lotion, the face bathed morning and evening for 2 or 3 weeks or until a |slight roughness was experienced, and that then the lotion be applied evenings |until the face became clear; that for tan it be applied every evening; that |for freckles it be used in the same manner as for tan unless the case was severe, |in which event it should be applied as for moth; and that for pimples it be |applied every evening but that if it proved stronger than was pleasant for |the face, the cloth be dampened in water, the lotion applied to the damp cloth, |and application be made less frequently.|On April 17 and May 13, 1939, the United States attorney for the Southern |District of Florida filed libels against 13 bottles of Sonle's External Lotion at |Jacksonville, Fla,; alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate com- |merce on or about February 1 and April 18, 1939, by L. M. Brock & Co. from |Lynn, Mass.; and charging that it was an adulterated cosmetic for the reasons |appearing hereinbefore.|It was also charged to be a misbranded drug as reported in D. D. N. J. No. 70.|On June 22, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgments of condemnation |were entered and the product was ordered destroyed,|COSMETICS, MISBRANDED (ON ACCOUNT OF DECEPTIVE|CONTAINERS)|TOOTH PARTES AND SHAVING CREAM|23. Misbranding of tooth paste. U. S. v. 185 Packages of Sears Tooth Paste and 78 Packages of Walter's Tooth Paste. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.csnj00023May 1940Sheffield Co.tooth pasteJuly 12, August 10, and September 25, 1939Boston, MassNew London, Conn.Boston, MassDistrict of Massachusetts23F. D. C. Nos. 835, 836. Sample Nos. 73757-D, 73758-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00023csnj|23. Misbranding of tooth paste. V. S. v. 185 Packages of Sears Tooth Paste|and 78 Packages of Walter's Tooth Paste. Default decrees of condemna- |tion and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 835, 836. Sample Nos. 73757-D, 73758-D.)|The containers of this product were deceptive since the tubes occupied only 30 |percent of the capacity of the cartons. The labeling of Walter's Tooth Paste bore |false and'misleading representations regarding its eflicacy.|On October 30,1939, the United States attorney for the District of Massachusetts |filed libels against 263 packages of tooth paste at Boston, Mass,; alleging that |the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about July 12, August |10, and September 25, 1939, by the Sheffield Co. from New London, Conn.; and |charging that it was misbranded. It was labeled in part: (Cartons and tubes) |\"\"Sears Tooth Paste * * * Distributed by Sears, Roebuck and Co. Chicago, |111.\"\"; or '\"\"Walter's For The Gums Tooth Paste * * * Sold Only By Sears, |Roebuck and Co.\"\"|Misbranding was alleged in that the containers were so made, formed, or filled |as to be misleading. Further misbranding of Walter's Tooth Paste was alleged |in that the statement \"\"For the Gums,\"\" appearing in the labeling, was false and |misleading since it represented that the article was efficacious for the purpose |recommended; whereas it was not|On December 18, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgments of condemna- |tion were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|24. Misbranding of tooth paste and dental cream. U. S. v. 3 Gross Packages of Tooth Paste, and 3 Gross Packages of Dental Cream. Default decrees of condemnation. Products delivered to charitable organisation.csnj00024May 1940Trade Laboratories, Inc.tooth paste and dental creamJuly 11 and August 11, 1939New York, N. Y.Newark, N. J.New York, N. Y.Southern District of New York24F. D. C. Nos. 546, 547. Sample Nos. 67651-D, 67652-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00024csnj|24. Misbranding; of tooth paste and dental cream. U. S. v. 3 Gross Packagres of|Tooth Paste, and 3 Gross Packagres of Dental Cream. Default decrees of |condemnation. Products delivered to charitable organisation. (F. D. C.|Nos. 546, 547. Sample Nos. 67651-D, 67652-D.)|The tubes containing these products occupied less than one-third of the ca- |pacity of the cartons. The labeling of the dental cream bore the false and |misleading claim that it would make the gums healthy and firm.|On September 6, 1939, the United States attorney for the Southern District of |New York filed libels against 6 gross packages of dentifrices at New York, N. Y.; |alleging that the articles had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about |July 11 and August 11, 1939, by Trade Laboratories, Inc., from Newark, N. J.; |and charging that they were misbranded. The articles were labeled: \"\"Cabot's |) Tooth Paste with Milk of Magnesia * * * Redd Chemical Co., Distributors, |Newark, New Jersey\"\"; and \"\"Lee's Milk of Magnesia Dental Cream * * * The |Trade Laboratories, Inc., Distributors, Newark, N. J.\"\"|Misbranding was alleged with respect to both products in that the containers |were so made, formed, and filled as to be misleading. Lee's Dental Cream was |alleged to be misbranded further in that the representation on the tube that it |would make the gums healthy and firm was false and misleading since it was |not efficacious for the purposes recommended. It was also alleged to be mis- |branded under the provisions of the law applicable to drags reported in D. D. N. J. |No. 73.|On September 25, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgments of condem- |nation were entered and the products were ordered delivered to a charitable |organization.|25. Misbranding of dental cream and shaving cream. U. S. v. 95 Dozen Packages of Dental Cream and 59 Dozen Packages of Shaving Cream. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.csnj00025May 1940National jGibson Co., Inc.dental cream and shaving creamSeptember 8 and 22, 1939Baltimore, Md.New York, N. Y.Baltimore, Md.District of Maryland25F. D. C. Nos. 770, 771. Sample Nos. 47500-D, 78501-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00025csnj|25. Misbranding: of dental cream and shaving: cream. IT. S. v. 95 Dozen Pack |ages of Dental Cream and 59 Dozen Packagres of Shaving: Cream. De- |fault decrees of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 770, 771. |Sample Nos. 47500-D, 78501-D.)|The containers of these products were deceptive, examination having shown |that the tubes occupied slightly more than one-fourth of the capacity of the |cartons.|On October 18, 1939, the United States attorney for the District of Maryland |filed libels against 95 dozen packages of dental cream and 59 dozen packages of |shaving cream at Baltimore, Md.; alleging that the articles had been shipped in |interstate commerce on or about September 8 and 22, 1939, by the National |jGibson Co., Inc., from New York, N. Y.; and charging misbranding in that the |'|containers were so made, formed, or filled as to be misleading.|The articles were labeled in part: \"\"Gibson Milk of Magnesia Dental Cream |[or \"\"Gibson Howell Shaving Cream\"\"] Gibson-Howell Co. Jersey City, N. J.\"\"|On November 8, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgments of condemna- |tion were entered and the products were ordered destroyed.|DEODORANTS|26. Misbranding of Hush Cream Deodorant and Hush-Sno. U. S. v. 14 1/2 Dozen Boxes of Hush and 11 1/2 Boxes of Hush-Sno. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.csnj00026May 1940Hush Sales Co.Hush Cream Deodorant and Hush-SnoJuly 3 and 5, 1939Atlanta, Ga.Philadelphia, Pa.Atlanta, Ga.Northern District of Georgia26F. D. C. Nos. 340, 343. Sample Nos. 45577-D, 45578-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00026csnj|26. Misbranding: of Hush Cream Deodorant and BCnsh-Sno. IT. S. v. 14% Dozen|Boxes of Hush and 11% Boxes of Hush-Sno. Default decrees of con- |demnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 340, 343. Sample Nos. 45577-D, |45578-D.)|The containers of these products were so made, formed, and filled as to be |misleading since they appeared to hold at least three times as much as they did |because of the recess in the bottoms, of the double bottoms, and the fact that the. |covers did not fit flush over the bottom compartments.|On August 1, 1939, the United States attorney for the Northern District of |Georgia filed libels against 14% dozen boxes of Hush and 11% boxes of Hush-Sno |at Atlanta, Ga.; alleging that the articles had been shipped in interstate com- |merce on or about July 3 and 5, 1939, by the Hush Sales Co. from Philadelphia, |Pa.; and charging that they were misbranded.|On August 28, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgments of condemnation |were entered and the products were ordered destroyed.|27. Misbranding of deodorant cream. U. S. v. 47 1/2 Dozen Packages of Yodora Deodorant Cream. Consent decree of condemnation. Product released under bond for relabeling and repackaging.csnj00027May 1940William J. ^Wardell, trustee for the estate of McKesson & Robbins, Inc.deodorant creamOctober 10, 1939Atlanta, Ga.Bridgeport, Conn.Atlanta, Ga.Northern District of Georgia27F. D. C. No. 872. Sample No. 82441-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00027csnj|27. Misbranding' of deodorant cream. U. S. v. 47% Dozen Packages of Yodora|Deodorant Cream. Consent decree of condemnation. Product released |under bond for relabeling: and repackaging. (F. D. C. No. 872. Sample No. |82441-D.)|The containers of this product were deceptive, examination having shown that |the tubes occupied less than one-fourth of the capacity of the cartons.|On November 6, 1939, the United States attorney for the Northern District of |Georgia filed a libel against 47% dozen packages of Yodora Deodorant Cream at |Atlanta, Ga.; alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce |on or about October 10, 1939, by William J. ^Wardell, trustee for the estate of |McKesson & Robbins, Inc., from Bridgeport, Conn.; and charging that it was mis- |branded in that its containers were so made, formed, or filled as to be misleading.|On November 25,1939, the shipper having appeared as claimant and having con- |sented to the entry of a decree, judgment of condemnation was entered, and the |product was ordered released under bond conditioned that it be relabeled and |repackaged under the supervision of this Department|FACE AND TALCUM POWDERS|28. Misbranding of face powder. U. S. v. 108 Boxes of Evening in Paris Face Powder. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.csnj00028May 1940Crillon Sales Co.face powderJuly 6,1939Atlanta, Ga.New York, N. Y.Atlanta, Ga.Northern District of Georgia28F. D. C. No. 304. Sample No. 45573-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00028csnj|28. Misbranding: of face powder. V. S. v. 108 Boxes of Evening: in Paris Face|Powder. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No.|304. Sample No. 45573-D.)|The container of this product was so made, formed, and filled as to be misleading |since, by reason of excessive headspace and a recess in the bottom, it contained |about one-third the amount of powder indicated by its outward appearance.|On July 20, 1939, the United States attorney for the Northern District of |Georgia filed a libel against 108 boxes of Evening in Paris Face Powder at Atlanta, |Ga.; alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about |July 6,1939, by the G. W. Button Corporation from New York, N. Y.; and charging |that it was misbranded. It was labeled in part: \"\"Packed by Crillon Sales Co., |N. Y. C, Authorized Distributor.\"\"|On September 9,1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation |was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|29. Misbranding of face powder. U. S. v. 708 Boxes of Max Factor's Face Povider. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.csnj00029May 1940Premier Laboratories, Inc.face powderJune 26, 1939Rome, Ga.New York, N. Y.Rome, Ga.Northern District of Georgia29F. D. C. No. 268. Sample No. 65716-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00029csnj|29. Misbranding: of face powder. V, 8. v. 708 Boxes of Max Factor's Face|Povi'der. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No.|268. Sample No. 65716-D.)|The container of this product was so made, formed, and filled as to be mislead- |ing since, by reason of excessive headspace and a recess in the bottom, it con- |tained about one-third the amount of powder indicated by its outward appearance.|On July 10, 1939, the United States attorney for the Northern District of |Georgia filed a libel against 708 boxes of Max Factor's Face Powder at Rome, Ga.; |alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about June |26, 1939, by the Chelsea Drug Sundries Co. from New York, N. Y.; and charging |that it was misbranded. It was labeled in part: \"\"Max Factor's Face Powder |Repacked by Premier Laboratories, Inc. Wholly independent of Max Factor.\"\"|On August 9, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation |was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|30. Misbranding of talcum powder. U. S. v. 45 Dozen Cans of Talcum Powder. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.csnj00030May 1940Talcum Puff Co.talcum powderAugust 8, 1939Baltimore, Md.New York, N. Y.Baltimore, Md.District of Maryland30F. D. C. No. 656. Sample No. 47919-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00030csnj|30. Misbranding: of talcum powder. TJ. S. v. 45 Dozen Cans of Talcum Powder.|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 656. |Sample No. 47919-D.)|The containers of this product were deceptive, examination having shown that |they could easily hold an additional ounce of talcum powder. .|On September 28. 1939, the United States attorney for the District of Mary- |land filed a libel against 45 dozen cans of talcum powder at Baltimore, Md.; |alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about |August 8, 1939, by Talcum Puff Co. from New York, N. Y.; and charging that |it was misbranded in that its containers vrere so made, formed, or filled as to |be misleading.|Portions of the article were labeled in part: \"\"White Swan [or \"\"Showers of |Flowers\"\"] Mirador Perfume Co. New York-Jacksonville, Fla. Toronto Av. net |wt. 6 ozs.\"\" The remainder was labeled in part: \"\"Sweet Pea [or \"\"Idly of the |Valley\"\"] Talcum Puff Co. New York * * * Av. net wt. 6 ozs.\"\"|On October 21, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation |was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|Issued May 1941|S OF JUDGMENT UNDER THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, |AND COSMETIC ACT|[Given pursuant to section 705 of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Aet]|31-50|COSMETICS|The cases reported herewith commenced prior to June 30,1940, were instituted |in the United States District Courts by the United States attorneys acting upon |reports submitted by direction of the Secretary of Agriculture; and those com- |menced on and after that date were similarly instituted upon reports submitted |by direction of the Federal Security Administrator.|WAYNE COY, Acting Administrator, Federal Security Agency. |WASHINGTON, D. C, April 11, 1941.|CONTENTS|Page |Cosmetics, adulterated or adulterated and|misbranded |_ ___ 17|Eyelash and eyebrow dyes 17|Hair dye |18|Scalp remedy. _ |19|Page |Cosmetics, misbranded (on account of decep- |tive containers) |20|Dentifrices and shaving cream 20|Miscellaneous |_ _ 23|Index |24|COSMETICS, ADULTERATED OR ADULTERATED AND MISBRANDED|EYELASH AND EYEBROW DYES|31. Adultera-tiom of Andree Permanent Eye Lash and Brow Colnre. TJ. S. v. |Leroy K. Payne (Andree Laboratories). Plea of nolo contendere. Sentence |of f>? days' Imprisonment suspended and defendant placed on probation |for 3 years. (F. D. C. No. 2085. Sample No. 47483-D.)|This product contained paraphenylenediamine, a poisonous or deleterious sub- |stance which might have rendered it injurious to users under the conditions of |use prescribed in the labeling or under such conditions of use as are customary |or usual.|On July 17, 1940, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Penn- |sylvania filed an information against Leroy K. Payne, trading as Andree Labora- |tories, at Coatesville, Pa., alleging shipment by said defendant on or about July |15, 1938, from'the State of Pennsylvania into the District of Columbia of a quan- |tity of the above-named cosmetic, which was adulterated for the reasons appearing |above. The article was labeled in part: \"\"Andree Permanent Eye Lash and Brow |Colure. This Colure Contains No Lead Nor Silver.\"\"|On September 11, 1940, the defendant entered a plea of guilty; and on Septem- |ber 16, 1940; the court sentenced him to serve 90 days in jail. On October 17, |1940, the court amended the sentence by suspending it and placing the defendant |on probation'for 3 years.|813318 ??-41'|17|31. Adulteration of Andree Permanent Eye Lash and Brow Colure. U. S. v. Leroy K. Payne (Andree Laboratories). Plea of nolo contendere. Sentence of 90 days' imprisonment suspended and defendant placed on probation for 3 years.csnj00031May 1941Leroy K. Payne, trading as Andree Laboratories, at Coatesville, Pa.Andree Permanent Eye Lash and Brow ColureJuly 15, 1938District of ColumbiaPennsylvaniaDistrict of ColumbiaEastern District of Pennsylvania31F. D. C. No. 2085. Sample No. 47483-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00031csnj|31. Adultera-tiom of Andree Permanent Eye Lash and Brow Colnre. TJ. S. v. |Leroy K. Payne (Andree Laboratories). Plea of nolo contendere. Sentence |of f>? days' Imprisonment suspended and defendant placed on probation |for 3 years. (F. D. C. No. 2085. Sample No. 47483-D.) |This product contained paraphenylenediamine, a poisonous or deleterious sub- |stance which might have rendered it injurious to users under the conditions of |use prescribed in the labeling or under such conditions of use as are customary |or usual. |On July 17, 1940, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Penn- |sylvania filed an information against Leroy K. Payne, trading as Andree Labora- |tories, at Coatesville, Pa., alleging shipment by said defendant on or about July |15, 1938, from'the State of Pennsylvania into the District of Columbia of a quan- |tity of the above-named cosmetic, which was adulterated for the reasons appearing |above. The article was labeled in part: \"\"Andree Permanent Eye Lash and Brow |Colure. This Colure Contains No Lead Nor Silver.\"\ |On September 11, 1940, the defendant entered a plea of guilty; and on Septem- |ber 16, 1940; the court sentenced him to serve 90 days in jail. On October 17, |1940, the court amended the sentence by suspending it and placing the defendant |on probation'for 3 years. |813318 ??-41' |17 |32. Adulteration and misbranding of Louise Norris Lash and Brow Coloring. U. S. v. 9 Cartons of Louise Norris Lash and Brow Coloring (and 5 seizure actions against other lots of the same product). Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.csnj00032May 1941Louise Norris Co.Louise Norris Lash and Brow ColoringMarch 19 to on or about August 22, 1940Houston, Tex. ; Chicago, Ill. ; Denver, Colo.Kansas City, Kans.Houston, Tex. ; Chicago, Ill. ; Denver, Colo.Southern District of Texas, the District of Kansas, and the Northern District of Illinois32F. D. C. Nos. 2429, 2667, 2710, 3159, 3307, 3308. Sample Nos. 4570-E to 4574-E. incl., 11108-E, 16329-E, 31901-E, 31902-E, 44931-E, 44932-E, 44933-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00032csnj|32. Adulteration and misbranding1 of Louise Norris Lash and Brow Coloring*.|U. S. v. 9 Cartons of Louise Norris Lash and Brow Coloring; (and 5 seizure |actions against other lots of the same product). Default decrees of con- |demnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 2429, 2667, 2710, 3159, 3307, 3308. |Sample Nos. 4570-E to 4574-E. incl., 11108-E, 16329-E, 31901-E, 31902-E, |44931-E, 44932-E, 44933-E.)|This product consisted of the following substances accompanied by appliances |for their use: \"\"Formula No. 1 Preparo\"\" which was a solution of silver proteinate, |\"\"Formula No. 2 Protecto\"\" which was essentially lanolin, a product called \"\"Ab- |sorbo\"\" or \"\"Formula No. 3 Absorbo\"\" which consisted of magnesium carbonate; a |bottle marked \"\"A\"\" which contained a solution of 2, 5 toluylenediamine together |with sulfite and sulfate of sodium, and a bottle marked \"\"B\"\" which contained a |solution of hydrogen peroxide. The ingredient 2, 5 toluylenediamine might have |rendered the product injurious to users under the conditions of use prescribed in |the labeling or under such conditions of use as are customary or usual.|On July 24, October 10, and November 6, 1940, the United States attorneys for |the Southern District of Texas, the District of Kansas, and the Northern District |of Illinois file-d libels against 9 cartons of Louise Norris Lash and Brow Coloring |at Houston, Tex., 6 cartons at Pittsburg, Kans., and 95 cartons at Chicago, Ill., |alleging that the article had been shipped by the Louise Norris Co. from Kansas |City, Kans. On August 26 and 30, 1940, the United States attorney for the |District of Colorado filed libels against 125 cartons of the same product at |Denver, Colo., which had been shipped by the Louise Norris Co. from Kansas |City, Mo. It was alleged in the libels that the article had been shipped in inter- |state commerce within the period from on or about March 19 to on or about |August 22, 1940, and that it was adulterated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it contained a poisonous or |deleterious substance, 2, 5 toluylenediamine, which might have rend-ered it in- |jurious to users under the conditions of use prescribed in the labeling and under |such conditions of use as are customary or usual. It was alleged to be adulterated |further in that it contained a coal-tar color, namely, 2, 5 toluylenediamine, which |was not from a batch that had been certified in accordance with regulations |promulgated under the law.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, (unit cartons |and bottle \"\"A\"\" all lots) \"\"Louise Norris Lash & Brow Coloring\"\"; (direction cir- |cular, all lots) \"\"Louise Norris Patented Method of Coloring Eyelashes and |Brows\"\"; (bottle label, Formula No. 2') \"\"Protecto\"\"; (large-sized carton unit, one |lot) \"\"This coloring known as Louise Norris Lash and Brow Coloring is now |labeled in this manner to meet all requirements of law governing interstate com- |merce\"\" and \"\"Guarantee. We guarantee this nackage to conform with all local, |state and federal regulations of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.\"\"|On August 24, October 8, and November 12,1940, and January 28,1941, no claim- |ant having appeared, judgments of condemnation were entered and the product |was ordered destroyed.|HAIR DYE|33. Adulteration of Farr's For Gray Hair. U. S. v. 16 Cartons and 5 Cartons of Farr's For Gray Hair. Default decree of condemnation and destructioncsnj00033May 1941Brookline Chemical Co.Farr's For Gray HairOctober 4 and December 1, 1939Providence, R. I.Boston, Mass.Providence, R. I.District of Rhode Island33F. D. C. No. 202. Sample Nos. 48923-D, 48941-D, 48942-DThe National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00033csnj|33. Adulteration of Farr's For Gray Hair. U. S. v. 16 Cartons and 5 Cartons of|Farr's For Gray Hair. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(P. D. C. No. 202. Sample Nos. 48923-D, 48941-D, 48942-D.)|This product, a hair dye, consisted of a liquid containing silver nitrate and |tablets containing diamidophenol hydrochloride, poisonous or deleterious sub- |stances which might have rendered it injurious to users under the conditions of |use prescribed in the labeling or under such conditions of use as are customary |or usual. The label did not bear the caution statement required by law, namely, |\"\"Caution.-This product contains ingredients which may cause skin irritation on |certain individuals and a preliminary test according to accompanying directions |should first be made. This product must not be used for dyeing the eyelashes or |eyebrows; to do so may cause blindness.\"\"|On March 13, 1939, the United States attorney for the District of Rhode Island |filed a libel against 21 cartons of the above-named product at Providence, B-. L, |alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about |October 4 and December 1, 1939, by the Brookline Chemical Co. from Boston, |Mass.; and charging that it was adulterated for the reasons appearing above.|The article was labeled in part: (Cartons) \"\"Farr's For Gray Hair No. 4 For |Black Hair [or \"\"No. 2 For Medium Brown Hair\"\" or \"\"No. 3 For Light Brown |Hair\"\"] Gives the hair a youthful, attractive appearance * * * The BrooMine |Chemical Co., Boston, Mass.\"\"; (bottles) \"\"Directions.-Before beginning the use |of Farr's Preparation it is necessary to remove all the natural oil from the hair,|more especially near the scalp. To do so, shampoo thoroughly with borax, soap |and warm water, or better, Farr's Shampoo. Then rinse well with clean water |several times to remove all the lather from the hair. Dry thoroughly. Pour a |small quantity of the Preparation into a saucer and apply with a tooth brush or |nail brush, thoroughly moistening the gray hair. Important.-After the hair has |become fairly dry, use the sensitizing tablets, according to directions. The hair |may be shampooed and curled as often as desired after the proper color has been |secured. External Use Only. Keep Bottle in Box * * * Spread newspapers |over porcelain bowl or table to prevent staining. Wash the skin around the |hair-line with soap and water to remove any stain, also if the solution drops on |the skin. Throw an old wrap over the shoulders and wear an old pair of gloves |when applying the solution. If the hair is very gray it is advisable to treat a |small lock of the outside hair with the Preparation for a few days before applying |it all over the hair in order to see the final results\"\"; (folder) \"\"Farr's Sensitizing |Tablets * * * After applying Farr's for Gray Hair and when the hair is |fairly dry, dissolve one tablet in two tablespoonfuls of water. If it requires |more than two tablespoonfuls to go over the hair, dissolve more of the tablets |in the same proportions, that is, one tablet to each two tablespoonfuls of water. |Be sure to be accurate about the exact amount of water to each tablet. Apply this |solution with a tooth or nail brush. If the desired color is not obtained from the |first treatment, again apply the Farr's for Gray Hair and this sensitizing solu- |tion, using the same quantity of both in each treatment. The six tablets may be |dissolved in a six ounce bottle at one time if more convenient. These six tablets |make enough sensitizing solution for one six ounce bottle of Farr's for Gray Hair. |The liquid in the bottle contains the color ingredients. The tablet is merely a |developer to bring out the color imparted by the Farr's for Gray Hair. For this |i'eason never use the tablet solution unless you have first used the Farr's for Gray |Hair. If the hair becomes too dark lighten it by shampooing with Borax and |water or a strong soap. The next time add three tablespoonfuls of water to each |tablet. The more water used with each tablet the lighter the hair will become. |The hair may be shampooed and curled as often as desired after the proper color |is obtained. Spread newspapers over porcelain bowl or table to prevent staining. |Wash the skin around the hair line with soap and water to remove stain, also if |the solution drops on the skin. Throw an old wrap over the shoulders and wear |an old pair of gloves when applying the solution. External Use Only.\"\"|On August 27, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation |was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|SfcALP REMEDY |, it |34. Misbranding of L. B. Hair Oil. U. S. v. 14 3/4 Dozen Packages of L. B. Hair Oil. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.csnj00034May 1941McKesson & Bobbins, Inc.L. B. Hair OilSeptember 18, 1939 ; August 21, 1939Ogden, UtahLos Angeles, Calif.Ogden, UtahDistrict of Utah34F. D. C. No. 1043. Sample No. 70952-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00034csnj|34. Misbranding of L-. B. Hair Oil. U. S. v. 14% Dozen Packages of L. B. Hair |Oil. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 1043. |Sample No. 70952-D.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regarding |its efficacy in the conditions indicated below. Its package was deceptive since the |bottles were pinched down to approximately one-half size in the center, and there- |fore contained a much smaller volume of material than would be expected from |the size of the carton.|On November 22, 1939, the United States attorney for the District of Utah filed |a libel against 14% dozen packages of L. B. Hair Oil at Ogden, Utah, alleging that |the article had been shipped in interstate commerce in part by the L. B. Labora- |tories, Inc., from Hollywood, Calif., on or about September 18, 1939, and in part |by McKesson & Bobbins, Inc., from Los Angeles, Calif, (the later shipment made |about August 21, 1939) ; and charging that it was a misbranded cosmetic.|It was alleged in the libel that the article was misbranded in that its labeling |bore representations that it was a scalp conditioner, that it contained a balanced |blend of rich animal oils and toning ingredients which would give life to the |hair almost instantly, that it would aid in overcoming baldness, thin and falling |hair, that it contained animal oils of a very penetrating nature, that it was an |\"\"oil of life\"\" for the hair, that it had cured baldness in its originator, that it was |a blend of animal oils which would provide the vitalizing, nourishing, and restor- |ative elements needed by the scalp to clear out clogging waste matter and dead |tissue and to restore normal functions and growth and produce beautiful healthy |hair again in a short time, regardless of the present condition, that many bald |for 18 or 20 years testified to a regrowthln approximately 2 years, and that those |bald for a shorter time claimed even quicker results, that it was effective for |infant scalp trouble, would be effective to eliminate granulated eyelids and stim-|ulate new growth of lashes; that it was effective for sun or other burns and |would prevent the formation of scar tissue; and bore directions that in the |treatment of baldness the scalp be steamed with hot towels, that as much of |the product as the scalp would absorb be applied and patted in, that the scalp |itself be moved with the fingers but that vigorous rubbing should be avoided, |that the application should be repeated every night until results were obtained, |and that in the treatment for thin and falling hair the hair should be parted |and the product applied directly to the scalp, patting it in with the palm of the |hand, that vigorous rubbing should be avoided; and that if the hair continued |to fall, less should be used since over application would tend to further loosen the |hair; which representations and directions were false and misleading as applied |to an article consisting essentially of mineral oil and saponifiable oils.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that its container was so made, |formed, and filled as to be misleading.|It was also alleged to be misbranded under the provisions of the law applicable |to drugs reported in notices of judgment on drugs and devices.|On January 18, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation |was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|COSMETICS, MISBRANDED (ON ACCOUNT OF DECEPTIVE|CONTAINERS) x|DENTIFRICES AND SHAVING CREAM|35. Misbranding of dental cream. U. S. v. 55 1/2 Dozen Packages of \"\"Super-Pure Dental Cream with Milk of Magnesia.\"\" Default decree of condemnation and destruction.csnj00035May 1941American Co.dental creamSeptember 13, 1939Pittsburgh, Pa.Memphis, Tenn.Pittsburgh, Pa.Western District of Pennsylvania35F. D. C. No. 1167. Sample No. 78884-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00035csnj|35. Misbranding of dental cream. U. S. v. 55% Dozen Packages of \"\"Super-Pure|Dental Cream with Milfe of Magnesia.\"\" Default decree of condemnation |and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 1167. Sample No. 78884-D.)|The tube containing this product occupied only about 26 percent of the capacity |of the carton.|On December 8, 1939, the United States attorney for the Western District of |Pennsylvania filed a libel against 55% dozen packages of dental cream at Pitts- |burgh, Pa., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on |or about September 13, 1939, by the American Co. from Memphis, Tenn.; and |charging that it was misbranded in that its container was so made, formed, or |filled as to be misleading.|On January 17, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation |was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|36. Misbranding of dental cream. U. S. v. 21 Cartons of Blue Ribbon Brand Dental Cream. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.csnj00036May 1941Adam Bernharddental creamAugust 19,1939Panama City, Fla.New York, N. Y.Panama City, Fla.Northern District of Florida36F. D. C. No. 1051. Sample No. 82970-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00036csnj|36. Misbranding of dental cream. U. S. v. 21 Cartons of Blue Ribbon Brand|Dental Cream. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C.|No. 1051. Sample No. 82970-D.) |? |The carton container of this product was unnecessarily large, the tube container |occupying only 27 percent of the total capacity of the ?arton.|On or about December 8, 1939, the United States attorney for the Northern |District of Florida filed a libel against 21 cartons of dental cream at Panama City, |Fla., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about |August 19,1939, by Adam Bernhard from New York, N. Y.; and charging that it |was misbranded in that its container was so made, formed, and filled as to be |misleading. |[|On January 31, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation |was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|37. Misbranding of tooth paste. U. S. v. 17 Dozen Packages of Tooth Paste. Default decree of condemnation. Product ordered delivered to a charitable institution.csnj00037May 1941Comfort Manufacturing Co.tooth pasteJuly 8, 1939Philadelphia, Pa.Chicago, Ill.Philadelphia, Pa.Eastern District of Pennsylvania37F. D. C. No. 976. Sample No. 51991-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00037csnj|87. Misbranding of tooth paste. U. S. v. 17 Dozen Packages of Tooth Paste. De- |fault decree of condemnation. Product ordered deKvered to a charitable |institution. (F. D. C. No. 976. Sample No. 51991-D.)|The tube containing this product occupied only about 22 percent of the space |in the carton.|On November 14, 1939, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of |Pennsylvania filed a libel against 17 dozen packages of tooth paste at Philadelphia, |Pa., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about |July 8, 1939, by the Comfort Manufacturing Co. from Chicago, Ill.; and charging |that it was misbranded in that its containers were so made, formed, or filled as |to be misleading. The article was labeled in part: \"\"Tooth Paste * * * |Spearmint, distributed by Allen Products.\"\"|On April 22, 1940, the Comfort Manufacturing Co. having theretofore appeared |as claimant, but said claimant having failed to appear at the trial to defend its|1 See also No. 34.|claim, judgment of condemnation was entered and it was ordered that the product |be delivered to a charitable institution.|48. Misbranding of depilatory cream. U. S. v. 20 Dozen Packages of Zip Depilatory Cream. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.csnj00048May 1941Jean Jordeau, Inc.depilatory creamSeptember 28, 1939Tampa, Fla.South Orange, N. J.Tampa, Fla.Southern District of Florida48F. D. C. No. 1042. Sample No. 82677-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00048csnj|48. Misbranding of depilatory cream. IT. S. v. SO Dozen Paclcages of Zip Depila |tory Cream. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C.|No. 1042. Sample No. 82677-D.)|The tubes containing this product occupied only about 17 percent of the capacity |of the cartons.|On November 24, 1989, the United States attorney for the Southern District of |Florida filed a libel against 20 dozen packages of depilatory cream at Tampa, |Fla., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or |about September 28, 1939, by Jean Jordeau, Inc., from South Orange, N. J.; and |charging that it was misbranded in that its containers were so made, formed, or |filled as to be misleading.|On January 31, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation |was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|38. Misbranding of dental cream. U. S. v. 30 Dozen Packages of Dental Cream. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.csnj00038May 1941Gotham Sales Co., Inc.dental creamAugust 4 and 9, 1939Boston, Mass.New York, N. Y.Boston, Mass.District of Massachusetts38F. D. C. No. 759. Sample No. 74106-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00038csnj|38. Misbranding of dental cream. TJ. S. v. 30 Dozen Packages of Dental Cream.|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 759. Sample |No. 74106-D.)|The tube containing this article occupied only 22 percent of the capacity of |the carton.|On October 18, 1939, the United States attorney for the District of Massachu- |setts filed a libel against 30 dozen packages of dental cream at Boston, Mass., al- |leging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about |August 4 and 9, 1939, by the Gotham Sales Co., Inc., from New York, N. Y.; and |charging that it was misbranded in that its containers were so made, formed, or |filled as to be misleading. It was labeled in part: (Carton) \"\"Large Size New |Improved Honor * * * Milk of Magnesia Tooth Paste Dental Cream * * * |Honor Products Company Chicago\"\"; (tube) \"\"Continental Sales Corp. Chicago, |IlL, Distributors.\"\"'|On January 29, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation |was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|39. Misbranding of tooth paste. U. S. v. 25 1/2 Dozen Packages of Travel Tube lodent Tooth Paste. Consent decree of condemnation and destructioncsnj00039May 1941lodent Chemical Co.tooth pasteJuly 3, 1939Atlanta, Ga.Detroit, Mich.Atlanta, Ga.Northern District of Georgia ; Northern District of Illinois39F. D. C. No. 632. Sample No. 82413-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00039csnj|39. Misbranding1 of tootli paste. U. S. v. 25^ Dozen Packages of Travel Tube|lodent Tootk Paste. Consent decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 632. Sample No. 82413-D.)|The tube containing this product occupied only about 24 percent of the space |in the carton.|On October 21, 1939, the United States attorney for the Northern District of |Georgia filed a libel against 25% dozen packages of tooth paste at Atlanta, Ga., |alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about |July 3, 1939, by th'e lodent Chemical Co. from Detroit, Mich.; and charging that |it was misbranded in that its containers were so made, formed, and filled as to |be misleading.|On October 28, 1939, an order was entered in the district court removing the |case to the Northern District of Illinois. On December 16,1940, the lodent Chem- |ical Co., claimant, having consented to the entry of a decree, judgment of con- |demnation was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|40. Misbranding of dental cream. U. S. v. 35 Dozen Packages of Kolynos Dental Cream. Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered delivered to a charitable institution.csnj00040May 1941Kolynos Co.dental creamOctober 3,1939Bronx, N. Y.New Haven, Conn.Bronx, N. Y.Southern District of New York40F. D. C. No. 780. Sample No. 68325-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00040csnj|40. Misbranding of dental cream. TJ. S. v. 35 Dozen Packages of Kolynos Dental|Cream. Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered delivered to a |charitable institution. (F. D. C. No. 780. Sample No. 68325-D.)|The cartons of this product were excessively large, the tube occupying only |23.6 percent of the capacity of the carton.|On October 21, 1939, the United States attorney for the Southern District of |New York filed a libel (amended December 16, 1939) against 35 dozen packages |of dental cream at Bronx, N. Y., alleging that the article had been shipped in |interstate commerce on or about October 3,1939, from New Haven, Conn., by the |Kolynos Co.; and charging that it was misbranded in that its containers were so |made, formed, or filled as to be misleading.|On September 13, 1940, the Kolynos Co., claimant, having admitted the allega- |tions of the libel and having consented to the entry of a decree, judgment of |condemnation was entered and the product was ordered delivered to a charitable |institution.|41. Misbranding of tooth paste. U. S. v. 42 Dozen Tubes of Laymon's Tooth Paste. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.csnj00041May 1941World's Products Co.tooth pasteOctober 23, 1939Columbus, OhioSpencer, Ind.Columbus, OhioSouthern District of Ohio41F. D. C. No. 885. Sample No. 75945-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00041csnj|41. Misbranding- of tooth, paste. U. S. v. 42 Dozen Tubes of Laymon's Tooth Paste.|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 885. Sample |No. 75945-D.)|The tubes containing this product occupied approximately 20 percent of the |space in the cartons.|On November 10, 1939, the United States attorney for the Southern District |of Ohio filed a libel (amended December 16, 1939) against 42 dozen tubes of tooth |paste at Columbus, Ohio, alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate |commerce within the period from on or about September 20 to on or about |October 23, 1939, by the World's Products Co. from Spencer, Ind.; and charging |that it was misbranded in that its containers were so made, formed, or filled |as to be misleading.|On March 19, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation |was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|42. Misbranding of tooth paste. U. S. v. 69 Dozen Packages of Pebeco Tooth Paste. Default decree of condemnation. Product ordered delivered to a charitable institution.csnj00042May 1941Lehn & Fink Products Corptooth pasteOctober 3, 1939Brooklyn, N. Y.Bloomfield, N. J.Brooklyn, N. Y.Eastern District of New York42F. D. C. No. 829. Sample No. 68326-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00042csnj|42. Misbranding of tootli paste. U. S. v. G9 Dozen Packages of Pebeco Tootli|Paste. Default decree of condemnation. Product ordered delivered to a |charitable institution. (F. D. C. No. 829. Sample No. 68326-D.)|The tubes containing this product occupied not more than 28 percent of the |capacity of the cartons.|On October 30, 1939, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of |New York filed a libel against 69 dozen packages of tooth paste at Brooklyn, N. Y. |On December 11, 1939, the libel was amended. It was alleged in the amended |libel that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce from Bloomfield, |N. J., by Lehn & Fink Products Corporation on or about October 3, 1939; and |that it was misbranded in that its containers were so made, formed, or filled as to |be misleading.|On August 2, 1940, the claimant having failed to file an answer and the time |for filing such answer having expired, judgment of condemnation was entered |and it was ordered that the product be delivered to a charitable institution on |condition that the cartons be destroyed.|43. Misbranding of tooth paste. U. S. v. 80 Dozen Packages of Gibson's Tooth Paste. Default decree of condemnation. Product ordered delivered to a charitable institution.csnj00043May 1941Lorr Laboratoriestooth pasteSeptember 18 and October 12, 1939Brooklyn, N. Y.Paterson, N. J.Brooklyn, N. Y.Eastern District of New York43F. D. C. No. 827. Sample No. 68329-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00043csnj|43. Misbranding of tootli paste. U. S. v. 80 Dozen Packages of Gibson's Tooth|Paste. Default decree of condemnation. Product ordered delivered to a |charitable institution. (F. D. C. No. 827. Sample No. 68329-D.)|The tubes containing this product occupied not more than 31 percent of the |capacity of the cartons.|On October 27,1939, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of New |York filed a libel against 89 dozen packages of tooth paste at Brooklyn, N. Y. On |December 11, 1939, an amended libel was filed. It was alleged in the amended |libel that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about Septem- |ber 18 and October 12, 1939, by the Lorr Laboratories from Paterson, N. J.; and |that it was misbranded in that its containers were so made, formed, and filled |as to be misleading. The article was labeled in part: \"\"Gibson's Tooth Paste |* * * Whelan Laboratories, Inc., New York, N. Y.\"\"|On January 5, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation |was entered and it was ordered that the product be delivered to a charitable |institution on condition that the cartons be destroyed.|44. Misbranding of dental cream and dental liquid. U. S. v. 120 Dozen Packages of Colgate Ribbon Dental Cream and 4 8/12 Gross of Cue Dental Liquid. Default decrees of condemnation. Products ordered delivered to charitable associations.csnj00044May 1941Colgate-Palmolive-Peet Co.dental cream and dental licpiidOctober 9,1939Brooklyn, N. Y. ; New York, N. Y.Jersey City, N. J.Brooklyn, N. Y. ; New York, N. Y.Eastern Distiict of New York and the Southern District of New York44F. D. C. Nos. 818, 841. Sample Nos. 68132-D, 68327-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00044csnj|44. Misbranding of dental cream and dental licpiid. U. S. v. 120 Dozen Packages|of Colgate Ribbon Dental Cream and 4%2 Gross of Cue Dental Liquid. |Default decrees of condemnation. Products ordered delivered to charitable |associations. (F. D. C. Nos. 818, 841. Sample Nos. 68132-D, 68327-D.)|The tubes containing the dental cream occupied not more than 27 percent of the |capacity of the cartons, and the bottles containing the dental liquid occupied not |more than 24 percent of the capacity of the cartons.|On October 26 and November 2, 1939, the1 United States attorneys for the |Eastern Distiict of New York and the Southern District of New York filed libels |against 120 dozen packages of dental cream at Brooklyn, N. Y., and 4%2 gross |of dental liquid at New York, N. Y. On December 11, 1939, the libel filed in the |Eastern District of New York was amended. It was alleged in the libels that |the articles had been shipped in interstate commerce within the period from on |or about September 6 to on or about October 9,1939, by the Colgate-Palmolive-Peet |Co. from Jersey City, N. J.; and that they were misbranded in that their containers |were so made, formed, or filled as to be misleading.|On August 2, 1840, the claimant having failed to file an answer to the action |instituted in the Eastern District of New York and having withdrawn its answer |in the case instituted in the Southern District of New York, judgments of con- |demnation were entered and it was ordered that the products be distributed to |charitable associations.|45. Misbranding of shaving cream and tooth paste. U. S. v. 19 Dozen Packages of Listerine Shaving Cream and 13 Dozen Packages of New Listerine Tooth Paste. Consent decrees of condemnation. Products ordered destroyed.csnj00045May 1941Lambert Pharmacal Co.shaving cream and tooth pasteAugust 4 to September 7, 1939Atlanta, Ga.St. Louis, Mo.Atlanta, Ga.Northern District of Georgia45F. D. C. Nos. 728, 729. Sample Nos. 82418-D, 82419-D, 82420-D, 82426-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00045csnj|45. Misbranding of shaving cream and tootb. paste. U. S. v. 19 Dozen Packages|of Listerine Shaving Cream and 13 Dozen Packages of New Listerine |Tooth Paste. Consent decrees of condemnation. Products ordered de- |stroyed. (F. D. C. Nos. 728, 729. Sample Nos. 82418-D, 82419-D, 82420-D, |82426-D.)|Examination showed that the tubes containing these products occupied approxi- |mately only 22 percent of the space in the cartons and that the cartons were |large enough substantially to hold two tubes. Moreover, the tubes of tooth |paste contained less than the amount declared on the label.|On October 12, 1939, the United States attorney for the Northern District of |Georgia filed libels against 19 dozen packages of shaving cream and 13 dozen |packages of tooth paste at Atlanta, Ga., alleging that the articles had been snipped |in interstate commerce within the period from on or about August 4 to Septem-|ber 7, 1939, by the Lambert Pharmacal Co. from St. Louis, Mo.; and charging |that they were misbranded cosmetics.|Both products were alleged to be misbranded in that their containers were so |made, formed, or filled as to be misleading. The tooth paste was alleged to be |misbranded further in that the statement \"\"Net Weight % Oz. or 22 gm.\"\" was |false and misleading as applied to an article that was short weight.|On November 25, 1939, the Lambert Pharmacal Co. having appeared as claim- |ant, an order was entered removing the cases for trial to the Eastern District of |Illinois. On January 22, 1940, answers to the libels were filed by the claimant, |the Lambert Pharmacal Co., denying that the products were misbranded and |further denying that the shaving cream was a cosmetic.|On May 20, 1940, the claimant having consented to the entry of decrees, judg- |ments of condemnation were entered and it was ordered that the products be |destroyed. The decrees contained the following provision: \"\"It is further Ordered, |Adjudged and Decreed, That this is a proceeding in rem and that this decree is |without prejudice to the rights of the United States of America or of the said |claimant, Lambert Pharmacal Company, in any other litigation whatever.\"\"|46. Misbranding of shaving cream. U. S. v. 42 1/2 Dozen Cartons of Giant Size Seven Star Brushless Shaving Cream. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.csnj00046May 1941Royal Sundries Corp.sfraving creamSeptember 7, 1939Baltimore, Md.New York, N. Y.Baltimore, Md.District of Maryland46F. D. C. No. 1547. Sample No. 77222-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00046csnj|46. Misbranding of sfraving cream. U. S. v. 42%2 Dozen Cartons of Giant Size|Seven Star Brushless Snaving Cream. Default decree of condemnation and |destruction. (F. D. C. No. 1547. Sample No. 77222-D.)|The tubes containing this product occupied approximately 22 percent of the |space in the carton.|On February 29,1940, the United States attorney for the District of Maryland |filed a libel against 42%2 dozen cartons of shaving cream at Baltimore, Md., |alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about |September 7, 1939, by the Royal Sundries Corporation from New York, N. T.; and |charging that it was misbranded in that its containers were so made, formed, or |filled as to be misleading.|On March 28, 1940', no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation |was entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.|MISCELLANEOUS|47. Misbranding of hair remover. U. S. v. 488 Packages of Weet Cream Hair Hemover. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.csnj00047May 1941Affiliated Products, Inc.hair removerAugust 10 and September 13, 1939Boston, Mass.Jersey City, N. J.Boston, Mass.District of Massachusetts47F. D. C. No. 871. Sample No. 73762-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00047csnj|47. Misbranding of bair remover. U. S. v. 488 Packages of Weet Cream Hair He-|mover. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No.|871. Sample No. 73762-D.)|The tubes containing this product occupied approximately 20 percent of the |available space in the cartons.|On November 4, 1939, the United States attorney for the District of Massa- |chusetts filed a libel against 488 packages of hair remover at Boston, Mass., alleg- |ing that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about August |10 and September 13,1939, by Affiliated Products, Inc., from Jersey City, N. J.; and |charging that it was misbranded in that its containers were so made, formed, |or filled as to be misleading.|On June 3, 1940, no appearance or claim having been entered, judgment of con- |demnation was entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.|76. Alleged adulteration of Roux Lash and Brow Tint. U. S. v. 8 Packages, 12 Packages, and 20 Packages of Roux Lash and Brow Tint. Cases ordered removed to the Districts of New Jersey for consolidation and trial. Tried to the court and jury. Disagreement of jury and mistrial declared. Case retried before the court and a jury verdict for claimant. Judgment dismissing libel and ordering product returned to claimant.csnj00076February 1943Roux Distributing Co.Roux Lash and Brow TintJuly 14 and 23, 1938Newark, N. J. ; Chicago, Ill.New York, N. Y.Newark, N. J. ; Chicago, Ill.District of New Jersey and the Northern District of Illinois76F. D. C. Nos. 56, 62, 63. Sample Nos. 25976-D, 33229-D, 33230-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00076csnj|76. Alleged adulteration of Roux Lash and Brow Tint. U. S. v. 8 Packages, 12|Packages, and 20 Packages of Roux Lash and Brow Tint. Gases ordered |removed to the Kistrietsot New Jersey for consolidation and trial. Tried |to the court and jury. Disagreement of jury and mistrial declared. Case |retried hcfore the court and a jury verdict for claimant. Judgment dis- |missing libel and ordering product returned to claimant. (F. D. C. Nos. 56, |62, 63. Sample Nos. 25976-D, 33229-D, 33230-D.)|This product consisted of three preparations, \"\"No. 1,\"\" \"\"No. 2\"\" (Black and |Brown), and \"\"Stain Remover,\"\" respectively. \"\"No. 1\"\" consisted of about 2 percent |of pyrogallol, with a little sodium lauryl sulfate and about 16 percent isopropyl |alcohol; the \"\"No. 2 Black\"\" consisted of about 9 percent ammoniacal silver sulfate, |about 5 percent ammoniacal silver nitrate, and Ho of 1 percent free ammonia |in water; and \"\"No. 2 Brown\"\" was half the strength of \"\"No. 2 Black.\"\" The |stain remover consisted of % percent solution of sodium hypochlorite.|On August 13 and 24, 1938, the United States attorneys for the District of |New Jersey and the Northern District of Illinois filed libels against 8 packages |of Roux Lash and Brow Tint (Black) at Newark, N. J., 12 packages of Roux |Lash and Brow Tint (Brown), and 26 packages of Roux Lash and Brow Tint |(Black) at Chicago, Ill., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate |commerce on or about July 14 and 23, 1938, from New York, N. Y., by the Roux |Distributing Co.; and charging that it was adulterated.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it contained poisonous and |deleterious substances, namely, pyrogallol, ammoniacal silver sulfate, and silver |nitrate, which might have rendered it injurious to users under the conditions |of use prescribed in the following labeling and under such conditions of use as |are customary or usual: (Carton) \"\"Caution This product contains a metallic |salt. It is for external use only and must be used with care\"\"; (circular) |\"\"10 Rules For Applying Roux Lash And Brow Tint The observance of the |ten simple rules set forth here below will produce the best results with the |greatest degree of efficiency. Read these rules carefully. * * * Rule No. 1- |Sit patron in upright position. Rule No. 2-Instruct patron to keep eyes closed |during entire treatment. Rule No. 3-Wash the brows and lashes thoroughly |with a good neutral soap, and dry by padding with soft absorbent cotton. Rule |No. 4-Place a layer of vaseline on one side of the eyeshield and place this shield |ander the lower lashes with the vaseline side against the lower lid. Rule No. |5-Now cover all skin adjacent to brows and lashes with vaseline. Do Not |Get Any Vaseline On The Hair Structures. Any Part Of The Brows Or Lashes |That Becomes Covered With Vaseline Or Other Oily Substance Will Not Take |Coloring. Rule No. 6-Wind a piece of absorbent cotton around the end of a|toothpick. Saturate this applicator with Solution No. 1, and impregnate the |brows and lashes with the preparation. Rule No. 7-Allow Solution No. 1 to dry, |taking about three minutes. Rule No. 8-Now impregnate a new cotton-tipped |toothpick with Solution No. 2 and thoroughly treat the eyebrows first, and then |the eyelashes with Solution No. 2. Use Solution No. 2 freely, but not so exces- |sively as to permit any running. Rule No. 9-After thirty seconds, wash the |brows with absorbent cotton saturated with a warm soap solution. After one |minute wash the eyelashes with absorbent cotton saturated with cold water. |Rule No. 10-If deeper shades are desired, repeat the process. * * * This |product contains a, metallic salt. It is for external use only and must be used |with care.\"\"|On October 7, 1938, the Roux Distributing Co., claimant, filed a petition in |the District Court for the District of New Jersey, praying removal of the cases |to the Eastern District of New York for consolidation and trial. On October |20, 1938, an order was entered granting the petition of the claimant and ordering |that the clerks in the respective courts forward all papers to the Eastern District |of New York, also that any further actions that might be instituted against the |product toe consolidated with the instant cases.|On November 4,1938, the claimant filed answers admitting the interstate ship- |ment but denying that the product was adulterated as alleged in the libels and |praying dismissal of the libels and delivery of the goods.|The case came on for trial before a jury on March 27, 1939. The hearing of |the evidence and arguments of counsel were concluded on April 14 and the case |was submitted to the jury, which, after lengthy deliberation, announced that it |could not agree on a verdict. The court thereupon declared a mistrial and dis- |charged the jury. The case was set for trial finally on March 16, 1942, before |a jury and|~ was concluded on April 1, 1942. The following charge to the jury |was delivered by the court.|INCH, Judge. \"\"Members of the jury, at last this case comes to you for your |verdict. ? It has been an interesting case, mostly expert testimony, and you are |the sole judges of the fact. Nothing said by the court or by the lawyers is to be |taken in place of your recollection of the testimony. You and you alone decide |what the truth is, what the facts are. You must take the law from the court |and apply it to the facts which you and you alone find to be facts. The law |is very simple in this ease. There is no necessity for a long charge, but it is |an important law, and therefore I want you to pay a little attention to it as |we go along-more so than ordinarily. Before we come to that I will explain |the nature of this action. Perhaps you know it already from the summation. |This action is an action in rem, as we call it. It is not against the Roux Co. It |is against certain packages of cosmetics which the Government claims violated |the law. The Roux Co. comes in as the claimant of those packages. It is not a |criminal case at all; it is a civil case. In other words, the United States of |America has seized eight packages more or less of an article labeled in part 'Roux |Lash and Brow Tint Black,' that was shipped from New York to Newark, N. J. |It has also seized 12 packages more or less of an article labeled in part 'Roux |Lash and Brow Tint Brown,' and 25 packages more or less of the said article |Roux Lash and Brew Tint Black shipped from New York to Chicago, Ill. The |case has been brought against these packages. It is not against .Roux Labora- |tories, Inc., which has appeared in this court to claim them, but, of course, Roux |Laboratories, Inc. is vitally interested in this action because it is their prepara- |tion. The packages in question were seized after the Government had brought |charges against them under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. That |statute was passed by Congress and approved by the President, and was effective |insofar as this case is concerned on June 25,1938.|\"\"Now, as I have already mentioned, I want to call particular attention to this |law, more so than ordinarily, for the reason that it is a new law comparatively |speaking. It is known as the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of June 1938. |Prior to 1938 there was the well known Food and Drugs Act, but this was not |deemed to be sufficient to cover the field of cosmetics; hence Congress passed this |law which now governs us in this action. Primarily the purpose of the law is the |same as that of the former law, that is, to prevent injury to the public health by |the sale and transportation in interstate commerce of adulterated cosmetics, and |this laudable purpose naturally requires that such a law be given a fair and rea- |sonable construction to attain its aim. Now, the law is found in Title 21, United |States Code, Section 301. First we come to section 321 which covers definitions, |and there we find this definition: 'The term cosmetic means, first, articles in-|tended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled or sprayed on, introduced into or otherwise |applied to the human body or any part thereof for cleansing, beautifying, promot- |ing attractiveness, or altering the appearance, and second, articles intended for |use as a component of any such article, except that such term shall not include |soap. So, while it is a fact for you to find, I think there is no dispute but that |these articles which we have before us here and which have been seized by the |Government are cosmetics under this definition. I do not think that is disputed. |If that is so, and if you find that is so, then, of course, cosmetics as a rule are not |subject to seizure; it is, as I have stated, adulterated cosmetics that are to be |taken off the market; so we come to section 361 of the law, which is as follows- |and this is the important law governing your verdict-'A cosmetic shall be |deemed to be adulterated if it bears or contains any poisonous or deleterious |substance which may render it injurious to users under the conditions of use |prescribed in the labeling thereof, or under such conditions of use as are cus- |tomary or usual.' I think I can read it to you again without any harm: 'A cos- |metic shall be deemed to be adulterated if it bears or contains any poisonous or |deleterious substance which may render it injurious to users under the conditions |of use prescribed in the labeling thereof, or under such conditions of use as are |customary or usual.' I shall refer to this, of course, a little later, but I think now |you have the law under which we are proceeding. That being so, the Government |claims that these articles that have been mentioned are adulterated cosmetics |under this definition. Now, the burden of proving this by a preponderance of |evidence rests upon the Government. You must be satisfied by a preponderance of |evidence that these articles are adulterated cosmetics. The claimant, Roux |Laboratories, Inc., denies any such adulteration and asserts that the Government |therefore has no right to seize and condemn the cosmetics for that reason. By |preponderance of evidence is meant not necessarily the greater number of wit- |nesses but that amount of evidence which taken on the whole produces the stronger |impression upon your minds and satisfies you of its truth when weighed against |evidence in opposition thereto. You are the sole judges of the weight of the |evidence and the credibility of the witnesses. You are entitled to take into con- |sideration, therefore, the demeanor of the witnesses, their apparent intelligence, |their opportunity of knowing or seeing the facts about which they testified, their |interest, if any, and the probability of their testimony. All these things, or the |lack of them, are to be considered by you in weighing the evidence. You will find |therefore when you have followed my charge up to this point and return to con- |sider the law again that the first thing is that a cosmetic shall be deemed to be |adulterated if it bears or contains any poisonous or deleterious substance. Well, |of course, you will want to know at once, 'What do you mean exactly by poisonous |or deleterious substance?' I think that I can best charge you in the language of |the request of counsel for the claimant as to that. The terms 'poisonous or dele- |terious' or 'injurious to users' must be given their natural and ordinary meaning. |Poison has been defined as, first, a potion containing a noxious or deadly ingre- |dient, any agent which introduced especially in small amounts into an organism |may chemically produce an injurious or deadly effect. That is poison. A dele- |terious substance has been defined as a harmful or destructive article. The com- |mon and generally accepted meaning of the word is having the power of destroying |or extinguishing life, that is, that which is destructive, poisonous, pernicious. |They are in about the same category, but those definitions are in order for you to |take them into the jury room. Now, a cosmetic shall be deemed to be adulterated |if it bears or contains any poisonous or deleterious substance,-now comes a very |important part of the law-'which may render it injurious to users under such |conditions of use as are prescribed in the labeling thereof or under such condi- |tions of use as are customary or usual.' The term 'may' is here used in its |ordinary and usual signification; it is an auxiliary verb qualifying the meaning of |another verb by expressing ability, contingency, or liability, or possibility or prob- |ability, and you are instructed that, if you find from the evidence that the cos- |metics involved in this case or either of them contain the substances referred to |in the Government's libels and that such substances are poisonous or deleterious |and are likely to result or may result in injury to users under the conditions of |use prescribed in the labeling thereof or under such conditions of use as are cus- |tomary or usual, then such articles are adulterated and you should render a |verdict for the Government. The burden of proof is on the Government to |satisfy you that that is so.|\"\"Now, it is the general public health that is to be protected by this law, not |that of any one particular individual.|\"\"These cosmetics came in cartons, and on each carton are printed directions |for their use with other articles to be used in the application of the liquid, with |which you are familiar, and the cosmetic itself is contained in little bottles. |There is no necessity whatever in my opinion for me to go into the details of the |chemistry. You have had the witnesses for both parties testify before you and |you have had the summations by the able lawyer for the claimant and by the |equally able Assistant United States Attorney. There is no necessity in my |opinion for me to dwell on that. But I call your attention to the fact that |the Government claims that it has proved that these cosmetics are adulterated |cosmetics, in that they contain pyrogalloj, ammoniacal silver sulfate, and am- |moniacal silver nitrate which may render them injurious to users under the con- |ditions for use prescribed in their labeling or under such conditions of use as |are customary or usual. This therefore is the issue which you must decide by |a preponderance of evidence: do the cosmetics in question contain poisonous or |deleterious substances which may render them injurious to users under the con- |ditions of use prescribed in the labeling thereof or under such conditions of |use as are customary or usual |\"\"Now, there is one more important thing for you to consider under this law. |The extent of injury is not important: whether it is temporary or permanent |is not important in this case. However important it is to the victim, Congress |was protecting the public against any injury. Now, of course, that does not |mean that a mere inconvenience can be considered an injury, because you must |follow the definition of what is meant under the law as an injury-a harm, a |damage to the human being using these preparations-but a person doesn't have |to go blind to come under the law. A person must, however, at least be harmed, |injured by the use of this preparation.|\"\"Now, if you find that the Government by a preponderance of evidence has |proved to you that these cosmetics were so adulterated your verdict should be |for the Government. If, on the other hand, you find that the cosmetics were not |so adulterated, your verdict should be for the claimant. As I say, I see no |reason, nor shall I attempt, to discuss the details of the medical proof, for |you are well aware of it. The Government has alleged in its libels that these |articles or cosmetics are adulterated under the provisions of this act, that is, |that they may render it injurious to users under the conditions of use prescribed |in the labeling thereof or under such conditions of use as are customary or usual. |I therefore charge you that, if you find from the evidence that either or both |of these articles or cosmetics, namely, the packages of Roux Lash and Brow |Tint Black and Roux Lash and Brow Tint Brown contain any of the substances |specified in the libels, and that any of such substances are poisonous or deleterious |substances, and you find that any such poisonous or deleterious substances may |render these cosmetics injurious to users under the conditions of use prescribed |in the labeling thereof, or under such conditions of use as are customary or |usual, then the cosmetics are adulterated and your verdict should be for the |Government. On the other hand, if you find from the evidence that the substances |mentioned in the libels are not sufficiently poisonous or deleterious so that they |may render these cosmetics injurious to users under the conditions of use pre- |scribed in the labeling thereof, or under such conditions of use as are customary |or usual, then the cosmetics are not adulterated and your verdict should be for |the claimant.|\"\"The intent of the claimant, that is, the Roux Laboratories, Inc., has no bearing |In this case on the facts. It is not a question of intention, good or bad intention. |The only question that you are to determine is whether or not these two articles |of cosmetics fall under the ban of the statute. Therefore you will come to this |finally: is there actual danger of injury to users when the contents are applied |in the manner recited in the directions which are present in the packages. You |will have to take all of the evidence in that regard and consider it in coming |to the conclusion whether the directions are sufficient. There is testimony by |witnesses for the Government, which is for you to consider, that a liquid such |as this cosmetic if freely applied to an eyelash may be drawn by capillary attrac- |tion to the root of the eyelash which is at the margin of the eyelid and that |the margin of the eyelid is likely then to come in contact with the surface of |the eyeball, and that even if that does not happen there is a possibility that |some of this liquid will reach the inside of the eye by reason of an involuntary |opening of the eye and thus cause the product to be injurious to such user. That |is testimony for you to consider. But you must also consider the fact that there |is no claim by the Government, and certainly no assertion by the claimant, that |this is to be inserted into the eye. It is a dye for an eyelash or an eyebrow.|It is not intended to go into the eye. The directions ure supposed to be sufficient |to keep it out of the eye. On the other hand, there is testimony by the claimant, |which is for you to weigh and consider, that these cosmetics contain no such |poisonous or deleterious substance which can injure the eye of the user, even |if it got in there, but that if the directions are reasonably followed none of the |substances should touch the eyelid or reach the eyeball. Those are facts for |you to find based on the evidence one way or the other, and in doing that you |will have to consider all the expert testimony, of which there has been a great |deal. Whether or not there was such adulteration, of course, is a question of fact |for you to determine.|\"\"I have already called your attention to the fact that the statute uses the word |'may,'-not 'will' or 'must,' but 'may' render the substance injurious to the person |using it.|\"\"Now, ordinarily in the trial of cases in this court witnesses are confined to |testifying to facts within their personal knowledge and are not permitted to draw |conclusions or express opinions. This is a general rule, but where the points |in issue arise out of a particular trial concerning which there are trained minds |who have special knowledge, learning, or schooling in that particular field such |persons are called experts and in their case they are entitled to express opinions |concerning the matter in issue. I therefore charge you that you must weigh |and value the testimony of the expert chemists, pharmacologists, physicians, |opthalmologists, and dermatologists who have testified in this case precisely as |you weigh the testimony of other witnesses, taking into account the probability |of such expert testimony, the reasonableness of it, the schooling of the person giv- |ing it, the learning he has in his profession, the breadth of his experience, all of |those things which go to give weight to or detract from the value of the testimony |of an expert.|\"\"Now, I think that I have covered the whole field. You know exactly what |you have to do when you retire to the jury room. You have got to consider all |the testimony, all the expert opinions, weigh the testimony, bearing in mind that |the burden of proof is on the Government to satisfy you by a preponderance of |evidence, first, that these articles that they have seized are cosmetics that have |been adulterated, and that as such they contain poisonous or deleterious sub- |stances which may render them injurious to users under the conditions of use |prescribed in the labeling thereof or under such conditions of use as are cus- |tomary or usual.|\"\"Now, of course, it doesn't mean that some person that is allergic to some- |thing can be considered protected by this law, because he is an exceptional |individual. It doesn't mean, as I have already said, possible inconvenience |without any harm to the eye, but it does mean that the general public, the |general users must be protected against cosmetics that are adulterated and |which may in spite of the instructions, in spite of the ordinary and customary |use injure in some way-to a small or to a great extent is immaterial.|\"\"W(hen you retire you will consider, of course, and it needs no proof, that |the eyes of a human being are shown by the evidence to be delicate and that |they are vastly important to our lives, and that the eyelashes are in close |proximity to the eye. If this thing that is before you now results in some |hardship to the claimant, the importance of the health of the public outweighs |any such consideration. If, on the other hand, the claimant has an article, a |cosmetic that is not adulterated and that the law does not condemn, why, then |of course in the absence of proof to the contrary by a preponderance of evidence |your verdict should be promptly for it. There is no difficulty about that. The |only difficulty is when you retire that some of you may consider that you have |got your own opinions and will not be changed by anyone on the jury. Now, |the duty of a juror is individual, of course. That doesn't mean that you are |to put yourself in one corner and say, *I won't listen to argument: I won't |listen to anything at all. I am satisfied just where I am.' That leads to |disagreement. That leads to expense for the claimant and for the Govern- |ment. It means more trouble and more time. There should be no difficulty |about a sensible common sense consideration of this case. That is your duty. |Don't leave your common sense behind. When you go into the jury room sit |down and say, 'Now, the Judge has told us that the Government must prove |by a preponderance of evidence, which he has defined, that these cosmetics |are adulterated in that they contain a poisonous or deleterious substance which |may render it injurious to users under the conditions of use prescribed in the |labeling thereof or under such conditions of use as are customary or usual. |Do they contain such a substance? If so, may such substances render it|injurious to any extent within the definition of an injury-harm, damage to |users generally under the conditions of use prescribed in the labeling thereof, |or are the directions so excellent and so positive, that no one could do damage |to their eye by following the directions?' If the Government has failed to |satisfy you to that extent, bring in a verdict for the claimant. If on the |other hand, you are satisfied that the Government has carried the burden and |that here is an adulterated cosmetic that should be taken off the market under |the law, then it is you duty to bring in a verdict for the Government. Your |duty is plain. We are not concerned with anything else except this particular |issue. We are protecting the people of the country against adulterated cosmetics |where the labeling is not sufficient or the customary use is not sufficient, and |at the same time we want every manufacturer to feel he has had a fair trial |and that unless the Government proves its case by a preponderance of evidence |it can go on manufacturing by reason of the verdict of the jury. Any exceptions |or requests?\"\"|Mr. PAEKER. \"\"Perfectly satisfactory, your honor.\"\"|Mr. HAYJS. \"\"I want to take exception to that part of your honor's charge to |the effect that the Government's case is made out when it proves its case by a |prepondei ance of evidence.\"\"|THE COUE.T. \"\"Yes. All right.\"\"|Mr. HAYES. \"\"And I want to take exception to all those parts of your honor's |charge as to the extent of injury which may allow condemnation of the product.\"\"|THE COUBT. \"\"All right. Overruled.\"\"|Mr. HAYES. \"\"With reference to the requests to charge, I don't want to take |up the time of your honor before the jury here.\"\"|THE COURT. \"\"Come on. Let us get along with it. I don't want to get into |any argument.\"\"|Mr. HAYES. \"\"I ask your honor to charge the jury that any use of this product |under conditions and for purposes not reasonably prescribed in the directions |cannot be considered.\"\"|THE COURT. \"\"I shall not charge anything more than I have already charged. |Your requests were all handed up before the summations in accordance with our |rules and have been considered. I give you an exception for the failure to charge |any of those I haven't charged.\"\"|Mr. HAYES. \"\"Very well.\"\"|THE COURT. \"\"YOU may retire and we will excuse our additional juror with |thanks.|\"\"You, Mr. Foreman, can have any of the exhibits. You can take them all |with you if you want them or you can leave them here. Just suit yourselves. |You had better consult with your fellow jurors and if you want them all the |exhibits will go right with you.\"\"|On the same day, April 14, 1942, the jury returned a verdict for the claimant, |and judgment was entered ordering the consolidated case dismissed and the |product returned to the claimant. |3|49. Misbranding of eyelash cream. U. S. v. 21 Packages of Kurlene. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.csnj00049May 1941Kurlash Co., Inc.eyelash creamJuly 31, 1940Pittsburgh, Pa.Rochester, N. Y.Pittsburgh, Pa.Western District of Pennsylvania49F. D. C. No. 2719. Sample No. 19032-EThe National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00049csnj|49. Misbranding of eyelash cream. U. S. v. 21 Packages of Kurlene*. Default|decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 2719. Sample No. |19032-E.)|This product was contained in a small collapsible tube which occupied only 14 |percent of the capacity of the carton.|On September 3, 1940, the United States attorney for the Western District of |Pennsylvania filed a libel against 21 packages of .eyelash cream at Pittsburgh, |Pa., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|July 31, 1940. by the Kurlash Co.. Inc., from Rochester, N. Y.; and charging that |it was misbranded in that its containers were so made, formed, or filled as to be |misleading.|On September 30, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna- |tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|50. Misbranding of deodorant creams. U. S. v. 11 1/3 Dozen Tubes of Fresh No. 1 Deodorant and 34 1/4 Dozen Jars of Fresh. No. 2 Non-Perspirant Vanishing Cream. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.csnj00050May 1941Pharma-Craft Corporationdeodorant creamsOctober 27, 1939 ; March 19. 1940 ; June 30, 1940St. Louis, Mo.Louisville, Ky.St. Louis, Mo.Eastern District of Missouri50F. D. C. Nos. 869, 870. Sample Nos. 638P5-D, 63897-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00050csnj|50. Misbranding of deodorant creams. U. S. v. 11% Dozen Tubes of Fresh Wo. 1 |Deodorant and 34:*4 Dozen Jars of Fresh. No. 2 JSon-Perspirant Vanishing1 |Cream. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos.|869, 870. Sample Nos. 638P5-D, 63897-D.)|The No. 1 Deodorant was contained in a tube which occupied only 201 percent |of the capacity of the carton; and the No. 2 Non-Perspirant was packed in an |opal glass jar having an exceedingly thick bottom which was one-half the total |height of the jar.|On November 2, 1939, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of |Missouri filed libels against certain quantities of the above-named products at |St. Louis, Mo. On December 2, 1939, the libels were amended to cover 11% |dozen tubes of Fresh No. 1 and 34% dozen jars of Fresh No. 2. It was alleged in |the amended libels that the articles had been shipped in interstate commerce by |the Pharma-Craft Corporation from Louisville, Ky., within the period from on or |about July 18 to on or about October 27, 1939; and that they were misbranded |in that their containers were so made, formed, or filled as to be misleading.|On March 19. 1940, the answers of the Pharma-Craft Corporation having been |withdrawn with leave of court, and no other claimant having appeared, judg- |ments of condemnation were entered and it was ordered that the products be |destroyed.|INDEX TO NOTICES OF JUDGMENT C. N. J. NOS. 31-50|PRODUCTS|Andree Permanent Eye Lash and|Brow Colure |Blue Ribbon Brand Dental Cream |Colgate Ribbon Dental Cream |Cue Dental Liquid |Dental cream. See Tootb paste.|Deodorant creams |Depilatories |Eyelash cream |Parr's for Gray Hair |Gibson's Tooth Paste |lodent Tooth Paste |Kolynos Dental Cream |N. J. No.|31 |3G|44 |44|50 |47,48 |49 |33 |43 |39 |40|f |N.|Kurlene |Laymon's Tooth Paste |L. B. Hair Oil |Listerine Shaving Cream |New, Tooth Paste |Louise Norris Lash and Brow Coloring|Neet Cream Hair Remover |Pebeco Tooth Paste |Seven Star Brushless Shaving Cream- |Shaving Cream |CTooth* -paste |'Zip depilatory Cream |SHIPPERS, MANUFACTURERS, AND DISTRIBUTORS|Affiliated Products, Inc.: |N. J,|Neet Cream Hair Remover |Allen Products :|tooth paste |American Co. :|Super-Pure Dental Cream with Milk|of Magnesia |Andree Laboratories :|Andree Permanent Eye Lash and|Brow Colure |Bernhard, Adam:|Blue Ribbon Brand Dental Cream|with Milk of Magnesia |Brookline Chemical Co.:|Farr's for Gray Hair |Colgate-Palmolive-Peet Co.:|Colgate Ribbon Dental Cream |Cue Dental Liquid |Comfort Manufactuiing Co. :|tooth paste |Continental Sales Corporation :|tooth paste |Gotham Sales Co., Inc.:|tooth paste |Honor Products Co.:|tooth paste |lodent Chemical Co. :|lodent Tooth Paste |Jordeau, Jean, Inc.:|Zip Depilatory Cream |No.|47|37|35|31|36|83|44 |44|37|38|38|38|39|48|N.|Kolynos Co.:|Kolynos Dental Cream |Kurlash Co., Inc.:|Kuriene |Lambert Piiarmacai Co. :|Listerine Shaving Cream |New, Tooth Paste |L. B. iLaboratories, Inc.:|L. B. Hair Oil |Lehn & Fink Products Corporation:|Pebeco Tooth Paste |Lorr Laboiatories :|Gibson's Tooth Paste |Louise Norris Co.:|Louise Norris Lash and Brow|Coloring |McKesson & Robhins, Inc.:|L. B. Hair Oil |Payne, L. K. :|Andree Permanent Eye Lash and|Brow Colure |Pharma-Craft Corporation :|deodorant creams |Royal Sundries Corporation:|Seven Star Brushless Shaving|Cream |Whelan Laboratories, Inc.:|Gibson's Tooth Paste |World's Products Co.:|Laymon's Tooth Paste |J. No.|49 |41 |34 |45 |45 |32 |47 |42 |46 |45,46 |35-45 |48|J. No. |40|49|45 |45|34|42|43|32 |34|31|50|46 |43 |41|o|The cases reported herewith commenced prior to June 30, 1940, were instituted |in the United States District Courts by the United States attorneys acting upon |reports submitted by direction of the Secretary of Agriculture; and those com- |menced on and after that date were similarly instituted upon reports submitted |by direction of the Federal Security Administrator.|PAUL V. MCNTJTT, Administrator, Federal Security Agency.|WASHINGTON, D. C, December 1, 19^1.|CONTENTS|Page |Page|Cosmetics, adulterated or adulterated and Cosmetics, misbranded (on account of decep-|misbranded |25 tive containers or weight shortage) 32|Permanent wave solutions _._ 25 Hair and scalp preparations |32|Eyelash and eyebrow dyes |28 Miscellaneous _. |32|Hair and scalp preparations 29 Index |34|Miscellaneous - 31|COSMETICS, ADULTERATED OR ADULTERATED AND MISBRANDED|PERMANENT WAVE SOLUTIONS|Nos. 51 to 57 report the seizure and disposition of a permanent waving |method each unit of which consisted of a cardboard box holding one bottle each |of a shampoo Hair conditioner, a curling solution, and a neutralizing solution. |Accompanying several of these units was a bottle labeled in part \"\"Sealing |Cream.\"\" The curling solution contained ammonium hydrogen sulfide, which |would be injurious to users under customary conditions of use.|51. Adulteration of heatless method of permanent waving. U. S. v. 47 Units of Willat Method of Heatless Permanent Waving (and 132 other cases against Willat method). Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.csnj00051January 1942Heatless Permanent Wave Co.heatless method of permanent wavingAugust 15, 1940 ; May 7 and August 7,1941Opelika, Ala. ; Washington, D. C. ; Tampa, Fla. ; Waterloo, Iowa ; Shreveport, La. ; Baltimore, Md. ; Worcester, Mass ; St. Paul, Minn. ; Webster Groves, Mo. ; Rockville Center, N. Y. ; Toledo, Ohio ; Oklahoma ; Tulsa, Okla. ; Portland, Oreg. ; Upper Darby, Pa. ; Woonsocket, R. I. ; Aberdeen, S. Dak.; Knoxville, and Memphis, Tenn. ; Beaumont, Dallas, and Houston, Tex. ; Tacoma, Wash. ; Madison and Whitewater, Wis.San Francisco, Calif.Opelika, Ala. ; Washington, D. C. ; Tampa, Fla. ; Waterloo, Iowa ; Shreveport, La. ; Baltimore, Md. ; Worcester, Mass ; St. Paul, Minn. ; Webster Groves, Mo. ; Rockville Center, N. Y. ; Toledo, Ohio ; Oklahoma ; Tulsa, Okla. ; Portland, Oreg. ; Upper Darby, Pa. ; Woonsocket, R. I. ; Aberdeen, S. Dak.; Knoxville, and Memphis, Tenn. ; Beaumont, Dallas, and Houston, Tex. ; Tacoma, Wash. ; Madison and Whitewater, Wis.Middle and Northern Districts of Alabama, District of Columbia, District of Delaware, Southern District of Florida, Northern District of Georgia, District of Idaho, Northern District of Indiana, Northern and Southern Districts of Iowa, Eastern and Western Districts of Louisiana, District of Maryland, District of Massachusetts, District of Minnesota, Eastern and Western Districts of Missouri, Eastern, Northern, and Western Districts of New \"\"York, Northern and Southern Districts of Ohio, Northern and Western Districts of Oklahoma, District of Oregon, Eastern, Middle, and Western Districts of Pennsylvania, District of Rhode Island, District of South Dakota, Eastern and Western Districts of Tennessee, Eastern, Northern, and Southern Districts of Texas, and Eastern and Western Districts of Wisconsin51F. D. C. Nos. 4232 to 4235, incl., 4257, 4258, 4266, 4267, 4292 to 4298, incl., 4300, 4309 to 4315, incl., 4322 to 4&26, incl., 4330, 4338, 4339, 4344 to 4346, incl., 4348 to 4351, incl., 4359, 4360, 4362 to 4367, incl., 4383, 4384, 4389, 4390, 4405 to 4412, incl., 4421, 4422, 4424, 4426, 4431 to 4443, incl., 4452, 4457 to 4471, incl., 4473, 4486 to 4495, incl., 4502 to 4505, incl., 4512, 4513, 4515 to 4517. incl., 4521, 4522, 4527 to 4546, incl., 4548, 4549, 4588, 4602 to 4626, incl., 4629 to 4632, incl., 4707 to 4709, incl., 4715 to 4717, incl., 4745 to 4748, incl., 4754, 4765, 4766, 4771 to 4776, incl., 4791, 4792, 4814 to 4816, incl. Sample Nos. 27-B, 5161-E to 5164-E, incl., 5190-E to 5200-E incl., 5576-E, 5578-E, 11262-E to 11265-E, incl., 14291-E, 14293-E to 14295-E, incl., 14299-E, 14300-B, 16851-E, 17661-E, 19388-E, 19389-E, 19391-E to 19395-E, incl., 25728-E, 25806-E to 25809-E, incl., 28267-E, 28270-E, 28271-E, 29191-E, 29192-E, 29545-E to 29563-E, incl., 31328-E, 35192-E, 35380-E, 35871-E, 37290-E to 37296-E, incl., 38675-E, 38676-E, 38679-E, 38680-E, 39236-E, 39728-E to 39732-E, incl., 39801-E, 39802-E, 40430-E, 40433-E, 40624-E, 40626-E, 40702-E to 40707-E, incl., 42061-E, 42062-E, 42289-E to 42292-E, incl., 42376-E, 42525-E to 42527-E, incl., 42718-E to 42720-E, incl., 43350-E to 43352-E, incl., 43381-E, 43382-E, 43422-E to 43425-E, incl., 43428-E, 43429-E, 48019-E, 48240-E, 48241-E, 48248-E, 49029-E, 50529-E, 50826-E, 50827-E, 50830-E, 51060-E, 51062-E to 51069-E, incl., 51221-E, 51222-E, 51224-E, 51225-E, 51227-E, 51228-E, 56147-E to 56151-E, incl., 56155-E, 56229-E, 56237-E to 56239-E, incl., 57198-E, 58135-E, 58181-E to 58183-E, incl., 58192-E to 58197-E, incl., 58432-E to 58440-E, incl., 58984-E to 58986-E, incl., 58988-B to 58990-E, incl., 58992-E to 58994-E, incl., 58996-E, 58997-E, 60087-E, 60089-E, 60578-E, 60719-E, 69034-E to 69036-E, incl.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00051csnj|B1. Adu1teration of heat1ess method of permanent waving. U. S. v. 47 Units |of Wi11at Method of Heat1ess Permanent Waving (and 132 other cases |against Wi11at method). Defau1t decrees of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. Nos. 4232 to 4235, inc1., 4257, 4258, 4266, 4267, 4292 to 4298, inc1., |4300, 4309 to 4315, inc1., 4322 to 4&26, inc1., 4330, 4338, 4339, 4344 to 4346, |inc1., 4348 to 4351, inc1., 4359, 4360, 4362 to 4367, inc1., 4383, 4384, 4389, 4390, |4405 to 4412, inc1., 4421, 4422, 4424, 4426, 4431 to 4443, inc1., 4452, 4457 to 4471, |inc1., 4473, 4486 to 4495, inc1., 4502 to 4505, inc1., 4512, 4513, 4515 to 4517. inc1., |4521, 4522, 4527 to 4546, inc1., 4548, 4549, 4588, 4602 to 4626, inc1., 4629 to |4632, inc1., 4707 to 4709, inc1., 4715 to 4717, inc1., 4745 to 4748, inc1., 4754, 4765, |4766, 4771 to 4776, inc1., 4791, 4792, 4814 to 4816, inc1. Samp1e Nos. 27-B, |5161-E to 5164-B, inc1., 5190-E to 5200-B inc1., 5576-E, 5578-E, 11262-E to |11265-E, inc1., 14291-E, 14293-E to 14295-E, inc1., 14299-B, 14300-B, 16851-B, |17661-E, 19388-B, 19389-B, 19391-E to 19395-B, inc1., 25728-E, 25806-E to |25809-E, inc1., 28267-E, 28270-E, 28271-E, 29191-B, 29192-B, 29545-E to |29563-E, inc1., 31328-E, 35192-E, 35380-E, 35871-E, 37290-E to 37296-E, inc1., |38675-E, 38676-E, 38679-E, 38680-B, 39236-E, 39728-E to 39732-E, inc1., 39801-E, |39802-E, 40430-E, 40433-B, 40624-B, 40626-E, 40702-E to 40707-E, inc1., |42061-E, 42062-E, 42289-E to 42292-B, inc1., 42376-E, 42525-E to 42527-B, inc1.,|431436?-41 |25|26 |FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT |[C.N.J.|42718-E to 42720-E, inc1., 43350-E to 43352-E, inc1., 43381-E, 43382-E, 43422-E |to 43425-E, inc1., 43428-E, 43429-E, 48019-E, 48240-E, 48241-E, 48248-E, |49029-E, 50529-E, 50826-E, 50827-E, 50830-E, 51060-E, 51062-E to 51069-E, |inc1., 51221-E, 51222-E, 51224-EJ_51225-EJ 51227-E, 51228-E, 56147-E to 56151-E, |inc1., 56155-E, 56229-E, 56237-E to 56239-E, inc1., 57198-E, 58135-E, 58181-B |to 58183-E, inc1., 58192-E to 58197-E, inc1., 58432-E to 58440-E, inc1., 58984-E |to 58986-E, inc1., 58988-B to 58990-E, inc1., 58992-E to 58994-E, inc1., 58996-E, |58997-E, 60087-E, 60089-E, 60578-E, 60719-E, 69034-E to 69036-E, inc1.|Between the dates of Apri1 3 and May 21, 1941, the United States attorneys |for the Midd1e and Northern Districts of A1abama, District of Co1umbia, |District of De1aware, Southern District of F1orida, Northern District of Georgia, |District of Idaho, Northern District of Indiana, Northern and Southern Dis- |tricts of Iowa, Eastern and Western Districts of Louisiana, District of Mary- |1and, District of Massachusetts, District of Minnesota, Eastern and Western |Districts of Missouri, Eastern, Northern, and Western Districts of New \"\"York, |Northern and Southern Districts of Ohio, Northern and Western Districts of |Ok1ahoma, District of Oregon, Eastern, Midd1e, and Western Districts of |Pennsy1vania, District of Rhode Is1and, District of South Dakota, Eastern and |Western Districts of Tennessee, Eastern, Northern, and Southern Districts of |Texas, and Eastern and Western Districts of Wisconsin fi1ed 1ibe1s against the |fo11owing quantities of Wi11at Method of Heat1ess Permanent Waving: 224 |units at Birmingham, 34 units at Montgomery, and 49 units at Ope1ika, A1a.; |60 units at Washington, D. C.; 84 units at Wi1mington, De1.; 6 units at Fort |Lauderda1e, 22 units at Lake Worth, 96 units at Miami, 79 units at Pa1m |Beach, 187 units at West Pa1m Beach, and 45 units at Tampa, F1a.; 86 units |at At1anta, Ga.; 19 units at Boise, Idaho; 34 units at Warsaw, Ind.; 27 units |at Cedar Rapids, 46 units at C1inton, 194 units at Des Moines, 48 UP its at |Independence, 67 units at Sioux City, and 51 units at Water1oo, Iowa; 23 |bott1es at New Or1eans and 45 units at Shreveport, La.; 44 units at BeLhesda |and 215 units at Ba1timore, Md.; 109 units at Boston, 28 units at Lynn, 54 |units at Springfie1d, and 19 units at Worcester, Mass,; 25 units at Du1uth, 366 |units at Minneapo1is, 11 units at Rochester, and 216 units at St. Pau1, Minn.; |60 units at C1ayton, 241 units at Kansas City, 281 units at St. Louis, and 54 |units at Webster Groves, Mo.; 161 units at A1bany, 53 units at Buffa1o, 65 |units at Forest Hi11s, 78 units at F1ushing, Long Is1and, 234 units at Jackson |Heights, L. I., 49 units at Kew Gardens, L. I., I'11 units at Long Is1and City, |122 units at Rochester, and 9 units at Rockvi11e Center, N. Y.; 227 units at |Akron, 8 units at Canton, 91 units at Cincinnati, 314 units at C1eve1and, 143 |units at C1eve1and Heights, 461 units at Co1umbus, 57 units at Lakewood, 64 |units at Painesvi11e, 46 units at Shaker Heights* and 112 units at To1edo, Ohio; |93 units at Ok1ahoma City and 180 units at Tu1sa, Ok1a.; 8 units at K1amath |Fa11s and 27 units at Port1and, Oreg.; 130 units at Ardmore, 27 units at Chest- |nut Hi11, 22 units at C1earfie1d, 65 units at Coraopo1is, 21 units at Frank1in, |60 units at Greenvi11e, 38 units at Harrisburg, 38 units at Lancaster, 25 units |at McKeesport, 34 units at Oi1 City, 223 units at Phi1ade1phia, 300 units at |Pittsburgh, 88 units at Uniontown, and 36 units at Upper Darby, Pa.; 59 units |at Cranston, 13 units at Newport, 210 units at Providence, 59 units at Warren, |44 units at Wester1y, and 49 units at Woonsocket, R. I.; 32 units at Aberdeen, |S. Dak.; 52 units at Knoxvi11e, and 38 units at Memphis, Tenn.; 42 units at |Beaumont, 31 units at Da11as, and 182 units at Houston, Tex.; 2 units at |Tacoma, Wash.; and 106 units at Madison and 59 units at Whitewater^ Wis.|The 1ibe1s a11eged that the artic1e had been shipped in interstate commerce |by the Heat1ess Permanent Wave Co. from San Francisco, Ca1if., within the |period beginning on or about August 15, 1940, and ending on or about ApH1 8, |1941; and charged that it was adu1terated in that it contained a poisonous or |de1eterious substance, ammonium hydrogen su1fide, which might have rendered |it injurious to users under such conditions of use as are customary or usua1.|Between the dates of May 7 and August 7,1941, no c1aimant having appeared, |judgments of condemnation were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|52. Adulteration of heatless method of permanent waving. U. S. v. 62 1/3 Dozen Units of Willat Method of Heatless Permanent Waving and 4 Bottles of Curling Solution (and 2 other seizures of Willat method). Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.csnj00052January 1942\Nheatless method of permanent wavingJune 6, 1941Washington, D. C.Washington, D. C.Washington, D. C.District of Columbia52F. D. C. Nos. 4242, 4279 to 4286, incl., 4361. Sample Nos. 28274-E, 50528-E, 99885-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00052csnj|52. Adulteration of heatless method of permanent waving. U. S. v. 62% Dozen |Units of Willat Method of Heatless Permanent Waving and 4 Bottles |of Curling: Solution (and 2 other seizures of Willat method). Default |decrees of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 4242, 4279 to 4286, |incl., 4361. Sample Nos. 28274-E, 50528-B, 99885-E.)|On April 4, 9, and 16, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of |Columbia filed libels against 68^2 dozen units of Willat Method of Heatless |Permanent Waving and 4 bottles of curling solution, alleging that the articles |were in interstate commerce in the District of Columbia in the possession of|the following beauty parlors at Washington, D. C.: Demonet's Beauty Salon, |Budolph's-Beauty Associates, Inc., Robert of Paris, Inc., Pat, Mount Pleasant |Beauty Shoppe, Gaston of Paris, Inc., Guilbo, Inc., Gusti's Beauty Salon, Louis |[Creative Hairdresser], and the Rainbow Beauty Shop; and charging that they |were adulterated in that they contained a poisonous or deleterious substance, |ammonium hydrogen sulfide, which might have rendered them injurious to |users under such conditions of use as are customary or usual. The shampoo |hair conditioner and the solutions were labeled in part: (Bottles) \"\"Willat De |Luxe * * * Distributor-Heatless Permanent Wave Co. San Francisco, |Calif.\"\"|On June 6, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgments of condemnation |were entered and the products were ordered destroyed.|53. Adulteration of heatless method of permanent waving. U. S. v. 7 Cartons, 1 Carton, and 1 Loose Unit of Willat Method of Heatless Permanent Waving. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.csnj00053January 1942American Yvette Co.heatless method of permanent wavingMarch 12 and 31, 1941St. Louis, Mo.New York, N. Y.St. Louis, Mo.Eastern District of Missouri53F. D. C. No. 4299. Sample No. 39238-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00053csnj|53. Adulteration of heatless method of permanent waving. U. S. v. 7 Cartons, 1|Carton, and 1 Loose Unit of Willat Method of Heatless Permanent Waving. |Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 4299. Sample |No. 39238-E.)|On April 9, 1941, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of |Missouri filed a libel against 95 units of Willat Method of Heatless Permanent |Waving at St. Louis, Mo., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate |commerce by the American Yvette Co. from New York, N. Y., on or about January |24 and March 12 and 31, 1941; and charging that it was adulterated in that it |contained a poisonous or deleterious substance, ammonium hydrogen sulfide, |which might have rendered it injurious to users under such conditions of use |as are customary or usual. The curling solution contained in each unit was |labeled in part: (Bottles) \"\"Willat Sulfalene * * * Distributor-Heatless |Permanent Wave Co., San Francisco, Calif.\"\"|On May 16, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation |was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|54. Adulteration of heatless method of permanent waving. U. S. v. 37 Units of Willat Method of Heatless Permanent Waving. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.csnj00054January 1942Emile, Inc.heatless method of permanent wavingDecember 16,1940 ; January 3, 1941Baltimore, Md.San Francisco, Calif. ; Washington, D. C.Baltimore, Md.District of Maryland54F. D. C. No. 4328. Sample No. 28273-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00054csnj|54. Adulteration of heatless method of permanent waving. U. S. v. 37 Units of|Willat Method of Heatless Permanent Waving. Default decree of con- |demnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 4328. Sample No. 28273-E.)|On April 14, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Maryland |filed a libel against 37 units of Willat Method of Heatless Permanent Waving |at Baltimore, Md., alleging that the article had been shipped in part by the |Heatless Permanent Wave Co. from San Francisco, Calif., on or about December |16,1940, and in part by Emile, Inc., from Washington, D. C., on or about January |3, 1941; and charging that the article was adulterated in that it contained a |poisonous or deleterious substance, ammonium hydrogen sulfide, which might |have rendered it injurious to users under such conditions of use as are customary |or usual.|On May 17, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation |was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|55. Adulteration of heatless method of permanent waving. U. S. v. 29 Units of Willat Method of Heatless Permanent Waving (and 5 other seizures of Willat method). Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.csnj00055January 1942Heatless Permanent Wave Co.heatless method of permanent wavingApril 8, 1941Louisville, Ky. ; Honolulu, T. H.San Francisco, Calif.Louisville, Ky. ; Honolulu, T. H.Western District of Kentucky and the Territory of Hawaii55F. D. C. Nos. 4402, 4403, 4404, 4425, 4514, 4714. Sample Nos. 25941-E to 25946-E incl., 29397-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00055csnj|55. Adulteration of heatless method of permanent waving. U. S. v. 29 Units of|Willat Method of Heatless Permanent Waving (and 5 other seizures of |Willat method). Default decrees of condemnation and destruction. (F. D.|C. Nos. 4402, 4403, 4404, 4425, 4514, 4714. Sample Nos. 25941-E to 25946-E incl., |29397-E.)|On April 19 and 25 and May 8, 1941, the United States attorneys for the |Western District of Kentucky and the Territory of Hawaii filed libels against |29 units of Willat Method of Heatless Permanent Waving at Louisville, Ky., |and 274 units of the same product at Honolulu, T. H., all lots of which had |been consigned by the Heatless Permanent Wave Co., alleging that the article |had been shipped from San Francisco, Calif., within the period from on or |about January 1 to on or about April 8, 1941; and charging that it was adult- |erated in that it contained a poisonous or deleterious substance which might |have rendered it injurious to users under such conditions of use as are cus- |tomary or usual.|On May 15 and 29 and June 10, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judg- |ments of condemnation were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|56. Adulteration of heatless method of permanent waving. U. S. v. 31 Units of Willat Method of Heatless Permanent Waving. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.csnj00056January 1942Willat Production Co.heatless method of permanent wavingJanuary 8, 1941Centralia, Ill.San Francisco, Calif.Centralia, Ill.Eastern District of Illinois56F. D. C. No. 4472. Sample No. 57114-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00056csnj|56. Adulteration of heatless method of permanent waving. U. S. v. 31 Units of|Willat Method of Heatless Permanent Waving. Default decree of con- |demnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 4472. Sample No. 57114-E.)|On April 24, 1941, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of |Illinois filed a libel against 31 units of Willat Method of Heatless Permanent |Waving at Centralia, Ill., alleging that the article had been shipped in inter-|state commerce from San Francisco, Calif., by the Willat Production Co. on |or about January 8, 1941; and charging that it was adulterated in that it |contained a poisonous or deleterious substance, ammonium hydrogen sulfide, |which might have rendered it injurious to users under such conditions of use |as are customary or usual. The shampoo hair conditioner and the solutions |comprising each unit of the article were labeled in part: (Bottles) \"\"Willat |De Luxe * * * Distributor-Heatless Permanent Wave Co., San Francisco, |Calif.\"\"|On June 23, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of^on'demnation |was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|57. Adulteration of permanent wave curling solution. U. S. v. 99 Units, 20 Units, and 60 Units of Willat Method of Heatless Permanent Waving. Consent decrees of condemnation and destruction of the curling solution; remainder of product ordered released to claimants.csnj00057January 1942Heatless Permanent Wave Co.permanent wave curling solutionMarch 6, 27, and 28, 1941North Platte, Nebr.San Francisco, Calif.North Platte, Nebr.District of Nebraska57F. D. C. Nos. 4397, 4423, 4483. Sample Nos. 43259-E to 43261-E, incl.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00057csnj|57. Adulteration of permanent wave curling solution. U. S. v. 99 Units, 20 Units,|and 60 Units of Willat Method of Heatless Permanent Waving. Consent |decrees of condemnation and destruction of the curling solution; remainder |of product ordered released to claimants. (F. D. C. Nos. 4397, 4423, 4483. |Sample Nos. 43259-E to 43261-E, incl.)|On April 23, 25, and 28, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of |Nebraska filed libels against 99 units of Willat Method of Permanent Waving |at Omaha, 20 units at Lincoln, and 60 units at North Platte, Nebr., alleging that |the article had been shipped by the Heatless Permanent Wave Co. on or about |January 8, February 4, and March 6, 27, and 28, 1941, from San Francisco, |Calif.; and charging that it was adulterated in that it contained a poisonous |or deleterious substance, ammonium hydrogen sulfide.|On May 22 and 23, 1941, Maison Lorenzo, Inc., claimant for the product |seized at Omaha and Lincoln, and Milly Spady, owner and operator of Milly's |Shop, claimant for the product seized at North Platte, Nebr., having consented |to the entry of decrees, judgments of condemnation and destruction of the |curling solution were entered and the remainder of the product was ordered |released and returned to the claimants.|EYELASH AND EYEBROW DYES|58. Adulteration and misbranding of Mary Luckie Hair Tints. U. S. v. 5 Packages of Mary Luckie Original Hair Tint Black and 1 Package of Mary Luckie Original Hair Tint Jet Black (and 3 other seizures of Mary Luckie products). Decrees of destruction.csnj00058January 1942Marlu Co.Mary Luckie Hair TintsJune 12, 1941Pittsburg, Kans. ; Oklahoma City, Enid, Okla.Kansas City, Mo.Pittsburg, Kans. ; Oklahoma City, Enid, Okla.District of Kansas and the Northern and the Western Districts of Oklahoma58F. D. C. Nos. 4867, 4992, 5088, 5133. Sample Nos. 16854-E, 43589-E, 43599-E, 43600-E, 43773-E, 43943-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00058csnj|58. Adulteration and misbranding; of Mary Luckie Hair Tints. U. S. v. 5 Pack |ages of Mary Luckie Original Hair Tint Black and 1 Package of Mary |Luckie Original Hair Tint Jet Black (and 3 other seizures of Mary Luckie |products). Decrees of destruction. (P. D. C. Nos. 4867, 4992, 5088, 5133. |Sample Nos. 16854-E, 43589-E, 43599-E, 43600-E, 43773-E, 43943-E.)|These products contained paraphenylenediamine, a poisonous or deleterious |substance, which might have rendered them injurious to users under Such |conditions of use as are customary or usual. Furthermore, the combination |in each package was not one which is associated with a hair dye but was one |which is commonly associated with eyelash and eyebrow dyes.|On June 5 and 28 and July 9 and 12, 1941, the United States attorneys for the |District of Kansas and the Northern and the Western Districts of Oklahoma |filed libels against 6 packages of Mary Luckie Original Hair Tints at Pitts- |burg, Kans.; and 3 packages at Tulsa, 44 packages at Oklahoma City, and 19 |packages at Enid, Okla., alleging that the articles had been shipped within the |period from on or about April 21 to on or about June 12, 1941, by the Marlu |Co. from Kansas City, Mo.; and charging that they were adulterated and mis- |branded. They were labeled in part: \"\"Mary Luckie Original Hair Tint Black |[or \"\"Jet Black\"\" or \"\"Dark Brown\"\"].\"\"|The articles were alleged to be adulterated in that they contained a poisonous |or deleterious substance which might have rendered them injurious to users |under such conditions of use as are customary or usual.|They were alleged to be misbranded in that the designation \"\"Hair Tint\"\" |was false and misleading since they were not hair tints but eyelash and eyebrow |dyes.|On June 23, July 14, and August 13, 1941, no claimant having appeared, |judgments were entered ordering that the products be destroyed.|181. Misbranding of Royal Crown Hair Dressing, Royal Crown DeLuxe Mens Pomade, Royal Crown Brilliantine, and Royal Crown Rose Hair Oil. U. S. v. 69 Dozen Cans, etc.csnj00181August 1950J. Strickland & Co.Royal Crown Hair Dressing, Royal Crown DeLuxe Mens Pomade, Royal Crown Brilliantine, and Royal Crown Rose Hair OilFebruary 1 and March 8,1949Hot Springs, Ark.Memphis, Tenn.Hot Springs, Ark.Western District of Arkansas181F. D. C. No. 27152. Sample Nos. 46128-K to 46132-K, incl.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00181csnj|181. Misbranding of Royal Crown Hair Dressing, Royal Crown DeLuxe Mens|Pomade, Royal Crown Brilliantine, and Royal Crown Rose Hair Oil. U. S. |v. 69 Dozen Cans, etc. (F. D. C. No. 27152. Sample Nos. 46128-K to |46132-K, incl.) |LIBEL FILED : April 22,1949, Western District of Arkansas. |ALLEGED SHIPMENT : On or about February 1 and March 8,1949, by J. Strickland|& Co., from Memphis, Tenn. |PRODUCT: 69 dozen 3-ounce cans and 19 dozen 7-ounce cans of Royal Crown hair |dressing, 11 dozen 1%-ounce cans of Royal Crown DeLuxe Mens Pomade,|16 dozen 3-ounce bottles of Royal Crown Brilliantine, and 72 dozen 3-ounce |bottles of Royal Crown Rose Hair Oil, at Hot Springs, Ark.|Analyses showed that the hair dressing consisted essentially of petroleum |jetty, perfume, and not more than 0.5 percent of olive oil; that the pomade and |brilliantine consisted essentially of petroleum jelly, perfume, and not more |than 1 percent of olive oil; and that the hair oil consisted ot mineral oil, |perfume, red coloring matter, and not more than 2.5 percent of olive oil.|LABEL, IN PART : \"\"Royal Crown Hair Dressing with Olive Oil Contents 3 Oz. |Net\"\" [or \"\"Contents 7 Ounces net\"\"] ; \"\"Royal Crown DeLuxe Mens Pomade |with Olive Oil Net Wt. 1% Oz.\"\" ; \"\"Royal Crown Brilliantine with Olive Oil |Contents 3 Fluid Ounces\"\"; and \"\"Royal Crown Rose Hair Oil with Olive Oil |Contents 3 Fluid Ounces.\"\" The statement of the quantity of the contents was |inconspicuously placed and was in small type.|NATURE OF CHARGE: Misbranding, Section 602 (a), the label statement \"\"with |Olive Oil\"\" was misleading as applied to the articles containing olive oil in the |percentages indicated by the above-mentioned analyses; and, Section 602 (c), |the information required by law to appear on the label, namely, the statement |of the quantity of the contents, was not prominently placed thereon with such |conspicuousness (as compared with other words, statements, designs, or devices |in the labeling) as to render it likely to be read by the ordinary individual |under customary conditions of purchase and use.|DISPOSITION : June 17, 1949. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|COSMETICS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO BEAR |MANDATORY LABELING*|59. Adulteration and misbranding of eyelash and eyebrow dye. U. S. v. 81 Unit Cartons of Louise Norris Lash & Brow Coloring. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.csnj00059January 1942Louise Norris Co.eyelash and eyebrow dyeOctober 27 and November 16, 1939, and June 15, 1940Seattle, Wash.Kansas City, Mo.Seattle, Wash.Western District of Washington59F. D. C. No. 2675. Sample Nos. 26808-E to 26811-E, incl.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00059csnj|59. Adulteration and misbranding of eyelash and eyebrow dye. U. S. v. 81 Unit|Cartons of Louise Xorris Lash & Brow Coloring. Default decree of con- |demnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 2675. Sample Nos. 26808-E to |26811-B, incl.)|This product contained a potentially dangerous ingredient, 2,5 toluylenedi- |amine.|On August 27, 1940, the United States attorney for the Western District of |Washington filed a libel against 81 unit cartons of Louise Norris Lash & Brow |Coloring at Seattle, Wash., alleging that the article had been shipped in inter-|state commerce on or about October 27 and November 16, 1939, and June 15, |1940, by the Louise Norris Co. from Kansas City, Mo.; and charging that it was |adulterated and misbranded.|It was alleged to be adulterated in that it contained a poisonous or deleter- |ious substance, namely 2,5 toluylenediamine, which might have rendered it |injurious to users under the conditions of use prescribed in the labeling or under |such conditions of use as are customary or usual. It was alleged to be adul- |terated further in that it contained a coal-tar color, namely, 2,5 toluylenedia- |mine, which was not from a batch that had been certified in accordance with |the regulations provided by law.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements |were false and misleading when applied to an article which might be dangerous |when used under the conditions prescribed in the labeling: (Unit carton and |bottle \"\"A\"\" label) \"\"Louise Norris Lash & Brow Coloring\"\": (Formula No. 2 |bottle label) \"\"Protecto\"\"; and (directions circular) \"\"Louise Norris Patented |Method of Coloring Eyelashes and Brows.\"\"|On January 28, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation |was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|HAIR AND SCALP PREPARATIONS|60. Misbranding of Odell's Quinine for the Hair. U. S. v. 140 Bottles of Odeii's Quinine for the Hair. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.csnj00060January 1942Odell Co.Odell's Quinine for the HairNovember 19, 1940Philadelphia, Pa.Kewark, N. J.Philadelphia, Pa.Eastern District of Pennsylvania60F. D. C. 3609. Sample No. 24831-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00060csnj|60. Misbranding of Odell's Quinine for the Hair. U. S. v. 140 Bottles of Odeii's|Quinine for the Hair. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. 3609. Sample No. 24831-B.)|This product was represented to be a quinine preparation, whereas it con- |tained no quinine. Its labeling also bore false and misleading represenations |regarding its efficacy as indicated below.|On December 30, 1940, the United States attorney for the Eastern District |of Pennsylvania filed a libel against 140 bottles of Odell's Quinine for the Hair |at Philadelphia, Pa., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate |commerce on or about November 19, 1940, by the Odell Co. from Kewark, N. J.; |and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of water, alcohol, ex- |tracts of plant materials including brucine, and perfuming materials.|Misbranding was alleged in that the statements \"\"Quinine * * * Stimu- |lating * *A * Essential to healthy hair,\"\" borne on the bottle label, were |false and misleading in that they were incorrect.|The article was also alleged to be misbranded under the provisions of the |law applicable to drugs, as reported in notice of judgment D. D. No. 297.|On January 22, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna- |tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|61. Misbranding of La-Nu Hair and Scalp Vitalizer. U. S. v. 429 Large and 429 Small Jars of La-Nu. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.csnj00061January 1942La-Nu Distributing Co.La-Nu Hair and Scalp VitalizerJanuary 20 and February 3, 1941Grand Rapids, Mich.Philadelphia, Pa.Grand Rapids, Mich.Western District of Michigan61F. D. C. No. 3913. Sample Nos. 81323-E, 31324-EThe National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00061csnj|61. Misbranding of La-Nu Hair and Scalp Vitalizer. U. S. v. 429 Large and 429|Small Jars of La-Nu. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 3913. Sample Nos. 81323-E, 31324-E.)|The label of this product bore false and misleading representations regarding |its efficacy in the conditions indicated below. The label on the small jars also |failed to bear an accurate statement of the quantity of the contents, which, |because of the exceptional thickness of the glass and the manner in which the |container was made, was very much less than was indicated by the outward |appearance of the container.|On March 4, 1941, the United States attorney for the Western District of |Michigan filed a libel against 858 jars of La-Nu Hair and Scalp Vitalizer at |Grand Rapids, Mich., alleging that the article had been shipped on or about |January 20 and February 3, 1941, from Philadelphia, Pa., by the La-Nu Dis- |tributing Co.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of |ammoniated mercury, boric acid, eucalyptus oil, and lanolin.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements, |appearing in the labeling, were false and misleading since it was not efficacious |for the purposes recommended: (Top of large jar) \"\"Hair and Scalp Vitalizer\"\"; |(label on large jar) \"\"Recommended as an aid in the relief of * * * Alope- |cia Ring \"\"Worms * * * and Falling Hair\"\"; and (label on small jar) |\"\"Recommended for dandruff alopecia and ring worm * * * falling hair.\"\"|The portion of the product contained in the small jars was alleged to be mis- |branded further in that the label failed to bear an accurate statement of the|quantity of contents; and in that its container was so made, formed, or filled as to |be misleading.|On April 4,1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was |entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|62. Misbranding of Glo-Go Hair Groom for Men. U. S. v. 131 3-Fluid-Ounce Packages and 8 6-Fluid-Ounce Packages of Glo-Go Hair Groom for Men. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.csnj00062January 1942Glo-Co Co.Glo-Go Hair Groom for MenAugust 19, 1940Denver, Colo.Los Angeles, Calif.Denver, Colo.District of Colorado62F. D. C. No. 3368. Sample No. 6557-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00062csnj|62. Misbranding: of Glo-Go Hair Groom for Men. U. S. v. 131 3-Fluid-Ounce|Packages and 8 6-Fluid-Ounce Packages of Glo-Go Hair Groom for Men. |Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 3368. Sample |No. 6557-E.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard- |ing its efficacy in the conditions indicated below. The quantity of contents |statement was in fine print and inconspicuous, and each of the cartons of both |sizes was much larger than would have been necessary to hold the bottle which |it contained.|On November 14,1940, the United States attorney for*the District of Colorado |filed a libel against 131 3-fluid-ounce packages and 8 6-fluid-ounce packages of |the above-named product at Denver, Colo., which had been consigned by the |Glo-Co Co., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce |on or about August 19, 1940, from Los Angeles, Calif.; and charging that it was |misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of alcohol and castor |oil, together with perfumed materials.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements |appearing in the labeling created a false and misleading impression regarding |its value: (Carton) \"\"Glo-Co is made with pure vegetable oils scientifically bal- |anced so as to approximate the oils nature provides the normal scalp and |hair\"\"; (circular) \"\"Keep Hair On Your Head Properly Groomed This Simple |Glo-Co Way * * * Healthy hair, luxurious in growth, and lustrous with |the glow of vitality * * * It's all a matter of simple care and grooming. |Neglect may lead to baldness; carelessness will lead to trouble. Your hair is |part of the body and requires proper cleansing and grooming. * * * A |healthy growth of hair requires a clean, healthy scalp. So choose a hair aid |that * * * tones the scalp, * * * Before It's Too Late Keep |scalp * * * nourished * * * Dandruff is not to be confused with |normal condition of scalp flaking and scale accumulation. This condition |should be cared for with frequent cleansing with Glo-Co. Infectious dandruff |is an organic disorder that requires your physician's care. Oily or Dry Hair is |due to improper functioning of sebacious glands. Cleansing with Glo-Co Hair |Groom is the first step that helps to restore sebacious glands to normal action, |normalizing excess dryness or oiliness. Falling Hair and Thinning Hair. If |due to organic disorder, consult your physician. Ordinarily it is due to lack |of care in keeping scalp clean and properly nourished. Glo-Co hair groom con- |tains pure vegetable oils that blend with the natural oils of the scalp, to over- |come ordinary hair and scalp troubles.\"\"|The article was alleged to be misbranded further in that the statement of |the quantity of contents appeared in fine print and was not prominently placed |upon the carton with such conspicuousness (as compared with other words, |statements, designs, or devices in the labeling) as to render it likely to be read |and understood by the ordinary individual under customary conditions of |purchase and use. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the con- |tainers were so made, formed, or filled as to be misleading.|On January 3, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation |was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|77. Adulteration and misbranding of Louise Norris Lash & Brow Coloring. U. S. v. (Mrs.) Louise Norris (Louise Norris Co.). Plea of nolo contendere. Fine of $650 and jail sentence of 1 year. Jail sentence suspended and defendant placed on probation for 3 years.csnj00077February 1943(Mrs.) Louise Norris, trading as Louise Norris Go. at Kansas City, Mo.Louise Norris Lash & Brow ColoringOctober 27, 1939 ; August 23, 1940Arkansas ; California ; Colorado ; Illinois ; Kansas ; TexasMissouriArkansas ; California ; Colorado ; Illinois ; Kansas ; TexasWestern District of Missouri77F. D. C. No. 5494. Sample Nos. 4570-B to 4574-E, incl., 11108-B, 15901-E, 16329-E, 26808-E to 26811-E, incl., 32037-E, 32038-E, 44931-E to 44933-E, incl.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00077csnj|77. Adulteration and misbranding of Louise Norris Lash & Brow Coloring. |U. S. v. (Mrs.) Louise Norris (Louise Norris Co.). Plea of nolo contendere. |Fine of $650 and jail sentence of 1 year. Jail sentence suspended and |defendant placed on probation for 3 years. (F. D. C. No. 5494. Sample Nos. |4570-B to 4574-E, incl., 11108-B, 15901-B, 16329-B, 26808-E to 26811-E, incl., |32037-B, 32038-E, 44931-E to 44933-E, incl.)|Examination of this product showed that it contained 2,5 toluylenediamine, |or salts of 2,5 toluylenediamine, an uncertified coal-tar color.|On November 21, 1941, the United States attorney for the Western District |of Missouri filed an information against (Mrs.) Louise Norris, trading as |Louise Norris Go. at Kansas City, Mo., alleging shipment from on or about Octo- |ber 27, 1939, to on or about August 23, 1940, from the State of Missouri into the |States of Arkansas, California, Colorado, Illinois, Kansas, Texas, and Wash- |ington of quantities of Louise Norris Lash & Brow Coloring that was adul- |terated and a portion of which was also misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated (1) in that it contained a poisonous |or deleterious substance, namely, 2,5 toluylenediamine, or salts of 2,5 tolu- |ylenediamine, which might have rendered it injurious to users under the con- |ditions of use prescribed in the labeling and under such conditions of use as |are customary or usual; and (2) in that it was not a hair dye.and it contained |a coal-tar color, namely, 2,5 toluylenediamine, or salts of 2,5 toluylenediamine, |which said coal-tar color was other than one from a batch that had been |certified in accordance with regulations as provided by law.|? A portion of the article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement, |\"\"This coloring known as Louise Norris Lash and Brow Coloring is now labeled |in this manner to meet all requirements of law governing interstate commerce. |* * * Guarantee We guarantee this package to conform with all local, State |and Federal regulations of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act,\"\" appearing on |the carton, were false and misleading since the article did not meet the require- |ments of all laws governing interstate commerce and it did not meet the require- |ments of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.|On February 19, 1942, the defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere and |the court imposed a fine of $50 on each of the 13 counts with a jail sentence of |12 months on each count to run concurrently. The jail sentence was suspended, |however, and the defendant was placed on probation for 3 years.|4. Misbranding of B-B Headache Powders. U. S. v. 596 Envelopes of B-B. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00004May 1940Specialty Sales Co. from Atlanta Ga.B-B Headache PowdersJune 6, 1939Columbia, S. C.Atlanta, Ga.Columbia, S. C.Eastern District of South Carolina4F. D. C. No. 215. Sample - No. 45524-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00004ddnj|4. Misbranding of B-B Headache Powders. II. S. v. 596 Envelopes of B-B. (|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 215. Sample -|No. 45524-D.)|These powders contained potassium bromide, acetanilid, aspirin, and caffeine.|They were recommended in the labeling.as a quick relief of pain and discomfort?(|due to muscular aches, head colds, simple headaches, simple neuralgias, periodic|\\ttV|!-.?*.|when used in the dosage or with the frequency or duration so prescribed, rec-|ommended, or suggested. The labeling failed to reveal facts material in the light|of the representations set forth in the said labeling or material with respect to|consequences which might result from the use of the article under the condi-|tions of use prescribed therein, and failed to bear adequate warnings against|its use in those pathological conditions or by children where its use might be|dangerous to health, or against unsafe dosage or methods or duration of admin-|istration or application, in such manner and form as are necessary for the|protection of users.|On April 4, 1989, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of South|Carolina filed a libel against 596 envelopes of B-B Headache Powders at Colum-|bia, S. C.; alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce|jon or about March 7, 1939, by Specialty Sales Co. from Atlanta Ga.; and charg??ing that it was misbranded for the reasons appearing hereinbefore.|On June 6, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|63. Adulteration of brilliantine and skin cream; adulteration and misbranding of hair dressing. U. S. v. 30 Bottles of Brilliantine, et al. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.csnj00063January 1942Spark'l Co.brilliantine and skin cream; hair dressingSeptember 11, 1940Newark, N. J. ; Boston, Mass.Brooklyn, N. Y.Newark, N. J. ; Boston, Mass.District of New Jersey and the District of Massachusetts63F. D. C. Nos. 8222, 3340. Sample Nos. 84522-E, 34525-E, 86453-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00063csnj|63. Adulteration of brilliantine and skin cream; adulteration and misbranding:|of hair dressing:. U. S. v. 30 Bottles of Brilliantine, et al. Default decrees |of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 8222, 3340. Sample Nos. |84522-B, 34525-B, 86453-E.)|Examination of these products disclosed the presence of hairs, insect frag- |ments, splinters, and nondescript dirt. One product was also short of the |declared weight.|On October 15 and November 5, 1940, the United States attorneys for the |District of New Jersey and the District of Massachusetts filed libels against |80 bottles of brilliantine and 39 jars of Spark'l Medicated Skin Cream at |Newark, N. J.; and 348 bottles of Paulette Hair Dressing at Boston, Mass., |alleging that the articles had been shipped by the Spark'l Co. from Brooklyn, |N. Y., within the period from on or about January 24 to on or about September|11, 1940; and charging that they were adulterated and that the Paulette Hair |Dressing was also misbranded. The brilliantine was labeled in part: \"\"Brillian- |tine Roland * * * Toiletries Moderne.\"\"|All of the products were alleged to be adulterated in that they consisted in |part of filthy substances; and in that they had been prepared or packed under |insanitary conditions whereby they might have become contaminated with filth.|The Paulette Hair Dressing was alleged to be misbranded in that the state- |ment \"\"Cont. 8 Fl. Ozs.,\"\" appearing on the label, was false and misleading since\"\" |it was incorrect.|On December 9, 1940, and April 18, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judg- |ments of condemnation were entered and the products were ordered destroyed.|MISCELLANEOUS|64. Misbranding of Quinlan Pore Cream and Quinlan Skin Stimulant. U. S. v. 101 Jars of Quinlan Pore Cream and 597 Bottles of Quinlan Skin Stimulant. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.csnj00064January 1942Pond's Extract Co.Quinlan Pore Cream and Quinlan Skin StimulantFebruary 20, 1941Brooklyn, N. Y.Clinton, Conn.Brooklyn, N. Y.Eastern District of New York64F. D. C. Nos. 4393, 4395. Sample Nos. 56258-E, 56762-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00064csnj|64. Misbranding: of Quinlan Pore Cream and Quinlan Skin Stimulant. U. S. v.|101 Jars of Quinlan Pore Cream and 597 Bottles of Quinlan Skin Stim- |ulant. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos.|4393, 4395. Sample Nos. 56258-E, 56762-E.)|The labeling of these products contained false and misleading representations |regarding their efficacy, as indicated below.|On April 18, 1941, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of |New York filed a libel against 101 jars of Quinlan Pore Cream and 597 bottles |of Quinlan Skin Stimulant at Brooklyn, N. T., alleging that the articles had |been shipped within the period from on or about January 15 to on or about |February 20, 1941, by Pond's Extract Co. from Clinton, Conn.; and charging that |they were misbranded. The articles were labeled in part: \"\"Quinlan Pore Cream |[or \"\"Quinlan Skin Stimulant\"\"] Kathleen Mary Quinlan, Inc. Distributor * * * |New York.\"\"|Analysis showed that the pore cream consisted essentially of petrolatum, |zinc oxide, lanolin, water, and perfume; and that the skin stimulant consisted |essentially of alcohol, water, glycerin, perfume, and coloring matter.|The articles were alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements |appearing in the labeling were false and misleading since they represented |that they were efficacious for the purposes recommended; whereas they were |not efficacious for such purposes: \"\"Pore Cream * * * coarse pores and |texture,\"\" and \"\"Skin Stimulant.\"\"|On July 16, 1941, the case having been called and no claim or answer appear- |ing of record, judgment of condemnation was entered and the products were |ordered destroyed.|65. Misbranding of \"\"nutrient\"\" and \"\"youth\"\" creams. U. S. v. 12 Dozen Packages of California Nutrient Cream and 17 1/2 Dozen Packages of Sue Sorrell Texture of Youth Cream. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.csnj00065January 1942Jeanne Tredwaynutrient\"\" and \"\"youth\"\" creamsOctober 31 and December 8, 1940 ; June 27, 1940Detroit, Mich.New York, N. Y.Detroit, Mich.Eastern District of Michigan65F. D. C. No. 3604. Sample Nos. 31525-E, 31526-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00065csnj|65. Misbranding: of \"\"nutrient\"\" and \"\"youth\"\" creams. U. S. v. 12 Dozen Packages|of California Nutrient Cream and 17% Dozen Packag-es of Sue Sorrell Tex- |ture of Youth Cream. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 3604. Sample Nos. 31525-E, 31526-E.)|These products contained no ingredient or combination of ingredients which |would produce the improvement in skin nutrition or texture implied on their |respective labels.|On December 28, 1940, the United States attorney for the Eastern District |of Michigan filed a libel against the above-named products at Detroit, Mich., |alleging that they had been shipped in interstate commerce by Jeanne Tredway |from New York, N. Y., the nutrient cream on or about October 31 and December |8, 1940, and the texture of youth cream on or about June 27, 1940; and charging |that they were misbranded.|Examination showed that both articles consisted essentially of hydrocarbon |oils, lanolin, and perfume material. The nutrient cream was also found to |contain sodium borate.|The California Nutrient Cream was alleged to be misbranded in that the |designation \"\"Nutrient Cream\"\" was false and misleading.|The Sue Sorrell Texture of Youth Cream was alleged to be misbranded in that |the statement \"\"* * * an aid in warding off fine lines and wrinkles,\"\" appear- |ing on the label, was false and misleading.|On February 5, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna- |tion was entered and the products were ordered destroyed.|66. Misbranding of Parisian Style Saje. U. S. v. 9 Dozen Bottles of Parisian Style Saje. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.csnj00066January 1942Giroux Manufacturing Co.Parisian Style SajeMarch 29, 1940Chicago, Ill.Buffalo, N. Y.Chicago, Ill.Northern District of Illinois66F. D. C. No. 3217. Sample No. 4575-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00066csnj|66. Misbranding of Parisian Style Saje. U. S. v. 9 Dozen Bottles of Parisian Style|Saje. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 3217. |Sample No. 4575-E.)|This hair tonic was deceptively packaged in that the bottle had been placed |in a carton that was twice as large as would have been necessary to hold it|On or about October 23, 1940, the United States attorney for the Northern |District of Illinois filed a libel against 9 dozen bottles of Parisian Style Saje |at Chicago, Ill., alleging that the article had been shipped by Giroux Manu- |facturing Co. from Buffalo, N. Y., on or about March 29, 1940; and charging |that it was misbranded in that its container was so made, formed, or filled |as to be misleading.|The article was also alleged to be misbranded under the provisions of the |law applicable to drugs, as reported in notices of judgment on drugs and |devices.|On January 23, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna- |tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|107. Misbranding of Howard's Buttermilk Cream. U. S. v. 109 Dozen Packages of Howard's Buttermilk Cream. Decree of condemnation. Product ordered released under bond to foe relabeled.csnj00107January 1945Howard Bros. Chemical Co.Howard's Buttermilk CreamApril 24, 1942San Francisco, Calif.Buffalo, N. Y.San Francisco, Calif.Northern District of California107F. D. C. No. 7889. Sample No. 95206-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00107csnj|107. Misbranding of Howard's Buttermilk. Cream. U. S. v. 109 Dozen Packages|of Howard's Buttermilk Cream. Decree of condemnation. Product |ordered released under bond to foe relabeled. (F. D. C. No. 7889. Sample |No. 95206-B.)|On July 14, 1942, the United States attorney for the Northern District of |California filed a libel (amended August 10, 1942) against 109 dozen packages |of Howard's Buttermilk Cream at San Francisco, Calif., alleging that the |article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about April 24, 1942, by |the Howard Bros. Chemical Co. from Buffalo, N. Y.; and charging that it was |misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of |stearic acid, water, buttermilk, and a small amount of borax. The contents of |the tube were found to weigh approximately 2% ounces avoirdupois.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that certain statements in a |leaflet entitled \"\"Howard's Buttermilk Cream Soap,\"\" and in a leaflet entitled |\"\"How to Beautify With Howard's Butybring Products Howard's Buttermilk |Cream,\"\" enclosed in the carton containing the article, represented and suggested |that it would be effective to clear the skin and would clear and revivify a |neglected or impoverished skin; that it woul& smooth wrinkles and make old, |hardened, coarse skin become fresh, soft, and youthful looking; that it would |keep the skin in perfect condition; that it would smooth and clear dull and life- |less complexions; and that it would build up the throat, were false and mislead- |ing since the article would not be effective for such purposes. It was alleged to |be misbranded further in that it was in package form' and its label failed to |bear an accurate statement of the quantity of the contents, since the statement on |the carton, \"\"Net'Wgt. 1% Oz.,\"\" was incorrect.|On November 21, 1942, the Howard Bros. Chemical Co. having appeared as |claimant, judgment of condemnation was entered and the product was ordered |pleased under bond, conditioned that it be relabeled by correcting the carton |labeling and removing the enclosed leaflets, under the supervision of the Food |and Drug Administration.|67. Misbranding of Kotalko. U. S. v. 59 1/2 Dozen Packages of Kotalko. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.csnj00067January 1942Kotalko Sales Co.KotalkoFebruary 20, 1940Jersey City, N. J.New York, N. Y.Jersey City, N. J.District of New Jersey67F. D. C. No. 1672. Sample No. 10461-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00067csnj|67. Misbranding of Kotalko. U. S. v. 59% Dozen Packages of Kotalko. Default|decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 1672. Sample No. |10461-E.)|The box containing this product occupied not more than 20.7 percent of the |capacity of the carton, which was sufficiently large to hold two of the boxes. |The boxes also contained less than the weight declared on the label.|On March 21, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of New |Jersey filed a libel against 59% dozen packages of Kotalko at Jersey City, N. J., |alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about |February 20, 1940, by the Kotalko Sales Co. from New York, N. Y.; and charging |that it was misbranded. The article was labeled in part: \"\"For the Scalp |Kotalko For the Hair.\"\"|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements \"\"Net Weight |% Oz.\"\" and \"\"Net Weight 25 gm.\"\" were not accurate statements of the quantity |of the contents, since the package contained a smaller amount. It was alleged |to be misbranded further in that its container was so made, formed, or filled |as to be misleading.|The article was also alleged to be misbranded under the provisions of the |law applicable- to drugs, as reported in notice of judgment D. D. No. 315.|On January 31, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of con- |demnation was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|MISCELLANEOUS|68. Misbranding of dusting powder. U. S. v. 59 Dozen Boxes of Jasmine Dusting Powder. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.csnj00068January 1942Howe Co., Inc.dusting powderNovember 28, 1940Portland, Oreg.Seattle, Wash.Portland, Oreg.District of Oregon68F. D. C. No. 3720. Sample No. 55732-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00068csnj|68. Misbranding of dusting powder. U. S. v. 59 Dozen Boxes of Jasmine Dusting|Powder. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (P. D. C. No.|3720. Sample No. 55732-E.)|The boxes containing this product were filled to only about 62 percent of their |capacity.|On January 29, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Oregon |filed a libel against 59 dozen boxes of a product labeled \"\"Jasmine Dusting Powder |by Amore,\"\" at Portland, Oreg., alleging that it had been shipped on or about |November 28, 1940, by the Howe Co., Inc., from Seattle, Wash.; and charging |that it was misbranded in that its containers were so made, formed, or filled |as to be misleading.|On March 10, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation |was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|69. Misbranding of Phillips Milk of Magnesia Cleansing Cream. U. S. v. 36 Cases of Phillips Milk of Magnesia Cleansing Cream. Consent decree of condemnation. Product delivered to a public institution.csnj00069January 1942Charles H. Phillips Chemical Co.Phillips Milk of Magnesia Cleansing CreamMay 6, 1940New York, N. Y.Glenbrook, Conn.New York, N. Y.Southern District of New York69F. D. C. No. 2001. Sample No. 33124-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00069csnj|69. Misbranding of PMllips Milk of Magnesia Cleansing Cream. U. S. v. 36|Cases of Phillips Milk of Magnesia Cleansing Cream. Consent decree of |condemnation. Product delivered to a public institution. (P. D. C. No.|2001. Sample No. 33124-B.)|This product was contained in jars cylindrical in shape and made of white |opal glass, with slightly convex metal screw caps and slightly concave bottoms.|1 See also Nos. 61-63.|The jars had thick walls and bottoms, and contained approximately half the |amount indicated by their outward appearance.|On May 22, 1940, the United States attorney for the Southern District of |New York filed a libel against 36 cases of the above-named product at New |Xork, N. Y., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce |on or about May 6, 1940, by Charles H. Phillips Chemical Co. from Glenbrook, |Conn.; and charging that it was adulterated in that its containers were so made, |formed, or filled as to be misleading.|On May 9, 1941, the Charles H. Phillips Chemical Co., claimant, having with- |drawn its answer and consented to the entry of a decree, judgment of condemna- |tion was entered and it was ordered that the product be delivered to a public |institution.|70. Misbranding of tooth paste. U. S. v. 40 5/6 Dozen Packages of Forhan's Toothpaste. Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered delivered to a charitable institution.csnj00070January 1942Zonite Products Corptooth pasteAugust 29,1939New York, N. Y.New Brunswick, N. J.New York, N. Y.Southern District of New York70F. D. C. No. 769. Sample No. 68323-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00070csnj|70. Misbranding of tooth, paste. TJ. S. v. 40% Dozen Packages of Forhan's Tooth- |paste. Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered delivered to a |charitable institution. (F. D. C. No. 769. Sample No. 68323-D.)|The tube containing this product occupied not more than 24.6 percent of the |capacity of the carton in which it was packed.|On October 19, 1939, the United States attorney for the Southern District of |New York filed a libel against 40% dozen packages of Forhan's Toothpaste at |N'ew York, N. Y., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate com- |merce on or about August 29,1939, by the Zonite Products Corporation from New |Brunswick, N. J.; and charging that it was misbranded in that its containers |were so made, formed, or filled as to be misleading.|On February 11, 1941, the Progressive Drug Co., Inc., having admitted the |allegations of the libel and having consented to the entry of a decree, judgment |of condemnation was entered and the product was ordered delivered to a charitable |Institution.|The cases reported herewith, commenced prior to June 30, 1940, were insti- |tuted in the United States District Courts by the United States attorneys acting |upon reports submitted by direction of the Secretary of Agriculture; and those |commenced on and after that date were similarly instituted upon reports sub- |mitted by direction of the Federal Security Administrator.|PAUL V. MCNTJTT, Administrator, Federal Security Agent y.|Washington, D. C, December 8,1942.|CONTENTS|Page|Cosmetics actionable Decause of adulteration|with poisonous or deleterious substances 35|Cosmetics contaminated with filth.. 44|Page |Cosmetics seized because of false and misleadmg|claims in labeling |_ 45|Cosmetics in deceptive containers 47|Index |1 49|, COSMETICS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF ADULTERATION WITH |POISONOUS OR DELETERIOUS SUBSTANCES|Nos. 71 to 75 report the seizure and disposition of a permanent waving method |each unit of which consisted of a cardboard box holding one bottle each of a |shampoo hair conditioner, a curling solution, and a neutralizing solution. The |curling solution contained ammonium hydrogen sulfide, which would be injurious |to users under customary conditions of use.|71. Adulteration of heatless method of permanent waving. U. S. v. 18 Cases and 6 Boxes of Willat Method of Heatless Permanent Waving (and 51 other cases against Willat method). Default deerees of condemnation and destruction.csnj00071February 1943Heatless Permanent Wave Co.heatless method of permanent wavingJanuary 12, 1940 to April 19, 1941Phoenix and Tucson, Ariz.; Bridgeport, Bristol, Darien, Greenwich, Meriden, New Britain, New Canaan, New Haven, Newington, Stamford, Waterbury, West Hartford, Westport, Conn.; Chicago, Cicero, Evanston, Glencoe, Highland Park, La Grange, Lake Forest, Northfield, North Winnetka, Oak Park, Ravinia, River Forest, Winnetka, Ill.; Frederick, Md.; Battle Creek, Detroit, Flint, Grand Rapids, Grosse Pointe, Jackson, Pontiac, Mich.; Elizabeth, Englewood, Maplewood, Montclair, Morristown, Passaic, Ridgewood, N. J.; Jackson Heights, Kingston, Newburgh, New Rochelle, New York,Poughkeepsie, Scarsdale, N. Y.; San Antonio, Tex.; Salt Lake City, Utah; Richmond, Va.; Seattle, Wash.San Francisco, Calif.Phoenix and Tucson, Ariz.; Bridgeport, Bristol, Darien, Greenwich, Meriden, New Britain, New Canaan, New Haven, Newington, Stamford, Waterbury, West Hartford, Westport, Conn.; Chicago, Cicero, Evanston, Glencoe, Highland Park, La Grange, Lake Forest, Northfield, North Winnetka, Oak Park, Ravinia, River Forest, Winnetka, Ill.; Frederick, Md.; Battle Creek, Detroit, Flint, Grand Rapids, Grosse Pointe, Jackson, Pontiac, Mich.; Elizabeth, Englewood, Maplewood, Montclair, Morristown, Passaic, Ridgewood, N. J.; Jackson Heights, Kingston, Newburgh, New Rochelle, New York,Poughkeepsie, Scarsdale, N. Y.; San Antonio, Tex.; Salt Lake City, Utah; Richmond, Va.; Seattle, Wash.District of Arizona, District of Connecticut, Northern District of Illinois, District of Maryland, Eastern and Western Districts of Michigan, District of New Jersey, Eastern and Southern Districts of New York, Western District of Texas, District of Utah, Eastern District of Virginia, and the Western District of Washington71F. D. C. Nos. 4246, 4271 to 4276, incl., 4278, 4336, 4337, 4340 to 4343, incl., 4354 to 4357, incl., 4381, 4382, 4385, 4420. 4427, 4447, 4448, 4496 to 4501, Incl., 4561, 4563, 4564, 4567, 4568, 4570 to 4583, incl., 4641 to 4677, incl.. 4680 to 4691, incl., 4761, 4832, 4837. Sample Nos. 28276-E, 31172-E, 31173-E, 443S7-E. 44388-E, 46942-E to 46944-E, incl., 46946-E to 46952-E, incl., 47262-E to 47265-E, incl., 47818-E to 47821-E, incl., 50229-E, 50230-E, 53812-E to 53S14-E, incl., 55464-E, 56152-E to 56154-E, incl., 56226-E to 56228-E, incl., 56230-E to 56236-E, incl., 56240-E, 56405-E to 56408-E, incl., 56411-E, 56413-E, 56529-E to 56532-E, incl., 56534-E to 56537-E, incl., 56539-E, 56540-E, 56543-E to 56551-E, incl., 5B630-E, 56632-E, 56633-E, 62309-E, 69026-E to 69033-E, incl., 69122-E to 69125-E, incl, 69401-E, 69402-E, 69404-E to 69417-E, incl.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00071csnj|71. Adulteration of lieatless method of permanent waving. U. S. v. 18 Cases and |6 Boxes of Willat Metlaod of Heatless Permanent Waving (and 51 other |cases against Willat metlaod). Default deerees of condemnation and de- |struction. (F. D. C. Nos. 4246, 4271 to 4276, incl., 4278, 4336, 4337, 4340 to 4343, |incl., 4354 to 4357, incl., 4381, 4382, 4385, 4420. 4427, 4447, 4448, 4496 to 4501, |Incl., 4561, 4563, 4564, 4567, 4568, 4570 to 4583, incl., 4641 to 4677, incl.. 4680 to 4691, |incl., 4761, 4832, 4837. Sample Nos. 28276-E, 31172-E, 31173-E, 443S7-E. 44388-E, |46942-E to 46944-E, incl., 46946-E to 46952-E, incl., 47262-E to 47265-E, incl., |47818-E to 47821-E, incl., 50229-E, 50230-E, 53812-E to 53S14-E, incl., 55464-E, |56152-E to 56154-E, incl., 56226-E to 56228-E, incl., 56230-E to 56236-E, incl., |56240-E, 56405-E to 56408-E, incl., 56411-E, 56413-E, 56529-E to 56532-E, incl., |56534-E to 56537-E, incl., 56539-E, 56540-E, 56543-E to 56551-E, incl., 5B630-E, |56632-E, 56633-E, 62309-E, 69026-E to 69033-E, incl., 69122-E to 69125-E, incl, |69401-E, 69402-E, 69404-E to 69417-E, incl.)|Between April 5 and May 29,1941, the United States attorneys for the District |of Arizona, District of Connecticut, Northern District of Illinois, District of |Maryland, Eastern and Western Districts of Michigan, District of New Jersey, |Eastern and Southern Districts of New York, Western District of Texas, District |of Utah, Eastern District of Virginia, and the Western District of Washington |filed libels against the following quantities of Willat Method of Heatless Perma-|nent Waving: 15 units at Phoenix and 21 units at Tucson, Ariz.; 65 units at |Bridgeport, 88 units at Bristol, 29 units at Darien, 89 units at Greenwich, 36 |units at Meriden, 68 units at New Britain, 40 units at New Canaan, 38 units at |New Haven, 28 units at Newington, 82 units at Stamford, 21 units at Waterbury, |127 units at West Hartford, and 58 units at Westport, Conn.; 1,116 units at |Chicago, 18 units at Cicero, 189 units at Evanston, 85 units at Glencoe, 81 units at |Highland Park, 1 unit at La Grange, 57 units at Lake Forest, 25 units at North- |field, 5 units at North Winnetka, 89 units at Oak Park, 20 units at Ravinia, 60 |units at River Forest, and 12 units at Winnetka, Ill.; 46 units at Frederick, Md.; |45 units at Battle Creek, 291 units at Detroit, 56 units at Flint, 199 units at |Grand Rapids, 24 units at Grosse Pointe, 112 units at Jackson, and 72 units at |Pontiac, Mich.; 16 units at Elizabeth, 70 units at Englewood, 34 units at Maple- |wood, 20 units at Montclair, 35 units at Morristown, 67 units at Pas,saic, and |123 units at Ridgewood, N. J.; 822 units at Jackson Heights, L. I., 96 units at |Kingston, 45 units at Newburgh, 70 units at New Rochelle, 1,147 units, 377 cartons |each containing 12 bottles of curling solution, and 834 bottles of curling solution |at New York, 83 units at Poughkeepsie, and 60 units at Scarsdale, N. Y.; 270 |units at San Antonio, Tex,; 82 units at Salt Lake City, Utah; 82 units at Richmond, |Va.; and 19 units at Seattle, Wash.|The libels alleged that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce |by the Heatless Permanent Wave Co. from San Francisco, Calif., within the |period from on or about January 12, 1940, to on or about April 19, 1941; and |charged that it was adulterated in that it contained a poisonous or deleterious |substance, ammonium hydrogen sulfide, which might have rendered it injurious |to users under such conditions of use as are customary or usual.|Between May 24 and December 30,1941, no claimant having appeared, judgments |of condemnation were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|72. Adulteration of heatless method of permanent waving. U. S. v. 19 Cartons and 270 Units of Willat Method of Heatless Permanent Waving. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.csnj00072February 1943Heatless Permanent Wave Co.heatless method of permanent wavingDecember 24, 1940 ; March 20, 1941New York, N. Y. ; San Antonio, Tex.San Francisco, Calif.New York, N. Y. ; San Antonio, Tex.Southern District of New York and the Western District of Texas72F. D. C. Nos. 4305, 4710 to 4713, incl. Sample Nos. 35187-E to 35190-E, incl., 56225-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00072csnj|72. Adulteration of heatless method of permanent waving. U. S. v. 19 Cartons|and 270 Units of Willat Method of Heatless Permanent Waving. Default |decrees of condemnation and destruction. (P. D. C. Nos. 4305, 4710 to 4713, |incl. Sample Nos. 35187-E to 35190-E, incl., 56225-JS.)|On April 11 and May 8, 1941, the United States attorneys for the Southern |District of New York and the Western District of Texas filed libels against the |following quantities of Willat Method of Heatless Permanent Waving: 19 cartons |at New York, N. Y., and 270 units at San Antonio, Tex., all lots of which had been |consigned by the Heatless Permanent Wave Co. from San Francisco, Calif., |within the period from on or about December 24, 1940, to on or about March |20, 1941.|The libels charged that the article was adulterated in that it contained a poison- |ous or deleterious substance, ammonium hydrogen sulfide, which might have |rendered it injurious to users under such conditions of use as are customary |or usual.|On September 15 and November 18, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judg- |ments of condemnation were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|73. Adulteration of heatless method of permanent waving curling solution. U. S. v. 4 Cases and 1 Case of Willat Sulfolene Curling Solution No. 2. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.csnj00073February 1943Sophia Co., Inc.heatless method of permanent waving curling solutionMarch 12, 1941Chicago, Ill.New York, N. Y.Chicago, Ill.Northern District of Illinois73F. D. C. No. 4352. Sample No. 62123-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00073csnj|73. Adulteration of heatless method of permanent waving curling1 solution. U. S.|v. 4 Cases and 1 Case of Willat Sulfolene Curling Solution No. 2. De- |fault decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 4352. Sample |No. 62123-E.)|On April 21, 1941, the United States attorney for the Northern District of |Illinois filed a libel against 4 cases each containing 12 bottles and 1 case con- |taining 9 bottles of Willat Sulfolene Curling Solution No. 2 at Chicago, Ill., |alleging that the article had been shipped on or about March 12, 1941, by Sophia |Co., Inc., from New York, N. Y.; and charging that it was adulterated in that |it contained a poisonous or deleterious substance, ammonium hydrogen sulfide, |which might have rendered it injurious to users under such conditions of use |as are customary or usual. The article was labeled in part: (Bottles) \"\"Willat |Sulfolene * * * Distributor Heatless Permanent Wave Co. San Francisco, |Calif.\"\"|On September 16, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna- |tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|74. Adulteration of heatless method of permanent waving. U. S. v. 12 Units and 60 Units of Willat Method of Heatless Permanent Waving. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.csnj00074February 1943Heatless Permanent Wave Co. and Ashford Distributing Co.heatless method of permanent wavingNovember 20, 1940, and February 6 and 24 and April 4, 1941Norwich, Conn.San Francisco, Calif. ; Jackson Heights, N. Y.Norwich, Conn.District of Connecticut74F. D. C. Nos. 4569, 4584. Sample Nos. 69403-E, 69418-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00074csnj|74. Adulteration of heatless method of permanent waving. U. S. v. 12 Units and|60 Units of Willat Method of Heatless Permanent Waving. Default decrees |of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 4569, 4584. Sample Nos. |69403-E, 69418-E.)|On May 3,1941, the United States attorney for the District of Connecticut filed |libels against the fallowing quantities of Willat Method of Heatless Permanent|Waving: 12 units at Stamford and 60 units at Norwich, Conn., alleging that the |article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about November 20, 1940, |and February 6 and 24 and April 4, 1941, by Heatless Permanent Wave Co. and |Ashford Distributing Co. from San Francisco, Calif., and Jackson Heights, N. Y.; |and charging that it was adulterated in that it contained a poisonous or deleterious |substance, ammonium hydrogen sulfide, which might have rendered it injurious |to users under such conditions of use as are customary or usual. The curling |solution contained in each unit was labeled in part: (Bottles) \"\"Willat [or \"\"Willat |Wave\"\"] De Luxe Curling Solution.\"\"|On September 20, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgments of condemna- |tion were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|75. Adulteration of heatless method of permanent waving. U. S. v. 12 Units, 12 Units, and 12 Units of Willat Method of Heatless Permanent Waving. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.csnj00075February 1943Ashford Distributing Co.heatless method of permanent wavingNovember 25, 1940, and February 8, 1941Hartford, Conn.Jackson Heights, N. Y.Hartford, Conn.District of Connecticut75F. D. C. Nos. 4562, 4565, 4566. Sample Nos. 56631-E. 56634-E, 56635-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00075csnj|75. Adulteration of heatless method of permanent waving. U. S. v. 12 Units,|12 Units, and 12 Units of Willat Method of Heatless Permanent Waving:. |Default decrees of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 4562, 4565, |4566. Sample Nos. 56631-E. 56634-E, 56635-E.)|On May 3,1941, the United States attorney for the District of Connecticut filed |libels against the following quantities of Willat Method of Heatless Permanent |Waving: 12 units at Waterbury and 24 units at Hartford, Conn., alleging that |the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about November 25, |1940, and February 8, 1941, by Ashford Distributing Co. from Jackson Heights, |N. Y.; and charging that it was adulterated in that it contained a poisonous or |deleterious substance, ammonium hydrogen sulfide, which might have rendered |it injurious to users under such conditions of use as are customary or usual. |The curling solution contained in each unit was labeled in part: (Bottles) |\"\"Willat [or \"\"Willat Wave\"\"] De Luxe Curling Solution.\"\"|On September 20,1941, no claimant having appeared, judgments of condemna- |tion were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|15. Misbranding of Anthel Tablets. U. S. v. 68 Packages and 40 Packages of Anthel Tablets. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00015May 1940Anthel Co.Anthel TabletsAugust 22, 1938Camden, N. J.Philadelphia, Pa.Camden, N. J.District of New Jersey15F. D. C. No. 223. Sample No. 51246-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00015ddnj|15. Misbranding of Anthel Tablets. U. S. v. 68 Packages and 40 Packages of|Anthel Tablets. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C.|No. 223. Sample No. 51246-D.)|This drug consisted of tablets containing aminopyrine and sal ethyl carbonate.|It was recommended in the labeling for the prevention of periodic pain, and for|the relief of pain due to arthritis, neuritis, and rheumatism, tooth extraction,|dry socket or common toothache, and as a general pain-relieving agent. Its|labeling contained directions that for adults one or two tablets be taken three|times a day, according to severity of condition; that children be given one|tablet twice a day; and that a full glass of water be given after each dose,|which should be followed by a short period of rest when possible. It would|be dangerous to health when used in the dosage or with the frequency so|prescribed, recommended, or suggested. Its labeling failed to reveal facts|material with respect to consequences which might result from its use under|the conditions of use prescribed in the labeling and failed to bear warnings|against use in those pathological conditions, or by children where its use might|be dangerous to health, or against unsafe dosage, or methods or duration of|administration in such manner as are necessary for the protection of users.|On April 27, 1939, the United States attorney for the District of New Jersey|filed a libel against 108 packages of Anthel Tablets at Camden, N. J.; alleging|that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about August 22,|1938, by the Anthel Co. from Philadelphia, Pa.; and charging that it was mis-|branded for the reasons appearing hereinbefore.|On May 22, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|78. Adulteration and misbranding of Mary Luckie Original Hair Tints. U. S. v. 25 Packages, 29 Packages, and 30 Packages of Mary Luckie Original Hair Tints. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.csnj00078February 1943Marlu Co.Mary Luckie Original Hair TintsMay 12 and 31, 1941Little Rock, Ark.Kansas City, Mo.Little Rock, Ark.Eastern District of Arkansas78F. D. C. Nos. 5032, 5033. Sample Nos. 57521-E to 57524-E, incl.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00078csnj|78. Adulteration and misbranding of Mary Luckie Original Hair Tints. U. S. v. 25|Packages, 29 Packages, and 30 Packages of Mary Luckie Original Hair |Tints. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 5032, |5033. Sample Nos. 57521-E to 57524-E, incl.)|This product contained paraphenylenediamine, a poisonous or deleterious |ingredient which might have rendered it injurious to users under such con- |ditions of use as are customary or usual. It was also falsely represented to be |a hair tint.|On or about July 8, 1941, the United States attorney for the Eastern District |of Arkansas filed libels against 55 packages of Mary Luckie Original Hair Tint |(Jet Black) and 29 packages of Mary Luckie Original Hair Tint (Black), at |Little Rock, Ark., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate com- |merce on or about May 12 and 31, 1941 by the Marlu Co. from Kansas City, Mo.; |and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded.|Thenarticle was alleged to be adulterated in that it bore or contained a poi- |sonous or deleterious substance which might have rendered it injurious to |users under such conditions of use as are customary or usual. It was alleged to |be misbranded in that the designation \"\"hair tint\"\" was false and misleading since |it was not a hair tint but was an eyelash and eyebrow dye.|On October 2, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgments of condemnation |were entered and the products were ordered destroyed.|79. Adulteration of Kix Kinks Hair Straiter. U. S. v. 3 Packages and 5 Packages of Kix Kinks Hair Straiter. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.csnj00079February 1943Dorosy, Inc.Kix Kinks Hair StraiterJune 19 and November 13, 1941, and April 26, 1942Newark, N. J.New York, N. Y.Newark, N. J.District of New Jersey79F. D. C. Nos. 7903, 7904. Sample Nos. 77883-E, 77884-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00079csnj|79. Adulteration of Kix Kinks Hair Straiter. U. S. v. 3 Packages and 5 Packages|of Kix Kinks Hair Straiter. Default decrees of condemnation and destruc- |tion. (F. D. C. Nos. 7903, 7904. Sample Nos. 77883-E, 77884-E.)|This product contained sodium hydroxide.|On July 14, 1942, the United States attorney for the District of New Jersey |filed libels against 8 packages of Kix Kinks Hair Straiter at Newark, N. J., |alleging that the article had been shipped on or about June 19 and November 13, |1941, and April 26, 1942, by Dorosy, Inc., from New York, N. Y.; and charging |that it was adulterated in that it contained a poisonous or deleterious sub- |stance, namely, sodium hydroxide which might have rendered it injurious to |users under the conditions of use prescribed in the labeling or under such con- |ditions of use as are customary or usual.|On September 10, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgments of con- |demnation were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|80. Adulteration and misbranding of Tartaroff. U. S. v. 11 Display Cards of Tartaroff. Default deeree of condemnation and destruction.csnj00080February 1943Tartaroff Co.TartaroffMarch 22, 1941Indianapolis, Ind.Chicago, Ill.Indianapolis, Ind.Southern District of Indiana80F. D. C. No. 4810. Sample No. 29701-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00080csnj|80. Adulteration and misbranding of Tartaroff. U. S. v. 11 Display Cards of|TartaroflE. Default deeree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No.|4810. Sample No. 29701-E.)|This product contained citric acid, which might have rendered it injurious |to users and it also contained an uncertified coal-tar color.|On May 21, 1941, the United States attorney for the Southern District of |Indiana filed a libel against 11 display cards, each containing 13 bottles of |Tartaroff, at Indianapolis, Ind., alleging that the article had been shipped in |interstate commerce on or about March 22, 1941, by the Tartaroff Co. from |Chicago, Ill.; and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it contained a poisonous or |deleterious substance, namely, citric acid, which might have rendered it in- |jurious to users under the conditions of use prescribed in the labeling thereof |or under such conditions of use as are customary or usual. It was alleged to |be adulterated further in that it bore or contained a coal-tar color other than |one from a batch which had been certified in accordance with regulations pre- |scribed by law.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, (display card) \"\"Tar- |taroff is harmless and will not injure enamel,\"\" (carton) \"\"Tartaroff is harmless,\"\" |were false and misleading since it was harmful and would injure enamel.|On July 14,1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was |Entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|81. Adulteration and misbranding of witch hazel. U. S. v. 1 Bottle of Witch Hazel. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.csnj00081February 1943Edlis, Inc.witch hazelJuly 5, 1939 ; July 13, 1939Charleston, W. Va. ; Fairmont, W. Va.Pittsburgh, Pa.Charleston, W. Va. ; Fairmont, W. Va.Northern District of West Virginia81F. D. C. No. 1789. Sample No. 1059-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00081csnj|81. Adulteration and misbranding: of witch, hazel. U. S. v. 1 Bottle of Witch|Hazel. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No.|1789. Sample No. 1059-E.)|This product was not distilled witch hazel as labeled, but consisted essentially |of acetone, water, and a small amount of perfume.|On April 11,1940, the United States attorney for the Northern District of West |Virginia filed a libel against 1 bottle of a product labeled \"\"Pure Double Dis- |tilled Witch Hazel\"\" at Fairmont, W. Va., alleging that the article had been |shipped in interstate commerce on or about July 5, 1939, by Edlis, Inc., from |Pittsburgh, Pa., to Charleston, W. Va., and that it had been reshipped on or |about July 13, 1939, to Fairmont, W. Va.; and charging that it was adulterated |and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it w'as a cosmetic and bore |or contained a deleterious substance which might have |t|rendered it injurious to |users under such conditions of use as are customary or usual.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement \"\"Pure Double Distilled |Witch Hazel,\"\" borne on the label, was false and misleading since it was incorrect.|On August 26, 1941, the sole claimant having withdrawn her claim, judgment of |condemnation was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|COSMETICS CONTAMINATED WITH FILTH|151. Misbranding of Miracle-Aid. U. S. v. Norval C. Douglas (Miracle Products). Plea of not guilty. Tried to the jury. Verdict of guilty. Sentence of 1 year's imprisonment and fine of $4,000. Judgment reversed on appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals; case returned to the District Court. Plea of nolo contendere subsequently entered and fine of $2,000 and costs imposed.csnj00151February 1949Norval C. Douglas, trading as Miracle Products, at Chicago, Ill.Miracle-AidMarch 2 and April 26, 1944Texas ; GeorgiaIllinoisTexas ; GeorgiaNorthern District of Illinois151F. D. C. No. 14292. Sample Nos. 41209-F, 63481-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00151csnj|151. Misbranding of Miracle-Aid. TJ. S. v. Norval C. Douglas (Miracle Products).|Plea of n&t guilty. Tried to tlte jury. Verdict of guilty. Sentence of 1 |year's imprisonment and flne of $4,000. Judgment reversed on appeal to |the Circuit Court of Appeals; case returned to the District Court. Plea |of nolo contendere subsequently entered and fine of $2,000 and costs im- |posed. (F. D. C. No. 14292. Sample Nos. 41209-F, 63481-F.)|INFORMATION FILED: On or about June 20, 1945, Northern District of Illinois, |against Norval C. Douglas, trading as Miracle Products, at Chicago, Ill.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT : On or about March 2 and April 26, 1944, from the State of |Illinois into the States of Texas and Georgia.|PRODUCT: Examination showed that the product consisted essentially of water, |with a small proportion of protein, such as egg white, and perfume.|NATURE OF CHARGE: Misbranding, Section 602 (a), certain statements on the |label of the article and in an accompanying circular entitled \"\"For the Preser- |vation and Enhancement of Beauty,\"\" and an accompanying counter display |card, were false and misleading, since they represented and suggested that the |article would be efficacious in the correction and removal of wrinkles and |double chin; that it would supply tissue proteins to the body; and that it would |be efficacious in the correction and removal of the weather-beaten and mottled |condition of the neck just under the ear. The article would not be efficacious |for the purposes represented.|The information alleged also that another product, Miracle Slenderizing |Cream, was misbranded under the provisions of the law applicable to drugs, as |reported in notices of judgment on drugs and devices, No. 2121.|DISPOSITION : The defendant entered a plea of not guilty, and on December 3, |1945, the case came on for trial before a jury. At the conclusion of the trial, |the jury, on December 5, 1945, returned a verdict of guilty, and the court |sentenced the defendant to serve 1 year in jail and imposed a fine of $1,000 on |each of the 4 counts of the information. Subsequently, the case was appealed |to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and on |June 15, 1946, an opinion was handed down by that court, reversing the judg- |ment of the lower court. The opinion is reported in the above-mentioned |notices of judgment on drugs and devices, No. 2121.|A petition for rehearing was filed, and following its denial on July 6, 1946, |the case was returned to the district court. On February 25,1947, the defendant |entered a plea of nolo contendere, on which date the court imposed a fine of |$2,000 and costs, which included charges against both the cosmetic and drug.|82. Adulteration of Spark'l Shaving Cream, Paulette Hair Dressing, and Paulette Bay Rum. U. S. v. 1,428 Packages of Spark'l Shaving Cream, 276 Packages of Paulette Hair Dressing, and 3,204 Bottles of Paulette Bay Rum. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.csnj00082February 1943Spark'l Co. (Spark'l Paulette Co., Inc.)Spark'l Shaving Cream, Paulette Hair Dressing, and Paulette Bay RumMarch 24 and April 20,1942Washington, D. C ; Boston, Mass.Brooklyn, N. Y.Washington, D. C ; Boston, Mass.District of Columbia and the District of Massachusetts82F. D. C. Nos. 7420, 7483. Sample Nos. 87790-E, 87791-E, 98283-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00082csnj|82. Adulteration of Spark'l Shaving Cream, Paulette Hair Dressing:, and Paulette|Bay Rum, U. S. v. 1,428 Packages of Spark'l Shaving: Cream, 276 Packagres |of Paulette Hair Dressing:, and 3,204 Bottles of Paulette Bay Rum. Default |decree of condemnation and destruction. (P. D. C. Nos. 7420, 7483. Sample |Nos. 87790-E, 87791-E, 98283-E.)|The shaving cream and hair dressing were found to be contaminated with filth |such as rodent, cat, and human hairs, insect fragments, and miscellaneous dirt. |Examination of these articles also showed the presence of paint, rust, pieces of |cardboard, and wood splinters. The bay rum was contaminated with dirt, soot |fragments, and plant fibers.|On May 1 and 9,1942, the United States attorneys for the District of Columbia |and the District of Massachusetts filed libels against 1,428 packages of Spark'l |Shaving Cream and 276 packages of Paulette Hair Dressing at Washington, |D. C, and 3,204 bottles of Paulette Bay Rum at Boston, Mass., alleging that the |articles had been shipped by the Spark'l Co. (Spark'l Paulette Co., Inc.) from |Brooklyn, N. Y., on or about March 24 and April 20,1942; and charging that they |were adulterated in that they had been prepared and packed under insanitary |conditions whereby they might have become contaminated with filth.|On August 8 and September 28, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgments |of condemnation were entered and the products were ordered destroyed.|83. Adulteration of miscellaneous cosmetics. U. S. v. A Certain Quantity of Cosmetics. Consent decree of condemnation. Products ordered released under bond for segregation and relabeling of fit portions.csnj00083February 1943Gibbs Peoples Drug Service Co.miscellaneous cosmeticsFebruary 26 and 28, 1941New York, N. Y.Harrisburg, Pa.New York, N. Y.Southern District of New York83F. D. C. No. 4214. Sample Nos. 56786-E to 56794-E, incl.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00083csnj|83. Adulteration of miscellaneous cosmetics. U. S. v. A Certain Quantity of|Cosmetics. Consent decree of condemnation. Products ordered released |under bond for segregation and relabeling; of fit portions. (P. D. C. No. 4214.|Sample Nos. 56786-E to 56794-E, inel.)|This case was based on a shipment of salvaged smoke- and water-damaged |goods, which included various cosmetics.|On April 15, 1941, the United States attorney for the Southern District of |New York filed a libel against 284 cartons of miscellaneous merchandise, includ- |ing a certain quantity of cosmetics, at New York, N. Y., alleging that the articles |had been shipped on or about February 26 and 28, 1941, by Curtis & Travis from |Harrisburg, Pa.; and charging that the cosmetics were adulterated in that they |consisted in whole or in part of filthy substances, and in that they had been held |under insanitary conditions whereby they might have become contaminated with |filth.|The libel also covered quantities of foods and drugs that were adulterated, |as reported in F. N. J. No. 2825 and D. D. N. J. No. 563.|On April 30, 1941, Gibbs Peoples Drug Service Co., Harrisburg, Pa., claimant, |having admitted the allegations of the libel, judgment of condemnation was |entered and the products were ordered released under bond conditioned that |the fit portions be segregated and relabeled in compliance with the law.|84. Misbranding of Ambrosia Tightener. U. S. v. 218 Dozen Bottles of Ambrosia Tightener. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.csnj00084February 1943Hinze Ambrosia, Inc.Ambrosia TightenerDecember 6, 1940, and January 3, 1941San Francisco, Calif.New York, N. Y.San Francisco, Calif.Northern District of California84F. D. C. No. 4089. Sample No. 21977-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00084csnj|84. Misbranding: of Ambrosia Tightener. IT. S. v. 218 Dozen Bottles of Ambrosia|Tightener. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No.|4089. Sample No. 21977-E.)|The label of this product contained false and misleading representations re- |garding its efficacy for the purposes for which it was recommended.|On March 81, 1941, the United States attorney for the Northern District of |California filed a libel against 218 dozen bottles of Ambrosia Tightener at San |Francisco, Calif., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate com- |merce from New York, N. Y., on or about December 6, 1940, and January 3, 1941, |by Hinze Ambrosia, Inc.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article was an astringent lotion consisting essentially |of alcohol, water, zinc phenosulfonate, and perfume material.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements, |appearing in the labeling were false and misleading, since it was not efficacious |for the purposes recommended: (Label) \"\"Tightener for large pores, wrinkles, |oiliness\"\"; and (circular) \"\"Ambrosia, The Pore-Deep Cleanser * * * Not |only cleanses pore deep but contributes to the well being of your skin Ambrosia |Tightener * * * Tends To Prevent The Enlargement Of Pores. It Is |Especially Useful To Lessen Oiliness And Aids In Clearing Up Pimples And |Muddy Complexions Resulting From External Causes * * * Stimulates The |Skin. Ambrosia Cream Contains Ingredients That Resemble The Natural Se- |baceous Oils And Fats Of The Human Skin. * * * It Helps To Make Dry |Skin Smooth And Thus Aids In Removing The Annoying Tiny Lines Caused By |Skin Dryness.\"\"|On May 20, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation |was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|85. Misbranding of Camelline. U. S. v. 9 Dozen Bottles of Camelllne. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.csnj00085February 1943Walter M. WillettCamellineAugust 28, 1941Portland, Oreg.San Francisco, Calif.Portland, Oreg.District of Oregon85F. D. C. No. 6948. Sample No. 63431-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00085csnj|85. Misbranding of Camelline. IT. S. v. 9 Dozen Bottles of Camelllne. Default|decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 6948. Sample No. |63431-E.)|On March 7, 1942, the United States attorney for the District of Oregon filed |a libel against the above-named product at Portland, Oreg., alleging that it had |been shipped on or about August 28, 1941, by Walter M. Willett from San |Francisco, Calif.; and charging that it was misbranded.|. Analyses of samples of the article showed that it consisted essentially of |calcium carbonate, bismuth subcarbonate, alcohol, and water.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that statements in an accompany- |ing circular suggesting and representing that when used as directed, it was a |natural aid to beauty and greater charm, would keep the skin delicate and |youthful, would preserve the youthful creamy appearance of the skin, ? was a |stimulating lotion, would protect the skin against wind and sun, \"\"was beauty |and youth,\"\" would protect the face against the ravages of weather, and would |prevent the disagreeable effects of exposure to the sun and wind, were false and |misleading since it would not accomplish such results.|It also was alleged to be misbranded under the provisions of the law applicable |to drugs, as reported in notices of judgment published on drugs and devices.|On April 13,1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was |entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|86. Misbranding of skin stimulant and texture oil. U. S. v. 114 Bottles of La Bonita Hollywood Skin Stimulant and 24 Bottles of La Bonita Hollywood Texture Oil. Decree of condemnation and destruction.csnj00086February 1943House of Hollywoodskin stimulant and texture oilMay 2, 1941Denver, Colo.Los Angeles, Calif.Denver, Colo.District of Colorado86F. D. C. Nos. 4865, 4866. Sample Nos. 65607-E, 65608-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00086csnj|86. Misbranding of skin stimulant and texture oil. U. S. v. 114 Bottles of La|Bonita Hollywood Skin Stimulant and 24 Bottles of La Bonita Hollywood |Texture Oil. Decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 4865, |4866. Sample Nos. 65607-E, 65608-E.)|The labeling of these products contained false and misleading statements |regarding their efficacy.|On June 9, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Colorado filed |a libel against the above-named products at Denver, Colo., which had been |consigned by the House of Hollywood, alleging that the articles had been shipped |in interstate commerce on or about May 2, 1941, from Los Angeles, Calif.; and |charging that they were misbranded.|La Bonita Hollywood Skin Stimulant was alleged to be misbranded in that the |name \"\"Skin Stimulant\"\" was false and misleading, since the article contained no |ingredient capable of stimulating the skin.|La Bonita Hollywood Texture Oil was alleged to be misbranded in that the |name \"\"Texture Oil,\"\" together with the statements, \"\"Pat into the neck and jaw|line using a brisk slapping motion with the back of the hand. Non-fattening,\"\" |were false and misleading since they gave the impression that it would affect |the structure of the skin; whereas it would not.|Both articles were alleged to be misbranded under the provisions of the law |applicable to drugs, as reported in notice of judgment D. D. N. J. No. 509.|On June 27, 1941, the House of Hollywood of Los Angeles, Calif., having |signed an acceptance of service and authorization for taking of final decree, |judgment of condemnation was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|152. Alleged misbranding of Eau de Quinine Compound Hair Lotion. U. S. v. Pinaud, Inc. Plea of not guilty. Tried to the jury. Verdict of not guilty.csnj00152February 1949Pinaud, Inc.Eau de Quinine Compound Hair LotionApril 19, 1945 ; April 20, 1945PennsylvaniaNew YorkPennsylvaniaSouthern District of New York152F. D. C. No. 20124. Sample No. 5745-H.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00152csnj|152. Alleged misbranding of Eau de Quinine Compound Hair Lotion. XT. S. v.|Pinaud, Inc. Plea of not guilty. Tried to t3ie jury. Verdict of not guilty.|(F. D. C. No. 20124. Sample No. 5745-H.)|INFORMATION- FILED : On or about September 30, 1946, Southern District of New |York, against Pinaud, Inc., New York, N. Y.|ALLEGED VIOLATION : The defendant was charged with giving a false guaranty |to the Gladiator Co., Inc., New York, N, Y., on or about April 19, 1945. The |guaranty was set forth on an invoice covering a delivery of the product, made |by the defendant to the Gladiator Co., Inc., on or about April 19, 1945, which |guaranty provided that the product was guaranteed by the defendant under |the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; and on or about April 20, 1945, the |Gladiator Co., Inc., shipped the product from the State of New York into the |State of Pennsylvania.|NATURE OF CHARGE: Misbranding, Section 602 (a), the label statement \"\"Eau de |Quinine Compound Hair Lotion\"\" was alleged to be false and misleading.|DISPOSITION : A plea of not guilty having been entered, the case came on for |trial before a jury on January 22,1947. At the conclusion of the trial on Janu- |ary 23,1947, the following charge was given to the jury:|WATKINS, District Judge: \"\"At the conclusion of the evidence by counsel in |this case it becomes the duty of the Judge to instruct you as to the law of the |case, and when you go to your jury room it becomes your duty under your oath|to apply the law as I give it to you to the facts as you found them and reach a |just and fair verdict. The Congress of the United States has seen fit to pass |what is known as the Federal Food and Drugs Act. That Act is plain and |.direct. It provides, among other thingSj that any person or corporation who |introduces or delivers for introduction into interstate commerce any food, drug, |or cosmetic that is adulterated or misbranded has committed a criminal offense.|\"\"Another provision of the Act provides that a cosmetic is deemed to be mis- |branded if its labeling, or if the label on it is false or misleading in any |particular. Deception may result from the use of statements not technically |false or which may be literally true. The purpose of the statute is to prevent |that misbranding resulting from ambiguity as well as mere statements which |are false. Those which are ambiguous and tend to mislead our public are in |violation of the Act. The purpose of the Food and Drugs Act is for the protec- |tion of the consuming public. Those who ship in interstate commerce products |coming within the scope of its protection must do so at their own risk if the |standards of the Act are not observed. In any criminal prosecution such as |this there are certain general principles of law which apply. First, a defendant |is presumed to be innocent until he is proven guilty. While the accused at the |beginning of the trial is presumed to be innocent beyond a doubt, when more |proof shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, then the |presumption of innocence disappears completely from the case. Another propo- |sition which applies in all criminal cases is that this defendant now incor- |porated cannot be found guilty by the jury until you are satisfied beyond a |reasonable doubt that the defendant did that with which it is charged in this |Information. By reasonable doubt is meant not a capricious doubt, not a doubt |which may flit through the minds in considering this case but a substantial |doubt which you are called upon to give.\"\" By reasonable doubt, I do not mean |to say beyond any possible doubt or any imaginary doubt, the words mean |exactly what they say. Beyond a reasonable doubt and until you find that the |defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, you cannot return a verdict |of 'guilty' against the Corporation.|\"\"The indictment in this case is founded upon this Food, Drug, and Cosmetic |Act. It charges that this defendant in late 1945 sold a quantity of Eau de |Quinine to the Gladiator Company located here in the City of New York. It |charges that on the invoice of that shipment there was a guarantee to the effect |that the product complied with all of the requirements of the Food, Drug, and |Cosmetic Act, including that portion of the Act which forbids a misbranding. |Later the Gladiator Company shipped that product into the State of Pennsyl- |vania. The indictment charges that the defendant has violated this Act because |the indictment charges that the product, Eau de Quinine was misbranded, the |label on it was misleading; the indictment charges that it was misleading be- |cause the labeling would cause one to believe that there was a substantial |or a consequential amount of quinine in it; whereas the indictment charges |that as a matter of fact the amount of quinine in the product, Eau de Quinine |was in fact very trivial or inconsequential and the Government contends |because of the inconsequential amount of quinine in the product that people |buying it are apt to be misled in believing that they are getting a product |which contains a substantial or consequential amount of quinine when in fact |they are not getting it. That is what the indictment charges.|\"\"The defendant has entered a plea of not guilty to these charges and has |denied that it has misrepresented or misled the public or that the label on its |product in any way tends to mislead the public. The defendant contends that |this product was manufactured first more than ninety (90) years ago by |Edward Pinaud and that through the spending of much money in advertising |and through a continued business to a large degree in this product over a |period of almost a century that the words: 'Eau de Quinine' have come to |designate to the public the name of a product, and that they do not represent to |the buying public, because of this long usage, the name of a product containing |any particular amount or any amount of quinine. Now in nearly all criminal |cases there are certain facts which are not indisputable, and that is true in |this case. There is no dispute over the fact that this product contains only |about two parts of quinine to ten thousand of the product, of the finished prod- |uct, and there is no dispute over the fact that that amount of quinine, such |amount of quinine is a very small or very inconsequential amount of quinine.|There is no .dispute over the fact that this merchandise was shipped in inter- |state commerce, but the case therefore can be narrowed down to very nar- |rowest limits and the question for this jury to decide is a single question: Is |this product misleading? Now the labeling of a cosmetic which contains two |or more ingredients may or may not be misleading by reason of the designation |of such cosmetic and such labeling by a name which includes or suggests the |name of one or more but not all of such ingredients. The fact that Quinine was |mentioned on the name of this product is just one of the many features which |this jury must take into consideration along with all of the other evidence to |determine whether or not the label on it is misleading.|\"\"In a prosecution under the Food and Drugs Act intent is not a necessary |element of the product. It makes no difference whether a person intends to |violate the Act or whether he has got bad intentions. It is a crime under the |law for any person to ship a product in interstate commerce which violates the |Act.|\"\"This matter which the jury has to decide is not entirely a new question. |The Courts of our country have held that through long usage of a name that |that name some times acquires a secondary meaning, for example, the word |'Coca Cola' the Courts have upheld is not deceptive or misleading even though |the product contains no coca and very little cola. The name Coca Cola has |acquired a secondary meaning, the product, a drink or beverage itself rather |than the ingredients suggested by its name.|\"\"So, therefore, you can say that a product might be in violation of the Food |and Drugs Act because of a misleading name in the early period of its sales, |whereas that same product after many, many years of use may no longer be in |violation of the Act, if because of that long usage the public has come to under- |stand what the name signifies, and if the public believes it and interprets it to |mean a product, a drink such as Coca Cola rather than designating by the in- |gredients, so much coca and so much cola. The defendant here contends that |because of this long usage of this name: 'Eau de Quinine' that when the de- |fendant contends that now because of this long usage, when the public buys |Eau de Quinine, it is buying a well known hair preparation or tonic by that |name and that the public is not buying a preparation which the public believes |to contain a substantial or consequential amount of a drug known as 'quinine' |or any amount of 'quinine'. A further example of this principle might be well |illustrated by the name: 'milk' so far as 'Milk of Magnesia' is concerned, or |soda in soda water, and as one Court has said that it is not very reasonable to |believe that the use of the word: 'Eskimo Pie' leads the people to believe that |it is a pie made by Eskimos, or is a formula obtained from the Eskimos. That |by long usage of the name it signifies a product, rather than a product having |certain ingredients in it.|\"\"Now, ladies and gentlemen, I have tried to outline to you the respective |contentions of the parties. The Government says that it is a label which is |misleading,-it says that it is misleading because the label represents to the |public that it has a consequential amount of quinine in the product, -where the |Government says that it doesn't have a substantial amount of quinine and that |because of that people are likely, the public are likely to purchase it believing |that they are getting something that has some medicinal value to their hair |or to their scalp, and I might say that there is another matter that is not in |dispute. The evidence shows that the drug 'quinine' is a drug used primarily |for the cure of malaria and that the drug 'quinine' has no value whatsoever |to the scalp or to the hair in a hair tonic.|\"\"For some reason that name was put in there some years ago and it has |continued all down through the years and it is still in that name. The de- |fendant's position I have told you.-The defendant contends that because of |the long usage of this name that it is sold to tlie public, and the public is not |misled in believing that it contains so much quinine. The defendant takes the |position that the public doesn't care how much quinine is in there and doesn't |buy it with any view as to how much quinine is in this product.|\"\"Yesterday a statement was made by the LGovernment's] counsel, to the |effect that if anywhere in these United States, regardless of a person's intelli- |gence or literacy, if anywhere there may be a man or woman who might be |misled by this name, 'Eau de Quinine,' that that would probably be a violation |of this Act. I want to correct that because I don't think that the statement|correctly states the law. The test is whether or not the public is misled or likely |to be misled by this name. The goods are misbranded if they bear any state- |ment which would deceive or mislead any purchasers who are of normal capac- |ity and use that capacity in a common sense way.-That is the test and whether |there may be any or few so deceived is not material.\"\" |On January 23,1947, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty.|616. Misbranding of Hoyt's Compound. U. S. v. 29 1/2 Dozen Packages and 32 1/12 Packages of Hoyt's Compound. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00616February, 1943Hoyt Chemical Co.Hoyt's CompoundMay 27, 1941Yakima, Wash.Denver, Colo.Yakima, Wash.Eastern District of Washington616F. D. C. No. 5182. Sample No. 52314-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00616ddnj|616. Misbranding of Hoyt's Compound. II. S. v. 29 *? Dozen Packages and 321.42|Packages of Hoyt's Compound. Default decree of condemnation and de-|struction. (P. D. C. No. 5182. Sample No. 52314-E.)|The labeling of this product failed to bear adequate directions for use and|listed the ingredients in such a way as to create the impression that all were|active; whereas all were not active. The labeling also bore false and mis-|leading curative and therapeutic claims.|On August 2, 1941, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Washington filed a libel against 29? dozen 10-fluid ounce size packages and|32?o dozen 2-fluid ounce packages at Yakima, Wash., alleging that the article|hadbeen shipped in interstate commerce on or about May 27, 1941, by the|Hoyt Chemical Co. from Denver, Colo.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analyses of samples of the article showed that it consisted essentially of|water, alcohol, sugar, and extracts of plant materials including a laxative|plant drug.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that its labeling failed to bear|adequate directions for use since the directions provided for continuous ad-|ministration; whereas it was a laxative and should not be administered con-|tinuously. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that names of ingre-|dients other than active ingredients appeared on the label thereby creating the|misleading impression that all the ingredients listed were active ingredients.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that statements in the labeling|which represented that it was an appropriate treatment for diseases of the|stomach, bowels and kidneys; would be efficacious in the treatment of run-|down conditions and -for skin and blood diseases; that it would relieve such|symptoms as sour stomach, bloating, indigestion, belching, gas, nervousness,|dizziness, spots before the eyes, tiredness, sluggishness, and muscular aches|and paras, Tvere false and misleading isinee it eoataiaed no .ingredients capable|of producing the effects claimed.|On September 24, 1941, no claimant Tiaving appeared, judgment of condem-|nation was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|87. Misbranding of Chin-Firm. U. S. v. 62 2/3 Dozen Packages of Chin-Firm. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.csnj00087February 1943Burtley Co.Chin-FirmApril 1, 2, 10, and 11, 1941Philadelphia, Pa.New York, N. Y.Philadelphia, Pa.Eastern District of Pennsylvania87F. D. C. No. 4951. Sample No. 40820-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00087csnj|87. Misbranding* of CMn-Firm. U. S. v. 62% Dozen Packages of Chin-Firm.|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 4951. Sample |No. 40820-E.)|On June 18, 1941, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of |Pennsylvania filed a libel against the the above-named product at Philadelphia, |Pa., alleging that it had been shipped on or about April 1, 2, 10, and 11, 1941, |by the Burtley Co. from New York, N. Y.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of a |clay, water, and perfume.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements were false |and misleading since it would not be efficacious for such purposes: \"\"For the |Chin and Throat Line Chin-Firm * * * (crowsfeet). In a few minutes |you will actually feel the tightening 'Uplift* effect of Chin-Firm * * * for |the relaxed or sagging muscles of the Chin and Throatline. Its stimulating |'|uplift' effect * * *.\"\"|On October 9, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation |was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|88. Misbranding of Chin-Up. U. S. v. 5 1/2 Dozen 2 1/2-Ounce Bottles and 10 5-Ounce Bottles of Chin-Up. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.csnj00088February 1943L. R. Kallman & Co.Chin-UpJune 3, 1941San Francisco, Calif.Chicago, Ill.San Francisco, Calif.Northern District of California88F. D. C. No. 5147. Sample No. 22349-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00088csnj|88. Misbranding of Chin-Up. U. S. v. 5^ Dozen 2^4-Ounce Bottles and 10 5-Ounce|Bottles of CMn-Up. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 5147. Sample No. 22349-E.)|The label of this product bore false and misleading statements regarding |its alcoholic content and its value as a skin tightener.|On July 15, 1941, the United States attorney for the Northern District of |California filed a libel against the above-named product at San Francisco, |Calif., alleging that it had been shipped on or about June 3, 1941, by L. R. |Kallman & Co. from Chicago, Ill.; and charging that it was misbranded.|[Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of |alcoliol (53.4 percent by volume), tannic acid, water, and perfume material.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements |on the label were false and misleading since it contained materially more than |the declared amount of alcohol and since its use would not result in the |elimination of crepy skin or flabby tissues of neck or chin: \"\"Paint Chin-Up |on Crepy Skin or Flabby Tissue of Neck or Chin * * * You Can Actually |Feel the Tightening Action of Chin-Up * * * 39 Per Cent Alcohol.\"\"|On August 14, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation |was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|89. Misbranding of Natone Natural Oil for the Hair. U. S. v. 137 Retail Packages ofNfatone Natural Oil for the Hair. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.csnj00089February 1943J. D. BentleyNatone Natural Oil for the HairJune 20, 1941OregonLos Angeles, Calif.OregonDistrict of Oregon89F. D. C. No. 5460. Sample No. 61352-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00089csnj|89. Misbranding of Natone Natural Oil for the Hair. U. S. v. 137 Retail Packages|of Jfatone Natural Oil for the Hair. Default decree of condemnation and |destruction. (F. D. C. No. 5460. Sample No. 61352-E.)|This product was not natural oil and would not promote hair growth as rep- |resented in the labeling.|On August 27, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Oregon |filed a libel against the above-named product, alleging that it had been shipped |on or about June 20, 1941, by J. D. Bentley from Los Angeles, Calif.; and charg- |ing that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of saponiflable and |unsaponifiable fat, perfume, water, and a small amount of phenol.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements (carton) \"\"Natural |Oil\"\" and (bottle label) \"\"Natural Oil * * * to promote the growth of hair,\"\" |were false and misleading since it was not a naturally occurring oil nor did |it contain any ingredient capable of promoting growth of hair.|On October 15, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation |was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|90. Misbranding of S-T-D \"\"The\"\" Hair Tonic. U. S. v. 4 Bottles, 21 Bottles, and 1 Bottle of S-T-D \"\"The\"\" Hair Tonic. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.csnj00090February 1943George A. DustinS-T-D \"\"The\"\" Hair TonicDecember 17, 1941Springfield, Mass.Chicago, Ill.Springfield, Mass.District of Massachusetts90F. D. C. No. 7339. Sample No. 90314-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00090csnj|90. Misbranding of S-T-D \"\"The\"\" Hair Tonic. tJ. S. v. 4 Bottles, 21 Bottles, and|1 Bottle of S-T-D \"\"The\"\" Hair Tonic. Default decree of condemnation and |destruction. (F. D. C. No. 7339. Sample No. 90314-E.)|The labeling of this prodct bore false and misleading claims regarding its |efiicacy in the treatment of dandruff, falling hair, itching scalp, and all scalp |ailments and falsely represented that it was a tonic.|On April 14, 1942, the United States attorney for the District of Massa- |chusetts filed a libel against the above-named product at Springfield, Mass., |alleging that it had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about December 17, |1941, by George A. Dustin from Chicago, Ill.; and charging that it was |misbranded.|Analysis showed that it consisted essentially of small proportions of potas- |sium arsenite, sodium borate, and water. The potassium arsenite contained- |arsenic equal to 0.2 gram per 100 cc.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements |on the bottle labels were false and misleading: (Front) \"\"Stops the Dandruff |'The' Hair Tonic for Dandruff Falling Hair Itching Scalp and all Scalp Ail- |ments\"\" ; (back) \"\"Wet Scalp with Ess-Tee-Dee Hair Tonic and massage every |day until scalp is free from dandruff. * * * For best results, shampoo the |hair once each week, then apply Ess-Tee-Dee Hair Tonic after hair has dried |and continue applications every third or fourth day until scalp is free from |dandruff and then use Tonic only as often as it is necessary to keep the scalp |in a clean and healthy condition. * * * 'The' Hair Tonic.\"\"|The libel alleged that the article was also misbranded under the provisions |of the law applicable to drugs, as reported in notices of judgment on drugs and |devices.|On June 15, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation |was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|COSMETICS IN DECEPTIVE CONTAINERS|36. Misbranding of Pate-O-Graph. U. S. v. 80 Packages and 6 1/2 Gross Packages of Pate-O-Graph. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00036May 1940H. W. GillespiePate-O-GraphNovember 17, 1938Washington, D. C.; Newark, N. J.Baltimore, Md.Washington, D. C.; Newark, N. J.District of Columbia and the District of New Jersey36F. D. C. Nos. 100, 102. Sample Nos. 44585-D, 52006-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00036ddnj|36. Misbranding of Pate-O-Graph. U. S. v. 80 Packages and 6% Gross Packages|of Pate-O-Graph. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.|(E\\ D. C. Nos. 100, 102. Sample Nos. 44585-D, 52006-D.)|On November 17 and 29, 1938, the United States attorneys for the District|of Columbia and the District of New Jersey filed libels against 80 packages|of Pate-O-Graph at Washington, D. C, and 6^ gross packages of Pate-O-Graph|at Newark, N. J.; alleging that the former was in possession of Liggett's Drug|Store at Washington, D. C, and was being offered for sale in the District|of Columbia, and that the latter had been shipped in interstate commerce on|or about November 17, 1938, by H. W. Gillespie from Baltimore, Md.; and|charging that it was misbranded. The article was labeled in part: \"\"Pate-|O-Graph, Tobin & Snell, Distributors, New York, N. Y.\"\"|The accessory medicament, labeled \"\"Patol,\"\" consisted of approximately 80|percent of volatile oils (chiefly eucalyptus oil), a small proportion of an|ammonium compound and approximately 20 percent alcohol.|The device was alleged to be misbranded in that it was dangerous to health|when used with the frequency and duration prescribed, recommended, and|suggested in the labeling, which directed that after saturating the wick with|the medicament the vaporization chamber be placed to the nostril and the|mouthpiece placed between the lips; that the user blow, gently at first, gradu-|ally increasing the pressure; that to increase flow of vapor, the cap be un-|screwed a few turns; that the warmth of the breath vaporized the medica-|ment; that the act of blowing causes the soft palate to close; and that the|lung pressure enables one to force the warm medicated vapor into the nasal|passages. The labeling also bore a diagrammatic sketch illustrating the device|which bore the legend explaining that the lung pressure closes soft palate|forcing medication to nasal passages.|On December 23, 1938, and January 13, 1939, no claimant having appeared,|judgments of condemnation were entered and the product was ordered de-|stroyed.|91. Misbranding of Caroid Dental Powder. U. S. v. 4 Dozen Ounce Packages and 9 Dozen 2-Ounce Packages of Caroid Dental Powder. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.csnj00091February 1943American Ferment Co., Inc.Caroid Dental PowderJune 4 and July 5, 1941Atlanta, Ga.Buffalo, N. Y.Atlanta, Ga.Northern District of Georgia91F. D. C. No. 5329. Sample No. 48057-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00091csnj|91. Misbranding of Caroid Dental Powder. XJ. S. v. 4 Dozen Ounce Packages and|9 Dozen 2-Onnce Packages of Caroid Dental Powder. Default decree of |condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 5329. Sample No. 48057-E.)|The contents of the 2-ounce cans of this product occupied on an average about |61 percent of the capacity of the can, and the contents of the 1-ounce cans |occupied on an average about 57 percent of the capacity of the can.|On August 9, 1941, the United States attorney for the Northern District of |Georgia filed a libel against the above-named product at Atlanta, Ga., alleging |that it had been shipped on or about June 4 and July 5, 1941, by the American |Ferment Co., Inc., from Buffalo, N. Y.; and charging that it was misbranded |in that its container was so made, formed, or filled as to be misleading.|On September 10, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condem- |nation was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|92. Misbranding of Ipana Tooth Paste. U. S. v. 570 Gross Packages of Ipana Tooth Paste. Consent decree of condemnation with provision for release under bond for repackaging. Amended decree ordering product delivered to a Federal institution.csnj00092February 1943Bristol-Myers Co.Ipana Tooth PasteSeptember 18, 1939Fulton, Ga.Hillside, N. J.Fulton, Ga.Northern District of Georgia92F. D. C. No. 688. Sample No. 82422-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00092csnj|92. Misbranding of Ipana Tooth Paste. U. S. v. 570 Gross Packages of Ipana|Tooth Paste. Consent decree of condemnation -with provision for release |under bond for repackaging. Anaended decree ordering product delivered |to a Federal institution. (F. D. C. No. 688. Sample No. 82422-E.)|The tubes containing this product occupied approximately only 23 percent |of the capacity of the carton.|On October 28, 1939, the United States attorney for the Northern District |of Georgia filed a libel against 570 gross packages of Ipana Tooth Paste at |Fulton, Ga., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce |on or about September 18, 1939, by the Bristol-Myers Co. from Hillside, N. J.; |and charging that it was misbranded in that its containers were so made, |formed, and filled as to be misleading.|On October 26, 1939, Bristol-Myers Co., claimant, filed an answer denying the |allegation in the libel that the containers were misleading.|On January 8, 1941, upon application of the claimant, the cause was ordered |removed for further proceedings and trial in the District Court for the District |of New Jersey, and the clerk was ordered to transmit to such court all records |necessary for it to exercise jurisdiction.|On January 21, 1942, the claimant having filed an amended answer admitting, |for the sole purpose of the proceeding, the allegations of the libel and con- |senting to the entry of a decree, judgment of condemnation was entered, the |decree containing a provision, however, that the product might be released te |the claimant upon the execution of a bond conditioned that it be repackaged in|containers identical with those which had been used by the claimant subsequent |to July 1940, such repackaging to be done under the supervision of the Food |and Drug Administration.|On June 19, 1942, the claimant having failed to repackage the seized goods, |which amounted to 13 gross, an amended decree was entered providing for their |delivery to a United States Army Post, but on July 29, 1942, the decree was |again amended to provide for delivery to a Federal penal institution on con- |dition that the cartons be destroyed.|93. Misbranding of Pepsodent Tooth Paste. U. S. v. 66 1/2 Dozen Packages of Pepsodent Brand Tooth Paste. Consent decree of destruction.csnj00093February 1943Pepsodent Co.Pepsodent Tooth PasteAugust 1, 1939Atlanta, Ga.Chicago, Ill.Atlanta, Ga.Northern District of Georgia93F. D. C. No. 636. Sample No. 82412-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00093csnj|93. Misbranding of Pepsodent Tooth Paste. U. S. v. 66% Dozen Packages of |Pepsodent Brand Tooth Paste. Consent decree of destruction. (F. D. C.|No. 636. Sample No. 82412-D.)|Examination of this product showed that the tube occupied less than one- |fifth, namely, 16.4 percent, of the capacity of the carton and that the carton |was of sufficient size to hold two tubes.|On or about September 25, 1939, the United States attorney for the Northern |District of Georgia filed a libel against 66% dozen packages of the above-named |product at Atlanta, Ga., alleging that it had been shipped in interstate commerce |on or about August 1,1939, by the Pepsodent Co. from Chicago, Ill.; and charging |that it was misbranded in that its container was so made, formed, and filled as to |be misleading.|On October 24, 1939, an order was entered extending the time for filing |claims and defensive pleadings until November 13, 1939, and on November 14, |1939, the time was again extended until November 21, 1939. On November 21, |1939, on motion of the claimant, the Pepsodent Co., the case was ordered |removed from the Northern District of Georgia to the Eastern District of |Wisconsin.|On June 24, 1942, the case having been set for trial and the court having |heard the statements of counsel, and the United States attorney having sought |an adjournment but the court having determined that the case should proceed |to trial and that the libel would be either dismissed or a decree entered in |accordance with the stipulation proffered by the claimant prior to trial, and |the United States attorney having opposed the dismissal of the libel, it was |ordered by the court, upon the claimant's admission that the containers of the |article were larger than was required for insertion of the tubes of tooth paste |contained therein, but without finding that the containers were misleading |within the meaning of the law, and with the consent of the counsel for the |claimant, that the United States marshal destroy the product or to deliver it |to any charitable institution.|94. Misbranding of shaving cream. U. S. v. 10 2/3 Gross Packages of Shapleigh's Lily of the Valley Shaving Cream. Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered released under bond to be repackaged.csnj00094February 1943Shapleigh Hardware Co.shaving creamApril 11, 22, and 24, 1941St. Louis, Mo.Memphis, Tenn.St. Louis, Mo.Eastern District of Missouri94F. D. C. No. 5111. Sample Nos. 57883-E to 57885-E, incl.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00094csnj|94. Misbranding of shaving cream. U. S. v. 10% Gross Packages of Shapleigh's |Lily of the Valley Shaving Cream. Consent decree of condemnation. Prod- |wet ordered released under bond to foe repackaged. (P. D. C. No. 5Ill.|Sample Nos. 57883-E to 57885-E, incl.)|The cartons in which this product was packed were 6% inches in length while |the tubes contained therein were but 5 inches in length.|On July 8, 1941, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Mis- |souri filed a libel against 10% gross packages of the above-named product at |St. Louis, Mo., alleging that it had been shipped in interstate commerce |on or about April 11, 22, and 24, 1941, by the Wm. A. Webster Co. from Mem- |phis, Tenn.; and charging that it was misbranded in that its containers were |so made or formed as to be misleading.|On November 7, 1941, the Shapleigh Hardware Co., St. Louis, Mo., claimant, |having admitted the allegations of the libel, judgment of condemnation was |entered and it was ordered that the product be released under bond conditioned |that it be repackaged under the supervision of the Food and Drug Administra- |tion so as to comply with the law.|95. Misbranding of Arrid. U. S. v. 119 1/2 Dozen Jars of Arrid. Consent decree of condemnation and destruction.csnj00095February 1943Feminine Products Co.ArridJuly 8, 1939Atlanta, Ga.Jersey City, N. J.Atlanta, Ga.Northern District of Georgia95F. D. C. No. 338. Sample No. 45575-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00095csnj|95. Misbranding of Arrid. U. S. v. 119% Dozen Jars of Arrid. Consent decree |of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 338. Sample No. 45575-E.)|This product was contained in jars which, because of the thickness of the |glass and the manner in which they were formed, contained about one-third the |amount indicated by their outward appearance.|On or about August 2, 1939, the United States attorney for the Northern |District of Georgia filed a libel against 119% dozen jars of Arrid at Atlanta, |Ga., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or |about July 8, 1939, by the Feminine Products Co. from Jersey City, N. J.; and |charging that its containers were so made, formed, and filled as to be mislead-|ing. The article was labeled in part: \"\"Arrid * * * Carter Products Inc. |Distributors, New York, N. Y.\"\"|On August 12, 1939, upon application of the claimant, Carter Products, Inc., |the court for the Northern District of Georgia ordered the case transferred |to the District of New Jersey and also ordered all records and papers trans- |mitted to that jurisdiction. On March 17, 1940, the claimant having repre- |sented to the court that it had changed its containers and having consented to |the entry of a decree, judgment of condemnation was entered. The decree con- |tained the following provision: \"\"Ordered, Adjudged, and Decreed that this |is a proceeding in rem and that this decree is to be without prejudice to the |rights of the United States of America or the said claimant, Carter Products, |Inc., a Maryland corporation, having its principal office and place of business |in the Borough of Manhattan, City, County, and State of New York, in any |other litigation, and without prejudice to the right of the claimant to deny |in any other or future litigation that the libeled product herein is misbranded |or otherwise violates the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, |the court having taken no proof in support of the allegations of the libel and |answer.\"\" The United States attorney entered an objection to the form of the |decree.|On November 19, 1941, the court ordered the product destroyed.|INDEX TO NOTICES OF JUDGMENT C. N. J. NOS. 71-95|PRODUCTS|N. J. No.|Ambrosia Tightener |84|Arrid |95|Bay rum |82|Camelline |85|Caroid Dental Powder |91|Chin-Firm |87|Chin-Up |-- 88|Eyelash and eyebrow dyes |* <6-78|Hair and scalp preparations 82, 89, 90|Ipana Tooth Paste |92|Kix Kinks Hair Straiter |79|La Bonita Hollywood Skin Stimulant- 86|Hollywood Texture Oil |86|Louise Norris Lash & Brow Coloring 77|Mary Luckie Original Hair Tints 78|Miscellaneous cosmetics |83|Natone Natural Oil for the Hair |89|N. J. No. |Paulette Bay Rum |82|Hair Dressing |82|Pepsodent Tooth Paste |93|Roux Lash and Brow Tint |176|Shaplcigh's Lily of the Valley Shaving|Cream |94|Shaving cream |82, 94|Spark'l Shaving Cream |82|S-T-D \"\"The\"\" Hair Tonic |90|Tartaroff |80|Tooth paste |92,93|powder |91|Willat Method of Heatless Permanent|Waving |71-75|Sulfolene Curling Solution No. 2 73|Witch hazel |81|SHIPPERS, MANUFACTURERS, AND DISTRIBUTORS|American FermentCo., Inc.: N- J- N?-|Caroid Dental Powder |91|Ashford JDistributing Co.:|WiHat /Method of Heatless Permanent|Waving |74, 75|Bentley, J. D.: |, ? .|Natone Natural Oil for the Hair 89|Bristol-Myers Co.:|Ipana Tooth Paste |92|Burtley Co.:|Chin-Firm |87|Carter Products Co.:|Arrid |95|Curtis & Travis:|miscellaneous cosmetics |83|Dorosy, Inc.:|Kix Kinks Hair Straiter |79|Dustin, G. A.:|S-T-D \"\"The\"\" Hair Tonic |90|Edlis, Inc.:|witch hazel |81|Feminine Products Co.:|Arrid |95|Heatless Permanent Wave Co.:|Willat Method of Heatless Permanent|Waving |71-74|Hinze Ambrosia, Inc.:|Ambrosia Tightener |84|86|77 |78|House of Hollywood : |N- J- N?-|LaBonita Hollywood Skin Stimulant |and LaBonita Hollywood Texture|Oil |Kallman, L. R., & Co.:|Chin-Up |Louise Norris Co. :|Louise Norris Lash & Brow Coloring |Marlu Co.:|Mary Luckie Original Hair Tints |Norris, Louise. See Louise Norris Co. |Pepsodent Co.:|Pepsodent Tooth Paste |93|Roux Distributing Co.:|Roux Lash and Brow Tint |176|Sophia Co., Inc.:|Willat Sulfolene Curling Solution|No. 2 |73|Spark'l Co.:|shaving cream, hair dressing, and|bay rum |82|Spark'l Paulette Co., Inc. See Spark'l|Co. |Tartaroff Co.:|Tartaroff |80|Webster, Wm. A., Co.:|Shapleigh's Shaving Cream |94|Willett, W. M.:|Camelline |85|1 Contains instructions to the jury.|o|The cases reported herewith were instituted in the United States District |Courts by the United States attorneys acting upon reports submitted by direction |of the Federal Security Administrator.|WATSON B. MUXES, Acting Administrator, Federal Security Agency.|WASHINGTON, D. 0., November 13, 1944.|CONTENTS|Page|Cosmetics actionable because of adulteration |\"\"with poisonous or deleterious substances. 51|Cosmetics actionable because of contamination |with filth... ? |_ 52|Cosmetics actionable because of adulteration |with uncertified coal-tar colors 53|Page|Cosmetics charged to be actionable because |of false and misleading statements in the|labeling. |54|Cosmetics in deceptive containers |59|Cosmetics, subject to the drug provisions of the |Act |60|COSMETICS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF ADULTERATION WITH |POISONOUS OR DELETERIOUS SUBSTANCES|Notices of judgment Nos. 96 to 98 report actions against cosmetics which |contained lacquer. Numerous reports had been received of injuries resulting |from these or a similar product, and, in each case of seizure, complaints had been |received of injuries resulting from the particular shipment of the goods seized.|96. Adulteration of Hubere Hair Lacquer and Hair Lacquer Pads. U. S. v. 68 Bottles of Hubere Hair Lacquer and 8 Jars of Hubere Hair Lacquer Pads (and 4 other seizure actions against Hubere Hair Lacquer Pads). Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.csnj00096January 1945Hubere CosmeticsHubere Hair Lacquer and Hair Lacquer PadsJuly 28 to August 18, 1943Brookline, Mass. ; Baltimore, Md. ; Poughkeepsie, N Y. ; Richmond, Va. ; Memphis, Tenn.Chicago, Ill.Brookline, Mass. ; Baltimore, Md. ; Poughkeepsie, N Y. ; Richmond, Va. ; Memphis, Tenn.District of Maryland, Southern District of New York, Eastern District of Virginia, Western District of Tennessee, and the District of Massachusetts96(F D. C. Nos. 10864, 10868, 10902, 10912, 10927. Sample Nos. 44253-F, 47275-F, 47276-F, 51889-F, 51390-F, 53174-F, 53178-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00096csnj|96. Adulteration, of Hubere Hair Lacquer and. Hair\"\" Lacquer Pads. TJ. S. v. 68 |Bottles of Hubere Hair Lacquer and 8 Jars of Hubere Hair Lacquer Pads |(and 4 otlaer seizure actions against Hubere Hair Lacquer Pads). Default |decrees of condemnation and destruction. (F.J D. C. Nos. 10864, 10868, |10902, 10912, 10927. Sample Nos. 44253-F, 47275-F, 47276-F, 51S89-F, 51390-F, |53174-F, 53178-F.)|Between October 1 and 11, 1943, the United States attorneys for the District |of Maryland, Southern District of New York, Eastern District of Virginia, |Western District of Tennessee, and the District of Massachusetts filed libels |against 68 bottles of Hubere Hair Lacquer at Brookline, Mass., and against the |following quantities of Hubere Hair Lacquer Pads: 30 packages at Baltimore, |Md., 18 packages at Poughkeepsie, N Y., 14 packages at Richmond, Va., 689 |packages at Memphis, Tenn., and 8 jars at Brookline, Mass.; alleging that the |articles had been shipped within the period from on or about July 28 to August |18, 1943, by Hubere Cosmetics from Chicago, Ill.; and charging that they were |adulterated.|The Massachusetts lot of the Hair Lacquer Pads was alleged to be adulterated |in that the article contained a poisonous and deleterious substance which might |have rendered it injurious to users under the conditions of use prescribed in its |labeling, \"\"Hair Lacquer Pads,\"\" and under the conditions of use that are cus- |tomary and usual, the application of the article directly to loose strands of hair. |The remaining lots of the Hair Lacquer Pads were alleged to be adulterated |in that the article contained a poisonous or deleterious chemical substance which|might have rendered it injurious to users under the conditions of use prescribed |in its labeling: \"\"To preserve that well groomed appearance of those very im- |portant moments when that strand of hair or loose curl goes astray. A gentle |pat or brush with one of these delicately scented pads restores immediately that |perfect appearance so necessary.\"\"|The Hubere Hair Lacquer was alleged to be adulterated in that it contained |a poisonous and deleterious substance which might have rendered it injurious |to users under the conditions of use prescribed in the labeling, \"\"Hair Lacquer,\"\" |and under the conditions of use that are customary and usual, spraying the |article on the hair with an atomizer.|Between-November 5 and 22, 1943, no claimant having appeared, judgments |of condemnation were entered and the products were ordered destroyed.|395. Misbranding of Noe's Graduated Xercisors and Massagers. U. S. v. 2 Packages each containing 14 Noe's Graduated Xercisors and Massagers. Default decree of condemnation. Product ordered delivered to welfare association.ddnj00395March 1942Roy H. NoeNoe's Graduated Xercisors and MassagersMay 22, 1940Washington, D. C.Memphis, Tenn.Washington, D. C.District of Columbia395F. D. C. No. 1977. Sample No. 1869-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00395ddnj|395. Misbranding of Noe's Graduated Xercisors and Massagers. U. S. v. 2 Pack|ages each containing 14 Noe's Graduated Xercisors and Massagers. De-|fault decree of condemnation. Product ordered delivered to welfare asso-|ciation. (F. D. C. No. 1977. Sample No. 1869-E.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-|ing its efficacy in the conditions indicated hereinafter.|On May 27, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of Columbia filed|a libel against 2 packages of the above-named product at Washington, D. C,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce from Memphis,|Tenn., by Roy H. Noe on or about May 22, 1940; and charging that it was mis-|branded. The article was labeled in part: \"\"To T. H. Mercer c/o General Delivery|Washington, D. C.\"\" It consisted of two rubber belts, one equipped with handles,|an instruction book, and a circular.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that representations in the label-|ing that it was the fastest waist line reducing exercise known; would build|health, eliminate constipation; that it was efficacious for massaging the pelvic|organs and keeping the prostate gland normal, correcting gland trouble,|strengthening the eyes, building up the tissues of the air passages through the|head, cutting down the chances of head colds; that it would greatly help in|furthering the hearing, in relieving sinus and catarrhal trouble, in reducing|weight or in gaining weight; that it would be efficacious to feed the optic nerves,|correct headaches, make one think quicker and better and that it was efficacious|ir; high blood pressure; would correct low blood pressure and would be efficacious|for rheumatism and for weak lungs, which representations were false and mis-|leading, since it would not be efficacious for such purposes.|On June 21, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered delivered to a welfare organization|after the destruction of the labeling.|97. Adulteration of Hubere Hair Lacquer Pads. U. S. v. 151 Packages of Hubere Hair Lacquer Pads. Default decree of forfeiture and destruction.csnj00097January 1945Bailey's Beautician Supply Co.Hubere Hair Liaectuer PadsAugust 2 and 9, 1943Indianapolis, Ind.Chicago, Ill.Indianapolis, Ind.Southern District of Indiana97F. D. C. No. 10956. Sample Nos. 26205-F, 26206-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00097csnj|97. Adulteration of Hubere Hair Liaectuer Pads. XT. S. v. 151 Packages of Hubere|Hair Lacquer Pads. Default decree of forfeiture and destruction. (F. D. C.|No. 10956. Sample Nos. 26205-F, 26206-F.)|On November 23, 1943, the United States attorney for the Southern District |of Indiana filed a libel against 151 packages of Hubere Hair Lacquer Pads at |Indianapolis, Ind., alleging that the article had been shipped on or about July 26 |and August 2 and 9, 1943, by Bailey's Beautician Supply Co., Chicago, Ill.; and |charging that it was adulterated.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it bore or contained a poison- |ous and deleterious substance which might have rendered it injurious to users |under the conditions of use prescribed in the labeling: \"\"A gentle pat or- brush |with one of these delicately scented pads restores immediately that perfect |appearance so necessary.\"\"|On February 1, 1944, no claimant having appeared, judgment of forfeiture |was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|98. Adulteration of Gold Coast Hair Lacquer. U. S. v. 37 Bottles of Gold Coast Hair Lacquer. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.csnj00098January 1945Robinson Co.Gold Coast Hair LacquerAugust 12, 1943Oklahoma City, Okla.Chicago, Ill.Oklahoma City, Okla.Western District of Oklahoma98F. D. C. No. 11024. Sample No. 43821-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00098csnj|98. Adulteration of Gold Coast Hair Lacquer. U. S. v. 37 Bottles of Gold Coast|Hair'Lacquer. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C.|No. 11024. Sample No. 43821-F.)|On October 27, 1943, the United States attorney for the Western District of |Oklahoma filed a libel against 37 bottles of Gold Coast Hair Lacquer at Oklahoma |City, Okla., alleging that the article had been shipped m interstate commerce on |or about August 12, 1943, by the Robinson Co. from Chicago, Ill.; and charging |that it was adulterated.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it contained a poisonous and |deleterious substance which might have rendered it injurious to users under the |conditions of use prescribed in the labeling, \"\"Can be sprayed or padded on,\"\" or |under the conditions of use that are customary or usual.|On November 29,1943, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation |was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|99. Adulteration of Pierrette Custom Process of Cold Permanent Waving. U. S. v. 3 Bottles of Pierrette Custom Process of Cold Permanent Waving. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.csnj00099January 1945Pierrette, had been introduced into interstate commerce at Los Angeles, Calif.\NJuly 7, 1942San Antonio, Tex. ; Los Angeles, Calif.\NSan Antonio, Tex. ; Los Angeles, Calif.Western District of Texas99F. D. C. No. 8488. Sample No. 8920-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00099csnj|99. Adulteration of Pierrette Custom Process of , Cold Permanent Waving. U. S.|v. 3 Bottles of Pierrette Custom Process of Cold Permanent Waving. |Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 8488. Sample |No. 8920-F.)|Examination showed that this product consisted essentially of ammonium |hydrogen sulfide (4.96 grams per 100 cc.) and water.|On October 1,1942, the United States attorney for the Western District of Texas |filed a libel against 3 bottles of the above-named product at San Antonio, Tex., |alleging that the article, which had been consigned by Pierrette, had been intro- |duced into interstate commerce at Los Angeles, Calif., on or about July 7, 1942; |and charging that it was adulterated in that it contained a poisonous or deleteri- |ous substance, ammonium hydrogen sulfide, which might have rendered it in- |jurious to users under the conditions of use that are customary or usual.|On February 13, 1943, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation |was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|COSMETICS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF CONTAMINATION WITH FILTH|100. Adulteration of miscellaneous cosmetics. U. S. v. 228 Cases of Miscellaneous Foods, Drugs, and Cosmetics. Decree of condemnation. Products ordered released under bond for reprocessing and relabeling good portion.csnj00100January 1945John W. Harrismiscellaneous cosmeticsSeptember 16, 1942Atlanta, Ga.Norfolk, Va.Atlanta, Ga.Northern District of Georgia100F. D. C. No. 8509. Sample No. 28246-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00100csnj|100. Adulteration of miscellaneous cosmetics. TJ. S. v. 228 Cases of Miscellaneous|Foods, Drugs, and Cosmetics. Decree of condemnation. Products ordered |released under bond for reprocessing: and relabeling g-ood portion.|(F. D. C. No. 8509. Sample No. 28246-F.)|Some of these products had been water-damaged and others were very old and |deteriorated.|On October 5, 1942, the United States attorney for the Northern District of |Georgia filed a libel against 223 cases of miscellaneous foods, drugs, and cosmetics|at Atlanta, Ga., alleging that the articles had been shipped on or about September |16, 1942, by Wells and Harris from Norfolk, Va.; and charging that the cosmetic |items were adulterated in that they had been held under insanitary conditions |whereby they niight have become contaminated with filth.|The food items were alleged to be adulterated under the provisions of the law |applicable to foods, as reported in notices of judgment on foods, No. 5764. The |drug items were alleged to be adulterated and misbranded under the provisions of |the law applicable to drugs, as reported in notices of judgment on drugs and |devices, No. 954.|On October 12 1942, John W. Harris, claimant, having admitted the allegations |of the libel, judgment of condemnation was entered and the products were ordered |released under bond for segregation and destruction of the unfit portion, and for |reprocessing and relabeling of the good portion, under the supervision of the Food |and Drug Administration.|COSMETICS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF ADULTERATION WITH |UNCERTIFIED COAL-TAR COLORS|178. Adulteration and misbranding of Blanche White Make-Up Creme, Blanche White Special Cleansing Creme, Blanche White night cosmetic cream, Blanche White Powder, and Blanche White Formula No. 3. U. S. v. Fred B. Bergholt (Bergholt Laboratories). Plea of guilty. Fine of $250 on count 1, sentence suspended on remaining counts, and defendant placed on probation for 3 years.csnj00178August 1950Fred B. Bergholt, trading as Bergholt Laboratories Minneapolis, Minn.Blanche White Make-Up Creme, Blanche White Special Cleansing Creme, Blanche White night cosmetic creamMay 14, June 24, and July 1, 1948Colorado ; TexasMinnesotaColorado ; TexasDistrict of Minnesota178F. D. C. No. 25587. Sample Nos. 28387-K, 28390-K, 28556-K, 28557-K, 28560-K, 29901-K.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00178csnj|178. Adulteration and misbranding of Blanche White Make-Up Creme, Blanche|White Special Cleansing Creme, Blanche White night cosmetic cream, |Blanche White Powder, and Blanche White Formula No. 3. U. S. v. Fred |B. Bergholt (Bergholt Laboratories). Plea of guilty. Fine of $250 on |count 1, sentence suspended on remaining counts, and defendant placed |on probation for 3 years. (F. D. C. No. 25587. Sample Nos. 28387-K, |28390-K, 28556-K, 28557-K, 28560-K, 29901-K.)|INFORMATION FILED : December 17,1948, District of Minnesota, against Fred B.|Bergholt, trading as Bergholt Laboratories Minneapolis, Minn. |ALLEGED SHIPMENT : On or about May 14, June 24, and July 1, 1948, from the|State of Minnesota into the States of Colorado and Texas.|LABEL, IN PART : \"\"Blanche White Make-Up Creme [or \"\"Special Cleansing Creme,\"\" |\"\"Powder,\"\" or \"\"Formula No. 3\"\"]\"\" and \"\"Blanche White * * * Apply regu- |larly and generously every night.\"\"|NATURE OF CHARGE: Adulteration, Section 601 (b), the articles consisted in |part of filthy substances by reason of the presence of insect fragments, rodent |hairs, rodent hair fragments, unidentified hairs, mold, and nondescript dirt; |and, Section 601 (c), the articles had been prepared and packed under insanitary |conditions whereby they may have become contaminated with filth.|Misbranding, Section 602 (b) (2), the labels on the articles bore no state- |ment of the quantity of the contents; and, Section 602 (b) (1), the Blanche |White Special Cleansing Creme failed to bear a label containing the name |and place of business of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor. |DISPOSITION : April 11, 1949. A plea of guilty having been entered, the court |imposed a fine of $250 on count 1, suspended the imposition of sentence on |the remaining counts, and placed the defendant on probation for three years.|COSMETICS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF FALSE AND MISLEADING|CLAIMS|101. Adulteration of lemon color. U. S. v. 15 Pounds of O. S. Lemon #401. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.csnj00101January 1945Interstate Color Co., Inc.lemon colorMay 11, 1943Boston, Mass.New York. N. Y.Boston, Mass.District of Massachusetts101F. D. C. No. 12364The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00101csnj|101. Adulteration of lemon color. U. S. v. 15 Pounds of O. S. Lemon #401.|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 12364.|Sample No. 52309-F.)|Examination showed that this product consisted of dimethylamino-azobenzene, |a coal-tar color which is more commonly known as \"\"butter yellow\"\" (Colour In- |dex, No. 19) and which is known to possess carcinogenic properties. The prod- |uct was intended for use as a component in cosmetics.|On May 12, 1944, the United Srates attorney for the District of Massachusetts |filed a libel against 15 pounds of O. S. Lemon #401 at Boston, Mass., alleging |that the article had been shipped on or about May 11, 1943, by the Interstate |Color Co., Inc., from New York. N. Y.; and charging that it was adulterated.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it was a cosmetic that was |not a hair dye, and it contained a coal-tar color known as \"\"butter yellow\"\" that |has not been listed for use in cosmetics in accordance with the regulations, and |it was other than one from a batch that had been certified.|On July 11, 1944, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation |was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|102. Adulteration of cleansing cream. U. S. v. 21 Jars and 16 Jars of Cleansing Cream (and 1 other seizure action against same product). Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.csnj00102January 1945Alexandra de Markoff, Inc.cleansing creamJuly 11 and 24, 1944Boston, Mass. ; Chicago, Ill.New York, N. Y.Boston, Mass. ; Chicago, Ill.District of Massachusetts and the Northern District of Illinois102F. D. C. Nos. 12362, 12374. Sample Nos. 51660-F, 51666-F, 51667-F, 59816-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00102csnj|102. Adulteration of cleansing cream. U. S. v. 21 Jars and 16 Jars of Cleansing|Cream (and 1 otlaer seizure action against same product). Default decrees |of condemnation and destruction, (F. D. C. Nos. 12362, 12374. Sample |Nos. 51660-F, 51666-F, 51667-F, 59816-F.)|On May 12 anfl 20, 1944, the United States attorneys for the District of Massa- |chusetts and the Northern District of Illinois filed libels against the following |Quantities of cleansing cream: 21 2-ounce jars and 16. 4-ounce jars at Boston, |Mass., and 16 2-ounce jars, 8 4-ounce jars, 21 8-ounce jars, and SO' 16-ounce |jars at Chicago, Ill., alleging that the article had been shipped from New York, |N. Y., by Alexandra de Markoff, Inc., within the period from on or about De- |cember 27, 1943, to March 22. 1944; and- charging that the article was adul- |terated. It was labeled in part: \"\"Alexandra de Markoff Cleansing Cream.\"\"|Examination disclosed that the article contained, among other coal-tar colors, |\"\"butter yellow\"\" (Colour Index, No. 19), a non-permitted coal-tar dye which is |known to possess carcinogenic properties.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it was a cosmetic that was |not a hair dye, and it contained a coal-tar color known as \"\"butter yellow\"\" that |has not been listed for use in cosmetics in accordance with the regulations, and |it was other than one from a batch that had been certified.|On July 11 and 24, 1944, no claimant having appeared, judgments of condem- |nation were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|103. Adulteration and misbranding of Oliv-Tone. U. S. v. 35 Bottles and 180 Packages of Oliv-Tone. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.csnj00103January 1945Great Atlantic Laboratories, Inc.Oliv-ToneFebruary 8 and April 12, 1944Brunswick, Maine ; Davisville, R. I.Boston, Mass.Brunswick, Maine ; Davisville, R. I.District of Maine and the District of Rhode Island103F. D. C. Nos. 12365, 12366. Sample Nos. 52251-F, 52316-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00103csnj|103. Adulteration and misbranding of Oliv-Tone. U. S. v. 35 Bottles and 180|Packages of Oliv-Tone. Default decrees of condemnation and destruc- |tion. (F. D. C. Nos. 12365, 12366. Sample Nos. 52251-F, 52316-F.)|Examination of samples disclosed that this product was a liquid with two lay- |ers. One layer consisted of water colored with dye known as D&C Yellow #8. |The other layer consisted of mineral oil and small portions of essential oils and |was colored with dimethylamino-azobenzene, a coal-tar color which is more com- |monly known as \"\"butter yellow\"\" (Colour Index, No. 19), and which is not a dye |certified as safe for use in cosmetics since it is known to possess carcinogenic |properties.|On May 13 and 16, 1944, the United States attorneys for the District of Maine |and the District of Rhode Island filed libels against 35 bottles of Oliv-Tone at |Brunswick, Maine, and 180 packages of Oliv-Tone at Davisville, R. I., alleging |that the article had been shipped on or about February 8 and April 12, 1944, |from Boston, Mass., by the Great Atlantic Laboratories, Inc.; and charging that |it was adulterated and misoranded. The article was labeled in part: \"\"Oliv-Tone |for Hair and Scalp.\"\"|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it was a cosmetic that was |not a hair dye, and it contained a coal-tar color known as \"\"butter yellow\"\" that |has not been listed for use in cosmetics in accordance with the regulations, and |it was other than one from a batch that had been certified.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the name \"\"Oliv-Tone\"\" cre- |ated a false and misleading impression that the article contained olive oil.|On June 13 and July 13, 1944, no claimant having appeared, judgments of con- |demnation were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|COSMETICS CHARGED TO BE ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF FALSE AND |MISLEADING STATEMENTS ON THE LABELING*|104. Misbranding of shaving medium. U. S. v. 45 2/3 Dozen Packages of U-X Improved Shaving Medium. Tried to the conrt. Decree of condemnationcsnj00104January 1945U-X Manufacturing Co., Inc.sliaviuig mediumOctober 4 and 21, 1940Pittsburgh, Pa.New York, N. Y.Pittsburgh, Pa.Western District of Pennsylvania104F. D. C. No. 4098. Sample No. 19198-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00104csnj|104. Misbranding1 of sliaviuig medium. IT. S. v. 45% Dozen Packages of U-X |Improved Shaving Medium. Tried to the conrt. Decree of condemnation |and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 4098. Sample No. 19198-E.)|On April 1, 1941, the United States attorney for the Western District of Penn- |sylvania filed a libel against 45% dozen packages of the above-named product at |Pittsburgh, Pa., alleging that such article had been shipped on or about October |4 and 21, 1940, by the U-X Manufacturing Co., Inc. from New York, N. Y.; and |charging that it was misbranded.|' Examination showed that the article consisted essentially of magnesium |carbonate, peroxide, such as magnesium peroxide, and urea peroxide, together |with small amounts of soap, gum arabic, and milk sugar.|The article was alleged to be misbranded as a cosmetic in that the following |Statements, appearing on the carton and in a circular contained in the package, |were false and misleading since they represented that the article was efficacious |for the purposes recommended, whereas it was not efficacious for such purposes: |(Carton) \"\"The oxygen shave * * * Due to oxygen content U-X improves |the shave. * * * U-X scientifically conditions the skin and prevents shav- |ing irritation . . . the oxygen does it. * * * Oxygen shave\"\, and (circular) |\"\"U-X is an exclusive successful scientific preparation. * * * Superior to any |shaving preparation now offered. * * * U-X is absolutely non-irritating. |Highly recommended by the medical profession for its skin protecting soothing |properties. Over and over again men praise the beneficial effects of U-X, its |soothing qualities and its unsurpassed 'oxygen-action' on the toughest beards |and tenderest skin. Redness, smarting and chin-chafe will disappear with use |of * U-X. * * * it is made of substances with a definite value which are |beneficial to the skin. * * * the best possible shaving preparation. By |capillary action the oxygen is drawn to the hair bulb-thus the irritating effects |of a 'close' shave are avoided. As the oxygen penetrates to the base of the hair |a thin white layer or coating is formed on the beard: * * * The hair is kept |upright-the oxygen forms a film and lets the blade cut clean without dragging. |Thus there is no pull against the direction of natural growth and the skin remains |intact and unirritated. * * * allowing time for the skin to rid itself of all |other substances with which it may have become impregnated by ordinary shav- |ing methods. * * * 'At last I've found a shaving medium that has helped |me to get rid of that old irritated, inflamed collar line. Now I shave against the |grain without the pain and pulling of hair. **#'<*** My skin was |scraped and chafed. Since using U-X my skin is healthy and clear. * * *' |<* * * My skin is allergic to a pimple condition and U-X is most beneficial.' \"\"|On May 2, 1941, the U-X Manufacturing Co., Inc., claimant, filed an answer |denying that the article was a cosmetic and that it was misbranded; and on June |7, 1941, pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, the case was ordered removed |to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. On or about |December 10, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Connecticut |filed an amendment to the libel, charging that the article was misbranded under |the provision of the law applicable to drugs, as reported in the notices of judgment|*See also No. 103|on drugs and devices. Subsequently, a motion and petition dated February 13, |1942, for the removal of the case to the Southern District of New York, was filed- |by the claimant and, the motion having been consented to by the government's |attorney, an order was entered on February 16, 1942, for the removal of the |case to the United States District Court for that District. On February 23, 1942, |a motion to revoke the transfer was filed in the aforesaid court for the District |of Connecticut and thereafter the court denied the motion, stating that, since the |case had been removed and all papers transferred to the Southern District of |New York, a proper motion should be addressed to the court for that District. |A motion was then filed in the United States District Court for the Southern |District of New York for the retransf er of the case to the District of Connecticut |and, at the conclusion of the argument thereon, which took place on May 8, 1942, |the court handed down the following opinion in denial of the motion: |GODDABD, District Judge:|\"\"The United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York moves |for an order transferring this proceeding back to the United States District |Court of Connecticut. It is urged in support of this motion that the case had |been transferred from the United States District Court for the Western District |of Pennsylvania to the United States District Court of Connecticut, and that |under the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U. S. C. A. |? 334 (a)) the Connecticut Court was without power to transfer the case a |second time, or to transfer the case to a district where the claimant has his |principal place of business.|\"\"Claimant contends that the order transferring the case to this court had |been consented to by the United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, |and, accordingly, such transfer was permissible under the statute. I agree |with this contention. The statute specifically provides that a proceeding 'pend- |ing or instituted' shall on application of the claimant be removed to any district |agreed upon by stipulation between the parties. The consent of the United |States Attorney for the District of Connecicut was in effect a stipulation. No- |where is it provided that by stipulation a proceeding may be transferred only |once, and then only to a district where the claimant does not have his principal |place of business.|\"\"Motion denied. Settle order on notice.\"\"|The case came on for trial before the court on October 29 and 30, 1942. At |the conclusion of the trial the court took the case under advisement, and on |November 19, 1942, judgment of condemnation was entered holding that the |product was both a cosmetic and a drug and ordering that it be destroyed.|105. Alleged misbranding of Nutri-Tonic Oil Permanent Wave Solution, and Nutri-Tonic Wave Set. U. S. v. 45 12-Ounce Bottles and 117 1-Quart Bottles of Nutri-TonicOil. Tried to a jury; verdict for the claimant. Decree ordering goods returned to the claimant.csnj00105January 1945Waval Permanent Wave Supply Company and Thermal Wavpaks, Inc.Nutri-Tonic Oil Permanent Wave Solution, and Nutri-Tonic Wave SetNovember 17, 1941Nashville, Tenn.Hollywood, Calif.Nashville, Tenn.Middle District of Tennessee105F. D. C. No. 6800. Sample Nos. 79164-E, 81105-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00105csnj|105. Alleged misbranding' of Nutri-Tonic Oil Permanent Wave Solution, and |Nutri-Tonic Wave Set. XT. S. v. 45 12-Ouiiaee Bottles and 117 1-Q,uart |Bottles ?f Nutri-Tonic Oil. Tried to a jury; verdict for tlie claimant.|Decree ordering goods returned to tlae claimant. (F. D. C. No. 6800. Sample |Nos. 79164-E, 81105-E.)|On January 31, 1942, the United States attorney for the\"\" Middle District of |\"\"Tennessee filed a libel against 45 12-ounce bottles and 117 1-quart bottles of |Nutri-Tonic Oil at Nashville, Tenn., alleging that the article had been shipped |or caused to be shipped by the Waval Permanent Wave Supply Company and |Thermal Wavpaks, Inc., on or about November 17, 1941, from Hollywood, Calif.; |and charging that it was misbranded.|Examination of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially |of water, ammonia, and ammonium sulfite.|The libel alleged that the article was misbranded in that the designation |\"\"Nutri-Tonic Oil\"\" was false and misleading since it was a cosmetic and not a |nutrient, a tonic, or an oil.|On February 25, 1942, Samuel 0. Ronk of Los Angeles, Calif., without entering |his appearance for any other purpose, moved the court for removal of the |case to the District Court for the Southern District of California at Los Angeles. |On March 23, 1942, the Government filed a motion to strike the motion of Samuel |O. Ronk, on the ground that he had no standing in court and because the |court was without jurisdiction to order the removal of the proceedings to the |principal place of business of the inter venor. On March 26, Samuel O. Ronk, |with permission of the court, amended the motion of February 25, 1942, and |for the purpose of entering his appearance generally, moved that the court |transfer the cause to a District of reasonable proximity to the claimant's |principal place of business in the event that the court was of the opinion |that the cause should not be transferred to the District of his residence.|On March 24, 1942, after hearing on the motions filed, the court ordered |the case removed to the District Court of the United States for the Southern |District of California at Los Angeles. A motion was filed by the United States |Attorney for the Southern District of California to remand the case to the |Middle District of Tennessee, which motion was heard on June 8, 1942., and was |denied by the court without opinion.|On August 17, 1942, the United States attorney for the Southern District of |California filed an amended libel because of the fact that a larger amount of |the product had been seized than was covered by the original libel. The amended |libel covered 24 12-ounce bottles and 116 1-quart bottles of Nutri-Tonic Oil |Permanent Wave Solution, Extra Strength, 81 12-ounce bottles of Waval Nutri- |Tonic Oil Permanent Wave Solution Protein-ized, Extra Strength, 140 1-quart |bottles of Waval Nutri-Tonic Oil Permanent Wave Solution, Protein-ized, Extra |Strength, and 84 bottles of Waval Nutri-Tonic Wave Set. The amended libel |also covered 59 kits labeled in part: \"\"Waval Nutri-Tonic Oil Permanent Wave |Solution Extra Strength\"\"; containing in each kit 1 12-ounce bottle of the cos- |metic, 100 pads, and 2 circulars, but was later dismissed with respect to the |kits and contents.|The libel, as amended, alleged that the designation \"\"Nutri-Tonic Oil,\"\" with |respect to portions, and the statement, \"\"Nutri-Tonic,\"\" with respect to the |remainder, were false and misleading since in the former instance the product |was not a nutrient, tonic, or an oil, and in the latter it was not a nutrient or a |tonic.|On January 5, 1943, the case came on for trial before the court and a jury. |Evidence was introduced on behalf of the Government and the claimant, the |trial concluding on the same day with the return of a verdict for the claimant.|On January 7, 1943, a decree was entered ordering the product returned to r |the claimant.|106. Misbrandingof Eff-Remim Dentifrice. U. S. v. 34 Packages and 11 Packages of Eff-Remin Dentifrice. Default deeree of condemnation and destruction.csnj00106January 1945Goodrich & LoveEff-Remim DentifriceApril 22, 1942Boston, Mass.New York, N. Y.Boston, Mass.District of Massachusetts106F. D. C. No. 7455. Sample No. 98285-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00106csnj|106. Misbranding- of Effi-Iiemim Dentifrice. TJ. S. v. 34 Packages and 11 Packages|of ISJE-Remin Dentifrice. Default deeree of condemnation and destruc- |tion. (F. D. C. No. 7455. Sample No. 98285-B.)|On May 4, 1942, the United States attorney for the District of Massachusetts |filed a libel against 34 packages, each containing 150 grams, and 11 packages, |each containing 300 grams, of Eif-Remin Dentifrice at Boston, Mass., alleging |that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about April 22, |1942, by Goodrich & Love, from New York, N. Y.; and charging that it was |misbranded. Analysis of samples of the article showed that it consisted essen- |tially of tartaric acid and salt, and compounds of calcium, magnesium, and |sodium, including carbonates and sulfates, flavored with volatile oils and |sweetened with saccharin.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements in the |labeling, (tin container) \"\"Rub powder directly on gum margins or place some |powder on thin layer of moist cotton-wool and apply to affected areas,\"\" and |(circular) \"\" 'Eff-Remin' Dentifrice is an effervescent remineralizing powder. It |is of value in reducing sensitivity, for controlling decalcification due to erosion |or dental caries, for 'soft' teeth, * * * apply to affected areas,\"\" were false |and misleading since they represented and suggested that the article, when |applied to affected areas, would be of value in reducing sensitivity and in con- |trolling decalcification due to erosion or dental caries, and for \"\"soft\"\" teeth, |whereas, when applied to affected areas, it was of no value for such purposes.|The article was also alleged to be misbranded in violation of the provisions |of the law applicable to drugs, as reported in drugs and devices notices of |judgment, No. 781.|On June 15,1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was |entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|5008. Various drugs.ddnj05008May 1957Pacific Mineral Industries.Various drugs10-20-54 ; 3-31-55Akron, Ohio.Los Angeles, Calif.Akron, Ohio.N. Dist. Ohio.5008F. D. C. No. 37994. S. Nos. 19-261/71 M.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj05008ddnj|5008. Various drugs. (F. D. C. No. 37994. S. Nos. 19-261/71 M.) |QUANTITY : 161 btls. of Asmax tablets, 151 btls. of Lipolin, 108 btls. of Arate |tablets, 6 btls. of amino acid wafers, 35 btls. of Redone tablets, 50 btls. of herbal |diuretic tablets, 56 14-oz. btls. and 13 8-oz. btls. of Detosco, and 54 btls. of |Glutamin-s tablets at Akron, Ohio.|?See also No. 5006.|^SHIPPED: Between 10-20-54 and 3-31-55, from Los Angeles, Calif., by Pacific |' Mineral Industries.|LABEL IN PART: (Btl.) \"\"Pacific Mineral Industries P. M. I. * * * ASMAX |An Organic Formula Containing Elocampane Root Yerba Santa Dragon |Turnip Cubeb Berries Ipecac Root Horehound Herb White Pine Com- |pound Irish Moss * * * 120 Tablets * * * A Dietary Supplement,\"\" \"\"Lipolin |A Dietary Supplement To aid in the utilization of fats and to aid in the |prevention of fatty infiltration of the liver. * * * 80 Caplets Each 3 Caplets |Contain Methionine 50 Mg. Inositol 50 Mg. Choline (Dihydrogen Citrate) |123 Mg. Rutin 5 Mg. Plus exeipients added as filler and coloring,\"\" \"\"Lipolin |To aid in the Utilization of Fats and the Prevention of Fatty Infiltration of the |Liver * * * 90 tablets Each 2 tablets contain: Methionine, 150 mg. Cho- |line, 300 mg. Betaine, 150 mg. Inositol, 150 mg. Rutin, 20 mg. in a base of the |wonder herb Serpentaria Root,\"\" \"\"Aratex Calcium Phosphorus Thiamine |Vitamin D Compounded with A Special Herbal Base * * * Gentian Root |Black Cohosh Buckbean Leaves Bitter Root Genseng Root Cinchona Bark |Colombo Root Tamarac Bark The above herbs are blended in special base of |tablet 120 Tablets,\"\" \"\"New Improved Protamins Bi Bn B* in Amino Acid Wafers|* * * 150 Wafers * * * 2 Wafers with each of three meals (6 wafers) daily |will supply:-Vitamin B-1 6 Mg. * * * Vitamin B-2 6 Mg. Vitamin B-12 |6 Meg. * * * Plus 45 gr. of protein hydrolysate and 40 gr. of whey. The base |material supplies the following essential and non-essential amino acids in |varying amounts: Arginine Methionine Tyrosine Histidine Threonine |Cystine Lysine Leucine Asparatic Acid Tryptophane Isoleueine Glu- |tamie Acid Phenylalanine Valine,\"\" \"\"Reetone * * * An adjuvant for the re-|A lief of symptoms of rectal discomfort and body tonic. * * * 120 Tablets Each |' tablet contains a pure blend of the following herbs in a molasses base: Poke |Root Mandrake Root Violet Leaves Flax Seed Figwort Herbs Comfrey |Root Culvers Root Mullein Leaves Myrrh Gum Foenugreek Seed White |Oak Bark Lobelia Herb Golden Seal Root PilewortHerb Cascara Sagrada |Bark Slippery Elm Bark Witch Hazel Bark Cranesbill Root,\"\" \"\"120 Tablets|* * * Formula S. B. K. A Herbal Diuretic Gravel Root Queen of Meadow |Herb Althea Root Wild Carrot Leaves Pichi Tops Uva Ursi Leaves Hy- |drangea Root Celery Seed Shave Grass Couch Grass Root With Oil of |Juniper Berries Formulated and Distributed by Pacific Mineral Industries |Hollywood, California,\"\" \"\"S. B. K. A Herbal Diuretic Gravel Root Queen of |Meadow Herb Althea Root Wild Carrot Leaves Picbi Tops Uva Ursi |Leaves Hydrangea Root Celery Seed Shave Grass Couch Grass Root |With Oil of Juniper Berries Distributed by Ralph Brennan 195 Melbourne |Ave. Akron, Ohio * * * 120 Tablets,\"\" \"\"Formula Detoxo To eliminate nox- |ious toxins, putrefaction, and mucus from the gastro-intestinal tract. To in- |crease Lactobacillus in the gastro-intestinal tract. Contents Acidophilus |Lactobacillus (Placed in preparation) Blond Plantago Ovata Organic Pectin |Magnesium Trisilicate Flavor Added,\"\" and \"\"120 Glutamins A Food Supple- |ment. Each 10 gn. sodium glutamate tablet contains 8.69 gns. Glutamic Acid, |1 mgm. Thiamine HCL-Bi Exeipients as binder and coloring added.\"\"|ACCOMPANYING LABELING : Leaflets entitled \"\"Asthma And Allied Bronchial Con- |ditions * * * Asmax,\"\" \"\"Lipolin,\"\" \"\"Arthritis Rheumatism Aratex,\"\" \"\"Hem- |orrhoids * * * Reetone,\"\" \"\"Kidney And Bladder Conditions * * * S. B. K. A|\\ Herbal Diuretic,\"\" \"\"Detoxo,\"\" and \"\"Doctor's Order Form.\"\"|^LrsELED: 6-1-55, N. Dist. Ohio.|CHARGE: 501 (c)-When shipped, the strength of the Detoxo differed from, a |its quality fell below, that which it purported and was represented to posse |since its labeling represented that the article contained a significant number |viable Lactobacillus acidophilus micro-organisms when such was not the eas |and 502 (a)-the labeling of the articles, when shipped, contained the follow! |false and misleading representations :|(a) That the Asmax tablets was an adequate and effective treatment i |asthma and allied bronchial conditions, affections of the throat and lun |due to phlegm accumulations in the air passages, spasms of the respirato |system, and conditions requiring respiratory stimulation:|(b) That the Lipolin was an adequate and effective treatment for prevt |tion of fatty infiltration of the liver, high blood pressure, hardening of t |arteries, liver conditions, capillary fragility, liver damage, cirrhosis of t |liver, necrosis of the liver, infective hepatitis, diabetes, multiple scleros |alcoholism, psoriasis, gallbladder conditions, and affections of the spleen:|(c) That the Aratex tablets were an adequate and effective treatment f |arthritis, rheumatism, impaired glandular function, overacid conditions of t |body, weakened veins, impure blood, inflammation, fever, nausea, and bursiti|(d) That the amino acid wafers were an adequate and effective treatme |for gastrointestinal conditions:|(e) That the Redone tablets were an adequate and effective treatment f |piles, impaired glandular function, sluggish liver, inflammation, irritabilil |bleeding, impaired body functions, and spasms;|(f) That the herbal diuretic tablets were an adequate and effective tra |ment for kidney conditions, bladder conditions, gravel and sediment in t' |bladder, and pus in the urinary system :|(g) That the Detoxo was an adequate and effective treatment for toxem |and affections of the gastrointestinal tract;|(h) That the Glutamins tablets were an adequate and effective treatme |for epilepsy, nerve exhaustion, melancholy, and mental slowness, and f |providing regeneration of nerve tissue, mental uplift, and change |personality. |DISPOSITION : 7-21-55. Default-destruction.|108. Misbranding of Vita-Hay Vitamin Cream. U. S. v. 86 Jars, 12 Jars, and 8 Jars of \"\"Vita-Ray Vitamin Cream.\"\" Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered delivered to a public institution.csnj00108January 1945Vita Bay CorpVita-Hay Vitamin CreamJanuary 28 to April 2,1941New York, N. Y.Lowell, Mass.New York, N. Y.Southern District of New York108F. D. C. No. 4475. Sample No. 56763-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00108csnj|108. Misbranding of Vita-Hay Vitamin Cream. U. ?, v. 86 Jars, 12 Jars, and 8|Jars of \"\"Vita-Ray Vitamin Cream.\"\" Consent decree of eondemnation. |Product ordered delivered to a public institution. (F. D. C. No. 4475. |Sample No. 56763-B.)|On April 25, 1941, the United States attorney for the Southern District of New |York filed a libel against 86 4-ounce jars, 12 8-ounce jars, and 8 16-ounce jars |of Vita-Ray Vitamin Cream at New York, N. Y., alleging that the article had |been shipped in interstate commerce within the period from on or about January |28 to April 2,1941, by the Vita Bay Corporation from Lowell, Mass.; and charging |that it was misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of |mineral oil and waxes, emulsified with water by means of borax, and lightly per- |fumed. It was essentially a perfumed cold cream. Biological examination |showed that it contained 5 U. S. P. units of vitamin D per gram.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements, |\"\"Vita-Ray Sun-Ray VITAMIN CREAM * * * Just as vitamins help make a |healthy body, so they help make a beautiful skin. Vita-Ray Cream brings directly |to your skin Vitamins A and D and gives the skin a soft, radiant smoothness,\"\" |were false and misleading since they represented that the article was of superior |cosmetic value because of the presence of vitamins, whereas the presence of |vitamins would not beneficially affect its cosmetic value; and since they repre- |sented that it would be efficacious for the purposes recommended, whereas it |would not be efficacious for such purposes.|On October 16,1942, the sole intervener having withdrawn its answer and con- |sented to the entry of a decree, judgment of condemnation was entered and it |was ordered that the product be delivered to a public institution for use of the |inmates.|109. Misbranding of corrective texture cream and revitalised formula cream. U. S. v. 118 Jars and 89 Jars of Corrective Texture Cream and 630 Jars and 421 Jars of Revitalized Formula Cream. Consent decree of eondemnation. Product ordered released under bond for relabeling.csnj00109January 1945Madam Olga Pataky, Philadelphia, Pa.corrective texture cream and revitalised formula creamNovember 10, 1943, to June 15, 1944Philadelphia, Pa.New York, N. Y.Philadelphia, Pa.Eastern District of Pennsylvania109F. D. C. No. 13004. Sample Nos. 51098-F, 51099-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00109csnj|109. Misbranding of corrective texture cream and revitalised formula cream.|U. S. v. 118 Jars and 89 Jars of Corrective Texture Cream and 630 Jars |and 421 Jars of Revitalized Formula Cream. Consent decree of eondemna- |tion. Product ordered released under bond for relabeling. (F. D. C. No. |13004. Sample Nos. 51098-F, 51099-F.)|On July 20, 1944, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Penn- |sylvania filed a libel against 118 jars, each containing 2% ounces, and 89 jars, |each containing 7% ounces, of corrective texture cream, and 630 jars, each con- |taining 2% ounces, and 421 jars, each containing 7% ounces, of revitalized for- |mula cream at Philadelphia, Pa., alleging that the articles had been shipped by |the Florita Laboratories, Inc., from New York, N. Y., within the period from on |or about November 10, 1943, to June 15, 1944; and charging that the articles |were misbranded. The articles were labeled in part: (Jars) \"\"Madame Olga |Pataky Corrective Texture Cream [or \"\"A re-vitalized formula\"\"].\"\"|Analyses showed that both articles consisted essentially of petrolatum, lano- |lin, and water, with small amounts of borax and perfume. |,|The corrective texture cream was alleged to be misbranded in that the state- |ments appearing on its label, \"\"Corrective Texture Cream * * * Corrective|Texture Cream helps to refine dry* lined or roughened skin to satin smoothness. |* * * If skin is very dry or lined apply revitalized formula,\"\" were false and |misleading since the article would not be effective in correcting the texture of |the skin or the removal of lines.|The revitalized formula was alleged to be misbranded in that the' following |statements appearing on its label, \"\"A re-vitalized formula * * * Before re- |tiring apply over corrective texture cream, especially where lines are prominent. |Particularly recommended for an aging neck,\"\" were false and misleading since |the article would not be effective in the removal of lines or signs of aging neck, |nor would it revitalize the areas of the skin where such signs were present.|On August 30, 1944, Madam Olga Pataky, Philadelphia, Pa., having appeared |as claimant and admitted the allegations* of the libel, judgment of condemnation |was entered and the products were ordered released under bond for relabeling |under the supervision of the Food and Drug Administration.|110. Misbranding of Miracle Aid for Wrinkles. U. S. v. 21 Bottles, 40 Bottles, and 10 1/4 Dozen Bottles of Miracle Aid for Wrinkles, and 50 Circulars. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.csnj00110January 1945Miracle ProductsMiracle Aid for WrinklesNovember 27, 1943, to June 7, 1944Newark, N. J. ; Atlanta, Ga. ; Salt Lake City, UtahChicago, Ill.Newark, N. J. ; Atlanta, Ga. ; Salt Lake City, UtahDistrict of New Jersey, the District of Utah, and the Northern District of Georgia110F. D. C. Nos. 11801, 12875, 12876. Sample Nos. 57239-F, 63481-F, 63486-F, 70030-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00110csnj|110. Misbranding of Miracle Aid for Wrinfeles. U. S. v. 21 Bottles, 40 Bottles,|and 10% Dozen Bottles of Miracle Aid for \"\"Wrinkles, and 50 Circulars, |Default decrees of condemnation and destruction, (F. D. C. Nos. 11801, |12875, 12876. Sample Nos. 57239-F, 63481-F, 63486-F, 70030-F.)|On or about February 16 and July 7 and 15, 1944, the United States attorney- |for the District of New Jersey, the District of Utah, and the Northern District |of Georgia filed libels against 21 bottles of Miracle Aid for Wrinkles at Newark, |N. J., 10% dozen bottles of the same product at Atlanta, Ga., and 40 bottles of |the product and 50 circulars at Salt Lake City, Utah, alleging that the product had |been shipped within the period from on or about November 27, 1943, to June 7, |1944, by Miracle Products, from Chicago, Ill.; and charging that it was mis- |branded.|Examination of samples of the article showed that it consisted essentially of |water with small amounts of protein, such as egg white, and salt, and perfume.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that certain statements in its |labeling, on the bottle label, and in the circulars entitled \"\"For the Preservation |and Enhancement of Beauty,\"\" which accompanied the article when it was intro- |duced and while it was in interstate commerce, were false and misleading since |they represented and suggested that the article would be effective in removing |wrinkles and double chin and would supply skin tissue protein to the body, |whereas it would not be effective for such purposes.|It was alleged that the circulars which were the subject of seizure as part of |the labeling of the article at Salt Lake City had been shipped in interstate com- |merce from Chicago, Ill., by Miracle Products on or about February 4, 1944, the |article having been shipped on or about February 14,1944.|It was alleged in the libel filed with respect to the lot seized at Newark that |the circulars in that lot accompanied the article when introduced into and while |in interstate commerce in the following manner: The Miracle Products (Mac |Printing Co., Chicago, Ill., consignor) shipped the circulars on or about Novem- |ber 24, 1943, and on November 27, 1943, shipped the Miracle Aid for Wrinkles to, |Newark, where the cosmetic and the circulars were brought together for distri- |bution to purchasers; and that the joint shipment and receipt of the cosmetic |and the circulars relating thereto for joint distribution constituted a transaction |in interstate commerce between the shipper and the consignee whereby the cir- |culars accompanied the article when if was introduced and while it was in |interstate commerce.|On April 17, August 8, and September 30, 1944, no claimant having appeared, |judgments of condemnation were entered and the product, including the cir- |culars in the Salt Lake City lot, was ordered destroyed.|111. Misbranding of Quinine Scalp Rub. U. S. v. 40 Jugs of Quinine Scalp Rub. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.csnj00111January 1945Collins Laboratories, Inc.Quinine Scalp RubJuly 27 and August 5, 1943East St. Louis, Ill.St. Louis, Mo.East St. Louis, Ill.Eastern District of Illinois111F. D. C. No. 11134. Sample No. 47670-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00111csnj|111. Misbranding of Q,uinine Scalp liub. U. S. v. 40 Jugs of Quinine Scalp Jiuo.|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 11134.|Sample No. 47670-F.)|On November 18, 1943, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of |Illinois filed a libel against 40 1-gallon jugs of an article invoiced as Quinine |Scalp Rub and located at East St. Louis, Ill., alleging that it had been shipped |in interstate commerce on or about July 27 and August 5, 1943, by the Collins |Laboratories, Inc., St. Louis, Mo.; and charging that it was misbranded. The |article was unlabeled when shipped.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that it was a cosmetic in package form |and, when shipped, failed to bear a label containing the name and place of |business of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor, and an accurate statement |of the quantity of the contents in terms of weight, measure, or numerical count.|On December 20,1943, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation |was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|COSMETICS IN DECEPTIVE CONTAINERS|112. Misbranding of Lady Esther Face Powder. U. S. v. 528 Boxes of Lady Esther Face Powder. Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered released nnder bond for relabeling.csnj00112January 1945Lady Esther, LimitedLady Esther Face PowderJuly 20 and December 29, 1943, and February 16,1944Detroit, Mich.Chicago, Ill.Detroit, Mich.Eastern District of Michigan112F. D. C. No. 12126. Sample Nos. 55164-F to 55168-F, incl.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00112csnj|112. Misbranding of Lady Esther Face Powder. U. S. v. 528 Hoxes of L.ady |Esther Face Powder. Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered |released nnder bond for relabeling. (F. D. C. No. 12126. Sample Nos. |55164-F to 55168-F, incl.)|Examination of this product showed that space had been left between the |top of the powder and the cover equivalent to approximately 47 percent of the |total capacity of the box; that the label did not bear the address of the manu- |facturer; and that the statement of net weight had been placed on the box |in small type of a noncontrasting color.|On March 31, 1944, the United States attorney for the Eastern District |of Michigan filed a libel against 528 boxes of Lady Esther Face Powder at |Detroit, Mich., alleging that the article had been shipped by Lady Esther, |Limited, Chicago, Ill., on or about July 20 and December 29, 1943, and February |16,1944; and charging that it was misbranded.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the label did not bear the |place of business of the maunfacturer, packer, or distributor; in that an ac- |curate statement of the quantity of the contents was not prominently placed |on the label with such conspicuousness, as compared with other words, state- |ments, or designs in the labeling, as to render it likely to be read and understood |by the ordinary individual under customary conditions of purchase and use; |and in that its container was so made as to be misleading.|On May 26, 1944, Lady Esther, Limited, claimant, having admitted the facts |alleged in the libel, judgment of condemnation was entered and the product |was ordered released under bond for relabeling, under the supervision of the |Food and Drug Administration, so as to bear the address of the manufacturer |and set forth prominently upon the label an accurate statement of the quantity |of contents and a statement, \"\"Space allowed in cover for your puff,\"\" or other |words of like tenor.|INDEX TO NOTICES OF JUDGMENT C. N. J. NOS. 96 TO 112|PRODUCTS|N. J. No. |Alexandra de Markoff Cleansing Cream_ 102|Dentifrice |106|Bff-Remin Dentriflce |106|Face creams |102,107-109|powder |112|Gold Coast Hair Lacquer |98|Hair and scalp preparations |96-99,|103, * 105, 111|Howard's Buttermilk Cream , |107|Hubere Hair Lacquer |96|Hair Lacquer Pads |96, 97|Lacquers, hair |96-98|Lady Esther Face Powder |112|Lemon color |101|1 Seizure contested.|2 Seizure contested. |the court.|Contains opinion of|N. J. No. |Madame Olga Pataky Corrective Tex- |ture Cream, revitalized formula|cream |109|Miracle Aid for Wrinkles |110|Miscellaneous cosmetics (water*dam-|aged, old) |100|O. S. Lemon #401 |101|Oliv-Tone |103|Permanent wavina; preparations 99,1105|Pierrette Custom Process of Cold Perma- |nent Waving |99|Quinine Scalp Rub |111|Shaving preparations |2104|CJ-X Improved Shaving Medium |2 104|Vita-Ray Vitamin Cream |108|Waval Nutri-Tonic Oil Permanent Wave |Solutions and Nutri-Tonic Wave|Set |1105|Wave set |* 105|The cases reported herewith were instituted in the United States District |Courts by the United States attorneys acting upon reports submitted by direction |of the Federal Security Administrator.|WATSON B. MILLER, Acting Administrator, Federal Security Agency.|WASHINGTON, D. C, April 18, 1946.|Page|Cosmetics actionable because of adulteration |with poisonous or deleterious substances 61|Cosmetic actionable because of contamination |with filth |_ 72|Cosmetics actionable because of adulteration |with uncertified coal-tar colors. |72|CONTENTS|Page|Cosmetics actionable because of false and mis- |leading claims _ 73|Cosmetics actionable because of failure to bear |mandatory labeling. |77|Index |Cosmetics, subject to the drug provisions of 77 |the Act |78|COSMETICS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF ADULTERATION WITH |POISONOUS OR DELETERIOUS SUBSTANCES|113. Adulteration of Nu-Charme Perfected Brow Tint. U. S. v. 26 Cartons of Nu-Charme Perfected Brow Tint (and 1 seizure action against another lot of the same product). Motion to dismiss denied. Judgment of district court ordering product condemned and destroyed appealed to circuit court of appeals. Judgment of district court affirmed.csnj00113July 1946James B. Byrd, trading as the Nu-Charme LaboratoriesNu-Charme Perfected Brow TintApril 14 and May 5,1944Shreveport, La.Texarkana, Ark.Shreveport, La.Western District of Louisiana113F. D. C. Nos. 12833, 13790. Sample Nos. 61272-F., 61335-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00113csnj|113. Adulteration of Hu-CIaarme Perfected Brow Tint. TJ. S. v. 26 Cartons of |9Tu-Charme Perfected Brow Tint (and 1 seizure action against another |lot of the same product). Motion to dismiss denied. Judgment of |district court ordering product condemned and destroyed appealed to |circuit court of appeals. Judgment of district court affirmed. (F. D. C. |Nos. 12833, 13790. Sample Nos. 61272-F., 61335-F.)|LIBELS FILED: July 6 and September 16, 1944, Western District of Louisiana; |amended January 16, 1945.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT : Between the approximate dates of April 14 and May 5,1944, |by James B. Byrd, trading as the Nu-Charme Laboratories, Texarkana, Ark.- |Tex.|PRODUCT: 26 cartons and 3%2 dozen packages, each containing, among other |items, 4 bottles of solutions labeled \"\"Nu-Charme No. 1,\"\" \"\"Nu-Charme No. 2,\"\" |\"\"Nu-Charme No. 4,\"\" and \"\"Nu-Charme No. 5,\"\" and a package of powder labeled |\"\"Nu-Charme No. 3,\"\" at Shreveport, La.|Examination showed that Nu-Charme No. 1 consisted essentially of 4 percent |paraphenylenediamine dissolved in water; that Nu-Charme No. 2 was a solu- |tion of hydrogen peroxide; that Nu-Charme No. 3. consisted of magnesium |oxide; that Nu-Charme No. 4 was a solution of boric acid; and that Nu-Charme |No. 5 was light mineral oil.|LABEL IN PART : \"\"Nu-Charme Perfected Brow Tint Jet Black.\"\" |NATURE OF CHARGE: Adulteration, Section 601 (a), the product contained a poi- |sonous or deleterious substance, paraphenylenediamine, which might have |rendered it injurious to users under the conditions of use prescribed in the |labeling; and, Section 601 (e), the product was not a hair dye and it bore and |contained a coal-tar color that has not been listed for use in cosmetics in ac- |cordance with the regulations and is other than one from a batch that has |been certified. |DISPOSITION: March 17, 1945. The cases having been consolidated for trial, |James B. Byrd, trading as the Nu-Charme Laboratories, appeared as claimant |and filed a motion to dismiss the libel. Further proceedings are set forth in |detail in the following opinions of the district court:|DAWKINS, District Judge:|{Opinion delivered March 16,19^5.]|\"\"These two cases involve the same issues and will be disposed of in one |opinion, in which the Government seeks to condemn and have destroyed cer- |tain quantities of the product known as 'Nu-Charme Perfected Brow Tint |* * V found on analysis to consist essentially of para-phenylenediamine, |approximately four per cent, dissolved in water * * * and that the article |is adulterated within the meaning of T. 21 USCA 361 (a), in that it contains |a poisonous and deleterious substance, namely, para-phenylenediamine, which |may render it injurious under the conditions prescribed in the labelling thereof, |as follows:|* * * Use Glass, China or Wooden Dish for Mixing Fifteen (15) drops Solution |No. 1 with Fifteen (15) drops Solution No. 2 ; to this add enough Powder No. 3 to |make thick paste. Be sure paste will not run. Application Using small clean orange |stick apply dye mixture to lashes * * * then to brows. Leave mixture on until |dry * * * io to 15 minutes. * * * Do Not Let Patron Open Eyes Until All of |Mixture Has Been Removed. * * *|\"\"The seizure was made and appropriate proceedings taken for the con- |demnation as having been sold in interstate commerce. Thereupon, James B. |Bird, doing business as Nu-Charme Laboratories, intervened and claimed own- |ership of the seized product. Among other things he admitted that it was a |cosmetic within the intent and meaning of the Act of June 25th, 1938, known as |the 'Pure Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act'; but denied that it was adulterated |within the meaning of T. 21 USCA 361 (a) or that it contained poisonous ahd |deleterious substances, which render it injurious to users under conditions of |use prescribed in the label thereof. Claimant then quoted in detail the direc- |tions for preparation and use which he alleged accompanied the product.|\"\"On January 16,1945, plaintiff filed an amended libel in which it was alleged |as follows:|That the article heretofore herein seized is further adulterated within the meaning |of 21 U.S.C. 361 (e), in that it is not a hair dye and bears and contains a coal tar |color that has not been listed for use in cosmetics in accordance with regulations of |the Administrator of the Federal Security Agency pursuant to 21 U. S. C. 364, and |is other than one from a batch that has been certified.|\"\"On February 19,1945, the following proceedings were also filed: (1) a second |amendment to the libel, from which the following is quoted:|'Notwithstanding, in order to have the pertinent regulations before the Court, |libelant shows that the Federal Register of Tuesday, May 9, 1939, Volume 4, |Number 89, beginning on page 1922, contains the following:|RULES, REGULATIONS, ORDERS|TITLE 21 FOOD AND DRUGS|FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION|IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR PURPOSE OF RECEIVING EVIDENCE UPON THE BASIS |OF WHICH REGULATIONS MAY BE PROMULGATED FOR LISTING OF COAL-TAR COLORS WHICH |ARE HARMLESS AND SUITABLE FOR USE IN FOODS, DRUGS, AND COSMETICS, DRUGS AND COS- |METICS, AND EXTERNALLY APPLIED DRUGS AND COSMETICS : FOR CERTIFICATION OF BATCHES |OF SUCH COLORS : FOR PROCEDURES THEREUNDER : AND FOR PAYMENT OF FEES THEREFOR.|ORDER OF THE SECRETARY PROMULGATING REGULATIONS EFFECTIVE ON PUBLICATION|Pursuant to, and under and by virtue of, the authority and direction of the Federal |Pood, Drug and Cosmetic Act (Sec. 701, 52 Stat. 1055; 21 U. S. C. 371 (e) ; Sec. 406 |(b), 52 Stat. 1049; 21 U. S. C. 346 (b) Sec. 504, 52 Stat. 1052; 21 TJ. S. C. 354; Sec. 604, |52 Stat. 1055; 21 U. S. C. 364; Sec. 706, 52 Stat. 1058; 21 U. S. C. 376), and, based |upon substantial evidence of record at the hearing in the above-entitled matter detailed |findings of fact are made, as follows:|FINDINGS OF FACT|Coal-tar colors-Derivation-scope of term. -|That coal-tar colors are materials consisting of one or more substances which either |are made from coal-tar, or are capable of derivation from intermediates of the same |identity as coal-tar intermediates. They include all substances from these sources which |are themselves colored and impart their color to the substance to which they are applied, |and they also include those compounds which do not themselves possess the color |imparted to the substance to which they are applied but which when applied to such |substance, impart color. (For example: Orange I is prepared from coal-tar inter- |mediates. It is itself colored and imparts color when applied to a substance. Alizarin |may be made either from coal-tar intermediates or from the root of the madder plant. |It is colored and imparts color and is considered a coal-tar color whether derived from |coal-tar or from a natural source. Paraphenylenediamine is colorless but is considered |a coal-tar color, since it is derived from coal-tar and imparts color when applied to |other substances.) Coal-tar colors may also include diluents or substrata. In the |manufacture of coal-tar colors all impurities are not completely eliminated.|Definitions of terms used in regulations. (Unnecessary here)|3.|No coal-tar color in the orbital area.|That coal-tar colors are not harmless for use in preparations applied to the area of |the eye, which means the area bounded by the supra-orbital ridge and the infra-orbital |ridge, including the eyebrow, the skin below the eyebrow, the eyelids, the eyelashes, the |conjunctival sac of the eye, the eyeball, and the soft areolar tissue that lies within the |perimeter of the infra-orbital ridge. The application of coal-tar colors to this area |may cause serious injury and even loss of sight. No coal-tar color should be certified |for use in a product to be applied to the area of the eye. A coal-tar color used in a |product to be applied to this area should be considered to be from a batch that has not |been certified, even though such color is from a batch that has been certified for |other use.|(2) a plea by the intervenor, attacking the constitutionality of Sec. 6G4 of |the Act of June 25, 1938 (Ch. 675, 52 Stat. 1054, T. 21, 364, U. S. C. A.) if the |Court 'should hold' that the Federal Security Administrator has the right and |authority to promulgate regulations prohibiting the manufacture 'of cosmetics |containing coal-tar colors irrespective of the actual fact that such product |is harmless when applied according to directions' as violating the 5th and 14th |amendments to the Constitution of the United States; (3) a motion to dismiss |the amended libels for reasons set forth at length in paragraphs (a) to (f) |included, which stated in substance, are as follows: (a) The Act of Congress |excludes from its provisions eyelash dyes or eyebrow dyes; (b) alternatively, |should the court hold that the administrator was given such authority by the |Act, the amended bills 'propose a new issue contradictory and inconsistent with |the allegations of the original bill because the regulation * * * provides |the certification of any \"\"batches\"\" containing coal tar * * *'; (c) that the |refusal of the administrator 'to certify any coal tar color, harmless or other- |wise, is arbitrary and capricious, and confiscatory * * *'; (d) said regula- |tion 'contravenes paragraph (A) of Sec. 361, 21 U. S. C. C. A. in that it defines |\"\"a poisonous or deleterious substance\"\" to be other than the definition contained |in paragraph A'; (e) that said regulations 'set up a different standard of deter- |mining the use of cosmetics, particularly eyelash and eyebrow tints * * * |and redefines what is a \"\"poisonous and deleterious substance\"\"'; and (f) that |the administrator failed to give proper notice of hearing before prescribing |such regulations as required by T. 21 Sec. 371 (e) U. S. C. A., and finally that |intervenor had no notice of such hearing at all until the libels were filed.|\"\"On the same day, February 19th, intervenor filed answers to both amended |libels.|\"\"Counsel for the Government, likewise on that day, filed what is styled 'a |motion for judgment on the pleadings' in which it was set forth that intervenor |had answered the original libel admitting 'the substantial allegations (of the |libel) with exception that he denied the cosmetic contains a poisonous and |deleterious substance, which may render it injurious to users under conditions |prescribed on the label thereof; that the Government then filed an amended |libel, charging that the product 'was not hair dye, but an eyelash and brow dye |and it contained a coal tar color that has not been listed for use as a cosmetic |* * * pursuant to 21 U. S. C. A. 364, and is other than one from a batch that |has been certified'; that the original answer admitted these allegations to the |amended libel; and that the government filed a second amendment setting forth |the rules and regulations as shown by the Federal Register 'condemning a coal |tar color to be used in a product to be applied in the area of the eye', which was |likewise admitted by intervenor in his answer to said amendment, and this |removes any dispute as to the facts, except as to the poisonous nature of the |product, which was immaterial for the purpose of said motion for judgment. |Counsel for intervenor stated that if the court allowed the amendment and held |that the administrator could legally refuse to certify any coal tar product for use |in coloring of eyelashes and eyebrows, then there would be no question but that |the government would be entitled to judgment. On the other hand if it were |concluded that the administrator did not have such authority or that intervenor |had not been properly notified and given a chance to be heard at a hearing upon |the matter before this ruling was made, then the matter should go to trial on the |merits of whether the product, when used according to directions, was dangerous |and injurious to the skin and eyes.|\"\"When this Act of June 25, 1938 was under consideration by Congress, there |was considerable discussion as to whether the powers to be exercised by the |administrator should be subject to review by the courts, and the lawmakers |went further in the matter of judicial review of his actions than had been pro- |vided in many other instances of delegation of power to make regulations having |the effect of law. These provisions for review by the courts are found in Sec. 371 |T. 21U. Sf C. A. Subsection (d) of section 371 provides :|The definitions and standards of identity promulgated in accordance with the provi- |sions of this chapter shall be effective * * *, notwithstanding such definitions and |standards as may be contained in other laws of the United States and regulations |promulgated thereunder.|\"\"Subsection (e) dealing with hearing and making of regulations is as follows: |The Administrator, on Ms own initiative or upon an application of any interested |industry or substantial portion thereof stating reasonable grounds therefor, shall hold a |public hearing upon a proposal to issue, amend, or repeal any regulation contemplated by |any of the following sections of this chapter: 341, 343 (j), 344 (a), 346 (a) and (b), |351 (b), 352 (d), 352 (h) 354 and 364. The Administrator shall give appropriate notice |of the hearing, and the notice shall set forth the proposal in general terms and specify |the time and place for a public hearing to be held thereon not less than thirty days after |the date of the notice, except that the public hearing on regulations under section 344 |(a) may be held within a reasonable time, to be fixed by the Administrator, after notice |thereof. At the hearing any interested person may be heard in person or by his repre- |sentative. As soon as practicable after completion of the hearing, the Administrator |shall by order make public his action in issuing, amending, or repealing the regulation or |determining not to take such action. The Administrator shall base his order only on |substantial evidence of record at the hearing and shall set forth as part of the order |detailed findings of fact on which the order is based. No such order shall take effect |prior to the ninetieth day after it is issued, except that if the Administrator finds that |emergency conditions exist necessitating an earlier effective date, then the Administrator |shall specify in the order his findings as to such conditions and the order shall take effect |at such earlier date as the Administrator shall specify there to meet the emergency.|\"\"It will be noted that under subsection (e) the administrator may 'on his own |initiative or upon application of any interested industry or substantial portion |thereof * * * shall hold a public hearing upon a proposal to issue, amend or |repeal any regulation contemplated by any of the following sections * * * |364'; that he shall give appropriate notice, etc., and that no such order shall take |effect until ninety days after its issue. The dates on which the orders or regula-|tions were issued in this matter appeared in the quotation from the amended bill |of the government above. But the portions so quoted, as appearing in the |Federal Register of May 9, 1939, do not show how or when the notice of the |hearing was given or on what date it was held. (This court does not have the |4th volume of the Federal Register, the latest number furnished it being Vol. 3, |published in 1938.) However, subsection (g) provides that 'a certified copy of |the transcript of the record of any proceedings under subsection (e) shall be |furnished by the administrator \"\"to any interested party at his request, and |payment of the costs thereof, and shall be admissible in any criminal libel for |condemnation, exclusion of imports, or other proceedings arising under or in |respect to this chapter, irrespective of whether proceedings with respect to the |order have previously been instituted or become final under subsection (f)\\ |This coupled with paragraph 6 of the last mentioned subsection (f) providing: |'The remedies provided for in this section shall be in addition and not in substi- |tution for any other remedies by law', would indicate that Congress had in mind |that there might arise in condemnation proceedings issues upon which proceed- |ings before the administrator affecting the rights of the claimant under any |particular, libel would be such that the courts should consider and decide them, |notwithstanding the remedies for review provided in subsection (f), permitting |the going direct to the Circuit Court of Appeals having jurisdiction in the |locality 'where any person who may be adversely affected by such order resides |* * * or has his place of business' instead of resorting to an original action |in a court of first instance, such as the United States District Courts. In |Security Adm. vs. Quaker Oats Co., 318 U. S. 218, on p. 227, the Supreme Court |with Chief Justice Stone as its organ, in referring to the procedure provided in |subsection (f), states:|The review provisions were patterned after those by which Congress provided for the |review of 'quasi judicial' orders of the|' Federal Trade Commission and other agencies, |which we have many times had occasion to construe. Under such provisions we have |repeatedly emphasized the scope that must be allowed to the discretion and informed |judgment of an expert administrative body.|\"\"It becomes necessary therefore, for this court to analyze the grounds of at- |tack upon the regulations. This is particularly true since it has, after hear- |ing, allowed the amended libel, which, in effect, says that claimant's product |was not made in compliance with the regulations, because the administrator |had ruled that any and all preparations intended for use as eyelash or brow |dyes containing coal tar are dangerous and therefore refused to certify any |batches as harmless. Claimant admits that the administrator has excluded the |use of coal tar coloring from such dyes.|\"\"Taking up these contentions we find that they fall into two classes, thus, (1) |those in which it is claimed the administrator acted beyond or without author- |ity under the statute; and (2) the alleged unconstitutionality based upon want |of proper notice and the action of the administrator in denying the right to |use coal tar in claimant's preparation, which amounts to taking of his property |without due process of law. As pointed out earlier herein, those in the first |class are raised principally in the motion to dismiss the amended libels, while in |the plea of unconstitutionality it is substantially alleged that if the Court |should hold that the Administrator, under the Act, has the right and author- |ity to promulgate regulations prohibiting the use of cosmetics containing coal |tar color irrespective of the actual fact that such product is harmless when |applied according to directions, then the statute is unconstitutional and con- |flicts with the 5th and 14th amendments: and further, 'in the alternative', that |section 371 T. 21 U. S. C. A. violates the 14th amendment in that it fails to |provide 'effective notice to those who may be vitally concerned by such con- |templated orders, regulations, etc'|\"\"I think it must be conceded that Congress, in providing for review of orders |and regulations made by the administrator, in the manner and by the partic- |ular procedure and courts specified in subsection (f) of 371, must have felt |that this would afford adequate remedy for determining the power, authority |and correctness of the administrator's action within the statute; and that to |provide stability, a reasonable limit, in the matter of time, should be fixed for |those contests, which it set at ninety days. (This is not to say that the issue of |sufficient notice, such as to provide due process, could not be raised also in such |proceedings and reviewed in what the Supreme Court in Security Adm. vs.|Quaker Oats, supra, termed 'respondent's appeal from this order' to the Court |of Appeals.)|\"\"Besides, in the first sentence of subsection (e) of Sec. 371, the 'administrator |on his own initiative or on the application of any interested industry or sub- |stantial portion thereof, shall hold a public hearing upon a proposal' not only |'to issue', but to 'amend or repeal any regulation contemplated by any' section |of the act, including Section 364, of T. 21 JJ. S. C. A., requiring that he 'shall |promulgate regulations providing for the listing of coal tar colors, which |are harmless and suitable for use in cosmetics and for the certification of |batches of such colors, with or without harmless dilutents.' In other words, |regardless of the nature of the regulation and of the fact that it might |have been adopted with full compliance as to notice, hearing, review, etc., it |would seem 'that any industry or substantial portion thereof, could make |application 'to amend or repeal' the same. Of course, what should consti- |tute an 'industry or substantial portion thereof is somewhat indefinite and |uncertain, but the act itself does seem to provide a means for raising these |issues, first before the administrator, and then, by direct appeal to the court |of appeals, thus insuring a more speedy determination than if submitted to |the courts of original jurisdiction, such as the present proceeding. Hence, ex- |cept as to the constitutional issues of due process under the 5th and 14th |amendments, raised by the charge of insufficient provision for notice and oppor- |tunity to this claimant to be heard before adoption of the regulations quoted |above from the second amended bill and the wrongful taking of his prop- |erty, it does not appear to this court that there is any other remedy 'provided |by law', and none has been cited or referred to by complainant, by which this |court can review the action of the administrator complained of in either the |motion to dismiss or otherwise, which existed prior to the enactment of sub- |section 371 (f), and .as to which the latter would be 'in addition'.|\"\"Before this court can determine whether the notice and hearing held were |sufficient to constitute due process, it will be necessary to have before it a |certified copy of the proceedings had before the administrator, as provided by |subsection (e) of Sec. 371, which can be obtained by claimant for use herein, |under subsection (g).|\"\"The motion to dismiss will therefore be denied, but the matter is held open |upon the issues of the constitutional questions to afford the parties an oppor- |tunity to obtain and file in this case certified copies of the proceedings had |before the administrator, showing specifically the time and manner of giving |notice to the claimant and others in said industry, as well as the character of |the hearing.\"\"|[Opinion delivered August 6, 19^5.]|\"\"In the opinion handed down in these consolidated cases on March 16, 1945, |it was said:|The motion to dismiss will therefore be denied, but the matter is held open upon the |issues of the constitutional questions to afford an opportunity to obtain and file in this |case certified copies of the proceedings had before the administrator, showing specifically |the time and manner of giving notice to the claimant and others in said industry, as |well as the character of the hearing.|\"\"This ruling was made upon motion of the claimant or intervenor to dismiss |the libel, and as indicated therein, the Court considered the only serious issue |to be the constitutional one as to whether a reasonable opportunity to be heard |had been afforded the intervenor and others in its position before the regulation |prohibiting the use of coal tar in the manufacture of eye-lash and brow tints |was adopted.|\"\"In compliance with the suggestion or requirement contained in the con- |cluding paragraph of the opinion quoted above, counsel for the government |obtained and filed in the record the following:|\"\"(1) A press release under date of January 6, 1939, of a hearing to be had |on February 6, 1939, in one of the buildings occupied by the Secretary of |Agriculture in Washington, D. C, at which all persons using or proposing ta |use coal tar or its products in the manufacture of commodities for sale to the |public, would be given an opportunity to be heard, either in person or through |representative;|\"\"(2) Three copies of the Federal Begister of dates January 1, April 8 and |May 9, respectively.|\"\"(1) The press release stated that at the proposed hearing there would be |considered 'some one hundred and thirty-two coal tar colors on which interested |persons may submit testimony concerning harmlessness and suitability for use.' |It also stated that \"\"It is not proposed to certify any color for use in eyelash |or eyebrow dyes.' Presumably this release was published in the various trade |journals of the many businesses or industries using coal tar colors.|\"\"(2) The Federal Register of January 7, 1939, among other things dealing |with coal tar colors, etc., contained the following:|Notice of public hearings for the purpose of receiving evidence upon the basis of -which |regulations may be promulgated providing for the listing of coal-tar colors which are |harmless and suitable for use in foods, drugs and cosmetics, drugs and cosmetics, and |externally applied drugs and cosmetics; for the certification of batches of such colors; |for procedures thereunder; and for the payment of fees therefor.|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|(c) The authorization contained in these regulations for the certification of coal-tar |colors for use in food, drugs, and cosmetics, or in drugs and cosmetics, or in externally |applied drugs and cosmetics, shall not be considered to authorize the certification of |any coal-tar color for use in an eyelash dye or an eyebrow dye. A coal-tar color so |used shall be considered to be from a batch that has not been certified in accordance |with these regulations, even though such color is from a batch that has been certified |for other use.|\"\"The issue of April 8, 1939 contained the following:|DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE |FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION|In the matter of public hearing for purpose of receiving evidence upon basis of which |regulations may be promulgated providing for listing of coal-tar colors which are harm- |less and suitable for use in foods, drugs, and cosmetics, drugs and cosmetics, and |externally applied drugs and cosmetics; for certification of batches of such colors; for |procedures thereunder; and for payment of fees therefor.|*|*|*|*|*|*|* |No direct, positive testimony was introduced by other interested persons to controvert, |or tending to controvert, the testimony introduced by the Department to the effect that |the application of any coal-tar color to the orbital area is liable to cause serious con- |sequences, even resulting in impairment or loss of sight, and that no coal-tar color should |be considered for listing for use in that area. |#|*|*|*|*|*|*|* |No coal-tar color in the orbital area. That coal-tar colors are not harmless for use|in preparations applied to the eye. The anatomical structure of the eye includes the |area bounded by the supra-orbital ridge and the infra-orbital ridge, including the eye- |brow, the skin below the eyebrow, the eyelids, the eyelashes, the conjunctival sac of |the eye, the eyeball, and the soft areolar tissue that lies within the perimeter of the |infra-orbital ridge. The application of coal-tar colors to this area may cause serious |injury and even loss of sight. A coal-tar color which is certified for use in food, drugs, |and cosmetics, or in drugs and cosmetics, or in externally applied drugs and cosmetics, |should not be certified for use in a product to be applied to the eye. A coal-tar color |used in a product to be applied to the eye should be considered to be from a batch that|has not been certified, even though such color is from a batch that has been certified|for other use. (R., pp. 32, 33, 78, 234-37, 413, 437, 438, 498, 599, 433; Government's|Exhibit No. 1)|\"\"The issue of May 9, 1939, contained the following, among others, on the |subject of use of coal tar for colors:|RULES, REGULATIONSj ORDERS|TITLE 21 FOOD AND DRUGS|FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION|In the matter of public hearing for purpose of receiving evidence upon basis of which |regulations may be promulgated for listing of coal-tar colors which are harmless and |suitable for use in foods, drugs and cosmetics, drug's and cosmetics, and externally |applied drugs and cosmetics; for certification of batches of such colors; for procedures |thereunder, and for payment of fees therefor|Order of the secretary promulgating regulations effective on publication|Pursuant to, and under and by virtue of, the authority and direction of the Federal Food,|Drugs, and Cosmetic Act (Sec. 701, 52 Stat. 1055 ; 21 U. S C. 371 (e) ; Sec. 406 (b), |52 Stat. 1049 ; 21 U. S. C. 346 (b) ; Sec. 504, 52 Stat. 1052 ; 21 U. S. C. 364 ; Sec. 706, |52 Stat. 1058; 21 U. S. C. 376, and based upon substantial evidence of record at the |hearing in the above entitled matter, detailed findings of fact are made, as follows : |* |* |* |* |* |*?*|No coal-tar color in the orbital area. That coal-tar colors are not harmless for use in |preparations applied to the area of the eye, which means the area bounded by the supra- |orbital ridge and the infra-orbital ridge, including the eyebrow, the skin below the |eyebrow, the eyelids, the eyelashes, the conjunctival sac of the eye, the eyeball, and the |soft areolar tissue that lies within the perimeter of the infra-orbital ridge. The applica- |tion of coal-tar colors to\"\" this area may cause serious injury and even loss of sight. No |coal-tar color should be certified for use in a product to be applied to the area of the eye. |A coal-tar color used in a product to be applied to this area should be considered to be |from a batch that has not been certified, even though such color is from a batch that has |been certified for other use.|\"\"From this showing it is evident that the claimant and all other interested |persons were given all the notice possible, in view of the very large numbers of |persons and industries involved. It further appears that all of those who filed |appearances either in 'person or through representative', were given ten days in |which to file briefs or arguments upon any point involved; and that such |exceptions as were filed were duly considered, some sustained and others |rejected. None appeared to have been made to the regulation providing that no |batches of dye would be certified for use in eyelash or eyebrow tint.|\"\"On April 19, 1945, a further hearing was had by the court in this case, at |which these exhibits were filed. Subsequently, in the month of July, the exact |date does not appear in the minutes, counsel for claimant brought the matter to |the attention of the court, and advised that he did not intend to file further |briefs, as had been suggested at the time of the hearing, and requested that the |case be disposed of as it stood.|\"\"Without finding it necessary to go further into the facts or law thus pre- |sented, it is sufficient to say that, in my opinion, there was due process and a |compliance with the statute and that the plea of unconstitutionality of inter- |venor must fail.|\"\"The motion to dismiss will therefore be overruled.\"\"|^Opinion delivered August 21, 19It5.'\\|\"\"The nature of this case, including pleadings and issues, was fully set forth in |the opinions handed down by this court on March 17 [or 16] and August 5th [or |6th], 1945, and will not be repeated.|\"\"It was held that the only question that could be considered was the one of |compliance with the due process clause of the Federal Constitution, by the |Administrator, in adopting the regulations which prevent the use of coal tar or |its derivatives in the manufacture of eyelash or eyebrow coloring. It was held |that, if sufficient notice and opportunity to be heard, within Constitutional |requirements, had been afforded to the claimant here, and others in a similar |situation, that the sole procedure for a review of the action of the Administrator |is provided by the statute itself, and that is, through appeal from the ruling of |the Administrator to the Circuit Court of Appeals having jurisdiction. See |sub-paragraph (f) Sec. 371 T. 21 USCA.|\"\"The bill in this case, as amended, charges that the product in question is |made from coal tar or a coal tar derivative, which has not been certified for use |therein in violation of the regulations adopted by the Administrator. This is |admitted by defendant, but he denies that his product is dangerous when ap- |plied according to directions. In this situation I am of the opinion that the |admission is sufficient to warrant granting of the injunction and that the action |of the Administrator on the evidence produced at the hearing can be reviewed |only through the appellate procedure provided by the Act.|\"\"There should be summary judgment as prayed for.'*|On September 15,1945, the court accordingly ordered the product condemned |and destroyed. Stay of execution was subsequently ordered, and the case |was appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On |March 19, 1946, the judgment of the district court was affirmed by the circuit |court of appeals with the following opinions:|HOLMES, Circuit Judge: \"\"These two libels in rem were filed by the United|States against 3%2 dozen packages and 26 cartons, respectively, of Nu-Charme |Perfected Brow Tint. They were disposed of on the pleadings pursuant to a |stipulation of the parties. These appeals were taken from judgments confis- |cating the property and ordering its destruction. For a statement of the facts |pleaded and the issues presented, see the opinions of the court below in |59 F. Supp. 284, 61 F. Supp. 847, and 61 F. Supp. 850.|\"\"It appears from the pleadings without contradiction that the property |seized contains a poisonous and deleterious substance, namely, para-phenylene |diamine, which is considered a coal-tar color since it is derived from coal-tar |and imparts color when applied to other substances; but the appellant, doing |business as Nu-Charme Laboratories, intervened as claimant and denied that |the product might be injurious to users under the conditions of use prescribed |in the labeling thereof. The sole issue upon the pleadings was and is whether |the aforesaid consignments of eyebrow and eyelash dye, which had been shipped |in interstate commerce for cosmetic use in the area of the eye, were adulterated |within the meaning of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.1|\"\"A cosmetic is deemed adulterated under said act if it is not a hair dye |and bears or contains a coal-tar color other than one from a batch that has |been certified in accordance with regulations providing for the listing of coal-tar |colors that are harmless for use in cosmetics.2 It being undisputed that the |cosmetics seized contain a coal-tar color, the appellant assails the administra- |tor's action in banning all such colors for use in preparations applied in the |orbital area.|\"\"The promulgating authority granted to the administrator is a quasi-legis- |lative power.3 He is given a wide discretion and his judgment, if based on |substantial evidence of record and within statutory and constitutional limita- |tions, is controlling even though the reviewing court might on the same record |have arrived at a different conclusion.4 The statute contemplates that he shall |not arbitrarily exercise his power, but shall act only upon a conscientious judg- |ment derived from a consideration of the facts and conditions to which the |regulation is to be applied.6|\"\"Section 371 (e) of the act authorizes the administrator to hold public hear- |ings after appropriate notice thereof is given. Such notice was given in this |instance and published in the Federal Register as provided by law.6 It set |forth|\"\" the proposal in general terms, and specified the time and place for the |hearing to be held, which was not less than thirty days after the date of |the notice.7 The hearing was had, findings of fact were made from evidence |of record, and the regulation was duly promulgated.8 Appellant contends that |the regulation promulgated by the administrator may be collaterally attacked |in condemnation proceedings, but we agree with the trial court that it is not |open to collateral attack, except upon constitutional grounds, since the statute |was fully complied with in every respect and provides that the procedure for |review of the action of the administrator shall be by appeal to the proper circuit |court of appeals.9|\"\"The regulation was promulgated, according to the policy set forth in the |act; the method prescribed was the listing of coal-tar colors found to be harm- |less, and certification of batches of such colors; a standard was furnished in |prescribing that the regulation would list only such colors as were found to be |harmless and suitable for use. Congress stated the general rule, and left to |the administrator the duty of ascertaining what particular colors should be |listed.10 This procedure meets the test required by the due-process clause of |the Fifth Amendment.|\"\"Counsel for appellant stated that if the administrator could legally refuse |to certify any coal-tar product for use in coloring eyebrows and eyelashes, |then there would be no question but that the Government would be entitled to|121 U. S. C. A. 361 (a) (e).|2 21 U. S. C. A. 361 (e) and 364.|3 21 TJ. S. C. A. 364.|4 Security Admr. v. Quaker Oats Co., 318 TJ. S. 218. 228.|5 Twin City Milk Producers Ass'n. v. McNutt. 122 F. (2) 564 |? 44 U. S. C. A. 308.|'Federal Register, Vol 4, No. 89, beginning on page 1922. |8'21 U. S. C. A., Sec. 371 (e). |9 21 U. S. C. A., Sec. 371 (f). |? 21 U. S. C. A., Sec. 364.|692825-46 2|judgment. We agree with this statement|' and have examined the facts upon |which the regulation was issued. The evidence as to the poisonous and per- |nicious effect liable to be caused by the application of any coal-tar color to the |orbital area was not controverted by any direct and positive testimony of |record. At the hearing on the proposed regulation for listing of colors suitable |* for use, the administrator found that coal-tar colors are not harmless for use |in preparations applied in the orbital area, which includes the eyebrows, the |eyelids, the eyelashes, the conjunctival sac of the eye, the eyeballs, and the |soft areolar tissue that lies within the perimeter of the infra-orbital ridge. He |found that the application of coal-tar colors to this area may cause serious |injury and even loss of sight. Thereupon, he issued the regulation that no |coal-tar color should be certified for use in a product to be applied in the area |of the eye. Such quasi-legislative action was not arbitrary or capricious but |was the reasonable exercise of a sound judgment and discretion.|AFFIRMED.\"\"|SIBLEY, Circuit Judge, concurring: \"\"I agree to the judgment, but think it |a more direct and satisfactory thing to say simply that the Statute, 21 U. S. |C. A., ? 861 (e), positively declares that a cosmetic is adulterated if it is not |a hair dye and bears or contains a coal tar color other than one from a batch |that has been certified according to regulations as provided by ? 364; and that |this cosmetic is not a hair dye and does contain a coal tar color not from a |certified batch. It cannot be sold and may be forfeited by the terms of the |statute alone. If the Administrator ought under ? 364 to make a list of harm- |less coal tar colors, and ought to include this one, some procedure must be |resorted to other than to sell the cosmetic in defiance of the statute.\"\"|182. Misbranding of Elizabeth Arden Sleek (depilatory cream). U. S. v. 74 Tubes.csnj00182August 1950Elizabeth ArdenElizabeth Arden Sleek (depilatory cream)May 25 and July 1, 1949Philadelphia, Pa.New York, N. Y.Philadelphia, Pa.Eastern District of Pennsylvania182F. D. C. No. 27627. Sample No. 13616-K.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00182csnj|182. Misbranding of Elizabeth Arden Sleek (depilatory cream). U. S. v. 74|Tubes * * *. (F. D. C. No. 27627. Sample No. 13616-K.) |LIBEL FILED : August 3,1949, Eastern District of Pennsylvania. |ALLEGED SHIPMENT : On or about May 25 and July 1, 1949, by Elizabeth Arden,|from New York, N. Y. |PRODUCT: 74 tubes of Elizabeth Arden Sleek (depilatory cream) at Philadelphia,|Pa. |LABEL IN PART : \"\"Elizabeth Arden Sleek Net Weight 5 Oz.\"\"|NATURE OF CHARGE: Misbranding, Section 602 (b) (2), the article failed to bear |a label containing an accurate statement of the quantity of the contents. (The |article was short of the declared weight.)|DISPOSITION: August 31, 1949. Default decree of condemnation and destruc- |tion.|114. Adulteration of Nu-Charme Perfected Brow Tint. U. S. v. 14 Cartons of Nu-Charme Perfected Brow Tint. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.csnj00114July 1946Nu-Charme Laboratories, Texarkana, Ark.-Tex.Nu-Charme Perfected Brow TintJune 8, 1944Kilgore, Tex.Texarkana, Ark.Kilgore, Tex.Eastern District of Texas114F. D. C. No. 13799. Sample No. 61816-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00114csnj|114. Adulteration of Jfu-Charme Perfected Brow Tint. U. S. v. 14 Cartons of|Xu-Cnarme Perfected Brow Tint. Default decree of condemnation and |destruction. (F. D. C. No. 13799. Sample No. 61816-F.)|LIBEL FILED : On or about September 19,1944, Eastern District of Texas.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT : On or about June 8, 1944, by the Nu-Charme Laboratories, |Texarkana, Ark.-Tex.|PRODUCT: 14 cartons, each containing, among other items, 4 bottles of solutions |labeled \"\"Nu-Charme No. 1,\"\" \"\"Nu-Charme No. 2,\"\" \"\"Nu-Charme No. 4,\"\" and |\"\"Nu-Charme No. 5\"\" and a package of a powder labeled \"\"Nu-Charme No. 3,\"\" |at Kilgore, Tex.|Examination showed that Nu-Charme No. 1 consisted essentially of 4 percent |paraphenylenediamine dissolved in water; that Nu-Charme No. 2 was a solu- |tion of hydrogen peroxide; that Nu-Charme No. 3 consisted of magnesium |oxide; that Nu-Charme No. 4 was a solution of boric acid; and that Nu-Charme |No. 5 was light mineral oil.|LIBEL IN PART : \"\"Nu-Charme Perfected Brow Tint Jet Black.\"\"|NATURE OF CHARGEI: Adulteration, Section 601 (a), the product contained a |poisonous or deleterious substance, paraphenylenediamine, which might have |rendered it injurious to users under the following conditions of use prescribed |in the labeling: \"\"Use Glass, China, or \"\"Wooden Dish for Mixing Fifteen (15) |drops Solution No. 1 with Fifteen (15) drops Solution No. 2; to this add enough |Powder No. 3 to make thick paste. Be sure paste will not run. Application |Using small clean orange stick apply dye mixture to lashes . . . then to brows. |Leave mixture on until dry ... 10 to 15 minutes. * * * Do Not Let |Patron Open Eyes Until All of Mixture Has Been Removed.\"\"|DISPOSITION: October 25, 1944. No claimant having appeared, judgment of |condemnation was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|115. Adulteration of Kix Kinks-Hair Straiter. U. S. v. Dorosy, Inc., and Dorothy Herrmann. Pleas of guilty. Each defendant fined $800.csnj00115July 1946Dorosy, Inc.Kix Kinks-Hair StraiterApril 6 and June 13,1942Illinois, Ohio, New Jersey, Maryland, and California, and the District of ColumbiaNew YorkIllinois, Ohio, New Jersey, Maryland, and California, and the District of ColumbiaSouthern District of New York115F. D. C. No. 7741. Sample Nos. 66337-E, 71260-E, 77883-E, 87596-E, 87600-E, 92578-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00115csnj|115. Adulteration of Kix Kinlcs-Hair Straiter. U. S. v. Dorosy, Inc., and Dorothy|Herrmann. Pleas of guilty. Eacli defendant fined $800. (F. D. C. No.|7741. Sample Nos. 66337-B, 71260-E, 77883-E, 87596-E, 87600-E, 92578-E.)|INFORMATION FILED: November 15, 1944, Southern District of New York, against |Dorosy, Inc., New York, N. Y., and Dorothy Herrmann, president of the cor- |poration.|ALLEGED SHIPMFNT : Between the approximate dates of April 6 and June 13,1942, |from the State of New York into the States of Illinois, Ohio, New Jersey, Mary- |land, and California, and the District of Columbia.|PRODUCT: Analysis of the product showed that it consisted essentially of free al-|kali as sodium hydroxide, varying from 7 percent to 8% percent. In addi- |tion, the product contained soap, a silicate, starch, and water incorporated in a |fatty-acid base. |LABEL IN PART: (Jar) \"\"Dorosy 'Kix Kinks' Hair Straiter * * * Directions |A: Part Hair, Vaseline Scalp and Hairline. B: Comb Product Thru Portion of |Hair Desired To Be Straightened. C: Rinse Hair Thoroughly With Lukewarm |Water Shampoo Hair. Set And Dry. Give Test Curl On Bleached And |Dyed Hair (See Separate Directions) Caution: For External Application |Only. Do Not Apply to Broken Or Irritated Skin. Keep Away From Eyes.\"\"|NATURE OF CHARGE: Adulteration, Section 601 (a), the product contained an |added poisonous or deleterious substance, sodium hydroxide, which might have |rendered it injurious to users under the conditions of use prescribed on the |jar label and in a circular containing similar directions and accompanying |portions of the product.|DISPOSITION : November 21, 1944. Pleas of guilty having been entered on behalf |of the defendants, the corporation and the individual were each fined $50 |on each of 6 counts.|116. Adulteration of Hubere Hair Lacquer and Hair Lacquer Pads. U. S. v. Herbert I. Spitzer (Hubere Cosmetics). Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $100 and costs.csnj00116July 1946Herbert I. Spitzer, trading as Hubere Cosmetics, Chicago, Ill.Hubere Hair Lacquer and Hair Lacquer PadsJuly 1 and September 2, 1943Texas, Ohio, Tennessee, Kansas, Wisconsin, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and OklahomaIllinoisTexas, Ohio, Tennessee, Kansas, Wisconsin, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and OklahomaNorthern District oi Illinois116F. D. C. No. 14229. Sample Nos. 34092-F, 40966-F to 40968-F, incl., 41133-F, 43374-F, 43815-F, 46803-F, 47275-F, 47276-F, 48845-F to 48847-F, incl.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00116csnj|116. Adulteration of Hubere Hair liaequer and Hair Lacquer Pads. U. S. v.|Herbert I. Spitzer (Hubere Cosmetics). Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, |$100 and costs. (F. D. C. No. 14229. Sample Nos. 34092-F, 40966-F to |40968-F, incl., 41133-F, 43374-F, 43815-F, 46803-F, 47275-F, 47276-F, 48845-F |to 48847-F, incl.)|INFORMATION FILED : April 23,1945, Northern District oi Illinois, against Herbert |I. Spitzer, trading as Hubere Cosmetics, Chicago, Ill.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT : Between the approximate dates of July 1 and September 2, |1943, from the State of Illinois into the States of Texas, Ohio, Tennessee, |Kansas, Wisconsin, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and Oklahoma.|LABEL IN PART : \"\"Hubere * * * Hair Lacquer,\"\" or \"\"Hubere * * * Hair |Lacquer Pads.\"\"|NATURE OF CHARGE: Adulteration, Section 601 (a), the hair lacquer pads con- |tained a poisonous and deleterious substance which might have rendered them |injurious to users under the following conditions of use prescribed on the |labels: \"\"To preserve that well groomed appearance at those very important |moments when that strand of hair or loose curl goes astray. A gentle pat or |brush with one of these delicately scented pads restores immediately that per- |fect appearance so necessary.\"\" |/|Adulteration, Section 601 (a), the hair lacquer contained a poisonous and |deleterious substance which might have rendered it injurious to users under |such conditions of use as are customary and usual.|DISPOSITION : May 25, 1945. The defendant having entered a plea of nolo con- |tendere, the court imposed a fine of $10 on each count, a total fine of $100, plus |costs.|117. Adulteration of Locks-Up Hair Lacquer Pads. U. S. v. 150 Packages and 61 Packages of Hair Lacquer Pads. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.csnj00117July 1946Parfait Powder Puff Co.Locks-Up Hair Lacquer PadsAugust 5, 1943Atlanta, Ga.Chicago, Ill.Atlanta, Ga.Northern District of Georgia.117F. D. C. Nos. 10880, 10901. Sample Nos. 35459-F, 35817-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00117csnj|117. Adulteration of liOcks-Up Hair Lacquer Pads. TJ. S. v. 150 Packages and 61|Packages of Hair Lacquer Pads. ^Default decrees of condemnation and |destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 10880, 10901. Sample Nos. 35459-F, 35817-F.)|LIBELS FILED : On or about October 5 and 8,1943, Northern District of Georgia.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT: On or about August 5, 1943, by the Parfait Powder Puff |Co., from Chicago, Ill.|PEOOTJCT : 211 packages of hair lacquer pads at Atlanta, Ga. The product con- |sisted of pads impregnated with a lacquer.|LABEL IN PART: \"\"Locks-Up Hair Lacquer Pads.\"\"|NATURE OF CHARGE: Adulteration, Section 601 (a), the product contained a |poisonous and deleterious substance which may have rendered it injurious to |users under conditions of use prescribed on the label, i. e., \"\"Stroke coiffure |lightly with Locks-Up pad.\"\"|DISPOSITION : November 8, 1943. No claimant having appeared, judgments of |condemnation were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|118. Adulteration of oatmeal flour. U. S. v. 120 Unlabeled Bags of Oatmeal Flour. Default decree of condemnation. Product ordered delivered to a public institution, for use as hog feed.csnj00118July 1946Yardley of London, Inc.oatmeal flourFebruary 19, 1944Union City, N. J.Lockport, Ill.Union City, N. J.District of New Jersey.118F. D. C. No. 16514. Sample Nos. 6600-H, 7022-H.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00118csnj|118. Adulteration of oatmeal flour. U. S. v. 120 Unlabeled Bags of Oatmeal|Flour. Default decree of condemnation. Product ordered delivered to a |public institution, for use as hog feed. (F. D. C. No. 16514. Sample Nos. |6600-H, 7022-H.)|LIBEL FILED : June 1,1945, District of New Jersey.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT : On or about February 19', 1944, from Lockport, Ill.|PRODUCT: 120 unlabeled bags, each containing 100 pounds, of oatmeal flour at |Union City, N. J., in the possession of Yardley of London, Inc. This product |was intended for use in the manufacture of a cosmetic. It had been stored |under insanitary conditions after {shipment. Rodent pellets and urine stains |were observed on the bags, and examination showed that the flour was contam- |inated with urine.|NATURE OF CHARGE: Adulteration, Section 601 (b), the article consisted in whole |or in part of a filthy substance by reason of its contamination with urine; and, |Section 601 (c), it had been held under insanitary conditions whereby it might |haTe become contaminated with filth.|DISPOSITION: July 16, 1945. No claimant having appeared, judgment of con- |demnation was entered and the product was ordered delivered to a Federal |correctional institution, for use as hog feed after the destruction of the labels.|COSMETICS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF ADULTERATION WITH |UNCERTIFIED COAL-TAR COLORS*|119. Adulteration of cleansing cream. U. S. v. Alexandra de Markoff Sales Corporation and Hilde Cahn Weinberg (also known as Hilde Walborg). Pleas of guilty. Corporation and individual fined $1,500 jointly and severally. Individual defendant placed on probation for 1 year.csnj00119July 1946Alexandra de Markoff Sales Corporation, New York, N. Y., and Hilde Cahn Weinberg, also known as Hilde Walborg, vice president of the corporation.cleansing creamJanuary 7, 1944MassachusettsNew YorkMassachusettsSouthern District of New York119F. D. C. No. 14293. Sample No. 51660-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00119csnj|119. Adulteration of cleansing cream. TJ. S. v. Alexandra de Marlcoff Sales Cor |poration and Hilde Gahn Weinberg (also known as Hilde Walborg-). |Pleas of guilty. Corporation and individual fined $1,500 jointly and |severally. Individual defendant placed on probation for 1 year. (F. D. C.|No. 14293. Sample No. 51660-F.)|INFORMATION FILE?: April 3, 1945, Southern District of New York, against the |Alexandra de Markoff Sales Corporation, New York, N. Y., and Hilde Cahn |Weinberg, also known as Hilde Walborg, vice president of the corporation.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT: On or about January 7, 1944, from the State of New York|into the State of Massachusetts. |LABEL IN PART : \"\"Alexandra de Markoff Cleansing Cream.\"\"|NATURE OF CHARGE : Adulteration, Section 601 (e), the article was not a hair dye |and it contained coal-tar colors, \"\"butter yellow,\"\" Sudan I, and Sudan II, which |have not been listed for use in cosmetfcs in accordance with the regulations and |are others than those from batches that have been certified.|DISPOSITION : May 28, 1945. Pleas of guilty having been entered on behalf of |both defendants, the court imposed a fine of $1,500 against them jointly and |severally and placed the individual defendant on probation for a period of 1 |year.|120. Adulteration and misbranding of texture cream. U. S. v. Emarco Co., Inc. and Clifford F. Green. Plea of guilty on behalf of corporation; fine, $100. Plea of nolo contendere by individual; fine, $10.csnj00120July 1946Emarco Co., Inc.texture creamApril 6,1945Rhode IslandMassachusettsRhode IslandDistrict of Massachusetts120F. D. C. No. 15490. Sample No. 52791-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00120csnj|120. Adulteration and misbranding' of texture cream. TJ. S. v. Emarco Co., Inc.*|and Clifford F. Green. Plea of guilty on behalf of corporation; fine, $100. |Plea of nolo contendere by individual; fine, $10. (F. D. C. No. 15490. |Sample No. 52791-F.)|INFORMATION FILED : May 2,1945, District of Massachusetts, against the Emarco |Co., Inc., Boston, Mass., and Clifford F. Green, clerk and active head of the |corporation.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT : On or about April 6,1945, from the Commonwealth of Massa- |chusetts into the State of Rhode Island. The product was shipped in jars which |were unlabeled except for a small sticker bearing the words \"\"Texture Cream.\"\" |The shipment was not covered by a written agreement between the shipper and |consignee in regard to the labeling of the product.|NATURE OF CHARGE : Adulteration, Section 601 (e), the product was not a hair dye |and it contained a coal-tar color, \"\"butter yellow\"\" (Colour Index No. 19), which |has not been listed for use in cosmetics in accordance with the regulations and is |other than one from a batch that has been certified in accordance with the |regulations.|Misbranding, Section 602 (b). (1), the product was in package form and it|*See also No. 113.|failed to bear a label containing the name and place of business of the manufac- |turer, packer, or distributor; and, Section 602 (b) (2), the jars bore no label |containing a statement of the quantity of the contents. |DISPOSITION : October 11,1945. A plea of guilty having been entered on behalf of |the corporation, and a plea of nolo contendere having been entered by the |individual, the corporation was fined $100 and the individual was fined $10'.|121. Adulteration of Odo-ro-no. U. S. v. 119 Dozen Packages and 60 Dozen Packages of Odo-ro-no. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.csnj00121July 1946Northam Warren CorpOdo-ro-noMarch 9 and April 25, 1944Jersey City, N. J.Stamford, Conn.Jersey City, N. J.District of New Jersey121F. D. C. No. 14417. Sample No. 83141-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00121csnj|121. Adulteration of Odo-ro-no. U. S. v. 119 Dozen Packages and 60 Dozen|Packages of Odo-ro-no. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 14417. Sample No. 83141-1'.)|LIBEL FILED : November 14, 1944, District of New Jersey.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT : On or about March 9 and April 25, 1944, by the Northam |Warren Corporation, from Stamford, Conn.|PRODUCT: 119 dozen %-fluid ounce size and 60 dozen 1%-fluid ounce size packages |of Odo-ro-no at Jersey City, N. J.|Examination showed that this product was colored with Acid Fuchsine, Colour |Index No. 692, a coal-tar dye which is not a color certifiable for use in cosmetics.|NATUREI OF CHARGE: Adulteration, Section 601 (e), the article contained a coal- |tar color which has not been listed for use in cosmetics in accordance with the |regulations and is other than one from a batch that has been certified.|DISPOSITION : March 26, 1945. No claimant having appeared, judgment of con- |demnation was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|COSMETICS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF FALSE AND MISLEADING|CLAIMS|122. Misbranding of Jennice \"\"Brown Magic\"\" Plastique Masque, Emulsion Luxury Cream, Line-No-More Treatment, Sensation Cocktail Astringent, Oleo-Stimulatum Cerate, and \"\"Youth-Glow\"\" Finishing Lotion. U. S. v. Eunice Skelly (Eunice Skelly House of Youth). Plea of guilty. Fine, $300; 6 months' suspended jail sentence. Defendant placed on probation for 6 months.csnj00122July 1946Eunice Skelly, trading as Eunice Skelly and the Eunice Skelly House of Youth, New York, N. Y.Jennice \"\"Brown Magic\"\" Plastique Masque, Emulsion Luxury Cream, Line-No-More Treatment, Sensation Cocktail Astringent, Oleo-Stimulatum Cerate, and \"\"Youth-Glow\"\" Finishing LotionNovember 27, 1944Illinois ; New JerseyNew YorkIllinois ; New JerseySouthern District of New York122F. D. C. No. 11349. Sample Nos. 2273-F, 16808-F, 16809-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00122csnj|122. Misbranding' of Jennice \"\"Brown Magic\"\" Plasticpie Masque, Emulsion Luxury|Cream, Idne-No-More Treatment, Sensation Cocktail Astringent, Oleo- |Stiniulatum Cerate, and \"\"Youth-Glow\"\" Finishing Lotion. U. S. v. Eunice |Skelly (Eunice Skelly House of Youth/). Plea of guilty. Fine, $300; |6 months' suspended jail sentence. Defendant placed on probation for |6 months. (F. D. C. No. 11349. Sample Nos. 2273-F, 16808-F, 16809-F.)|INFORMATION FILED: August 5, 1944, Southern District of New York, against |Eunice Skelly, trading as Eunice Skelly and the Eunice Skelly House of Youth, |New York, N. Y.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT : On or about July 20 and November 27, 1942, from the State |of New York into the States of Illinois and New Jersey, of cosmetics described |in the defendant's literature as \"\"Deluxe Rejuvenating Kit,\"\" and by various other |names.|PRODUCT: Analysis showed that the \"\"Brown Magic\"\" Plastique Masque was a |flesh-colored (greyish pink), ointment-like mixture consisting essentially of wa- |ter, zinc oxide, colored clay (containing iron oxide), perfume, and benzaldehyde. |The Emulsion Luxury Cream consisted essentially of a light yellow-colored and |perfumed emulsified mixture of water, borates, and an oil, fat, or wax. The |Line-No-More Treatment was a clear, light bluish-red, odorless liquid consisting |essentially of an aqueous solution of silicate (possibly water glass). The Sensa- |tion Cocktail Astringent was a clear, light yellowish-red, aqueous alcoholic liquid |consisting essentially of a colored and heavily perfumed mixture of water, |alcohol, and borates, with possibly some other inorganic salts. The Oleo Stimu- |latum Cerate was a light yellow, salve-like substance consisting essentially of a |colored and perfumed emulsified mixture of water and an oil, fat, or wax. The |\"\"Youth Glow\"\" Finishing Lotion consisted essentially of a suspension of colored |zinc oxide in a colorless, perfumed, aqueous alcoholic liquid. Enclosed in the |package containing the articles when shipped in interstate commerce were |certain circulars entitled \"\"Important New Instructions and Suggestions,\"\" \"\"Prove |by one Trial,\"\" \"\"Eunice Skelly presents her,\"\" \"\"Eunice Skelly's Brochure,\"\" and |\"\"Eunice Skelly's Instructions.\"\"|NATURE OF CHARGE: Jeunice \"\"Brown Magic\"\" Plastique Masque. Misbranding, |Section 602 (a), certain statements in the circulars were false and misleading |since they represented and suggested that the article would rejuvenate the skin |and would cause the blood to flow in a fresh, purifying stream to the muscles |and tissues, whereas the article would not be efficacious for the purposes |recommended and suggested.|Jeunice Emulsion Luxury Cream. Misbranding, Section 602 (a), certain |statements in the circulars were false and misleading since they represented|and suggested that the article, when used alone or in combination with the |\"\" 'Brown Magic' Masque\"\" or \"\"Line-No-More-Film,\"\" would be efficacious to |retard the formation of lines in the skin, to nourish the skin, and to purge |the pores of all dirt and impurities. The article would not be efficacious for |the purposes recommended and suggested. Further misbranding, Section |602 (a), the statement \"\"Line-No-More-Film,\"\" borne on the jar label of the |Luxury Cream, regarding \"\"Line-No-More-Treatment,\"\" another cosmetic, was |false and misleading.|Line-No-More-Treatment. Misbranding, Section 602 (a), the statement |\"\"Line-No-More Treatment,\"\" borne on the jar label, and certain statements in |the circulars were false and misleading since they represented and suggested |that the article would be efficacious to eliminate lines from the skin; that it |would have a rejuvenating effect upon the skin and cause the user to look years |younger; that it would be efficacious to reduce wrinkles; that it would be |an effective treatment for lines and puffiness around the eyes and loose, flabby |tissue around the mouth and neck; that it would be efficacious to correct |loose, wrinkled lips, nose-to-mouth lines, double chin, aging hands, and dis- |tended veins; and that it would be efficacious to draw impurities from the pores. |The article would not be efficacious for the purposes recommended and sug- |gested.|Sensation GocMail Astringent. Misbranding, Section 602 (a), the state- |ments on the jar label, \"\"for toning and stimulating skin. Helps to correct |and prevent enlarged pores and blackheads,\"\" and certain statements in the ac- |companying circulars were false and misleading since they represented and |suggested that the article would be efficacious to tone and stimulate the skin; |that it would be efficacious to correct and prevent enlarged pores and black- |heads ; and that it would be efficacious to tighten the skin. The article would |not be efficacious for the purposes recommended and suggested.|Oleo Stimulatum Cerate. Misbranding, Section 602 (a), the statements on |the jar label, \"\"Stimulatum * * * Designed for dry, crepy, sallow skin, |especially ageing necks,\"\" and certain statements in the accompanying circulars |were false and misleading since they represented and suggested that the |article would be efficacious in the correction of dry, crepy, sallow skin and |especially aging necks; that the article contained an extract of some gland |which would exercise or rejuvenate the tissues to which it was applied; and |that it would be efficacious to rejuvenate the face. The article did not contain |an extract of a gland which would exercise or rejuvenate the tissues to which |it was applied, and it would not be efficacious for the purposes recommended |and suggested.|Jeunice \"\"Youth Glow?' Finishing Lotion. Misbranding, Section 602 (a), |the statement on the jar label, \"\"Youth Glow,\"\" and certain statements in the |accompanying circulars were false and misleading since they represented and |suggested that the article was a rejuvenating lotion which would restore the |glow of youth and which would be efficacious to keep the skin firm and glowing. |The article would not be efficacious for the purposes represented and sug- |gested.|All products. Further misbranding, Section 602 (a), certain statements in |the circulars were false and misleading since they represented and suggested |that the above-named cosmetics, used together, and with a device known as |the \"\"Contour-Molde 'Face Lifting' Bandage,\"\" would be efficacious in the cor- |rection of wrinkles, crow's-feet, double chin, crepy throat, puffiness, and sag- |ging muscles; that they would help to present the user's real inner self in the |most alluring and attractive manner; that they would be efficacious to pro- |vent the loss of youthful loveliness and to help the user to regain beauty and |confidence; that they would be efficacious to correct the effects of worry, |fatigue, nervousness, or illness; and that they would be efficacious to stimulate |sluggish glands and revitalize them back to normal, and to make the user |look years younger. The articles used alone or in conjunction would not be |efficacious for the purposes recommended and suggested.|The information also alleged that one of the devices, known as the \"\"Contour- |Molde 'Face Lifting' Bandage,\"\" was part of the shipment of November 27, |1944, and was misbranded under the provisions of the law applicable to drugs |and devices, as reported in notices of judgment on drugs and devices.|DISPOSITION: August 10, 1944. A plea of guilty having been entered, the de- |fendant was fined $300 and sentenced to 6 months' imprisonment. The jail |sentence was suspended, and the defendant was placed on probation for that |period of time.|123. Misbranding of Miracle Aid for Wrinkles. U. S. v. 22 Packages, 119 Bottles, and 29 Bottles of Miracle Aid for Wrinkles. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.csnj00123July 1946Miracle Products Co.Miracle Aid for WrinklesMarch 2 and August 8, 1944Cleveland, OhioChicago, Ill.Cleveland, OhioNorthern District of Ohio, Northern District of California, and Northern District of Texas.123F. D. C. Nos. 12507, 12775, 14374. Sample Nos. 41209-F, 68166-F, 73306-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00123csnj|123. Misbranding of Miracle Aid for Wrinkles. U. S. v. 22 Packages, 119 Bottles,|and 29 Bottles of Miracle Aid for Wrinkles. Default decrees of condemna- |tion and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 12507, 12775, 14374. Sample Nos. |41209-F, 68166-F, 73306-F.)|LIBELS FILED : Between June 9 and November 3,1944, Northern District of Ohio, |Northern District of California, and Northern District of Texas.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT: Between March 2 and August 8, 1944, by the Miracle Prod- |ucts Co., from Chicago, Ill.|PRODUCT: 22 packages at Cleveland, Ohio, 119 bottles at San Francisco, Calif., |and 29 bottles at Dallas, Tex., of Miracle Aid for Wrinkles.|Examination disclosed that the product consisted essentially of water, small |amounts of albumin, sodium sulfite, and perfume, with the exception of a |portion which consisted essentially of water with small amounts of protein, |sodium chloride, sodium benzoate, and perfume.|NATURE OF CHARGE: Misbranding, Section 602 (a), certain statements on the |bottle and package labels and in accompanying circulars entitled \"\"For the |Preservation and Enhancement of Beauty\"\" and display cards entitled \"\"Wrin- |kles and Double Chin Vanish\"\" were false and misleading since they represented |and suggested that the article would be efficacious to remove wrinkles and double |chin; and that it would supply skin tissue protein. The article would not be |efficacious for such purposes.|DISPOSITION: Between August 12, 1944, and March 26, 1945. No claimants |having appeared, judgments of condemnation were entered and the product |was ordered destroyed.|124. Misbranding of Presto for Blackheads. U. S. v. 11 Packages and 108 Dozen Packages of Presto for Blackheads. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.csnj00124July 1946McJohn Cosmetic Co.Presto for BlackheadsJuly 21, 1942, and March 25, 1943McKeesport, Pa.Hollywood, Calif.McKeesport, Pa.Western District of Pennsylvania and District of Oregon.124F. D. C. Nos. 8100, 9847. Sample Nos. 12815-F, 21698-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00124csnj|124. Misbranding of Presto for Blackheads. U. S. v. 11 Packages and 108 Dozen|Packages of Presto for Blackheads. Default decrees of condemnation and |destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 8100, 9847. Sample Nos. 12815-F, 21698-F.)|LIBELS FILED : August 14, 1942, and April 22, 1943, Western District of Pennsyl- |vania and District of Oregon.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT: On or about July 21, 1942, and March 25, 1943, by the |McJohn Cosmetic Co., from Hollywood, Calif.|PRODUCT: 108 dozen packages of Presto for Blackheads at McKeesport, Pa., and |11 packages of Presto for Blackheads at Portland, Oreg.|Examination showed that the product consisted of a stick composed essen- |tially of a mixture of ground pumice and titanium dioxide, incorporated in a |hydrated waxy base.|NATURE OF CHARGE: Misbranding, Section 602 (a), the following labeling state- |ments were false and misleading as applied to the product, which was not |effective in removing blackheads and in keeping the pores of the skin clean: |\"\"Presto for Blackheads Quick Aid For Blackheads * * * A clean skin |is the foundation for a beautiful complexion; don't allow your complexion to |be marred by unsightly Blackheads. Never squeeze or pinch Blackheads; |squeezing injures the skin and encourages large pores and blackheads. Use |Presto Stick And Eliminate Squeezing. * * * In cases of stubborn Black- |heads use Presto Stick once daily for several days. Thereafter use from time |to time, as required, to keep pores clean.\"\"|The article was also alleged to be misbranded as reported in notices of |judgment on drugs and devices.|DISPOSITION : October 8, 1942, and June 8, 1943. No claimant having appeared, |judgments of condemnation were entered and the product was ordered de- |stroyed.|183. Misbranding of miscellaneous salvaged cosmetics. U. S. v. 25 Crates, etc.csnj00183August 1950Triangle Sales Corp.miscellaneous salvaged cosmeticsApril 17,1948West Lynn, Mass.Providence, R. I.West Lynn, Mass.District of Massachusetts183F. D. C. No. 27154. Sample No. 62100-K.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00183csnj|183. Misbranding of miscellaneous salvaged cosmetics. U. S. v. 25 Crates, etc.|(F. D. C. No. 27154. Sample No. 62100-K.)|LIBEL FILED : April 21, 1949, District of Massachusetts.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT : On or about April 17,1948, by the Underwriter Salvage Co. |of New York, from Providence, R. I.|PRODUCT: 25 crates and 36 cartons of-miscellaneous salvaged cosmetics at West |Lynn, Mass. Some of the material had been fire-damaged, and some bottles |and jars were unlabeled. A number of tablets in some bottles had partially|*See also No. 178.|disintegrated, and a number of tablets in other bottles had fused and adhered |to the bottoms of the bottles.|NATURE OF CHARGE: Misbranding, Section 602 (b) (2), the labels of the articles |failed to bear an accurate statement of the quantity of the contents.|The libel alleged also that certain products included in the shipment were |misbranded under the provisions of the law applicable to foods and drugs, |as reported in notices of judgment on foods, No. 15648, and notices of judgment |on drugs and devices, No. 3024.|DISPOSITION: May 26, 1949. The Triangle Sales Corp., West Lynn, Mass., |claimant, having consented to the entry of a decree, judgment of condemnation |was entered and the court ordered that the products be released under bond |to be brought into compliance with the law, under the supervision of the Federal |Security Agency. The unfit portion of the products was segregated and |destroyed.|INDEX TO NOTICES OF JUDGMENT C. N. J. NOS. 176 TO 183|PRODUCTS|N. J. No.|Adde Hair Pomade |180|Arden, Elizabeth, Sleek (depila- |tory cream) |182|Blanche White Make-Up Creme, |Blanche White Special |Cleansing Creme, Blanche |White night cosmetic cream, |Blanche White Powder, and |' Blanche White Formula|No. 3 |178|Deo Deodorant |: |176,177|Deodorant, Deo |176,177|Depilatory cream |182|N. J. No.|Egg Creme Shampoo, Winsome 179|Face creams and powder |178|Fire-damaged cosmetics, sal- |vaged |183|Hair and scalp preparations 179'-181|Royal Crown Hair Dressing, |Royal Crown Deluxe Mens |Pomade, Royal Crown Bril- |liantine, and Royal Crown|Rose Hair Oil |181|Salvaged cosmetics, fire- |damaged |183|Winsome Egg Creme Shampoo 179|SHIPPERS, MANUFACTURERS, AND DISTRIBUTORS|N. J. No.|Adde Co.:|Adde Hair Pomade |180|Allied Home Products, Inc.:|Winsome Egg Creme Shampoo. 179 |Ardent Elizabeth: |Elizabeth Arden Sleek (depila- |tory cream) |182|Bergholt, F. B. : |Blanche White Make-Up Creme, |Blanche White Special |Cleansing Creme, Blanche |White night cosmetic cream, |Blanche White Powder, and |Blanche White Formula |No. 3 |178|N. |See Berg-|J. No.|Bergholt Laboratories, |holt, F. B.|Elizabeth Arden. See Arden, |Elizabeth.|Elmo Sales Corp.: |Deo Deodorant |176,177|Strickland, J., & Co.: |Royal Crown Hair Dressing, |Royal Crown DeLuxe Mens |Pomade, Royal Crown Bril- |liantine, and Royal Crown |Rose Hair Oil |181|Underwriter Salvage Co. of New |York: |miscellaneous salvaged cos- |metics |183|FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION|AND COSMETIC ACT|[Given pursuant to section 705 of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act]|184-189|COSMETICS|The cases reported herewith were instituted in the United States district |courts by the United States attorneys, acting upon reports submitted by the Fed- |eral Security Agency, and include, where indicated, the^results of investigations |of the Agency, prior to the institution of the proceedings. Published by direction |of the Federal Security Administrator.|CHAELES W. CEAWFOED, Commissioner of Food and Drugs. |WASHINGTON, D. C, August 23,1951.|CONTENTS'|Cosmetics actionable because of |adulteration with poisonous or |deleterious substances |114|Cosmetics actionable because of |adulteration with uncertified |coal-tar colors |115|Page |Cosmetic actionable because of|false and misleading claims. 116|Index |~- 116|Cosmetics, subject to the drug |provisions of the Act |-- 116|?For f Core to beaar mandatory labeling, see No. 188. |1*80224-51|113|2768. Misbranding of Ballum. U. S. v. 37 Cartons.ddnj02768January 1950Savoy Drug & Chemical Co., from Chicago, Ill.BallumFebruary 1, 1949Miami Springs, Fla.Chicago, Ill.Miami Springs, Fla.Southern District of Florida.2768F. D. C. No. 26965. Sample No. 1096-K.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj02768ddnj|2768. Misbranding of Ballum. U. S. v. 37 Cartons * * *. (F. D. 0. No. 26965.|Sample No. 1096-K.)|LIBEL FILED : April 7,1949, Southern District of Florida.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT : On or about February 1,1949, by the Savoy Drug & Chem-|ical Co., from Chicago, 111.|PRODUCT : 37 shipping cartons each containing 24 unit packages, and each unit|package containing 2 bottles of Ballum and a leaflet at Miami Springs, Fla.|LABEL, IN PART : \"\"Ballum-The Easy Way A Combination Worm and Physic|Ball Active Ingredients-phenothiazine. 12 grams per oz.\"\"|NATURE OF CHARGE: Misbranding, Section 502 (a), certain statements in the|leaflet were false and misleading. These statements represented and sug-|gested that the article when used as directed would keep the intestines of|horses free from the larvae of a certain variety of the strongyle; that it would|be effective in removing \"\"ascaroids\"\" or large roundworms from the intestines|of horses, and lung worms from horses; and that intestinal parasites destroy|more horses than all other ailments combined. The article would not be|effective for the purposes represented, and intestinal parasites do not destroy|more horses than all other ailments combined.|DISPOSITION : May 4, 1949. G. E. Lewis, Miami Springs, Fla., claimant, having|consented to the entry of a decree, judgment of condemnation was entered|and the product was ordered released under bond for the destruction of the|leaflets and the relabeling of the product, under the supervision of the Federal|Security Agency.|125. Misbranding of Olivo For Hair and Scalp. U. S. v. 35 1/2 Dozen Bottles and 11 1/2 Dozen Bottles of Olivo For Hair and Scalp. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.csnj00125July 1946Otivo Co.Olivo For Hair and ScalpAugust 3 and October 20, 1944Norfolk, Va.Philadelphia, Pa.Norfolk, Va.Eastern District of Virginia.125F. D. C. No. 15075. Sample Nos. 79624-F, 79625-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00125csnj|125. Misbranding: of Olivo For Hair and Scalp. IT. S. v. 35% Dozen Bottles and|11% Dozen Bottles of Olivo For Hair and Scalp. Default decree of con- |demnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 15075. Sample Nos. 79624-F, |79625-F.)|LIBEL FILED: January 23, 1945, Eastern District of Virginia. |ALLEGED SHIPMENT: Between the approximate dates of August 3 and October |20^1944, *by the Otivo Co., from Philadelphia, Pa.|PRODUCT: 35% dozen bottles, 8-fluid ounce size, and 11% dozen bottles, 16-fluid |ounce size, of Olivo For Hair and Scalp at Norfolk, Va.|An examination of this product showed that it consisted essentially of |alcohol, castor oil, and not more than a trace, if any, of olive oil.|NATURE OF CHARGE: Misbranding, Section 602 (a), the statement, \"\"Olivo,\"\" borne |on the labels of both sizes and on the bottle cap, and the statement, \"\"Con- |tains * * * Olive Oil,\"\" borne on the label of the 16-fluid ounce size, were |false and misleading as applied to an article containing not more than a trace, |if any, of olive oil.|DISPOSITION: March 7, 1945. No claimant having appeared, judgment of con- |demnation was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|126. Misbranding of Olivo Hair Pomade. U. S. v. 69 Jars of Olivo Hair Pomade. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.csnj00126July 1946Manufacturers Drug Distributing Co., Inc.Olivo Hair PomadeAugust 24, 1945Wilmington, Del.Philadelphia, Pa.Wilmington, Del.District of Delaware126F. D. C. No. 17590. Sample No. 4367-H.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00126csnj|126. Misbranding of Olivo Hair Pomade. U. S. v. 69 Jars of Olivo Hair Pomade.|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 17590. |Sample No. 4367-H.)|LIBEL FILED : September 21, 1945, District of Delaware.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT: On or about August 24, 1945, by the Manufacturers Drug |Distributing Co., Inc., from Philadelphia, Pa.|PRODUCT: 69 16-ounce jars of hair pomade at Wilmington, Del.|Examination showed that the article consisted of unsaponifiable oils and |perfume, with not over % percent, if any, of olive oil. The jars were short- |weight.|LABEL IN PART : \"\"Net Contents 16 ozs. Olivo Hair Pomade * * * Contains |Petrolatum, Mineral Oil and Olive Oil.\"\"|NATURE OF CHARGE: Misbranding, Section 602 (a), the label statement, \"\"Olivo |* * * Contains * * * Olive Oil,\"\" was false and misleading as applied to |an article containing not more than % percent, if any, of olive oil; and, Section |602 (b) (2), the product failed to bear a label containing an accurate statement |of the quantity of the contents.|DISPOSITION : October 16,1945. No claimant having appeared, judgment of con- |demnation was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|127. Misbranding of Eau de Quinine Compound Hair Lotion. U. S. v. 86 Bottles of Eau de Quinine Compound Hair Lotion. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.csnj00127July 1946Pinaud, Inc.Eau de Quinine Compound Hair LotionApril 15,1944Boston, Mass.New York, N. Y.Boston, Mass.District of Massachusetts127F. D. C. No. 13083. Sample No. 52512-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00127csnj|127. Misbranding of Eau de Quinine Compound Hair Lotion. U. S. v. 86 Bottles|of Eau de Quinine Compound Hair Lotion. Default decree of condemna- |tion and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 13083. Sample No. 52512-F.)|LIBEL FILED : August 1,1944, District of Massachusetts.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT : On or about April 15,1944, by Pinaud, Inc., from New York,|N. Y. |PRODUCT: 86 bottles of hair lotion at Boston, Mass.|Examination showed that the product consisted essentially of water, alcohol,|perfume, and a red coloring matter, together with not more than 0.02 percent of|quinine.|NATURE OF CHARGE: Misbranding, Section 602 (a), the label designation of the |article, \"\"Eau de Quinine Compound Hair Lotion,\"\" was false and misleading since |the article contained an inconsequential amount of quinine.|DISPOSITION: December 4, 1944. No claimant having appeared, judgment of |condemnation was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|128. Misbranding of Eau de Quinine Compound Hair Lotion. U. S. v. 70 Bottles of Eau de Quinine Compound Hair Lotion. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.csnj00128July 1946Gladiator Supply Co.Eau de Quinine Compound Hair LotionApril 20,1945Scranton, Pa.New York, N. Y.Scranton, Pa.Middle District of Pennsylvania128F. D. C. No. 16443. Sample No. 5745-H.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00128csnj|128. Misbranding of Eau de Quinine Compound Hair Lotion. U. S. v. 70 Bottles|of Eau de Quinine Compound Hair Lotion. Default decree of condemna- |tion and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 16443. Sample No. 5745-H.)|LIBEL FILED : June 15,1945, Middle District of Pennsylvania.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT : On or about April 20,1945, by the Gladiator Supply Co., from|New York, N. Y.|PRODUCT: 70 16-ounce bottles of hair lotion at Scranton, Pa.|Examination showed that the article consisted essentially of water, alcohol, |perfume, and a red coloring matter, together with not more than 0.02 percent of |quinine.|LABEL, IN PART : \"\"Eau de Quinine Compound Hair Lotion * * * Distributors |Pinaud Inc. New York.\"\"|NATURE OF CHARGE: Misbranding, Section 602 (a), the label designation of the |article, \"\"Eau de Quinine Compound Hair Lotion,\"\" was false and misleading since |the article contained an inconsequential amount of quinine.|DISPOSITION: September 18, 1945. No claimant having appeared, judgment of |condemnation was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|184. Adulteration of ammoniated dental cream. U. S. v. 63 Cartons.csnj00184September 1951American Pharmaceutical Co.ammoniated dental creamAugust 28, 1950Boston, Mass.New York, N. Y.Boston, Mass.District of Massachusetts184F. D. C. No. 29810. Sample No. 79893-K.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00184csnj|184. Adulteration of ammoniated dental cream, U. S. v. 63 Cartons * ? * |(F. D. C. No. 29810. Sample No. 79893-K.)|LIBEL FILED : October 18,1950, District of Massachusetts.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT: On or about August 28, 1950, by the American Pharma- |ceutical Co., from New York, N. Y.|PRODUCT: 63 cartons, each containing 12 tubes, of ammoniated dental cream |at Boston, Mass.|LABEL, IN PART: (Tube) \"\"Net Weight 3% Ozs. AFKO Ammoniated Dental |Cream.\"\"|NATUBS OF CHARGE: Adulteration, Section 601 (a), the article contained a |deleterious substance, a hard material with sharp irregular edges, which |may have rendered it injurious to users under the conditions of use prescribed |in the. labeling or under such conditions of use as are customary or usual.|DISPOSITION: December 11, 1950. Default decree of condemnation and de- |struction.|129. Misbranding of Pom-Aid. U. S. v. 1,080 Jars of Pom-Aid. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.csnj00129July 1946Aid LaboratoriesPom-AidJuly 13, 1945Philadelphia, Pa.Camden, N. J.Philadelphia, Pa.Eastern District of Pennsylvania129F. D. C. No. 17295. Sample No. 4335-H.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00129csnj|129. Misbranding of Pom-Aid. U. S. v. 1,080 Jars of Pom-Aid. Default decree of|condemnation and destruction. (F. D., C. No. 17295. Sample No. 4335-H.)|LIBEL FILED : August 22,1945, Eastern District of Pennsylvania.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT: On or about July 13, 1945, by the Aid Laboratories, from |Camden, N. J.|PRODUCT: 1,080 jars of Pom-Aid at Philadelphia, Pa.|Analysis showed that the product contained not more than a trace, if any, of |olive oil, and that it was short volume.|LABEL IN PART: \"\"Pom-Aid Contains 3% Olive Oil for the hair * * * Con- |tents 2 Ozs.\"\"|NATURE OF CHANGE : Misbranding, Section 602 (a), the label statement, \"\"Contains |3% Olive Oil,\"\" was false and misleading as applied to an article which contained |not more than a trace, if any, of olive oil; and, Section 602 (lb) (2), the product |failed to bear a label containing an accurate statement of the quantity of the |contents.|DISPOSITION : September 12, 1945. No claimant having appeared, judgment |of condemnation was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|COSMETICS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO BEAR |MANDATORY LABELING*|130. Misbranding of unlabeled cosmetics. U. S. v. 600 Jars and 5,328 Jars of Unlabeled Cosmetics. Consent decree of condemnation. Products ordered released under bond.csnj00130July 1946Aid Laboratoriesunlabeled cosmeticsJanuary 26 and February 27, 1945Philadelphia, Pa.Camden, N. J.Philadelphia, Pa.Eastern District of Pennsylvania130F. D. C. No. 16713. Sample Nos. 4165-H, 4167-H.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00130csnj|130. Misbranding of unlabeled cosmetics. U. S. v. 600 Jars and 5,328 Jars of|Unlabeled Cosmetics. Consent decree of condemnation. Products ordered |released under bond. (F. D. C. No. 16713. Sample Nos. 4165-H, 4167-H.)|LIBEL FILED : July 28,1945, Eastern District of Pennsylvania.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT : Between the approximate dates of January 26 and February|27, 1945, from Camden, N. J., by the Aid Laboratories. |PRODUCT: 600 12-ounce jars and 5,328 3-ounce jars of unlabeled cosmetics at|Philadelphia, Pa. The cosmetics consisted of ointments perfumed with vanillin. |NATUKE OF CHARGE: Misbranding, Section 602 (b), the articles failed to bear|labels containing the name and place of business of the manufacturer, packer, or|distributor and an accurate statement of the quantity of the contents. |DISPOSITION : October 11,1945. The Union Drug Co., Philadelphia, Pa., claimant,|having admitted the allegations of the libel, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the products were ordered released under bond for labeling under|the supervision of the Federal Security Agency.|INDEX TO NOTICES OF JUDGMENT C. N. J. NOS. 113 TO 130|PRODUCTS|N. J. No. |Alexandra de Markoff Cleansing|Cream |119|Astringent |122|Deodorant |121|Eau de Quinine Compound Hair|Lotion |127, 128|Eyelash and eyebrow dye 1113,114|Face creams and lotions- 119,120,122 |Hair and scalp preparations- 115-117,|125-129 |Hubere Hair Lacquer and Hair|Lacquer Pads |116|Jeunice \"\"Brown Magic\"\" Plastique |Masque, Emulsion Luxury |Cream, Line-No-More Treat- |ment, Sensation Cocktail As-|*See also Nos. 120, 126, 129.|1 Contains opinions of the courts.|N. J. No. |tringent, Oleo-Stimulatum Ce- |rate, and \"\"Youth-Glow\"\" Fin- |ishing Lotion |122|Kix Kinks-Hair Straiter |115|Lacquers, hair |116, 117|Locks-Up Hair Lacquer Pads 117|Miracle Aid for Wrinkles |123|Nu-Charme Perfected Brow Tint_ x 113,|114|Oatmeal flour |118|Odo-ro-no |121|Olivo for Hair and Scalp . 125|Olivo Hair Pomade |126|Pom-Aid |129|Presto for Blackheads |124|Unlabeled cosmetics |130|The cases reported herewith were instituted in the United States district |courts by the United States attorneys acting upon reports submitted by direction |of the Federal Security Administrator.|WATSON B. MIIXEB, Acting Administrator, Federal Security Agency.|WASHINGTON, D. C, June 5,194*1.|\\|CONTENTS|Page|Cosmetics actionable because of adulteration|with poisonous or deleterious substances. 79|Cosmetics actionable because of adulteraton|with uncertified coal-tar colors |81|Cosmetic actionable because of false and mis- |leading claims..- _. 83|Page|Cosmetics actionable because of failure to bear|mandatory labeling |84|Index |85|Cosmetics, subject to the drug provisions of|the Act |88|COSMETICS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF ADULTERATION WITH POISON- |OUS OR DELETERIOUS SUBSTANCES|131. Action to enjoin and restrain the interstate shipment of adulterated and misbranded coal-tar colors. U. S. v. Interstate Color Co., Inc., and Samuel H. Elbert. Consent decree granting injunction.csnj00131September 1947Interstate Color Co., Inc., New York, N. Y., and Samuel H. Ebert, president and treasurer of the corporation.interstate shipment of adulterated and misbranded coal-tar colorsMay 11, 1943New York, N. Y.New York, N. Y.New York, N. Y.Southern District of New York131Inj. No. 68.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00131csnj|131. Action to enjoin and restrain the interstate shipment of adulterated and |misbranded coal-tar colors. U. S. v. Interstate Color Co., Inc., and Sam- |uel H. Elbert. Consent decree granting injunction. (Inj. No. 68.)|COMPLAINT FTT,F,U : July 1, 1944, Southern District of New Tork, against the |Interstate Color Co., Inc., New York, N. Y., and Samuel H. Ebert, president |and treasurer of the corporation. |NATURE OF CHARGEI: That since on or before May 11, 1943, the defendants had |been introducing and delivering for introduction into interstate commerce |quantities of coal-tar colors which were adulterated and misbranded in the |following manner:|Adulteration, Section 601 (a), the articles were not hair dyes, and they con- |tained a poisonous and deleterious substance, a dye, which may have rendered |the articles injurious to users; and, Section 601 (e), they contained coal-tar |colors other than from batches which had been certified in accordance with |the regulations.|Misbranding, Section 602 (a), the labels bore false and misleading state- |ments in that the colors contained in'the articles were from and identical with |batches certified in accordance with the regulations. The colors in the articles |had been diluted by the addition of certain ingredients in an amount not to |be found in the certified batches.|It was charged also that the defendants had been introducing and delivering |for introduction into interstate commerce quantities of coal-tar colors which |were adulterated and misbranded under the provisions of the law applicable |to drugs, as reported in notices of judgment on drugs and devices, No. 1764.|PEAYEB OP COMPLAINT: That the defendants be permanently enjoined and re- |strained from commission of the acts complained of.|DISPOSITION: January 4, 1945. The defendants having consented to the entry |of a decree, the court issued an order enjoining them from introducing or |delivering for introduction into interstate commerce any adulterated and mis- |branded drugs or cosmetics including colors consisting in whole or in part of |Oil Yellow F. N, Colour Index No. 19l, or Oil Yellow C, Colour Index No. 17, |and all mixtures or combinations purporting to be certified mixtures which |contain Crocein Orange, Colour Index No. 26. It was provided, however, that |the order should not apply to the shipment of those colors for use other than |as drugs or cosmetics.|132. Adulteration of Watkins Coconut Oil Shampoo. U. S. v. The J. R. Watkins Co. Plea of guilty. Fine, $1,000.csnj00132September 1947J. R. Watkins Co.Watkins Coconut Oil ShampooDecember 18, 1944, and January 16,1945KansasMinnesotaKansasDistrict of Minnesota132F. D. C. No. 17873. Sample Nos. 97463-F, 16754-H.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00132csnj|132. Adulteration of Watkins Coconut Oil Shampoo. U. S. v. The J. K* Watkins|Co. Plea of guilty. Fine, $1,000. (F. D. C. No. 17873. Sample Nos. 97463-F, |16754-H.)|INFORMATION FILED: June 18, 1946, District of Minnesota, against the J. R. |Watkins Co., a corporation, Winona, Minn.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT : Between the approximate dates of December 18, 1944, and |January 16,1945, from the State of Minnesota into the States of Wisconsin and |Kansas.|LABEL IN PART : \"\"Watkins Coconut Oil Shampoo.\"\"|NATURE OF CHARGE: Adulteration, Section 601 (a), the article contained a |poisonous and deleterious substance, alkali, which may have rendered it in- |jurious to users under the conditions of use prescribed in the labeling and |under such conditions of use as are customary or usual.|DISPOSITION : June 21, 1946. A plea of guilty having been entered on behalf of |the defendant, the court imposed a fine of $500 on each of the 2 counts.|133. Adulteration and misbranding of Apex Bleach. U. S. v. 69 Jars of Apex Bleach. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.csnj00133September 1947Apex News and Hair Co., Inc.Apex BleachJuly 10,1946Philadelphia, Pa.Atlantic City, N. J.Philadelphia, Pa.Eastern District of Pennsylvania.133F. D. C. No. 20713. Sample No. 5093-H.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00133csnj|133. Adulteration and misbranding of Apex Bleach. U. S. v. 69 Jars of Apex|Bleach. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C No.|20713. Sample No. 5093-H.)|LIBEL FILED : August 13, 1946, Eastern District of Pennsylvania.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT : On or about July 10,1946, by the Apex News and Hair Co.,|Inc., from Atlantic City, N. J. |PRODUCT: 69 1-ounce jars of Ape? Bleach at Philadelphia, Pa. Examination|showed that the product contained 6.9 percent of ammoniated mercury, and|that it did not contain salicylic acid as claimed on the label. |LABEL IN PART: \"\"Apex Bleach For External Use Only * * * contains|approximately 5% Ammoniated Mercury, 3% Bismuth Subnitrate, Salicylic|Acid and Petrolatum.\"\" |NATURE OF CHARGE: Adulteration, Section 601 (a), the article.contained a|poisonous or deleterious substance, 6.9 percent ammoniated mercury, which|may have rendered it injurious to users under the following conditions of use|prescribed in the labeling: \"\"* * * spread a thin film of Apex Bleach over|the face, neck or arms * * * Let Bleach remain on overnight or a few|hours during the day. * * * The cream can also be used on the neck,|shoulders and arms.\"\"|Misbranding, Section 602 (a), the following label statement was false and|misleading: \"\"Contains approximately 5% Ammoniated Mercury * * *|Salicylic Acid.\"\"|DISPOSITION: September 10, 1946. No claimant having appeared, judgment of |condemnation was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|134. Adulteration of hair lacquer. U. S. v. 37 5/6 Cases and 10 Bottles of Hair Lacquer. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.csnj00134September 1947\Nhair lacquerJanuary 10,1944Chicago, Ill.Fresno, Calif.Chicago, Ill.Northern District of Illinois.134F. D. C. Nos. 19208,19209. Sample Nos. 17272-H to 17274-H, incl.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00134csnj|134. Adulteration of hair lacquer. U. S. v. 37% Oases and 10 Bottles of Hair|Lacquer. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos.|19208,19209. Sample Nos. 17272-H to 17274-H, incl.)|LIBEL FILED : March 15,1946, Northern District of Illinois.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT : On or about January 10,1944, from Fresno, Calif.|PRODUCT: 15 cases, each containing 1 dozen 16-fluid-ounce bottles, 22 5/6 cases, |each full case containing 6 %-gallon bottles, and 10 16-fLuid-ounce bottles, of |hair lacquer at Chicago, Ill. This product was unclaimed merchandise which |had been sold by the express company to a salvage firm.|LABEL, IN PART : \"\"Flora * * * Hair Lacquer,\"\" or \"\"Lacquer.\"\"|NATURE OF CHARGE: Adulteration, Section 601 (a), the article contained a |poisonous and deleterious substance which may have rendered it injurious |to users under such conditions of use as are customary and usual.|DISPOSITION : September 17, 1946. No claimant having appeared, judgment of |condemnation was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|COSMETICS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF ADULTERATION WITH UNCER- |TIFIED COAL-TAR COLORS|196. Adulteration of Purity Cross dandruff treatment shampoo. U. S. v. 69 Cases, etc.csnj00196January 1953Fairfield Laboratories, Inc.Purity Cross dandruff treatment shampooJune 25 and July 9, 1951Wilson, N. C.Plainfield, N. J.Wilson, N. C.Eastern District of North Carolina196F. D. C. No. 31608. Sample No. 3480-L.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00196csnj|196. Adulteration of Purity Cross dandruff treatment shampoo. U. S. v. 69 |Cases, etc. (F. D. C, No. 31608. Sample No. 3480-L.)|LIBEL FILED : August 9, 1951, Eastern District of North Carolina; amended |September 20,1951.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT : On or about June 25 and July 9, 1951, by Fairfield Labo- |ratories, Inc., from Plainfield, N. J.|PRODUCT: 69 cases, each containing 4 1-gallon bottles, 99 cases, each containing |6 1-pint bottles, and 239 cases, each containing 12 8-ounce bottles, of Purity |Cross dandruff treatment shampoo at Wilson, N. C.|Pharmacological tests revealed that the article was exceedingly irritating |to the eyes and was capable of causing a semipermanent type of damage.|LABEL IN PART : (Bottle) \"\"Purity Cross dandruff treatment Shampoo Contains |No Soap or Alcohol Contains Rodium Directions Use weekly as regular |shampoo. For stubborn dandruff, apply to dry scalp and use with towel for |3 to 5 minutes. Then rinse. Repeat treatment weekly until dandruff is con- |trolled ; then use as a regular shampoo. Caution: Avoid getting in eyes. If |accidently introduced, bathe eyes repeatedly with clear water.\"\"|NATURE OF CHARGE: Adulteration, Section 601 (a), the article contained delete- |rious substances, lauryl isoquinolinium bromide and a polyoxyethylene com- |pound detergent, which may have rendered it injurious to users under the |conditions of use prescribed in its labeling and under such conditions of use as |are customary or usual.|DISPOSITION : January 11, 1952. Purity Cross Products, Inc., Wilson, N. C, |claimant, having intervened and filed an answer and subsequently having with- |drawn the answer, judgment of condemnation was entered and the court ordered |that the product be destroyed.|The cases reported herewith were instituted in the United States district |courts by the United States attorneys, acting upon reports submitted by the |Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Published by direction of the |Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.|CHAELES W. GRAWFOBD, Commissioner of Food and Drugs. |WASHINGTON, D. C, 'November 20, 1958.|CONTENTS|206. Misbranding of Robinson Spring Water. U. S. v. 92 Cases and 43 Cases of Robinson Spring-Water. Decrees of condemnation. On lot ordered released under bond to be relabeled. Remaining lot ordered destroyed.ddnj00206April, 1941Robinson Spring Water Co., Michigan distributors, Detroit, MichRobinson Spring WaterJuly 26 and August 2, 1939Detroit, Mich.Jackson, Miss.Detroit, Mich.Eastern District of Michigan and the Southern District of Florida206F. D. C. Nos. 512, 513. Sample Nos. 54577-D, 66050-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00206ddnj|206. Misbranding of Robinson Spring Water. U. S. v. 92 Cases and 43 Cases of|Robinson Spring-Water. Decrees of condemnation. On lot ordered re-|leased under bond to be relabeled. Remaining lot ordered destroyed.|(F. I>. C. Nos. 512, 513. Sample Nos. 54577-D, 66050-D.)|. The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations re-|garding its efficacy in the conditions indicated below.|On August 26 and 30, 1939, the United States attorneys for the Eastern Dis-|trict of Michigan and the Southern District of Florida filed libels against 92|cases of Robinson Spring Water at Detroit, Mich., and 43 cases of the same|product at Miami, Fla., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate|commerce on or about July 26 and August 2, 1939, by the Robinson Spring|Water Co. from Jackson, Miss.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analyses showed that the article was a lightly mineralized water, the mineral|matter of which consisted chiefly of common salt (sodium chloride), Glauber's|salt (sodium sulfate), gypsum (calcium sulfate), and Epsom salt (magnesium|sulfate). It contained less dissolved mineral matter than the water supply of|a number of cities in this country.|Misbranding was alleged in that the representation in the labeling that the|article was a natural diuretic eliminant water used in treating diabetes and|kidney and bladder trouble, was false and misleading since it was not effica-|cious for the purposes so recommended.|On September 15, 1939, the Robinson Spring Water Co., Michigan distributors,|Detroit, Mich., having appeared as claimant for the lot seized at Detroit, Mich.,|and having admitted the allegations of the libel, judgment of condemnation|was entered and it was ordered that the product be released under bond con-|ditioned that it be properly relabeled. On June 25, 1940, an answer having|been filed in the Southern District of Florida admitting the allegations of the|libel, judgment of condemnation was entered and the product in that district|was ordered destroyed.|135. Adulteration of Bonaparte's Croqunignole Oil, Bonaparte's Croquignole Paste, and Bonaparte's Quinine Hair Pomade. U. S. v. Bonaparte's Beauty Culture and Products Co., Inc., and Louis Bonaparte. Pleas of guilty. Each defendant fined $150 on count 1 of the information; sentence suspended on remaining counts.csnj00135September 1947Bonaparte's Beauty Culture and Products Co., Inc.Bonaparte's Croqunignole Oil, Bonaparte's Croquignole Paste, and Bonaparte's Quinine Hair PomadeMarch 7, 1944Mississippi ; LouisianaNew YorkMississippi ; LouisianaSouthern District of New York135F. D. C. No. 14301. Sample Nos. 61286-F, 61287-F, 61301-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00135csnj|135. Adulteration of Bonaparte's Orootnignole Oil, Bonaparte's Croauignole Paste,|and Bonaparte's Quinine Hair Pomade. U. S. v. Bonaparte's Beauty Cul- |ture and Products Co., Inc., and Louis Bonaparte. Pleas of guilty. Each |defendant fined $150 on count 1 of the information j sentence suspended |on remaining counts. (F. D. C. No. 14301. Sample Nos. 61286-F, 61287-F, |61301-F.)|INFORMATION FILED : July 2, 1945, Southern District of New York, against Bona- |parte's Beauty Culture and Products Co., Inc., New York, N. Y., and Louis |Bonaparte, president of the corporation.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT: On or about February 7 and 26 and March 7, 1944, from |the State of New York into the States of Mississippi and Louisiana.|PRODUCT: Examination disclosed that the Croquignole Oil and Croquignole |Paste were colored with Butter Yellow, a noncertifiable carcinogenic coal-tar |color, and that the Quinine Hair Pomade was colored with Butter Yellow and |another noncertifiable coal-tar color, Sudan I.|NATURE OF CHARGE: Adulteration, Section 601 (e), the articles were not hair |dyes, and they contained coal-tar colors which have not been listed for use |in cosmetics in accordance with the regulations, and they were others than |ones from batches that had been certified in accordance with the regulations.|DISPOSITION : October 1, 1945. Pleas of guilty having been entered, each defend- |ant was fined $150 on count 1 of the information, and sentence was sus- |pended on the remaining 2 counts.|136. Adulteration of Oliv-Tone. U. S. v. Great Atlantic Laboratories, Inc. and Philip Slabine. Plea of guilty by the corporation; fine, $100. Plea of nolo contendere by individual defendant; fine, $50.csnj00136September 1947Great Atlantic Laboratories, Inc.Oliv-ToneDecember 13, 1943, and April 12, 1944New York ; Rhode IslandMassachusettsNew York ; Rhode IslandDistrict of Massachusetts136F. D. C. No. 14273. Sample Nos. 52251-F, 65739-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00136csnj|136. Adulteration of Oliv-Tone. * U. S. v. Great Atlantic Laboratories, Inc.; and|PMlip Slabine. Plea of guilty by the corporation; fine, $100. Plea of |nolo contendere by individual defendant; fine, $50. (F. D. C. No. 14273. |Sample Nos. 52251-F, 65739-F.)|INFORMATION FILED: February 16, 1945, District of Massachusetts, against the |Great Atlantic Laboratories, Inc., Boston, Mass., and Philip Slabine, president, |treasurer, and director of the corporation.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT: On or about December 13, 1943, and April 12, 1944, from, |the State of Massachusetts into the States of New York and Rhode Island.|NATURE OF CHARGE: Adulteration, Section 601 (e), the product was not a hair |dye, and it contained a coal-tar color, Butter Yellow (Colour Index No. 19), |which has not been listed for use in cosmetics in accordance with the regu- |lations, and it was other than one from a batch that had been certified in |accordance with the regulations.|DISPOSITION : October 8, 1946. A plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the |corporation, and a plea of nolo contendere was entered by the individual de- |fendant. The court imposed a fine of $100 against the corporation and a fine |of $50 against the individual defendant.|137. Adulteration of Pinol Oil. U. S. v. National Products Co. Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $25.csnj00137September 1947National Products Co.Pinol OilMarch 6, 1945IllinoisWisconsinIllinoisWestern District of Wisconsin137F. D. C. No. 17837. Sample No. 16229-H.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00137csnj|137. Adulteration of Pinol Oil. U. S. v. National Products Co. Plea of nolo con |tendere. Fine, $25. (F. D. C. No. 17837. Sample No. 16229-H.)|INFORMATION FILED : March 7, 1946, Western District of Wisconsin, against the |National Products Co., a corporation, Eau Claire, Wis.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT: On or about March 6, 1945, from the State of Wisconsin |into the State of Illinois.|LABEL IN PART: \"\"Pinol Oil For Scalp Treatments.\"\"|NATURE OF CHARGE: Adulteration, Section 601 (e), the article was not a hair |dye, and it bore and contained a coal-tar color, Butter Yellow (Colour Index |No. 19), which has not been listed for use in cosmetics in accordance with the |regulations, and it was other than one from a batch that had been certified |in accordance with the regulations.|[C.N.J.|DISPOSITION; March 19, 1946. A plea of nolo contendere having been entered |on behalf of the defendant, the court imposed a fine of $25.|138. Adulteration of Pinol Oil. U. S. v. 35 Bottles of Pinol Oil. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.csnj00138September 1947National Products Co.Pinol OilMarch 6, 1945Chicago, Ill.Eau Claire, Wis.Chicago, Ill.Northern District of Illinois138F. D. C. No. 16275. Sample No. 16229-HThe National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00138csnj|138. Adulteration of Pinol Oil. U. S. v. 35 Bottles of Pinol Oil. Default decree|of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 16275. Sample No. 16229-H )|LIBEL FILED: On or about June 11, 1945, Northern District of Illinois. |ALLEGED SHIPMENT: On or about March 6, 1945, by the National Products Co.,|from Eau Claire, Wis. |PRODUCT: 35 bottles of Pinol Oil at Chicago, Ill. Examination showed that the|product was a yellow oil colored with dimethyl-amino-azobenzene, otherwise|identified as Colour Index No. 19, an uncertifiable coal-tar color which possesses|carcinogenic properties. |LABEL IN PART : \"\"Pinol Oil For Scalp Treatments.\"\"|NATURE OF CHARGE: Adulteration, Section 601 (e), the article bore and con- |tained a coal-tar color which has not been listed for use in cosmetics in accord- |ance with the regulations, and it was other than one from a batch that had |been certified.|DISPOSITION: November 6, 1945. No claimant having appeared, judgment of |condemnation was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|139. Adulteration of Vernon Wave Set. U. S. v. 47 Packages of Vernon Wave Set (and 3 other seizure actions against Vernon Wave Set). Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.csnj00139September 1947Vernon Laboratories, Inc.Vernon Wave SetMay 26, 1944, and April 8,1946York, Pa.Rochester, N. Y.York, Pa.Eastern, and Western Districts of Pennsylvania.139F. D. C. Nos. 19689, 19875,19977, 20021. Sample Nos. 5265-H, 5530-H, 9687-H, 59864-H, 59865-H.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00139csnj|139. Adulteration of Vernon Wave Set. U. S. v. 47 Packages of Vernon Wave|Set (and 3 other seizure actions against Vernon Wave Set). Default |decrees of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 19689, 19875,19977, |20021. Sample Nos. 5265-H, 5530-H, 9687-H, 59864-H, 59865-H.)|LIBELS FILED: April 22 and May 14, 22, and 29, 1946, Middle, Eastern, and |Western Districts of Pennsylvania.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT : Between the approximate dates of May 26, 1944, and April |8,1946, by Vernon Laboratories, Inc., from Rochester, N. Y.|PRODUCT: Vernon Wave Set. 47 packages at York, Pa., 28 cartons, each con- |taining 30 packages, at Pittsburgh, Pa., 55 packages at Upper Darby, Pa., and |426 packages at Erie, Pa. This product contained Ext. D&O Red No. 6, a color |that may be certified but had not been submitted for certification, and Methyl |Violet No. 2B (Colour Index No. 680), a coal-tar color which is not listed by |the regulations as certifiable for use in cosmetics.|LABEL IN PART : \"\"Two Units Concentrate Vernon Wave Set.\"\"|NATURE OF CHARGE: Adulteration, Section 601 (e), the article was not a hair |dye, and it contained coal-tar colors which were other than those from batches |that had been certified in accordance witlTthe regulations.|DISPOSITION: June 27, July 18, and September 4, 1946. No claimant having |appeared, judgments of condemnation were entered and the product was |ordered destroyed.|211. Tranquilease (cosmetic cream).csnj00211November 1961Denney & Denney, Inc.Tranquilease (cosmetic cream)1-29-58Washington, D.C.Philadelphia, Pa.Washington, D.C.Dist. Columbia.211F. D. C. No. 41505. S. No. 4-382 P.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00211csnj|211. Tranquilease (cosmetic cream). (F.D.O. No. 41505. S. No. 4-382 P.) |QUANTITY : 48 individually cartoned jars at Washington, D.C. |SHIPPED : 1-29-58, from Philadelphia, Pa., by Denney & Denney, Inc. |LABEL IN PART: (Jar) \"\"TRANQUILEASE . FRANCES DENNEY The |Original Cosmetic Tranquilizer for the Skin * * * 1.8 Oz. Net.\"\"|ACCMPANYING LABELING: Carton inserts entitled \"\"Tranquilease The only |cosmetic of its kind.\"\" and leaflets entitled \"\"Bulletin from Frances Denney.\"\"|RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION : Analysis showed that the article was a white per- |fumed oil-in-water cream emulsion containing glycerol monostearate, waxes |(including lanolin and/or sterols), inorganic pigments (mostly zinc oxide |and titanium dioxide), mineral oil, glycerol, and a nitrogen compound (probably |an amide).|LIBELED : 1 1 58, Dist. Columbia.|CHARGE: 602(a)-when shipped, the labeling and the name of the article con- |tained false and misleading representations that the article would tranquilize |the skin and correct all abnormal skin conditions resulting from emotional up- |sets, tension, and fatigue.|The libel alleged also that the article was misbranded under the provisions |of the law applicable to drugs, as reported in notices of judgment on drugs and |devices No. 6213. |'|DISPOSITION: On 5-15-58, Frances Denney and Denney & Denney, Inc., &p- |peared as claimants and denied that the article was a drug or that it was |misbranded. Thereafter, the Government and the claimants filed written in- |terrogatories. The claimants objected in part to the Government's interroga- |tories for specific reasons, and a further general objection was made to all the |interrogatories on the grounds of self-incrimination. On 11-14-58, the court |entered a memorandum opinion, ruling against the claimants on their self- |incrimination objection, and ruling in part for the claimants and in part for |the Government on the other objections (23 F.R.D. 192). Such opinion is |reported in notices of judgment on drugs and devices No. 6213, referred to |above.|An order was entered in accordance with the opinion and the interrogatories |were answered by the claimants. Thereafter, the Government filed a motion |for summary judgment. On 10-20-59, the claimants filed a motion to with- |draw their claim and answer. On 10-29-59, an order was entered by the court |withdrawing claimants' claim and answer and directing that the article be con- |demned and destroyed. On 11-16-59, the article was destroyed.|The cases reported herewith were instituted in the United States district |courts by United States attorneys, acting upon reports submitted by the Depart- |ment of Health, Education, and Welfare, and include, where indicated, the re- |sults of investigations by the Department, prior to the institution of the |proceedings.|Published by direction of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.|GEO. P. LAERIOK, Commissioner of Food and Drugs. |WASHINGTON, D.O., September 12, 1962.|CONTENTS*|Page|Cosmetics actionable because of |adulteration with uncertified |coal-tar colors |146|Cosmetics actionable because of|false and misleading claims 151|Page|Cosmetic actionable because of |failure to bear mandatory |labeling |153|Index |154|Cosmetics subject to the drug pro- |visions of the Act |155|140. Adulteration of hair and scalp lotions. U. S. v. 9 1/2 Dozen Bottles of New Glory French Type Bouquet Qui-Red Hair and Scalp Lotion and 8 1/2 Dozen Bottles of New Glory Jernis Hair and Scalp Lotion. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.csnj00140September 1947Bon-Crest Manufacturing Co.hair and scalp lotionsJuly 16, 1946Washington, D. C.Philadelphia, Pa.Washington, D. C.District of Columbia.140F. D. C. No. 21228. Sample Nos. 43051-H, 43052-H.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00140csnj|140. Adulteration of hair and scalp lotions. U. S. v. 9% Dozen Bottles of New|Glory French Type Bouquet Qui-Red Hair and Scalp Lotion and SYs Dozen |Bottles of New Glory Jernis Hair and Scalp Lotion. Default decree of |condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 21228. Sample Nos. 43051-H, |43052-H.)|LIBEL FILED : October 10, 1946, District of Columbia.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT : On or about July 16, 1946, by the Bon-Crest Manufacturing|Co., from Philadelphia, Pa.|PRODUCT: 18 dozen bottles of the above-named hair and scalp lotions at Wash- |ington, D. C.|The French Type Bouquet Lotion contained Naphthol Yellow S (Colour |Index No. 10), Azorubine (Colour Index No. 179), and a coal-tar color similar |to Acid Violet 4BN (Colour Index No. 695). ' The Jernis Lotion contained |Quinoline Yellow WS (Colour Index 801) and a coal-tar color similar to |Brilliant Acid Blue (Colour Index No. 714).|Acid Violet 4BN is not listed as a certifiable dye, and no lot of the Brilliant |Acid Blue (D&C Blue No. 7) had ever been certified.|NATURE OF CHARGE: Adulteration, Section 601 (e), the articles were not hair |dyes, and they bore and contained coal-tar colors other than ones from batches |that had been certified in accordance with the regulations.|DISPOSITION: November 20, 1946. No claimant having appeared, judgment of |condemnation was entered and the products were ordered destroyed.|141. Adulteration of Polymol Hair Dressing. U. S. v. 27 Dozen Bottles of Polymol Hair Dressing. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.csnj00141September 1947Farenga Co., Inc.Polymol Hair DressingAugust 20,1945Newark, N. J.Richmond Hill, N. Y.Newark, N. J.District of New Jersey141F. D. C. No. 18158. Sample No. 7821-H.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00141csnj|141. Adulteration of Pplymol Hair Dressing. U. S. v. 27 Dozen Bottles of Polymol|Hair Dressing. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C.|No. 18158. Sample No. 7821-H.)|LIBEL FILED : On or about October 19,1945, District of New Jersey.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT : On or about August 20,1945, by the Farenga Co., Inc., from |Richmond Hill, N. Y.|PRODUCT: 27 dozen bottles of Polymol Hair Dressing at Newark, N. J. Exami- |nation showed that the product contained Naphthalene Green V (Colour Index |No. 735), a coal-tar color which is not on the list of colors which may be |submitted for certification by the Food and Drug Administration.|NATUBE OE CHARGE: Adulteration, Section 601 (e), the article was not a hair |dye, and it bore or contained a coal-tar color which has not been listed as |harmless and suitable for use in cosmetics in accordance with the regulations, |and it was other than one from a batch that had been certified.|DISPOSITION: December 6, 1945. No claimant having appeared, judgment of |condemnation was entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.|142. Adulteration and misbranding of lipstick. U. S. v. 16 Cans of Lipstick. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.csnj00142September 1947Yardley & Co.lipstickJune 12, 1943, and December 4,1944Union City, N. J.London, EnglandUnion City, N. J.District of New Jersey142F. D. C. No. 17119. Sample Nos. 7583-H to 7588-H, incl.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00142csnj|142. Adulteration and misbranding of lipstick. II. S. v. 16 Cans of Lipstick.|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 17119. |Sample Nos. 7583-H to 7588-H, incl.)|LIBEL FILED : August 17, 1945, District of New Jersey.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT: Between the approximate dates of June 12, 1943, and |December 4,1944, by Yardley & Co., Ltd., from London, England.|PRODUCT: 16 cans of lipstick at Union City, N. J.|LABEL IN PART: \"\"Pigment Dyestuffs Extended in Technical Oleyl Alcohol|For Full Red [or \"\"Cherry,\"\" \"\"Holly Reel,\"\" \"\"Vivid,\"\" \"\"Red Burgundy,\"\" or \"\"Red|Fuchsia\"\"] Lipstick.\"\"|NATURE OF CHARGE: Adulteration, Section 601 (e), the article was not a hair |dye, and it bore and contained a coal-tar color other than one from a batch |that had been certified in accordance with the regulations.|Misbranding, Section 602 (b) (1), it failed to bear a label containing the |name and place of business of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor.|DISPOSITION: October 21, 1946. The shipper having withdrawn its claim, |judgment of condemnation was entered and the product was ordered de- |stroyed.|COSMETIC ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF FALSE AND MISLEADING|CLAIMS*|143. Misbranding of Hair Milk. U. S. v. Sophia Strboya Sikoparija (Stanley's Drug Store). Plea of not guilty. Tried to the jury. Verdict of guilty. Sentence of 57 days in jail.csnj00143September 1947Sophia Strboya Sikoparija, trading as Stanley's Drug Store, Orange, Tex.Hair MilkJanuary 30, 1943IllinoisTexasIllinoisEastern District of Texas143F. D. C. No. 11379. Sample No. 489-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00143csnj|143. Misbranding: of Hair Milk. U. S. v. SopMa Strboya Sikoparija (Stanley's|Drug* Store). Plea of not guilty. Tried to the jury. Verdict of g-uilty. |Sentence of 57 days in jail. (F. D. C. No. 11379. Sample No. 489-F.)|INFORMATION FILED: May 8, 1944, Eastern District of Texas, against Sophia |Strboya Sikoparija, trading as Stanley's Drug Store, Orange, Tex.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT: On or about January 30, 1943, from the State of Texas |into the State of Illinois.|PRODUCT: Examination of the product showed that the Hair Milk consisted of |water with small proportions of lead acetate, sulfur, and glycerin; that the |Tonic AAA referred to in the labeling of the Hair Milk consisted essentially |of small proportions of an extract of fish oil, compounds of iron, calcium |and magnesium and prosphates, and an extract of malt and water. The |analyses of the other products referred to in the labeling of the Hair Milk |are set forth in notices of judgment on drugs and devices, No. 1553.|NATURE OF CHARGE: Misbranding, Section 602 (a), certain statements in the |labeling regarding Prescription Medicine l-B-1, Prescription 1-NN-l, Prescrip- |tion l-H-7, Prescription l-RR-1, and Tonic AAA, drug preparations sold by the |defendant, were false and misleading since they represented and suggested that |the drug Prescription Medicine l-B-1 would be effective in the cure, mitigation, |treatment, or prevention o C sleeplessness and nervousness; that it would be |effective in the treatment of persons suffering from nervousness or sleeplessness |and frazzled nerves; that it would be effective in the treatment of weak and|*See also Nos. 131, 133.|anemic people and persons with disordered stomachs, or<persons whose sexual |organism is disordered; that the drug Prescription 1-NN-l would be effective |in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of sleeplessness and nervous- |ness; that the Prescription l-H-1 would be effective in the cure, mitigation, |treatment, or prevention of constipation, difficult bowel movement, and irregu- |lar bowel elimination, bloated stomach, gasses, wind, headache, discomfort, |poor appetite, bad breath, weary feeling, impure blood, and poor digestion (with |statement that inflamed or clogged bowel causes those conditions) ; that the |Prescription l-RB-7 would be effective in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or |prevention of rush of blood, high blood pressure, burning fever, headaches, |buzzing in the ears, shortness of breath or difficult breathing, swollen or puffed- |up face, nosebleed, attacks in the head, strong urine, scant urine, and swollen |legs; and that it would be effective to restore easier breathing, promote normal |blood circulation and health, and enable a person who is 60 years old to look |40 and feel like 30; and that the Tonic AAA would be effective to promote |strength and nourishment in school children; that it would be excellent for the |sound development and nourishing of weak and feeble children; that it would |improve the appetite; and that it would build up the lungs and bones and make |children generally healthy and gay.|The drugs referred to in the labeling of the Hair Milk would not be efficacious |for the purposes represented. Furthermore, an inflamed or clogged bowel does |not cause the conditions referred to in the labeling of the Prescription l-H-1.|The information also alleged that the drugs referred to in the labeling of the |Hair Milk, with the exception of the Tonic AAA, together with another drug |known as Stanley's Stomach Powder, were misbranded under the provisions of |the law applicable to drugs, as reported in notices of judgment on drugs and de- |vices, No. 1553. |DISPOSITION : A plea of not guilty having been entered on behalf of the defendant, |the case came on for trial before a jury on October 24,1944. The jury returned |a verdict of guilty, and, on October 25, 1944, the court sentenced the defendant |to serve 57 days in jail.|COSMETICS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO BEAR MANDA- |TORY LABELING*|144. Misbranding of cold cream. U. S. v. Benjamin Ansehl Co. Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $100.csnj00144September 1947Benjamin Ansehl Co.cold creamJanuary 28 and February 13, 1946MinnesotaMissouriMinnesotaEastern District of Missouri144F. D. C. No. 20475. Sample Nos. 51122-H, 51123-H.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00144csnj|144. Misbranding of cold cream. U. S. v. Benjamin Ansehl Co. Plea of nolo|contendere. Fine, $100. (F. D. C. No. 20475. Sample Nos. 51122-H, 51123-H.)|INFORMATION FILED: September 3, 1946, Eastern District of Missouri, against |the Benjamin Ansehl Co., a corporation, St. Louis, Mo.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT: On or about January 28 and February 13, 1946, from the |State of Missouri into the State of Minnesota.|LABEL, IN PART : \"\"Cold Cream 12 Oz. Saint Louis by Vivani,\"\" or \"\"Cream Con- |taining Olive Oil 12 Oz. by Vivani The Benjamin Ansehl Co. St. Louis.\"\"|NATURE OF CHARGE: Misbranding, Section 602 (b) (2), the article failed to bear |a label containing an accurate statement of the quantity of the contents since |the jars contained less than 12 ounces.|DISPOSITION: September 14, 1946. A plea of nolo contendere having been en- |tered on behalf of the defendant, the court imposed a fine of $50 on each count, |a total fine of $100.|207. Misbranding of Rogers' Mineral Extract. U. S. v. 12 Bottles of Rogers' Mineral Extract. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00207April, 1941Rogers Mineral Co.Rogers' Mineral ExtractJanuary 25, 1940Perkinston, Miss.Cullomburg, Ala.Perkinston, Miss.Southern District of Mississippi207F. D. C. No. 1606. Sample No. 61879-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00207ddnj|207. Misbranding of Rogers' Mineral Extract. IT. S. v. 12 Bottles of Rogers'|Mineral Extract. ' Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 1606. Sample No. 61879-D.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations re-|garding its efficacy in the conditions mentioned below.|On March 12, 1940, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|Mississippi filed a libel against -12 bottles of Rogers' Mineral Extract at Perk-|inston, Miss., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce|on or about January 25,1940, by the Rogers Mineral Co. from Cullomburg, Ala.; -|and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article was a water solution containing approxi-|mately 6 percent of mineral matter, mainly iron, aluminum, and sodium|sulfates.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that its labeling bore representations that|it was efficacious in the treatment of indigestion, hemorrhage of lungs, early|stages of consumption, diarrhoea, dysentery or any bowel trouble, pellagra,|rheumatism, sores, inactive liver, ulcerated stomach, liver and. kidney trouble,|flux and other spring and summer diseases, early stages of eczema, burns,|backache and general weakness, \"\"T. B. of the bone,\"\" skin diseases, that it was|a malarial preventative; that it was a natural remedy and purifier which|cooperated with the blood system and action of the body in such way that|it would give nature an opportunity to build back and restore to the body|that which it had lost; that water would dilute the strong destructive acids|in all parts of the body, and prepare the way for the product to follow with|its healing power; that it was a natural iron tonic for the special purpose of|regulating the appetite and causing the food to be assimilated; that it was a|general remedy for internal and external use on man or beast; that it was|a splendid blood purifier; was nature's remedy; that it would purify the blood|and remove pimples from the face; that it was \"\"nature's remedy when one is|out of repair and needs treatment\"\"; that it should be poured freely into the|hog and chicken troughs for cholera and as a cholera preventative; and was|efficacious for sorehead on chickens, which representations were false and mis-|leading since the article was not efficacious for the purposes for which it was|recommended.|On June 4, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.|VETERINARY REMEDIES |145. Misbranding of cold cream. U. S. v. 23 Cases and 14 1/2 Cases of Cold Cream. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.csnj00145September 1947Benjamin Ansehl Co.cold creamJanuary 28 and February 13, 1946Minneapolis, Minn.St. Louis, Mo.Minneapolis, Minn.District of Minnesota145F. D. C. No. 19397. Sample Nos. 51122-H, 51123-H.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00145csnj|145. Misbranding: of cold cream. U. S. v. 23 Cases and 14% Cases of Cold Cream.|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 19397. |Sample Nos. 51122-H, 51123-H.)|LIBEL FILED : March 28, 1946, District of Minnesota.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT: On or about January 28 and February 13, 1946, by the|Benjamin Ansehl Co., from St. Louis, Mo. |PRODUCT: 23 cases, each containing 12 jars, and 14% cases, each containing 24|jars, of cold cream at Minneapolis, Minn. Samples taken from both lots of|this product were found to be short-weight.|LABEL, IN PART: \"\"Cream Containing Olive Oil 12 Oz. By Vivani,\"\" or \"\"Cold |Cream 12 Oz. By Vivani.\"\"|?See also No. 142.|NATURE OF CHARGE: Misbranding, Section 602 (b) (2), the article failed to |bear a label containing an accurate statement of the quantity of the contents.|DISPOSITION: June 24, 1946. No claimant having appeared, judgment of con- |demnation was entered ordering the product destroyed.|146. Misbranding of Lucille Laner's Pressing Oil and Lucille Laner's Tar Treatment. U. S. v. 247 Tins of Lucille Laner's Pressing Oil and Lucille Laner's Tar Treatment. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.csnj00146September 1947Madam LillianLucille Laner's Pressing Oil and Lucille Laner's Tar TreatmentDecember 1, 1945Roxbury, Mass.New York, N. Y.Roxbury, Mass.District of Massachusetts146F. D. C. No. 19445. Sample Nos. 12759-H, 12760-H, 56768-H, 56769-H.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00146csnj|146. Misbranding of Lucille Laner's Pressing- Oil and Lucille Laner's Tar Treat- |ment. U. S. v. 247 Tins of Lucille Laner's Pressing- Oil and Lucille Laner's |Tar Treatment. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C.|No. 19445. Sample Nos. 12759-H, 12760-H, 56768-H, 56769-H.)|LIBEL FILED : March 18, 1946, District of Massachusetts.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT: On or about December 1, 1945, by Madam Lillian, from|New York, N. Y. |PRODUCT: 247 2-ounce tins of Lucille Laner's Pressing Oil and Lucille Laner's|Tar Treatment at Roxbury, Mass. The product was shipped unlabeled. The|tins contained approximately 1% ounces, and they were labeled \"\"2 Oz.\"\" after|receipt by the consignee.|LABEL, IN PART : \"\"Lucille Laner's Pressing Oil,\"\" or \"\"Lucille Laner's Tar Treat- |ment.\"\"|NATURE OF CHARGE: Misbranding, Section 602 (b), the article (when shipped) |failed to bear a label containing the name and place of business of the manu- |facturer, packer, or distributor, and an accurate statement of the quantity of |the contents.|The article was alleged also to be misbranded under the provisions of the |law applicable to drugs, as reported in notices of judgment on drugs and de- |vices.|DISPOSITION: April 29, 1946. No claimant having appeared, judgment of con- |demnation was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|INDEX TO NOTICES OF JUDGMENT C. N. J. NOS. 131 TO 146|PRODUCTS|N. J. No.|Apex Bleach |133|Bonaparte's Croquignole Oil, Bon- |aparte's Croquignole Paste, |and Bonaparte's Quinine|Hair Pomade |135|Coal-tar colors |^-lSl|Cold cream |144,145|Face creams |133,144,145|Hair Milk |2 143|Hair and scalp preparations 2 132,|134-141,143,146|Lacquer, hair |134|Lipstick |142|N. J. No. |Lucille Laner's Pressing Oil and |Lucille Laner's Tar Treat- |ment |146|New Glory French Type Bouquet |Qui-E.ec! Hair and Scalp Lo- |tion and New Glory Jernis|Hair and Scalp Lotion 140|Oliv-Tonei |136|Pinol Oil |137,138|Polymol Hair Dressing |141|Vernon Wave Set |139|Watkins Coconut Oil Shampoo 132|Wave set |139|SHIPPERS, MANUFACTURERS, AND DISTRIBUTORS|N. J. No. |Ansehl, Benjamin, Co.:|cold cream |144,145|Apex News & Hair Co., Inc.:|Apex Bleach |133|Bon-Crest Mfg. Co.: |New Glory French Type Bou- |quet Qui-Ked Hair and Scalp |Lotion and New Glory Jernis|Hair and Scalp Lotion 140|Bonaparte, Louis: |Bonaparte's Croquignole Oil, |Bonaparte's Croquignole |Paste, and Bonaparte's Qui- |nine Hair Pomade |135|N. |&|J. No.|Bonaparte's Beauty Culture |Products Co., Inc.: |Bonaparte's Croquignole Oil, |Bonaparte's Croquignole |Paste, and Bonaparte's Qui- |nine Hair Pomade |135|Ebert, S. H.:|coal-tar colors |1131|Farenga Co., Inc.:|Polymol Hair Dressing |141|Great Atlantic Laboratories, Inc.: |Oliv-Tone |136|1 (131) Permanent injunction issued. |3 (143) Prosecution contested.|N. J., Fy?OCfiyL7-lQ0ri |u|C. N. J., FMX)C/^47r160\"\" |Issued February 1949|FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY|FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION|NOTICES OF JUDGMENT UNDER THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG,|AND COSMETIC ACT|[Given pursuant to section 705 of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act]|147-160 |COSMETICS|The cases reported herewith were instituted in the United States district courts |by the United States attorneys acting upon reports submitted by direction of the |Federal Security Administrator.|OSCAR R. EWING, Administrator, Federal Security Agency.|WASHINGTON, D. C, July 23,1948.|CONTENTS*|Page |Cosmetic actionable because of adulteration|with a poisonous and deleterious substance.__ 87 |Cosmetic actionable because of contamination|with filth |90|Use or distribution of uncertified coal-tar colors. _ 90|Page |Cosmetics actionable beeause of false and mis- |leading claims |91|Index _ |_ 96|Cosmetics, subject to the drug provisions of the |Act |_ _ 97|COSMETIC ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF ADULTERATION WITH A |POISONOUS AND DELETERIOUS SUBSTANCE|147. Adulteration of Locks-Up Hair Lacquer Pads. U. S. v. Parfait Powder Puff Co., Inc. Tried to the court. Fine, $100 and costs. Judgment affirmed on appeal. Petition for writ of certiorari denied.csnj00147February 1949Parfait Powder Puff Co., Inc.Locks-Up Hair Lacquer PadsAugust 3, 5, 6, and 9, 1943Washington ; Georgia ; South Carolina ; North Carolina ; Pennsylvania ; WisconsinIllinoisWashington ; Georgia ; South Carolina ; North Carolina ; Pennsylvania ; Wisconsin\N147F. D. C. No. 14228. Sample Nos. 12571-F, 12580-F, 21933-F, 35459-F, 35817-F, 35825-F, 35831-F, 46805-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00147csnj|147. Adulteration of Locks-Up Hair Lacquer Pads. U. S. v. Parfait Powder Puff |Co., Inc. Tried to the court. Fine, $100 and costs. Judgment affirmed on |appeal. Petition for writ of certiorari denied. (F. D. C. No. 14228. Sample |Nos. 12571-F, 12580-F, 21933-F, 35459-F, 35817-F, 35825-F, 35831-F, 46805-F.)|INFORMATION FILED: January 14, 1945, against the Parfait Powder Puff Co.,|Inc., Chicago, Ill. |ALLEGED SHIPMENT : On or about August 3, 5, 6, and 9, 1943, from the State of|Illinois into the States of Washington, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina,|Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.|LABEL, IN PART: \"\"[Design of bow] Prevents Stray Locks No more loose ends. |Fixes hair firmly and invisibly. Keeps that fresh look all day. DIRECTIONS |Stroke coiffure lightly with Locks-Up pad. Hair dries quickly, leaving a clear |bright lustre. By Parfait LOCKS-UP\"\"; \"\" [Design of back and side view of |woman's head, one hand applying a pad to back hair] 100 Pads HAIR LAC- |QUER PADS Parfait Powder Puff Company, Chicago.\"\"|NATURE OF CHARGE: Adulteration, Section 601 (a), the product contained |a poisonous and deleterious substance which may have rendered it injurious to |users under the conditions of use prescribed on the jar labels, i. e. \"\"Stroke |coiffure lightly with Locks-Up pad.\"\"|DISPOSITION: On November 15, 1946, a plea of guilty having been entered |by the defendant, the case was tried before the court and the .defendant was|\"\"For failure to bear a label containing an accurate statement of the quantity of the contents, see No. 153. |fined $100 and costs. On November 20, 1946, a motion for a new trial or to |vacate judgment was filed, and on December 17, 1946, the motion was denied. |The defendant appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, |and on November 4,1947, the following memorandum opinion was handed down |affirming the decision of the district court:|LINDLET, Judge: \"\"Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction of a |charge of violation of Section 301 (a) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic |Act (21 U. S. C. 301, et sequi), entered after trial without a jury, largely upon |stipulated facts.|\"\"Section 301 (a) prohibits introduction into interstate commerce of any food, |drug, device, or cosmetic which is 'adulterated or misbranded.' Anyone vio- |lating this enactment is subject to prosecution under Section 303 (a), reading: |'Any person who violates any of the provisions of Section 301 shall be guilty |of a misdemeanor and shall on conviction thereof be subject to imprisonment |for not more than one year, or a fine of not more than $1,000, or both such |imprisonment and fine; * * *' There is no dispute that the cosmetics |involved, hair lacquer pads, were adulterated in that they contained a sub- |stance which rendered them deleterious in use under the conditions prescribed |on their labels, or that they were introduced into interstate commerce.|\"\"The only issue here, whether the defendant was rightfully held responsible |for the violation, must be determined upon the facts. Defendant, engaged in |the manufacture and sale of cosmetic products, in 1943, entered into a contract |with Helfrich Laboratories whereby the latter agreed to manufacture, place |in packages and distribute to defendant's customers hair lacquer pads. De- |fendant supplied Helfrich with jars, caps, labels, display cards, flannel pads |and shipping containers. Helfrich impregnated the pads with a shellac lacquer, |placed them in labeled jars bearing defendant's name, shipped the packages, in |accord with shipping directions furnished by defendant, consigned by defendant |to its purchasers as consignees, and rendered bills to defendant for the |commodity.|\"\"The sample submitted by Helfrich, when the arrangement was first made, |was tested by defendant and found satisfactory. Later, without defendant's |knowledge, so far as this record discloses, Helfrich substituted for shellac in |the lacquer, a gum, for the reason, as it claimed, that it was impossible to obtain |shellac. This element proved to be deleterious in use. As soon as defendant |learned of the substitution it forbade use of the gum.|\"\"In this situation, it is defendant's position that the violation was not that |of itself but that of Helfrich. It argues that Helfrich was not Its agent, but an |independent contractor, for whose acts it is not responsible. But we are not |concerned with any distinction between independent contractors and agents |in the ordinary sense of those words. It is clear that defendant was engaged in |procuring the manufacture and distribution of the article in interstate com- |merce. It saw fit to create out of Helfrich's activities in its behalf an instru- |mentality and to avail itself of the acts of that instrumentality, which effected |an introduction into commerce of an adulterated article violative of the stand- |ards fixed by the Act. This we think it could not do without incurring the |criminal penalty imposed by the statute. The liability was not incurred be- |cause defendant consciously participated in the wrongful act, but because the |instrumentality which it employed, acting within the powers which the parties |had mutually agreed should be lodged in it, violated the law. The act of the |instrumentality is controlled in the interest of public policy by imputing the |act to its creator and imposing penalties upon the latter. New York Central |and Hudson River Railroad Company v. United States, 212 U. S. 481.|\"\"In United States v. Balint, et ah, 258 U. S. 250, 254, the court directed atten- |tion to authorities approving legislation in aid of maintenance of a public |policy, prohibiting and punishing particular acts, commenting that 'he who |shall do them shall do them at his peril and will not be heard to plead in |defense, good faith or ignorance' and proceeding as follows: 'Congress weighed |the possible injustice of subjecting an innocent seller to a penalty against the |evil of exposing innocent purchasers to danger from the drug, and concluded |that the latter was the result preferably to be avoided.' And in the compara- |tively recent case, United States v. Dotterweich, 320 U. S. 277, the court said: |'The offense is committed * * * by all who do have such a responsible |share in the furtherance of the transaction which the statute outlaws, namely,|89|to put into the stream of interstate commerce adulterated or misbranded drugs. |Hardship there doubtless may be under a statute which thus penalizes the |transaction though consciousness of wrong-doing be totally wanting. Balancing |relative hardships, Congress has preferred to place it upon those who have at |least the opportunity of informing themselves of the existence of conditions |imposed for the protection of consumers before sharing in illicit commerce, |rather than to throw the hazard on the innocent public who are wholly |helpless.'|\"\"In other words, when defendant engaged in manufacture and distribution |of cosmetics in commerce, there was in force this statute, enacted as a matter |of public policy for the protection of the purchasing public. Defendant knew |that the goods would pass into commerce. It knew that if those goods violated |the provisions of the Act, liability would be incurred. This liability it could |not shift to the instrumentality which it had created for the purpose of accom- |plishment of the completed transaction of manufacture, distribution and sale. |Rather defendant was bound to see that its product, when introduced into |commerce, was not antagonistic to and violative of the sovereign will, which, |expressed in the act of Congress, enters into and becomes a part of all con- |tracts relating to the production and distribution of articles in commerce. The |person who brings goods into commerce, by whatever means or implements, is |bound to see that the commodity thus put in commerce is not beyond the pale |of the legislative act. In other words, one who owes a certain duty to the |public and entrusts its performance to another, whether it be an independent |contractor or agent, becomes responsible criminally for the failure of the person |to whom he has delegated the obligation to comply with the law, if the non- |performance of such duty is a crime. Defendant may not put into operation |forces effectuating a placement in commerce of a prohibited commodity in its |behalf and then claim immunity because the instrumentality it has voluntarily |selected has failed to live up to the standards of the law. Cummer-Graham |Co. v. Straight Side Basket Corp., 142 F. 2d 646 (CCA 5) ; Anno. 152 A. L. R. |761; John Griffiths & Son Company v. National Fireproofing Co., 310 Ill. 331, 38 |A. L. R. 559; V. S. v. Wilson, 59 F. 2d 97; U. S. v. Buchanan, 9 F. 689; Weeks v. |U. S. 224 F. 64 (OOA 2) ; 1 Burdick Law of Crime, p. 232, et seq.|\"\"Defendant makes the further contention that it is exempt from prosecution |by virtue of Section 303 (c) of the Act. Section 303 (a) provides that any |person who violates any of the provisions of Section 301 shall be guilty of a |misdemeanor and shall on conviction thereof be subject to a fine. Section 303 |(c) provides that 'no person shall be subject to the penalties of subsection (a) |of this Section. (1) for having received in interstate commerce any article |and delivered it or proferred delivery of it, if such delivery or proffer was made |in good faith,' unless certain conditions precedent are complied with. De- |fendant insists that it is a person who has 'received in interstate commerce' |the deleterious article within the meaning of this provision. But the weakness |of the contention is that defendant is not within the class mentioned in Section |303 (c). It has not received in interstate commerce the article complained of. |On the contrary, it is the moving force in the procurement of introduction of |the article into commerce. The facts will not justify the strained construction |that when Helfrich delivered the goods to carriers in behalf of defendant as |consignor, addressed to its purchasers as consignees, defendant thereupon |received the goods in interstate commerce within the meaning of the Act. |Rather than having received the goods in commerce, defendant in fact caused |them to be placed in commerce. This is apparent when we consider the purpose |of this provision. It is clear that it was designed to protect innocent dealers |who receive goods shipped in interstate commerce. Thus, in Senate Report No. |493, 73d Cong. 2d Sess., accompanying S. 2800, the Senate Committee reported |as follows: 'The existing law provides for a guaranty whereby a dealer who |buys on faith may be protected from liability under the law. This provision |has safe-guarded innocent dealers and has been extremely useful in fixing |responsibility on guilty shippers. It would be continued in effect by paragraph |(e). The bill affords in this paragraph further protection to the innocent |dealer who distributes goods he has received from interstate sources. If he has |failed to secure a guaranty he can escape penalties by furnishing the records |of interstate shipment, thus allowing the prosecution to lie solely against the |guilty shipper.' It is clear, we think, that the Act was intended to furnish |protection to innocent receivers of goods shipped to them in interstate com-|merce in violation of the Act and not to consignors of such goods, such as |defendant.|\"\"The judgment is affirmed.\"\"|The defendant filed before the Supreme Court of the United States a petition |for a writ of certiorari, which was denied on January 12, 1948.|COSMETIC ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF CONTAMINATION WITH FILTH|148. Adulteration of Elmo Special Nite Cream. U. S. v. 250 Cartons.csnj00148February 1949Elmo Sales CorpElmo Special Nite CreamJuly 3, 1947San Francisco, Calif.Philadelphia, Pa.San Francisco, Calif.Northern District of California148F. D. C. No. 23976. Sample No. 33313-K.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00148csnj|148. Adulteration of Elmo Special Nite Cream. U. S. v. 250 Cartons * * *.|(P. D. C. No. 23976. Sample No. 33313-K.)|LIBEL FILED : November 21,1947, Northern District of California.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT : On or about July 3, 1947, by the Elmo Sales Corp., from |. Philadelphia, Pa.|PRODUCT: 250 cartons, each containing 12 6%-ounce jars, of Elmo Special Nite |Cream at San Francisco, Calif. Examination showed that the cartons were |moldy and had a putrescent odor and that the same odor permeated the contents |of the jars.|NATURE OF CHARGE : Adulteration, Section 601 (b), the article consisted in whole |or in part of a filthy substance; and, Section 601 (c), it had been held under |insanitary conditions whereby it may have become contaminated with filth.|DISPOSITION : January 5,1948. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|USE OR DISTRIBUTION OF UNCERTIFIED COAL-TAR COLORS|149. Adulteration of Tropical Sun Tan Oil. U. S. v. Park Drug Co., Inc., and Louis Klatzkie. Plea of guilty. Fines, $750.csnj00149February 1949Park Drug Co., Inc.Tropical Sun Tan OilJuly 30 and August 22, 1945New Jersey ; VirginiaNew YorkNew Jersey ; VirginiaSouthern District of New York149F. D. C. No. 20187. Sample Nos. 7835-H, 41801-H.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00149csnj|149. Adulteration of Tropical Sun Tan Oil. IT. S. v. Park Drug Co., Inc., and Louis|KlatzMe. Plea of guilty. Fines, $750. (F. D. C. No. 20187. Sample Nos. |7835-H, 41801-H.)|INFORMATION FILED : December 26,1946, Southern District of New York, against |the Park Drug Co., Inc., and Louis Klatzkie.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT : July 30 and August 22, 1945, 'from the State of New York |into the States of New Jersey and Virginia.|LABEL, IN PART : \"\"Tropical Sun Tan Oil * * * Distributed by Park Labora- |tories, New York, N. Y.\"\"|NATURE OF CHARGE: Adulteration, Section 601 (e), the article was not a hair |dye and contained coal-tar colors, Butter Yellow (Colour Index No. 19) and |Sudan IV (Colour Index No. 258), which have not been listed for use in cos- |metics in accordance with the regulations and were other than colors from |batches that had been certified.|DISPOSITION : January 24, 1947. Pleas of guilty having been entered, fines of |$500 and $250 were imposed against the corporation and Louis Klatzkie, |respectively.|150. Adulteration of coal-tar color. U. S. v. Evergreen Chemical Co., Inc., and Arthur M. Strang. Pleas of guilty. Fine of $300 against corporation. Imposition of sentence against individual was suspended, and he was placed on probation for 10 days.csnj00150February 1949Evergreen Chemical Co., Inc.coal-tar colorJune 19,1942, and March 15,1945New York, N. Y.New York, N. Y.New York, N. Y.Southern District of New York150F. D. C. No. 20205. Sample No. 10293-H.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00150csnj|150. Adulteration of coal-tar color. IT. S. v. Evergreen Chemical Co., Inc., and|Arthur M. Strang. Pleas of guilty. Fine of $300 against corporation. |Imposition of sentence against individual was suspended, and he was |placed on probation for 10 days. (F. D. C. No. 20205. Sample No. 10293-H.)|INFORMATION FILED : November 25,1946, Southern District of New York, against |the Evergreen Chemical Co., Inc., New York, N. Y., and Arthur M. Strang, |secretary.|Between the dates of June 19,1942, and March 15,1945, the defendant mixed |a quantity of Tartrazine (FD&C Yellow No. 5) and Guinea Green B (FD&C |Green No. 1), coal-tar colors, and shipped in interstate commerce the colors |so mixed, on or about March 15,1945.|LABEL IN PART : \"\"Liquid Evergreen 'C Certified Color For Foods, Drugs and |Cosmetics * * * Lot #B-992.\"\"|NATURE OF CHARGE: Section 301 (i), the defendant, by designating the coal-tar |color as hereinbefore indicated, falsely represented and without proper author- |ity, used an identification device authorized and required by regulations; and, |Section 601 (e), the article was not a hair dye, and it contained a coal-tar color |other than one from a batch that had been certified in accordance with the |regulations.|DISPOSITION : December 10, 1946. Pleas of guilty having been entered on behalf |of both defendants, the court imposed a fine of $150 on each count against the |corporation, a total fine of $300; imposition of sentence against the individual|defendant was suspended, and he was placed on probation for a period of 10 |days.|COSMETICS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF FALSE AND MISLEADING|CLAIMS|153. Misbranding of Lstray Egg Shampoo. U. S. v. 77 Bottles.csnj00153February 1949J. H. Shufford Beauty & Barber Supply Co.Lnstray \"\"Egg ShampooJanuary 7,1948New York, N. Y.Richmond, Va.New York, N. Y.Southern District of New York.153F. D. C. No. 24351. Sample No. 9163-K.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00153csnj|153. Misbranding of Lnstray \"\"Egg Shampoo. U. S. v. 77 Bottles * * *. (F. D. C.|No. 24351. Sample No. 9163-K.)|LIBEL FILED : On February 17, 1948, Southern District of New York.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT : On or about January 7,1948, by the J. H. Shufford Beauty |& Barber Supply Co., from Richmond, Va. This was a return shipment.|PRODUCT: 77 1-quart bottles of Lustray Egg Shampoo at New York, N. Y.|Examination showed that the product was a perfumed, yellow-colored, soapy|liquid containing not more than a trace, if any, of egg. |LABEL IN PART : \"\"Lustray Egg Shampoo Mfd. By Lustray Laboratories Inc.,|New York, N. Y.\"\"|NATURE OF CHARGE: Misbranding, Section 602 (a), the label statements \"\"Egg |Shampoo * * * Contains Real Egg * * * The real egg in this sham- |poo does wonders for your hair. Egg Shampoo in highly concentrated form\"\" |were false and misleading as applied to an article which did not contain more |than a trace, if any, of egg; and, Section 602 (b) (2), the label of the article |failed to bear an accurate statement of the quantity of the contents.|DISPOSITION: March 18, 1948. Default decree of condemnation. The product |was ordered delivered to a charitable organization.|154. Misbranding of Rayve Egg Fluff Shampoo. U. S. v. 270 Cartons.csnj00154February 1949Raymond Laboratories, Inc.Rayve Egg Fluff ShampooMay 15 and 16,1947New York, N. Y.St. Paul, Minn.New York, N. Y.Southern District of New York.154F. D. C. No. 23880. Sample No. 9142-K.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00154csnj|154. Misbranding of Rayve Egg Fluff Shampoo. U. S. v. 270 Cartons * * * |(F. D. C. No. 23880. Sample No. 9142-K.)|LIBEL FILED: On or about October 30, 1947, Southern District of New York.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT : On or about May 15 and 16,1947, by Raymond Laboratories, |Inc., from St. Paul, Minn.|PRODUCT: 270 cartons, each containing 12 8-ounce bottles, of Rayve Egg Fluff |Shampoo at New York, N. Y. Analysis showed that the product contained |not more than one percent of whole egg solids. The whole 8-ounce bottle |contained approximately one-fifth of one egg.|LABEL IN PART : \"\"Rayve Egg Fluff Shampoo.\"\"|NATURE OF CHARGE: Misbranding, Section 602 (a), the label statements \"\"Egg |Fluff Shampoo * * * enriched with egg * * * contains dehydrated |egg\"\" were false and misleading as applied to a product which contained an |insignificant amount of egg.|DISPOSITION : December 8, 1947. Default decree of condemnation. The product |was ordered delivered to charitable organizations.|155. Misbranding of Richard Hudnut Egg Creme Shampoo. U. S. v. 6 Dozen Bottles.csnj00155February 1949Hudnut Sales Co., Inc.Riemard Hudnut Egg Creme ShampooSeptember 12 and 15, 1947Hartford, Conn.New York, N. Y.Hartford, Conn.District of Connecticut.155F. D. C. No. 23878. Sample No. 8013-K.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00155csnj|155. Misbranding of Riemard BTudnnt Egg Creme Shampoo. U. S. v. 6 Dozen Bot |tles * * *. (F. D. C. No. 23878. Sample No. 8013-K.)|LIBEL FILED : October 31, 1947, District of Connecticut.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT: On or about September 12 and 15, 1947, by the Hudnut |Sales Co., Inc., from New York, N. Y.|PRODUCT: 6 dozen 8-ounce bottles of Richard Hudnut Egg Creme Shampoo at |Hartford, Conn. Analysis showed that the product contained not more than |0.3 percent of whole egg solids, equivalent to about 1/20 of an egg in the 8-ounce |bottle.|LABEL IN PART : \"\"Richard Hudnut Egg Creme Shampoo.\"\"|NATURE OF CHARGE: Misbranding, Section 602 (a), the label statement \"\"Egg |Creme Shampoo\"\" was false and misleading as applied to a product which |contained an insignificant amount of egg.|DISPOSITION : December 16, 1947. Default decree of condemnation. The prod- |uct was ordered distributed to charitable institutions.|156. Misbranding of Bonat Cream Shampoo (liquid and paste). U. S. v. 11 Bottles, etc.csnj00156February 1949Bonat & Bonat, Inc.Bonat Cream Shampoo (liquid and paste)November 3, 1947Newark, N. J.New York, N. Y.Newark, N. J.District of New Jersey156F. D. C. No. 24348. Sample Nos. 9161-K, 9162-K.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00156csnj|156. Misbranding1 of Bonat Cream Shampoo (liquid and paste). TJ. S. v. 11 Bot |tles, etc. (F. D. C. No. 24348. Sample Nos. 9161-K, 9162-K.)|LIBEL FILED : February 13,1948, District of New Jersey.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT: On or about November 3, 1947, by Bonat & Bonat, Inc., |from New York, N. Y.|PRODUCT: 11 1-quart bottles and 55 8-ounce bottles of Bonat Cream Shampoo |(liquid) and 6 1-pound jars and 24 4-ounce jars of Bonat Cream Shampoo |(paste) at Newark, N. J. Examination showed that the products were a per- |fumed, yellow-colored, soapy liquid or paste containing not more than a trace, |if any, of egg.|LABEL IN PART : (Bottle) \"\"Bonat Eggoil Liquid Cream Shampoo\"\"; (jar) \"\"Bonat |Eggoil Cream Shampoo.\"\"|NATURE OF CHARGE: Misbranding, Section 602 (a), the following statements in |the labeling of the products were false and misleading as applied to products |which contained not more than a trace, if any, of egg: (liquid) \"\"Eggoil Con- |centrated Liquid Cream Shampoo * * * with Egg\"\" and (paste) \"\"Eggoil |Concentrated Cream Shampoo * * * with Egg.\"\"|DISPOSITION : April 12, 1948. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|157. Misbrandingof Lan-O-Tone Creme Shampoo, U. S. v. 17 Bottles, etc.csnj00157February 1949Worth Chemical CorpLan-O-Tone Creme ShampooMarch 12, August 13, and November 7, 1947New York, N. Y.Kenilworth, N. J.New York, N. Y.Southern District of New York157F. D. C. No. 24207. Sample No. 9154-K.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00157csnj|157. Misbranding- of Lan-O-Tone Creme Sbampoo, XJ, S. v. 17 Bottles, etc. (F. D. C.|No. 24207. Sample No. 9154-K.)|LIBEL FILED : On or about December 24, 1947, Southern District of New York.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT: On or about March 12, August 13, and November 7, 1947,. |by the Worth Chemical Corp., from Kenilworth, N. J.|PRODUCT: 17 6-ounce bottles, 48 2-ounce bottles, and 50 1-ounce bottles of |Lan-O-Tone Creme Shampoo at New York, N. Y. Analysis showed that the |product contained not more than 16/100 of one percent of whole egg solids.|LABEL IN PART: (Bottles) \"\"Lan-O-Tone Creme Shampoo with egg added |* * * Lan-O-Tone Products * * * New York 19, N. Y.\"\"|NATURE OF CHARGE: Misbranding, Section 602 (a), the label statement \"\"with |egg added\"\" was false and misleading as applied to a product which contained |an insignificant amount of egg.|DISPOSITION : January 19,1948. Default decree of condemnation. The product |was .ordered delivered to a charitable institution.|158. Misbranding of Nancy Dale's Date Wight Liquid Cream Shampoo. U. S. v. 49 Cartons.csnj00158February 1949Nancy Dale, Ltd.Nancy Dale's Date Wight Liquid Cream ShampooSeptember 30, 1947 ; November 20, 1947Chicago, Ill.Brooklyn, N. Y.Chicago, Ill.Eastern District of New York158F. D. C. No. 24289. Sample No. 9153-K.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00158csnj|158. Misbranding of Nancy Dale's Date Wight Liquid Cream Shampoo. U. S. v.|49 Cartons * * *. (F. D. C. No. 24289. Sample No. 9153-K.)|LIBEL FILED : January 5, 1948, Eastern District of New York.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT : On or about September 30, 1947, by Nancy Dale, Ltd., from |Brooklyn, N. Y., to Chicago, Ill., and reshipped to Brooklyn, N. Y., on or about |November 20, 1947, after refusal of the consignee to accept the consignment, |upon instructions of Nancy Dale, Ltd.|PRODUCT: 49 cartons, each containing 1 dozen units consisting of 1 6-ounce |bottle and 1 1-ounce bottle of Nancy Dale's Date Night Liquid Cream Sham- |poo at Brooklyn, N. Y. Analysis showed that the product contained not more |than 25/100 of 1 percent whole egg solids and not more than 33/100 of 1 percent |of skim-milk solids.|LABEL IN PART : \"\"Nancy Dale's Date Night Liquid Cream Shampoo.\"\"|NATURE OF CHARGE: Misbranding, Section 602 (a), the following statements in |the labeling of the article were false and misleading as applied to a product |which contained insignificant amounts of egg and milk: (Bottle labels and |display card) \"\"with Homogenized Egg & Milk\"\" and (leaflet entitled \"\"Date |Night Homogenized Egg and Milk Shampoo\"\") \"\"homogenized egg and milk |shampoo * * * Women have known and used both eggs and milk as beauty |aids ever since the days of Cleopatra, but now Nancy Dale makes it possible for |women to get the benefit of both of these in caring for their hair * * * |made with homogenized egg and milk.\"\"|DISPOSITION : March 8, 1948. Default .decree of condemnation and destruction.|159. Misbranding of perfumed olive oil. U. S. v. Hampden Sales Assoc., Inc., and Victor D. Leavin. Pleas of guilty. Fine, $1,000.csnj00159February 1949Hampden Sales Assoc, Inc.perfumed olive oilJuly 17 and November 7, 1946MarylandNew YorkMarylandSouthern District of New York159F. D. C. No. 23233. Sample Nos. 42552-H, 42553-H.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00159csnj|159. Misbranding of perfumed olive oil. U. S. v. Hampden Sales Assoc., Inc., and|Victor D. Leavin. Pleas of guilty. Fine, $1,000. (F. D. C. No. 23233.|Sample Nos. 42552-H, 42553-H.)|INFORMATION FILED: October 7, 1947, Southern District of New York, against |the Hampden Sales Assoc, Inc., New York, N. Y., and Victor D. Leavin, plant |manager.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT : On or about July 17 and November 7, 1946, from the State |of New York into the State of Maryland.|LABEL IN PART : \"\"Miami Perfumed Olive Oil.\"\"|NATURE OF CHARGE: Misbranding, Section 602 (a), the label statement \"\"Per- |fumed Olive Oil\"\" was false and misleading, since the article was not perfumed |olive oil but was artificially colored, perfumed mineral oil.|DISPOSITION : October 24, 1947. Pleas of guilty having been entered, the court |imposed a fine of $1,000 against the defendants, jointly and severally.|160. Misbranding of perfumed olive oil compound. U. S. v. 13 Dozen Bottles, etc.csnj00160February 1949Peau D'Or Sales Corpperfumed olive oil compoundJune 24 and July 18, 1946Greenville, S. C.Miami, Fla.Greenville, S. C.Western District of South Carolina160F. D. C. No. 21255. Sample No. 54587-H.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00160csnj|160. Misbranding of perfumed olive oil compound. U. S. v. 13 Dozen Bottles, etc.|(F. D. C. No. 21255. Sample No. 54587-H.)|LIBEL FILED : October 21,1946, Western District of South Carolina.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT : On or about June 24 and July 18, 1946, by the Peau D'Or|Sales Corp., from Miami, Fla. |PRODUCT: 23 dozen 4-ounce bottles of perfumed olive oil compound at Greenville,|S. C. |LABEL IN PART : \"\"Peau D'Or Perfumed Olive Oil Compound.\"\" |NATURE OF CHARGE: Misbranding, Section 602 (a), the label statement \"\"Olive|Oil Compound\"\" was false and misleading as applied to the article, which was|an artificially colored mineral oil, with little or no olive oil.|DISPOSITION : December 9, 1946. Default decree of condemnation and destruc- |tion.|INDEX TO NOTICES OF JUDGMENT C. N. J. NOS. 147 TO 160|PRODUCTS|N. J. No. |Bonat Cream Shampoo (liquid|and paste) |156|Coal-tar color |150|Creams |148, *151|Eau de Quinine Compound Hair|Lotion |2152|Elmo Special Nite Cream |148|Hair and scalp preparations 3147,|2152-158|Lacquer, hair |3147|Lan-O-Tone Creme Shampoo 157|Lock's-Up Hair Lacquer Pads 8147|N. J. No.|Lustray Egg Shampoo |* 153|Miami Perfumed Olive Oil 159|Miracle-Aid |* 151|Nancy Dale's Date Night Liquid|Cream Shampoo |158|Olive oil, perfumed |159,160|Peau D'Or Perfumed Olive Oil|Compound |160|Rayve Egg Fluff Shampoo |154|Richard Hudnut Egg Creme|Shampoo |155|Tropical Sun Tan Oil |149|SHIPPERS, MANUFACTURERS, AND DISTRIBUTORS|N. J. No. |Bonat & Bonat, Inc: |Bonat Cream Shampoo (liquid|and paste) |156|Douglas, N. C.:|Miracle-Aid |a151|Elmo Sales Corp.:|Elmo Special Nite Cream 148|Evergreen Chemical Co., Inc.:|coal-tar color |150|Gladiator Co., Inc.:|Eau de Quinine Compound|Hair Lotion |152|Hampden Sales Assoc, Inc.:|perfumed olive oil |159|Hudnut Sales Co., Inc.:|Richard Hudnut Egg Creme|Shampoo |155|N. J. No. |Klatzkie, Louis:|Tropical Sun Tan Oil |149|Lan-O-Tone Products:|Lan-O-Tone Creme Shampoo- 157 |Leavin, V. D.:|perfumed olive oil |159|Lustray Laboratories, Inc.:|Lustray Egg Shampoo |153|Miracle Products. See Douglas,|N. C. |Nancy Dale, Ltd.:|Nancy Dale's Date Night Liq- |uid Cream Shampoo |158|Parfait Powder Puff Co., Inc.:|Locks-Up Hair Lacquer Pads- 3147 |Park Drug Co., Inc.:|Tropical Sun Tan Oil |149|1 (151) Prosecution contested.|2 (152) Prosecution contested.|3 (147) Prosecution contested.|Contains charge to the jury. |Contains opinion of the court.|The cases reported herewith were instituted in the United States district |courts by the United States attorneys acting upon reports submitted by direc- |tion of the Federal Security Administrator.|JOHN L. THUESTON, Acting Administrator, Federal Security Agency. |WASHINGTON, D. C, September 28, 1949.|CONTENTS*|Page |Cosmetics actionable because of |adulteration with poisonous or |deleterious substances |100|Cosmetics actionable because of |adulteration with uncertified |coal-tar colors |100|Page |Cosmetics actionable because of|false and misleading claims |102|Index |105|Cosmetics, subject to the drug pro- |visions of the Act |106|*For failure to bear mandatory labeling, see ISTos. 166, 167.|99 |846677-49|COSMETICS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF ADULTERATION |WITH POISONOUS OR DELETERIOUS SUBSTANCES|161. Adulteration of Deo Deodorant. U. S. v. 264 Bottles.csnj00161October 1949Elmo Sales CorpDeo DeodorantApril 1, 1948Buffalo, N. Y.Philadelphia, Pa.Buffalo, N. Y.Western District of New York161F. D. C. No. 26917. Sample No. 7726-K.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00161csnj|161. Adulteration of Deo Deodorant. U. S. v. 264 Bottles * * *. (F. D. C.|No. 26917. Sample No. 7726-K.) |LIBEL FILED : April 4,1949, Western District of New York.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT : On or about April 1, 1948, by the Elmo Sales Corp., from |Philadelphia, Pa.|PRODUCT: 264 l^-ounce bottles of Deo Deodorant at Buffalo, N. Y. Analysis|disclosed that the product was a primary irritant. |LABEL, IN PART : \"\"Deodorant Deo Special.\"\" |NATURE OF CHARGE: Adulteration, Section 601 (a), the article bore or contained|a poisonous or deleterious substance which may have rendered it injurious to|users under such conditions of use as are customary to the use of deodorant|cream.|DISPOSITION : May 9,1949. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|162. Adulteration of Perma-Nail. U. S. v. 61 Bottles.csnj00162October 1949Perma-Nail Co.Perma-NailNovember 11, 1947New York, N. Y.Burbank, Calif.New York, N. Y.Southern District of New York162F. D. C. No. 26619. Sample No. 11130-K.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00162csnj|162. Adulteration of Perma-Nail. U. S. v. 61 Bottles * * *. (F. D. C. No.|26619. Sample No. 11130-K.)|LIBEL FILED : February 25,1949, Southern District of New York.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT: On or about November 11, 1947, by the Perma-Nail Co., |from Burbank, Calif.|PRODUCT: 61 bottles of Perma-Nail at New York, N. Y. Analysis showed that |the product contained synthetic rubber of the Perbunin type and phenol for- |maldehyde resin in methylethylketone.|LABEL IN PART : (Carton) \"\"Perma-Nail The Professional Base Coat % Fl. Oz. |Directions 1. Remove old polish. 2. When nails are clean and thoroughly dry, |apply Perma-Nail, dipping brush freshly for each nail. 3. Next apply nail |polish.\"\"|NATURE OF CHARGE : Adulteration, Section 601 (a), the article bore or contained |a poisonous or deleterious substance which may have rendered it injurious to |users under the conditions of use prescribed in its labeling.|DISPOSITION: March 19, 1949. Default decree of condemnation. The product |was ordered released to the Food and Drug Administration, to be used for |further experimental work.|COSMETICS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE, OF ADULTERATION |WITH UNCERTIFIED COAL-TAR COLORS|179. Misbranding of Winsome Egg Creme Shampoo. U. S. v. 1,402 Jars.csnj00179August 1950Allied Home Products, Inc.Winsome Egg Creme ShampooNovember 23, 1948Fargo, N. Dak.Beloit, Wis.Fargo, N. Dak.District of North Dakota179F. D. C. No. 26540. Sample No. 25920-K.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00179csnj|179. Misbranding of Winsome Egg Creme Shampoo. U. S. v. 1,402 Jars * * *.|(F. D. C. No. 26540. Sample No. 25920-K.)|LIBEL FILED : On or about February 23,1949, District of North Dakota.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT : On or about November 23, 1948, by Allied Home Products, |Inc., from Beloit, Wis.|PRODUCT: 1,402 4-ounce jars of Winsome Egg Creme Shampoo at Fargo, N. Dak.|LABEL IN PART : \"\"Winsome Egg Creme Shampoo.\"\"|NATURE OF CHARGE: Misbranding, Section 602 (a), the label statement \"\"Egg|Creme Shampoo\"\" was false and misleading since the article contained not more|than %oo of an egg per jar. |DISPOSITION: May 17, 1949. Allied Home Products, Inc., claimant, having |admitted the allegations of the libel, judgment of condemnation was entered|and the court ordered that the product be released under bond for relabeling,|under the supervision of the Federal Security Agency.|163. Adulteration of Hawaiian Pressing Oil. U. S. v. Hawaiian Hair Products Corp. and Clyde F. Robinson. Pleas of guilty. Individual fined $100 on each of the two counts and sentenced to serve 30 days in jail on each count, the sentence to run consecutively. No penalty imposed against corporation.csnj00163October 1949Hawaiian Hair Products Corp.Hawaiian Pressing OilMarch 25,1948Washington, D. C.Washington, D. C.Washington, D. C.District of Columbia163F. D. C. No. 25566. Sample No. 40122-K.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00163csnj|163. Adulteration of Hawaiian Pressing Oil. U. S. v. Hawaiian Hair Products|Corp. and Clyde F. Robinson. Pleas of guilty. Individual fined $100 on |each of the two counts and sentenced to serve 30 days in jail on each |count, the sentence to run consecutively. No penalty imposed against |corporation. (F. D. C. No. 25566. Sample No. 40122-K.)|INFORMATION FILED : Between September 22 and November 17, 1948, District of |Columbia, against the Hawaiian Hair Products Corp., Washington, D. C, and |Clyde F. Robinson, treasurer and general manager, alleging that the defendants, |on or about March 25,1948, unlawfully caused to be introduced and delivered |for introduction into interstate commerce at Washington, D. C, by sale and |delivery to an individual, one jar of Hawaiian Pressing Oil which was adul-|terated. The information alleged further that on or about March 25, 1948, |the defendants unlawfully caused to be manufactured within the District of |Columbia a quantity of the product which was adulterated.|LABEL, IN PART: \"\"Hawaiian Special Pressing Oil * * * Mme. Bramlett- |Willis Hawaiian Hair Products Corp. 5201 East Capitol St. Washington 9, |D. C.\"\"|NATURE OF CHARGE: Adulteration, Section 601 (e), the article was not a hair |dye and contained a coal-tar color, Butter Yellow (Colour Index No. 19), which |had not been listed for use in cosmetics in accordance with the regulations |and was other \"\"than one from a batch that had been certified.|DISPOSITION: November 17, 1948. Pleas of guilty having been entered, the |individual was fined $100 on each of the 2 counts of the information and was |sentenced to serve 30 days in jail on each count, the sentence to run con- |secutively. No penalty was imposed against the corporation.|164. Adulteration of Hawaiian Pressing Oil. U. S. v. 7 Jars, etc.csnj00164October 1949Hawaiian Hair Products Corp.Hawaiian Pressing Oil\NDistrict of ColumbiaDistrict of ColumbiaDistrict of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia164F. D. C. No. 24703. Sample No. 40122-K.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00164csnj|164. Adulteration of EUiwaiian Pressing Oil. U. S. v. 7 Jars, etc. (F. D. C. No.|24703. Sample No. 40122-K.) |LIBEL FILED : April 1,1948, District of Columbia. |PRODUCT: 7 5-pound jars, 3 3-pound jars, and 6 1-pound jars of Hawaiian|Pressing Oil, which were held for sale in interstate commerce in the District of|Columbia, by the Hawaiian Hair Products Corp. |LABEL, IN PART : \"\"Hawaiian Special Pressing Oil.\"\"|NATURE OF CHARGE: Adulteration, Section 601 (e), the article was not a hair |dye and contained a coal-tar color, para dimethyl-amino-azobenzene (Colour |Index No. 19), which had not been listed as harmless and suitable for use in |cosmetics and was other than one from a batch that had been certified in |accordance with the regulations.|DISPOSITION : August 13, 1948. Default decree of condemnation. The product |was ordered destroyed, with the exception of one 1-pound jar which was ordered |delivered to the Federal Security Agency, for laboratory use.|165. Adulteration of Contoure Special Formula. U. S. v. 11 Jars, etc.csnj00165October 1949A. Breslauer Co.Contoure Special FormulaOctober 4, 1947, and February 19 and June 7,1948Jersey City, N. J.Brooklyn, N. Y.Jersey City, N. J.District of New Jersey165F. D. C. No. 26423. Sample No. 10801-K.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00165csnj|165. Adulteration of Contoure Special Formula. U. S. v. 11 Jars, etc. (F. D. C.|No. 26423. Sample No. 10801-K.)|LIBEL FILED : January 21,1949, District of New Jersey.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT: On or about October 4, 1947, and February 19 and June |7,1948, by the A. Breslauer Co., from Brooklyn, N. Y.|PRODUCT: 11 8-ounce jars and 57 2-ounce jars of Contoure Special Formula at |Jersey City, N. J. The coloring matter in this product was from a batch that |had been certified under the regulations. However, the regulations provide |that authorization to certify coal-tar colors shall not be considered to authorize |the certification of any coal-tar color for use in any article which is applied to |the area of the eye; and, further, that a coal-tar color to be so applied shall be |considered to be from a batch that has not been certified. The article was |labeled as suitable for use around the eyes.|LABEL IN PART: \"\"Contoure\"\" Special Formula For Dry Skin\"\" * * * Espe- |cially recommended for use around the eyes and on the neck.\"\"|NATURE OF CHARGE: Adulteration, Section 601 (e), the article was not a hair |dye and contained a coal-tar color other than one from a batch that had been |certified in accordance with the regulations.|DISPOSITION : March 14, 1949. The A. Breslauer Co., claimant, having admitted |the allegations of the libel, judgment of condemnation was entered and the |product was ordered released under bond for relabeling under the super- |vision of the Federal Security Agency. It was relabeled by labels which |omitted the recommendation for use about the eyes.|166. Adulteration and misbranding of eye shadow. U. S. v. 24 Cartons, etc.csnj00166October 1949Solo Laboratories, Inc.eye shadowJuly 10, 1947, and March 2, 1948Kalamazoo, Mich.Chicago, Ill.Kalamazoo, Mich.Western District of Michigan166F. D. C. No. 24620. Sample Nos. 15162-K to 15164-K, incl.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00166csnj|166. Adulteration and misbranding of eye shadow. U. S. v. 24 Cartons, etc.|(F. D. C. No. 24620. Sample Nos. 15162-K to 15164-K, incl.) |LIBEL FILED : May 4,1948, Western District of Michigan.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT: On or about July 10, 1947, and March 2, 1948, by Solo |Laboratories, Inc., from Chicago, Ill.|PRODUCT: 24 cartons of blue eye shadow, 21 cartons of grey eye shadow, and |22 cartons of green eye shadow at Kalamazoo, Mich. Each carton contained |12 units of VIQ ounce each.|NATURE OF CHARGE: Adulteration, Section 601 (e), each article bore or con- |tained a coal-tar color which had not been listed as harmless and suitable for |use in cosmetics and was other than one from a batch that had been certified |in accordance with the regulations.|Misbranding, Section 602 (b) (1), the article failed to bear labels containing |the name and place of business of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor.|DISPOSITION : June 8, 1948. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|COSMETICS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF FALSE AND|MISLEADING CLAIMS|167. Misbranding of Doris Drake Egg Shampoo. U. S. v. 24 Dozen Bars.csnj00167October 1949Doris Drake, Inc.Doris Drake Egg ShampooMay 28, 1948Boston, Mass.New York, N. Y.Boston, Mass.District of Massachusetts167F. D. C. No. 25158. Sample No. 4708-K.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00167csnj|167. Misbranding of Doris Drake Egg Shampoo. U. S. v. 24 Dozen Bars * * *.|F. D. C. No. 25158. Sample No. 4708-K.)|LIBEL FILED: August 3, 1948, District of Massachusetts.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT : On or about May 28, 1948, by Doris Drake, Inc., from New |York, N. Y.|PRODUCT: 24 dozen bars of Doris Drake E'gg Shampoo at Boston, Mass. Exami- |nation showed that the product did not contain whole egg and that it con- |tained not more than 0.07 percent, if any, of egg white.|LABEL IN PART: \"\"Doris Drake Featherweight Egg Shampoo.\"\"|NATURE OF CHARGE: .Misbranding, Section 602 (a), the label statement \"\"Egg |Shampoo\"\" was false and misleading as applied to an article which contained |not more than 0.07 percent, if any, of egg white; and, Section 602 (b) (2), the |label of the article failed to bear an accurate statement of the quantity of the |contents.|DISPOSITION : September 27, 1948. Default decree of condemnation. The prod- |uct was ordered delivered to a charitable institution.|168. Misbranding of Helene Curtis Egg Shampoo. U. S. v. 13 Jugs, etc.csnj00168October 1949Helene Curtis Industries, Inc.Helene Curtis Egg ShampooFebruary 11, 1948Cincinnati, Ohio.Chicago, Ill.Cincinnati, Ohio.Southern District of Ohio168F. D. C. No. 24605. Sample No. 19718-K.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00168csnj|168. Misbranding of Helene Curtis Egg Shampoo. U. S, v. 13 Jugs, etc. (F. D. C.|No. 24605. Sample No. 19718-iK.) |LIBEL FILED : April 21, 1948, Southern District of Ohio.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT: On or about February 11, 1948, by the Helene Curtis In- |dustries, Inc., from Chicago, Ill. |PRODUCT: 13 1-gallon jugs and 12 1-quart jugs of Helene Curtis Egg Shampoo at |Cincinnati, Ohio. Examination showed that the product contained not more|than 2.67 percent of whole egg and that it had been colored to resemble egg, |with D&C Yellow No. 10. |LABEL IN PART : \"\"Helene Curtis Egg Shampoo Highly Concentrated.\"\"|NATURE OF CHARGE: Misbranding, Section 602 (a), the label statement \"\".Egg |Shampoo Highly Concentrated\"\" was false and misleading since the article |was not an egg shampoo.|DISPOSITION: August 27, 1948. The Helene Curtis Industries, Inc., claimant, |having consented to the entry of a decree, judgment of condemnation was |entered and the product was ordered released under bond for relabeling under |the supervision of the Federal Security Agency.|169. Misbranding of LaMaur Egg and Lanolin Shampoo. U. S. v. 20 Bottles, etc.csnj00169October 1949LaMaur Products, Inc.LaMaur Egg and Lanolin ShampooJanuary 19 and February 6, 1948Burlington, Iowa.Minneapolis, Minn.Burlington, Iowa.Southern District of Iowa169F. D. C. No. 24498. Sample Nos. 25545-K, 25546-K.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00169csnj|169. Misbranding of LaMaur Egg and Lanolin Shampoo. U. S. v. 20 Bottles, etc.|(F. D. C. No. 24498. Sample Nos. 25545-K, 25546-K.) |LIBEL FILED : March 19,1948, Southern District of Iowa.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT : On or about January 19 and February 6, 1948, by LaMaur |Products, Inc., from Minneapolis, Minn.|PRODUCT: 20 1-gallon bottles and 48 8-ounce bottles of LaMaur Fjgg and Lanolin |Shampoo at Burlington, Iowa. Examination showed that the product contained |not more than 0.8 percent of dry egg, which was equivalent to approximately |one-fifth of an egg in each eight-ounce bottle.|LABEL IN PART : \"\"LaMaur Egg and Lanolin Shampoo.\"\"|NATURE OF CHARGE: Misbranding, Section 602 (a), the label statement \"\"Egg|* * * Shampoo\"\" and the egg-shaped label were false and misleading since |the article was not an egg shampoo.|DISPOSITION: April 29, 1948. LaMaur Products, Inc., claimant, having con- |sented to the entry of a decree, judgment of condemnation was entered and the |product was ordered released under bond for relabeling under the supervision |of the Federal Security Agency.|170. Misbranding of Caryl Richards Eggfoam Shampoo. U. S. v. 11 Jars.csnj00170October 1949Caryl Richards, Inc.Caryl Richards Eggfoam ShampooFebruary 5, 1948Greensboro, N. C.Brooklyn, N. Y.Greensboro, N. C.Middle District of North Carolina170F. D. C. NO. 24688. Sample No. 451-K.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00170csnj|170. Misbranding of Caryl Richards Eggfoam Shampoo. IT. S. v. 11 Jars * * *.|(F. D. C. NO. 24688. Sample No. 451-K.)|LIBEL FILED: March 26, 1948, Middle District of North Carolina.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT : On or about February 5,1948, by Caryl Richards, Inc., from |Brooklyn, N. Y.|PRODUCT: 11 1-gallon jars of Caryl Richards Eggfoam Shampoo at Greensboro, |N. C. Examination showed that the product was colored yellow with D&C Yel- |low No. 10 and that it contained not more than 0.56 percent of egg.|LABEL IN PART : \"\"Caryl Richards Eggfoam Shampoo.\"\"|NATURE OF CHARGE : Misbranding, Section 602 (a), the label statements \"\"Eggfoam|* * * with Egg * * * Eggfoam Shampoo incorporates the use of whole |egg to produce a richer more luxurious shampoo treatment * * * Highly |concentrated\"\" were false and misleading since the article was not an egg |shampoo.|DISPOSITION : June 28, 1948. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|171. Misbranding of Caryl Richards Eggfoam Shampoo. U. S. v. 17 Deals.csnj00171October 1949Caryl Richards, Inc.Caryl Richards Eggfoam ShampooJune 10, 1948Spartanburg, S. C.Brooklyn, N. Y.Spartanburg, S. C.Western District of South Carolina171F. D. C. No. 25157. Sample No. 476-K.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00171csnj|171. Misbranding of Caryl Richards Eggfoam Shampoo. IL S. v. 17 Deals * * *.|(F. D. C. No. 25157. Sample No. 476-K.) |LIBEL FILED : August 9, 1948, Western District of South Carolina. |ALLEGED SHIPMENT : On or about June 10, 1948, by Caryl Richards, Inc., from |Brooklyn, N. Y.|PRODUCT: 17 deals, each containing 4 quart jars and 6 8-ounce jars, of Caryl |Richards Eggfoam Shampoo at Spartanburg, S. C. Examination showed that |the product was colored yellow with D&C Yellow No. 10 and that it contained |not more than 0.4 percent of egg.|LABEL IN PART: (Jar) \"\"Caryl Richards Eggfoam Shampoo with Egg and |Lanolin.\"\"|NATURE OF CHARGE: Misbranding, Section 602 (a), the label statements \"\"Egg- |foam * * * With Egg * * * Eggfoam Shampoo incorporates the use |of whole egg to produce a richer more luxurious shampoo treatment * * * |Highly concentrated\"\" were false and misleading since the article was not an |egg shampoo.|DISPOSITION: September 18, 1948. Default decree of condemnation and de- |struction.|180. Misbranding of Adde Hair Pomade. U. S. v. 20 Cases.csnj00180August 1950Adde Co.Adde Hair PomadeJuly 14, 1949Norfolk, Va.Baltimore, Md.Norfolk, Va.Eastern District of Virginia180F. D. C. No. 27872. Sample No. 47620-K.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00180csnj|180. Misbranding of Adde Hair Pomade. U. S. v. 20 Cases * * *. (F. D. C.|No. 27872. Sample No. 47620-K.)|LIBEL FILED : September 21,1949, Eastern District of Virginia.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT: On or about July 14, 1949, by the Adde Co., from Balti- |more, Md.|PRODUCT: 20 cases, each containing 24 3%-ounce cans, of Adde Hair Pomade |at Norfolk, Va.|LABEL IN PART: (Can) \"\"Adde Hair Pomade With Olive Oil.\"\" |NATURE OF CHARGE: Misbranding, Section 602 (a), the label statement \"\"With |Olive Oil\"\" was false and misleading since the article was a petrolatum pomade |arid the label failed to reveal the material fact that the article contained an |inconsequential amount of olive oil. |DISPOSITION : November 23,1949. Default decree of condemnation and destruc- |tion.|208. Misbranding of Acme Worm Bouncer. U. S. v. 5 Bags of Acme Worm Bouncer. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00208April, 1941Acme Feeds, Inc.Acme Worm BouncerNovember 28, 1939, and January 9, 1940Monroe, Wis.Forest Park, Ill.Monroe, Wis.Western District of Wisconsin208F. D. C. No. 1419. Sample Nos. 46759-D, 49709-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00208ddnj|208. Misbranding of Acme Worm Bouncer. U. S. v. 5 Bags of Acme Worm|Bouncer. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No.|1419. Sample Nos. 46759-D, 49709-D.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-|ing its efficacy in the conditions indicated below.|On February 2, 1940, the United States attorney for the Western District of|Wisconsin filed a libel against five bags of Acme Worm Bouncer at Monroe,|Wis., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or|about November 28, 1939, and January 9, 1940, by Acme Feeds, Inc., from|Forest Park, 111.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of charcoal, sulfur, iron|oxide, iron sulfate, salt, sodium sulfate* and a small proportion of Epsom salt.?(|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the.-labeling bore representa--|tions that it was a \"\"worm bouncer,\"\" that no drenching,- dosing, handling, or|* See also N. J. Nos. 172 and 207.|starving were required, that it should be kept before pigs at all times to prevent|reinfestation; that it was the only worm expeller on the market successfully|fed in self-feeders; that chicks should be wormed when they 'are 8 weeks old,|that 1 pound of the article should be used with every 100 pounds of Acme|Growing Mash; that the birds should be kept confined in a separate house|during treatment so that they could not pollute the yard with worm eggs and|thus infest the other flocks; that if the birds are wormed too late the worms|have a chance to develop and mature their eggs which would pass out and|reinf est the birds before they recover from the first worming; that it should|be used as a general worm treatment for laying flocks and if the flock is|extremely wormy; that it would be efficacious for sheep and lambs that are in|bad or unthrifty condition; that they should have free access to the article|and that it would help to prevent scours and bloat; that a handful three times|a day should be given to horses and colts until the w.orms were expelled and|thereafter a handful should be given each day to keep the horses in good|condition; and that it would be efficacious to remove the cause and would expel|and prevent free intestinal worms and 90 percent of disease, which representa-|tions were false and misleading.|On March 12, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.|172. Misbranding of Queen Hair Dressing and Mack's Olive Oil Hair Pomade. U. S. v. 59 Cases, etc.csnj00172October 1949Newbro Mfg. Co.Queen Hair Dressing and Mack's Olive Oil Hair PomadeMarch 4, 1948Charlotte, N. C.Atlanta, Ga.Charlotte, N. C.Western District of North Carolina172F. D. C. No. 24729. Sample Nos. 460-K, 461-K.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00172csnj|172. Misbranding of Queen Hair Dressing and Mack's Olive Oil Hair Pomade.|U. S. v. 59 Cases, etc. (F. D. C. No. 24729. Sample Nos. 460-K, 461-K.)|LIBEL FILED : April 16, 1948, Western District of North Carolina.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT : On or about March 4, 1948, by the Newbro Mfg. Co., from |Atlanta*, Ga.|PRODUCT: 59 cases, each containing 12 1%-ounce cans of Queen Hair Dressing |and 299 dozen, 4-ounce cans, of Mack's Olive Oil Hair Pomade at Charlotte, |N. C. Examination showed that the hair dressing consisted essentially of |petrolatum, with not more than 2 percent of a saponifiable oil such as olive |oil, and small proportions of salicylic acid, resorcinol, monoacetate, and per- |fume ; and that the hair pomade consisted essentially of perfumed petrolatum, |with a very small proportion of a saponifiable oil such as olive oil.|NATURE OF CHARGE: Hair dressing. Misbranding, Section 602 (a), the label |statements \"\"Olive Oil and Rezolium Hair Dressing * * * containing both |the precious, magic-like Rezolium and olive oil * * * now with olive oil |and Rezolium\"\" were false and misleading since there is no such product as |rezolium and since the article consisted essentially of petrolatum rather than |olive oil.|Hair pomade. Misbranding, Section 602 (a), the label statement \"\"Olive Oil |Hair Pomade\"\" was false and misleading since the article was a petrolatum |pomade.|DISPOSITION : June 16, 1948. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|173. Misbranding of Mack's Olive Oil Hair Pomade. U. S. v. 13 Cases.csnj00173October 1949Newbro Mfg. Co.Mack's Olive Oil Hair PomadeJuly 7, 1948Jacksonville, Fla.Atlanta, Ga.Jacksonville, Fla.Southern District of Florida173F. D. C. No. 25482. Sample No. 777-K.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00173csnj|173. Misbranding of Mack's Olive Oil Hair Pomade. U. S. v. 13 Cases * * *.|(F. D. C. No. 25482. Sample No. 777-K.)|LIBEL FILED : September 1,1948, Southern District of Florida.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT: On or about July 7, 1948, by the Newbro Mfg. Co., from |Atlanta, Ga.|PRODUCT: 13 cases, each containing 72 4-ounce cans, of Mack's Olive Oil Hair |Pomade at Jacksonville, Fla. Examination showed that the product consisted |essentially of perfumed petrolatum, with a very small proportion of a saponi- |fiable oil such as olive oil.|LABEL IN PART : \"\"Mack's Olive Oil Hair Pomade.\"\"|NATURE OF CHARGE: Misbranding, Section 602 (a), the label statement \"\"Olive |Oil Hair Pomade\"\" was false and misleading since the article was a petrolatum |pomade.|DISPOSITION : October 26,1948. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|174. Misbranding of Adde Hair Pomade. U. S. v. 11 Cases.csnj00174October 1949Adde Co.Adde Hair PomadeMarch 12, 1948Norfolk, Va.Baltimore, Md.Norfolk, Va.Eastern District of Virginia174F. D. C. No. 24739. Sample No. 40202-K.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00174csnj|174. Misbranding of Adde Hair Pomade. U. S. v. 11 Cases * * *. (F. D. O.|No. 24739. Sample No. 40202-K.)|LIBEL FILED : August 19,1948, Eastern District of Virginia.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT : On or about March 12, 1948, by the Adde Co., from Balti- |more, Md.|PRODUCT: 11 cases, each containing 24 3%-ounce cans, of Adde Hair Pomade |at Norfolk, Va. Examination showed that the product consisted essentially |of perfumed petrolatum and contained not more than 0.21 percent of saponifiable |oil, such as olive oil.|LABEL IN PART : \"\"Adde Hair Pomade With Olive Oil.\"\"|NATURE OF CHARGE: Misbranding, Section 602 (a), the label statement \"\"With |Olive Oil\"\" was false and misleading since the article was a petrolatum pomade.|DISPOSITION : November 1, 1948. Default decree of condemnation and destruc- |tion.|175. Misbranding of Yuth. U. S. v. 58 Dozen Cartons.csnj00175October 1949Jessop Products, Inc.YuthMarch 6, 1948Baltimore, Md.New York, N. Y.Baltimore, Md.District of Maryland175F. D. C. No. 24763. Sample No. 3842-K.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00175csnj|175. Misbranding of Yuth. U. S. v. 58 Dozen Cartons * * *. (F. D. C. No.|24763. Sample No. 3842-K.)|LIBEL FILED : May 6, 1948, District of Maryland.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT: On or about January 27 and 29 and March 6, 1948, by|Jessop Products, Inc., from New York, N. Y. |PRODUCT: 58 dozen cartons, each containing a circular entitled \"\"Yuth Toiletries\"\"|and \"\"The Story of Yuth\"\" and one 8-ounce bottle of Yuth at Baltimore, Md.|Examination showed that the product consisted of lead acetate, sulfur,|pilocarpine, cantharides, glycerin, water, and perfume.|NATURE OF CHARGE: Misbranding, Section 602 (a), the label statement \"\"Con- |tains * * * piumbi acetas\"\" was misleading since the use of the Latin title |failed to reveal the material fact that the article was a lead acetate hair dye. |Further misbranding, Section 602 (a), certain statements on the labels of |the article and in the circulars were false and misleading since they repre- |sented and suggested that the article would bring about youthful appearances |of the hair and scalp and would cause the original color of the hair to be |restored. The article would not bring about youthful appearances of the |hair and scalp and would not cause the original color of the hair to be restored, |but would dye the hair.|The article was alleged also to be misbranded under the provisions of the law |applicable to drugs, as reported in notices of judgment on drugs and devices, |No. 2540.|DISPOSITION : June 21, 1941. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|INDEX TO NOTICES OF JUDGMENT C. N. J. NOS. 161 TO 175|PRODUCTS|N. J. No. 1 |N. J. No.|Adde Hair Pomade |174|Contoure Special Formula 165|Curtis, Helene, Egg Shampoo- 168|Deo Deodorant |161|Drake, Doris, Egg Shampoo 167|Eye shadow |166|Hair and scalp preparations 163,164,|167-175 |Hawaiian Pressing Oil |163,164|LaMaur Egg and Lanolin Sham- |poo |169|Mack's Olive Oil Hair Pomade. 172,173|Perma-Nail|162|Queen Hair Dressing |172|Richards, Caryl, Eggfoam Sham- |poo|170,171|Yuth|175|The cases reported herewith were instituted in the United States district |courts by the United States attorneys, acting upon reports submitted by the |Federal Security Agency. Published by direction of the Federal Security |Administrator.|PAUL B. DUNBAR, Commissioner of Food and Drugs.|WASHINGTON, D. C, August 21,1950|CONTENTS*|Page |Cosmetic actionable because of |adulteration with poisonous or|deleterious substances |108|Cosmetics actionable because of con- |tamination with filth |108|Cosmetics actionable because of |false and misleading claims |109|Page |Cosmetics actionable because of |failure to bear mandatory label- |ing |110|Index |111|Cosmetics, subject to the drug pro- |visions of the Act |112|*For inconspicuousness of required label information, see No. 181. |89664i9-50|107|176. Adulteration of Deo Deodorant. U. S. v. 74 Jars.csnj00176August 1950Elmo Sales Corp.Deo DeodorantJuly 30 and December 9, 1948Washington, D. C.Philadelphia, Pa.Washington, D. C.District of Columbia176F. D. C. No. 26937. Sample No. 2777-K.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00176csnj|176. Adulteration of Deo Deodorant. U. S. v. 74 Jars * * *. (F. D. C. No.|26937. Sample No. 2777-K.) |LIBEL FILED : March 21, 1949, District of Columbia.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT : On or about July 30 and December 9, 1948, by the Elmo |Sales Corp., from Philadelphia, Pa.|PRODUCT: 74 1%-ounce jars of Deo Deodorant at Washington, D. C.|LABEL, IN PART: \"\"Deo Deodorant Special.\"\"|NATURE os CHARGE: Adulteration, Section 601 (a), the article bore or con- |tained a poisonous or deleterious substance which may have rendered it in- |jurious to users under such conditions of use as are customary to the use of |deodorant cream. (Tests of the article showed that it was a primary irritant.)|DISPOSITION : April 27, 1949. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|177. Adulteration of Deo Deodorant. U. S. v. 176 Jars.csnj00177August 1950Elmo Sales Corp.Deo DeodorantApril 1, 1948Richmond, Va.Philadelphia, Pa.Richmond, Va.Eastern District of Virginia177F. D. C. No. 26982. Sample No. 3187-K.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00177csnj|177. Adulteration of Deo Deodorant. U.S. v. 176 Jars * * *. (F. D. C. No.|26982. Sample No. 3187-K.)|LIBEL FILED : On or about April 15, 1949, Eastern District of Virginia.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT : On or about April 1, 1948, by the Elmo Sales Corp., from |Philadelphia, Pa.|PRODUCT: 176 1%-ounce jars of Deo Deodorant at Richmond, Va.|LABEL, IN PART : \"\"Deo Deodorant Special.\"\"|NATURE OF CHARGE: Adulteration, Section 601 (a), the article bore or con- |tained a poisonous or deleterious substance which may have rendered it in- |jurious to users under such conditions of use as are customary to the use of |deodorant cream. (Analysis indicated that the product was a primary irritant.)|DISPOSITION : October 21,1949. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|COSMETICS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF CONTAMINATION WITH FILTH|5402. Vitamin capsules.ddnj05402February 1959Richlyn Laboratories.Vitamin capsules11-13-56San Francisco, Calif.Philadelphia, Pa.San Francisco, Calif.N. Dist. Calif.5402F. D. C. No. 40238. S. No. 65-996 M.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj05402ddnj|FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION|NOTICES OF JUDGMENT UNDER THE FEDERAL FOOD,|DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT|[Given pursuant to section 705 of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act]|5401-5420|DRUGS AND DEVICES|The cases reported herewith were instituted in the United States district|courts by United States attorneys, acting upon reports submitted by the Depart-|ment of Health, Education, and Welfare. They involve drugs and devices which|were adulterated or misbranded within the meaning of the Act when introduced|into and while in interstate commerce or while held for sale after shipment in|interstate commerce. These cases involve seizure proceedings which were|terminated with the entry of consent or default decrees of condemnation. The|seizure proceedings are civil actions taken against the goods alleged to be in|violation.|Published by direction of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.|GEO. P. LABBICK, Commissioner of Food and Drugs.|WASHINGTON, D. C., February 2,1959.|CONTENTS*|Page|Drugs in violation of prescription|labeling requirements |314|Drugs and devices actionable be-|cause of failure to bear ade-|quate directions or warning|statements |316|Page|Drugs and devices actionable be-|cause of deviation from official|or own standards |318|Drugs actionable because of false|and misleading claims |321|Drugs for human use |321|Drugs for veterinary use |323|*For presence of a habit-forming narcotic without warning statement, see No. 5401; omission of, or un-|satisfactory, ingredients statements, No. 5403; failure to bear a label containing an accurate statement of|the quantity of the contents, No. 5403; failure to bear a label containing the name and place of business of|the manufacturer, packer, or distributor, No. 5403.|313|492730-59|SECTIONS OF FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT INVOLVED IN VIOLATIONS (|REPORTED IN D. D. N. J. NOS. 5401-5420|V j|Adulteration, Section 501 (b), the article purported to be and was represented|as a drug, the name of which is recognized in an official compendium (United|States Pharmacopeia), and its strength differed from, or its purity or quality|fell below, the standard set forth in such compendium; Section 501 (c), the|article was not subject to the provisions of Section 501 (b), and its strength|differed from, or its purity or quality fell below, that which it purported or|was represented to possess; Section 501 (d) (2), the article was a drug, and|a substance had been substituted wholly or in part therefor.|Misbranding, Section 502 (a), the labeling of the article was false and mis-|leading; Section 502 (b), the article was in package form, and it failed to-|bear a label containing (1) the name and place of business of the manufacturer,|packer, or distributor, and (2) an accurate statement of the quantity of con-|tents; Section 502 (d), the article contained a chemical derivative of bar-|bituric acid, and its label failed to bear the name, and quantity or proportion|of such derivative and in juxtaposition therewith the statement \"\"Warning-|May be habit forming\"\"; Section 502 (e) (2), the article was not designated|solely by a name recognized in an official compendium and was fabricated from|two or more ingredients, and its label failed to bear the common or usual|name of each active ingredient; Section 502 (f) (1), the labeling of the article|failed to bear adequate directions for use; Section 503 (b) (4), the article|was subject to Section 503 (b) (1), and its label failed to bear the statement|\"\"Caution: Federal law prohibits dispensing without prescription.\"\"|DRUGS IN VIOLATION OF PRESCRIPTION LABELING REQUIREMENTS ' )|5401. Elixir Albephen, Merhistin expectorant, elixir Merbutal, and elixir|Duophen. (F. D. C. No. 40337. S. Nos. 67-474 M, 67-476 M, 67-478/9 M.)|QUANTITY: 20 1-gal. btls. and 43 1-pt. btls. of elixir Albephen; 68 1-pt.|btls. of Merhistin expectorant; 6 1-gal. btls. and 94 1-oz. btls. of elixir|Merbutal; and 246 1-oz. btls. of elixir Duophen, at Silver Spring, Md., in|possession of Meredyth Co.|SHIPPED : Between 5-5-54 and 1-30-57, from Philadelphia, Pa.|LABEL IN PART: (Btl.) \"\"Elixir Albephen Each 5 cc * * * contains Phe-|nobarbital y? gr., Hyoscyamine Sulfate 0.104 mg., Atropine Sulfate 0.0195 mg.,|Hyoscine Hydrobromide 0.0065 mg., Alcohol 23?,\"\" \"\"Merhistin Expectorant|Each 30 cc * * * contains: Ephedrine Sulfate 40 mg., Citric Acid 3|gr., Merhistin Maleate 225 mg.,\"\" \"\"Elixir Merbutal Each 5 cc * * * con-|tains: * * * Sodium * * * Butyl barbiturate 3 grs.,\"\" and \"\"Physi-|cians Sample * * * Elixir Duophen Each 30 cc contains: Sodium pen-|tobarbital 1 gr. * * * Phenobarbital 1 gr.\"\"|ACCOMPANYING LABELING : A number of loose labels for use in repacking the|elixir Albephen, some of which were the same as the Albephen label described|above and some of which read, in part, as follows: \"\"Elixir Albephen Each|Ounce contains: D. Amphetamine Sulfate 15 mg., Thiamin HOL 30 mg.,|Riboflavin 2.7 mg., Niacin 40 mg., Alcohol 10?.\"\"|RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION : The articles in the 1-pt. and 1-oz. btls. were re-|packed by the consignee from bulk stock which had been shipped as described|above. The elixir Albephen and elixir Merbutal in the 1-gal. btls. represented|the bulk stock of those articles which had not been repacked as of the time|of seizure.|LIBELED: 6-26-57, Dist. Md.|CHARGE: 501 (c)-the strength of the elixir Mertutal, while held for sale,|differed from that which it was represented to possess, namely, 3 grains of|butabarbital sodium per each 5 cc. (examination showed that the article|contained about 80 percent less than the declared amount of butabarbital|sodium) ; 502 (a)-the labeling of the elixir Albephen, while held for sale,|namely, the labels intended for use in repacking the article, contained state-|ments representing and suggesting that the article contained d. amphetamine|sulfate, thiamine, riboflavin, and niacin, which statements were false and mis-|leading since the article did not contain those ingredients; 502 (d)-the|elixir Merlmtal, while held for sale, contained a derivative of barbituric acid,|and the label of the article, while held for sale, failed to bear in juxtaposition|with the name and quantity of such derivative the statement \"\"Warning-|May be habit forming\"\"; and 503 (b) (4)-the elixir Aliephen (1-pt. btls.),|Merhistin expectorant, and elixir Duophen were drugs subject to 503 (b) (1),|and, while held for sale, their labels failed to bear the statement \"\"Caution:|Federal law prohibits dispensing without prescription.\"\"|The libel alleged also that another article, vitamin tablets, was adulterated|and misbranded under the provisions of the law applicable to foods, as re-|ported in notices of judgment on foods.|DISPOSITION : 7-24-57. Consent-claimed . by Meredyth Co. The drugs were|relabeled.|5402. Vitamin capsules. (F. D. C. No. 40238. S. No. 65-996 M.)|QUANTITY: 12 100-capsule btls., 21 50-capusle btls., and 13 30-capsule btls.|at San Francisco, Calif.|SHIPPED : 11-13-56, from Philadelphia, Pa., by Richlyn Laboratories.|LABEL IN PAST: (Bulk container) \"\"NRC No. 2 Therapeutic Vitamin Formula|Each Capsule Contains: Thiamin HCL 10 Mgm. Riboflavin 10 Mgm.|Niacinamide 100 Mgm. Calcium Pantothenate 20 Mgm. Pyridoxine HCL|2 Mgm. Folic Acid 1.5 Mgm. Ascorbic Acid 300.0 Mgm. Vitamin K 2|Mgm. Vitamin B-12 * * * 4.0 Mcgm.\"\"|RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION : The article was shipped in a bulk container from|Philadelphia, Pa., and upon arrival at San Francisco, Calif., was repacked|and relabeled by the consignee.|Analysis showed that the article contained a significant amount of estrogenic|hormone.|LIBELED : 5-6-57, N. Dist. Calif..|CHARGE: 501 (c)-the quality and purity of the article, when shipped, differed|from that which it purported to possess; 501 (d) (2)-an estrogenic hormone|had been substituted in part for vitamins; 502 (f) (1)-the labeling of the|article failed to bear adequate directions for use; and 503 (b) (4)-the|article was a drug which was subject to 503 (b) (1) (B), and the label of|the article failed to bear the statement \"\"Caution: Federal law prohibits|dispensing without prescription.\"\"|DISPOSITION : 5-21-57. Default-destruction.|DRUGS AND DEVICES ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO BEAR|ADEQUATE DIRECTIONS OR WARNING STATEMENTS*|5403.?Mediatric (estrone) capsules, pentaerythritol tetranitrate tablets, and|185. Adulteration of ammoniated dental cream. U. S. v. 48 Tubes (and 1 other seizure action).csnj00185February 1949American Pharmaceutical Co.ammoniated dental creamOctober 10 and 20, 1950Connellsville, Pa. ; Toledo, Ohio.New York, N. Y.Connellsville, Pa. ; Toledo, Ohio.Western District of Pennsylvania and Northern District of Ohio185F. D. C. Nos. 30642, 30643. Sample Nos. 6861-L, 11384-L.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00185csnj|185, Adulteration of ammoniated dental cream, U. S. v. 48 Tubes * ? *|(and 1 other seizure action). (F. D. C Nos. 30642, 30643. Sample Nos. |6861-L, 11384-L.)|LIBELS FILED: February 16 and 19, 1951, Western District of Pennsylvai |and Northern District of Ohio.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT: On or about October 10 and 20, 1950, hj the American |Pharmaceutical Co., from New York, N. Y.|PRODUCT: 162 3^-ounee tubes of ammoniated dental cream at Connellsville, |Pa., and Toledo, Ohio.|LABEL, IN PART : \"\"Ammoniated Dental Cream.\"\"|NATURE OF CHARGE: Adulteration, Section 601 (a), the article contained a |deleterious substance, a hard material with sharp irregular edges, which may |have rendered it injurious to users under the conditions of use prescribed |in the labeling or under such conditions of use as are customary or usual,|DISPOSITION: March 27 and 28, 1951. Default decrees of condemnation and |destruction.|J. Misbranding of ammoniated dental cream. U. S. v. 1? Cartons * * *. |(F. D. C. No. 30798. Sample No. 803-L.)|LIBEL FILED: On or about March 8, 1951, Southern District of Florida.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT: On or about October 6, 1950, by the American Pharma- |ceutical Co., from New York, N. Y.|PRODUCT: 10 cartons, each containing 12 3^-ounce tubes, of ammoniated dental |cream at Miami, Fla.|LABEL, IN PART: (Tube) \"\"AFKO Ammoniated Dental Cream.\"\"|NATURE OF CHARGE: Adulteration, Section 601 (a), the article contained a |deleterious substance, a hard material with sharp irregular edges, which |may have rendered it injurious to users tinder the conditions of use prescribed |in the labeling or under such conditions of use an are customary or usual.|DISPOSITION: April 3, 1951. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|186. Misbranding of ammoniated dental cream. U. S. v. 10 Cartons.csnj00186February 1949American Pharmaceutical Co.ammoniated dental creamOctober 6, 1950Miami, Fla.New York, N. Y.Miami, Fla.Southern District of Florida186F. D. C. No. 30798. Sample No. 803-L.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00186csnj|Misbranding of ammoniated dental cream. U. S. v. 1? Cartons * * *. |(F. D. C. No. 30798. Sample No. 803-L.) |LIBEL FILED: On or about March 8, 1951, Southern District of Florida. |ALLEGED SHIPMENT: On or about October 6, 1950, by the American Pharma- |ceutical Co., from New York, N. Y. |PRODUCT: 10 cartons, each containing 12 3^-ounce tubes, of ammoniated dental |cream at Miami, Fla. |LABEL, IN PART: (Tube) \"\"AFKO Ammoniated Dental Cream.\"\ |NATURE OF CHARGE: Adulteration, Section 601 (a), the article contained a |deleterious substance, a hard material with sharp irregular edges, which |may have rendered it injurious to users tinder the conditions of use prescribed |in the labeling or under such conditions of use an are customary or usual. |DISPOSITION: April 3, 1951. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. |187. Adulteration and misbranding of brilliantine color-odors. U. S. v. Orbis Products Corp. and William H. Barlow. Pleas of guilty. Defendants jointly fined $450.csnj00187February 1949Orbis Products Corp.brilliantine color-odorsSeptember 12, 1946, and March 19,1947Los Angeles, Calif., and Boone, Iowa.New York, N. Y.Los Angeles, Calif., and Boone, Iowa.District of New York187F. D. C. No. 24249. Sample Nos. 45101-H, 77384-H, 77385-H.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00187csnj|187. Adulteration and misbranding of brilliantine color-odors. U. S. v, Or bis |Products Corp. and William BL Barlow. Pleas of guilty. Defendants |jointly fined $450. (P. D. C. No. 24249. Sample Nos. 45101-H, 77384-H, |77385-H.)|INFORMATION FILED: August 19, 1949, Southern District of New York, against |the Orbis Products Corp., New York, N. Y., and William H. Barlow.|ALLEGED VIOLATION : The defendants without proper authority used labels and |identification devices authorized by the regulations for color certification. |These labels and identification devices were attached to bottles containing |certain coal-tar colors.|On or about September 12, 1946, and March 19,1947, the defendants caused |the coal-tar colors so labeled and identified to be introduced into interstate |commerce at New York, N. Y., for delivery to Los Angeles, Calif., and Boone, |Iowa.|LABEL, IN PART: \"\"Brilliantine Color-Odor Series No. 300 Color Bed Odor |Rose Contains 1%% Pure Coal Tar Dye Part of Certified Lot No. B-5800,\"\" |\"\"Brilliantine Color-Odor Series No. 300 Color Amber Odor Rose Con- |tains 1.2% Pure Coal Tar Dye Part of Certified Lot No. B-2364,\"\" and \"\"Brillian- |tine Color-Odor Color Amber Odor Apple Blossom Contains 1.2% Pure |Coal Tar Dye Part of Certified Lot No. B-2364.\"\"|RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION: The identification devices \"\"Lot No. B-2364\"\" and |\"\"Lot No. B-5800\"\" had been assigned for use on certain batches of certified coal- |tar colors, but the colors shipped in interstate commerce and labeled by the |defendants with such devices were not from the certified batches.|NATURE OF CHARGE: Adulteration, Section 601 (e), the products were not hair |dyes and contained coal-tar colors other than ones from batches that had been |certified in accordance with the regulations |Misbranding, Section 602 (a), the labels of the articles falsely represented |that they contained coal-tar colors from batches that had been certified in |accordance with the regulations.|DISPOSITION: December 13, 1949. Pleas of guilty having been ^ntered, the |defendants jointly were fined ?450.|S. Adulteration and misbranding of character make-up kits. U. S. v. 343 |Boxes * * *. (F. D. C. No. 30328. Sample No. 74910-K.)|LIBEL FILED : December 8,1950, District of New Jersey.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT : On or about October 17,20,23, and 24,1950, by Smith & Mots, |from Philadelphia, Pa.|PRODUCT: 343 boxes each containing 12 character make-up kits at Irvington, |N.J.|LABEL, IN PART : \"\"Professional Character Make-Up.\"\"|NATURE OF CHARGE: Adulteration, Section 601 (e), the product was not a hair |dye and bore or contained a coal-tar color other than one from a batch that had |been certified in accordance with the regulations.|Misbranding, Sections 602 (b) (1) and (2), the product was a cosmetic in |package form and failed to bear a label containing the name and place of |business of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor, and an accurate state- |ment of the quantity of the contents.|DISPOSITION : January 22, 1951. Default decree of condemnation and destruc- |tion.|188. Adulteration and misbranding of character make-up kits. U. S. v. 343 Boxes.csnj00188February 1949Smith & Motscharacter make-up kitsOctober 17, 20, 23, and 24, 1950Irvington, N.J.Philadelphia, Pa.Irvington, N.J.District of New Jersey188F. D. C. No. 30328. Sample No. 74910-K.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00188csnj|450. |S. Adulteration and misbranding of character make-up kits. U. S. v. 343 |Boxes * * *. (F. D. C. No. 30328. Sample No. 74910-K.) |LIBEL FILED : December 8,1950, District of New Jersey. |ALLEGED SHIPMENT : On or about October 17,20,23, and 24,1950, by Smith & Mots, |from Philadelphia, Pa. |PRODUCT: 343 boxes each containing 12 character make-up kits at Irvington, |N.J. |LABEL, IN PART : \"\"Professional Character Make-Up.\"\ |NATURE OF CHARGE: Adulteration, Section 601 (e), the product was not a hair |dye and bore or contained a coal-tar color other than one from a batch that had |been certified in accordance with the regulations. |Misbranding, Sections 602 (b) (1) and (2), the product was a cosmetic in |package form and failed to bear a label containing the name and place of |business of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor, and an accurate state- |ment of the quantity of the contents. |DISPOSITION : January 22, 1951. Default decree of condemnation and destruc- |tion. |189. Misbranding of color combs. U. S. v. 100 Combs.csnj00189February 1949Lamour Hair Products, Inc.color combsSeptember 6, 1950Hartford, Conn.New York, N. Y.Hartford, Conn.District of Connecticut189F. D. C. No. 30813. Sample No. 23700-L.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00189csnj|189. Misbranding of color combs. U. S. v. 100 Combs * ? *. (F. D. C. No.|30813. Sample No. 23700-L.)|LIBEL FILED : February 23,1951, District of Connecticut.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT : On or about September 6, 1950, by Lamour Hair Products, |Inc., from New York, N. Y.|PRODUCT: 100 color combs at Hartford, Conn. Examination showed that none |of the combs were colored with coal-tar colors. The shade designated as black |was colored with a mixture of iron oxide and carbon, and the shades designated |as auburn, red, and medium brown were colored with iron oxide.|LABEL, IN PART : (Package) \"\"Color Comb by Lamour.\"\"|NATURE OF CHAEQE: Misbranding, Section 802 (a), the label statement \"\"Color- |ing material used, comply with regulations of the United States Dept. of Pure |Food and Drugs, Washington, D. C.\"\" was false and misleading since it created |the impression that the colors used had been certified by the Food and Drug |Administration.|DISPOSITION : April 13, 1951. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. |INDEX TO NOTICES OF JUDGMENT C. N. J. NOS. 184 TO 189|PRODUCTS|N. J. No.|Ammoniated dental cream 184-186|Brilliantine color-odors |187|Character make-up kits |188|Color combs |189|-odors, brilliantine |187|N. J. No.|Combs, color |189|Dental cream, ammoniated 184-186|Make-up kits, character . 188|/|SHIPPERS, MANUFACTUKEES, AND DISTRIBUTOES|American Pharmaceutical Co.:|ammoniated dental cream- 184-188 |Barlow, W. H.:|brilliantine color-odors |187|Lamour Hair Products, Inc.: |Color combs |189|Orbis Products Corp.:|brilliantine color-odors |187|Smith & Motz:|character make-up kits |188|COSMETICS SUBJECT TO THE DRUG PROVISIONS OF THE ACTf|Eeported |tinder |Product |D. D. N. J. No.|110. McLaran's 3 out of 5 - |3156|111. Chloresium tooth paste |3177|132. Glorion |3215|113. Hair conditioner-_ . |3227|114. Liv and Scrub |3280|115. Dr. Shokunbi's F-62 Herbal Hair Growing Aid-, |3297|116. DermaCulture Formula No. 103, cleansing lotion, herbal astringent,|granular cleanser, DermaCulture Formula No. 102, and Derma- |Culture Formula No. 104 |3316|?See also No. 187.|tSee C. N. J., P. D. C. 96-112, 118-130, 181-146, 147-160, 161-175, amd 178-183 for |list of Nos. 1-109.|0. 9. 80VESHHSH7 ?SIHTlSa OFFICEt I?SI|The cases reported herewith were instituted in the United States district |courts by the United States attorneys, acting upon reports submitted by the |Federal Security Agency.- Published by direction of the Federal Security |Administrator.|CHARLES W. CRAWFORD, Commissioner of Food and Drugs.|WASHINGTON, D. C, March 24,1952.|CONTENTS*|Page |Cosmetics actionable because of |adulteration with poisonous or|deleterious substances |118|Cosmetic actionable because of|contamination with filth |119|Cosmetics actionable because of |adulteration with uncertified |coal-tar colars |119|Page |Cosmetic actionable because of |failure to bear mandatory|labeling |120|Index||120|Cosmetics, subject to the drug |provisions of the Act |121|?For false and misleading claims, see No. 194.|990529-52|117|190. Adulteration of Bonat shampoo. U. S. v. 106 Packages.csnj00190April 1952S. Bonat & Bro., Inc.Bonat shampooSeptember 28, 1951Rossford, Ohio.New York, N. Y.Rossford, Ohio.Northern District of Ohio190F. D. C. No. 31796. Sample No. 11213-L.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00190csnj|190. Adulteration of Bonat shampoo. U. S. v. 106 Packages * * *. (F. D. C.|No. 31796. Sample No. 11213-L.) |LIBEL FILED : October 17,1951, Northern District of Ohio.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT : On or about September 28, 1951, by S. Bonat & Bro., Inc., |from New York, N. Y.|PRODUCT: 106 packages, each containing 1 quart bottle and 5 8-ounce bottles, |of Bonat shampoo at Rossf ord, Ohio.|Analysis showed that the product contained about 15 percent of fatty acid, |alkanolamine compound', and a small amount of a quaternary ammonium |compound.|LABEL IN PART: (Bottle) \"\"Bonat ADB Shampoo With Alkyl Dimethyl |Benzyl, ammonium chloride\"\"; (enclosed leaflet) \"\"Guarantee Directions: |Wet hair and apply ADB to scalp and hair. Massage thoroughly creating |lather. Rinse well and repeat. Use regularly once a week for five weeks to |control dandruff. Continue to use as a regular shampoo.\"\"|NATURE OF CHARGE: Adulteration, Section 601 (a), the article contained a |deleterious substance which may have rendered it injurious to users under |the conditions of use prescribed in its labeling or under such conditions of use |as are customary or usual.|DISPOSITION : November 20, 1951. Default decree of condemnation and |destruction.|209. Misbranding of Dry Dip. U. S. v. Fourteen 25-Pound Pails of Dry Dip. Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction.ddnj00209April, 1941German LaboratoriesDry DipAugust 18, 1939Sterling, Ill.Cedar Rapids, IowaSterling, Ill.Northern District of Illinois209F. D. C. No. 1131. Sample No. 55889-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00209ddnj|209. Misbranding of Dry Dip. U. S. v. Fourteen 25-Pound Pails of Dry Dip. :|Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (F. D. C.|No. 1131. Sample No. 55889-D.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations|regarding its efficacy in the conditions indicated below.|On January 2, 1940, the United States attorney, for the Northern District|of Illinois filed a libel against fourteen 25-pound pails of \"\"A Remedy Errone-|ously Sometimes Called Dry Dip\"\" at Sterling, 111., alleging that the article|was transported in interstate commerce on or about August 18, 1939, by|the German Laboratories from Cedar Rapids, Iowa; and charging that it|was misbranded.?-|Analysis showed that it consisted chiefly of calcium carbonate and iron|compounds, containing creosote oil, phenols, and small amounts of nicotine,|naphthalene, and siliceous material.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that representations in the|labeling that it was a remedy for combating flu germs in livestock; that when|the hogs rake their bedding together they pile up, that then the inner hog|gets too warm and goes outside to eat and catches cold, and that flu thus|develops; that if the remedy were sprinkled in the hog bedding they would|not pile up, and that it was an efficacious flu remedy for hogs, horses, cattle|and poultry, were false and misleading, since it would not act as an effective|remedy for combating flu germs in livestock or in poultry when used as|directed.|The article also was alleged to be misbranded under the Insecticide Act|of 1910, as reported in notices of judgment published under that act.|On June 3, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.|191. Adulteration of Godan shampoo. U. S. v. 25 Bottles, etc. (and 1 other seizure action).csnj00191April 1952La Maur, Inc.Godan shampooAugust 21 and 23, 1951Milwaukee, Wis. ; Bakersfield, Calif.Minneapolis, Minn.Milwaukee, Wis. ; Bakersfield, Calif.Eastern District of Wisconsin and Southern District of California191F. D. C. Nos. 31733, 31734. Sample Nos. 10004-L, 28632-L.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00191csnj|191. Adulteration of Godan shampoo. U. S. v. 25 Bottles, etc. (and 1 other seizure|action). (F. D. C. Nos. 31733, 31734. Sample Nos. 10004-L, 28632-L.) |LIBELS FILED: September 26 and 27, 1951, Eastern District of Wisconsin and|Southern District of California. |ALLEGED SHIPMENT: On or about August 21 and 23, 1951, by La Maur, Inc.,|from Minneapolis, Minn. |PRODUCT: Godan shampoo. 25 1-gallon bottles, 21 1-quart bottles, 58 12- |ounce bottles, and 444 8-ounce bottles at Milwaukee, Wis., and 21 units, each |containing 2 12-ounce bottles and 3 8-ounce bottles, at Bakersfield, Calif. |Analysis showed that the product contained between 23 and 25 percent of a |polyethylene oxide alkyl phenol and a quaternary ammonium compound. |LABEL IN PART:, \"\"Godan Dandruff Treatment Shampoo.\"\" |NATURE OF CHARGE: Adulteration, Section 601 (a), the article contained |deleterious substances, a polyethylene oxide alkyl phenol and a quaternary |ammonium compound, which may have rendered it injurious to users under |the conditions of use prescribed in its labeling or under such conditions of |use as are customary or usual. |DISPOSITION : October 29 and November 8, 1951. Default decrees of condemna- |tion and destruction.|192. Adulteration of Oleen shampoo. U. S. v. 6 Cartons, etc.csnj00192April 1952Curley Co.Oleen shampooJuly 11, 1951Washington, D. C.Philadelphia, Pa.Washington, D. C.District of Columbia192F. D. C. No. 31633. Sample No. 4478-L.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00192csnj|192. Adulteration of Oleen shampoo. U. S. v. 6 Cartons, etc. (F. D. C. No.|31633. Sample No. 4478-L.) |LIBEL FILED : August 17,1951, District of Columbia.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT: On or about July 11, 1951, by the Curley Co., from |Philadelphia, Pa.|PRODUCT: Oleen shampoo. 6 cartons, each containing 6 8-ounce bottles and 1 |gallon bottle, and 24 cartons, each containing 4 8-ounce bottles and 1 quart |bottle, at Washington, D. C.|Analysis showed that the product contained approximately 20 percent of a |polyethylene oxide alkyl phenol and 0.5 percent lauryl isoquinolinium bromide.|LABEL IN PART: (Bottle) \"\"Oleen Dandruff Treatment Shampoo With Hair |Conditioner Contains Kurium Directions: Apply directly to scalp and |massage. A hot towel may be used if desired. Rinse thoroughly. Apply |more to the hair and work up lather, then rinse. Use at least once a week as a |regular shampoo to control dandruff. For best results give a double |shampoo.\"\"|NATURE OF CHARGE: Adulteration, Section 601 (a), the article contained a |deleterious substance which may have rendered it injurious to users under |the conditions of use prescribed in its labeling and under such conditions of |use as are customary or usual.|DISPOSITION: September 18, 1951/ Default decree of condemnation and |destruction.|COSMETIC ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF CONTAMINATION WITH FILTH|193. Adulteration of orrisroot. U. S. v. 181 Bags.csnj00193April 1952\NorrisrootNovember 23,1948Bayonne, N. J.New York, N. Y.Bayonne, N. J.District of New Jersey193F. D. C. No. 30917. Sample No. 24004-L.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00193csnj|193. Adulteration of orrisroot. U. S. v. 181 Bags * * *. (F. D. C. No. 30917.|Sample No. 24004r-L.) |LIBEL FILED : April 12,1951, District of New Jersey.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT : On or about November 23,1948, from New York, N. Y. |PRODUCT: 181 bags each containing 110 pounds of orrisroot at Bayonne, N. J.- |NATURE OF CHARGE: Adulteration, Section 601 (b), the article consisted in|whole or in part of a filthy substance by reason of the presence of insects. The|article was adulterated while held for sale after shipment in interstate|commerce. |The article was alleged also to be adulterated under the provisions of the|law applicable to drugs, as reported in notices of judgment on drugs and|devices. |DISPOSITION : July 2, 1951. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|COSMETICS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF ADULTERATION WITH |UNCERTIFIED COAL-TAR COLORS|194. Adulteration and misbranding of coal-tar colors and the use without proper authority of identification devices authorized and required by the coal-tar color regulations. U. S. v. Interstate Color Co., Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $500.csnj00194April 1952Interstate Color Co., Inc.coal-tar colors and the use without proper authority of identification devices authorized and required by the coal-tar color regulationsApril 21, 1944PennsylvaniaNew YorkPennsylvaniaSouthern District of New York194F. D. C. No. 17823. Sample Nos. 77877-F, 77878-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00194csnj|194. Adulteration and misbranding of coal-tar colors and the use without proper|authority of identification devices authorized and required by the coal-tar |color regulations. U. S. v. Interstate Color Co., Inc. Plea of guilty. |Fine, $500. (F. D. C. No. 17823. Sample Nos. 77877-F, 77878-F.) |INFORMATION FILED: May 1, 1946, Southern District of New York, against the|Interstate Color Co., Inc., New York, N. Y. |ALLEGED SHIPMENT: On or about April 21, 1944, from the State of New York|into the State of Pennsylvania. 4 |LABEL IN PART : \"\"F. D. & C. Mixture Yellow 10013 Part of Certified Lot No. |B-3438 Not less than 92% Pure Coal Tar Dye\"\" and \"\"F. D. & C. Mixture Blue |10656 Part of Certified Lot No. B-6088 Not Less Than 88% Pure Coal |Tar Dye.\"\"|NATURE OF CHARGE: Adulteration, Section 601 (e), the products were not hair |dyes and bore and contained coal-tar colors other than ones from batches |that had been certified in accordance with the regulations.|Misbranding, Section 602 (a), the statements \"\"Not less than 92% Pure |Coal Tar Dye\"\" and 'Tart of Certified Lot No. B-3438\"\" borne on the label of a |portion of the product were false and misleading in that they represented and |suggested that the product contained 92 percent of pure coal-tar dye and that |it was a coal-tar color from a batch that had been certified and assigned lot |No. B-3438, in accordance with the coal-tar dye regulations, whereas it did |not contain 92 percent of a pure coal-tar dye but did contain a smaller amount, |and it did not consist of a coal-tar color from a batch that had been certified |pursuant to the regulations and assigned lot No. B-3438. The information |charged also that the defendants falsely represented and without proper |authority used marks and identification devices authorized and required by |the regulations, in that the marks and identification devices \"\"Lot No. B-3438\"\" |and \"\"Lot No. B-6088\"\" displayed upon the cans were marks and identification |devices assigned to other firms for use on batches of certified coal-tar colors |which contained 92 percent and 88 percent, respectively, of pure dyes, and |were composed of FD&C Yellow No. 1 and FD&C Blue No. 1, respectively, |whereas they were not from such batches of coal-tar colors but were uncertified |coal-tar colors of a different composition.|DISPOSITION : May 6, 1946. A plea of guilty having been entered, the court |imposed a fine of $500.|COSMETIC ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO BEAR |MANDATORY LABELING|195. Misbranding of hydrogen peroxide. U. S. v. 8 Cases.csnj00195April 1952Monarch Products Co.hydrogen peroxideFebruary 9 and April 4,1951Phoenix, Ariz.Maywood, Calif.Phoenix, Ariz.District of Arizona195F. D. C. No. 31192. Sample No. 18194-L.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00195csnj|195. Misbranding of hydrogen peroxide. U. S. v. 8 Cases * * *. (F. D. C.|No. 31192. Sample No. 18194-L.) |LIBEL FILED : June 14,1951, District of Arizona.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT : On or about February 9 and April 4,1951, by the Monarch |Products Co., from May wood, Calif.|PRODUCT: 8 cases, each containing 36 bottles, of hydrogen peroxide at Phoenix, |Ariz.|LABEL IN PART: (Bottle) \"\"Hydrogen Peroxide 20 Volume Professional |* * * For Hair Bleaching * * * 4F1. Oz.\"\"|NATURE OF CHARGE : Misbranding, Section 602 (b) (2), the article failed to bear |a label containing an accurate statement of the quantity of the contents. |(The article was short of the declared volume.)|DISPOSITION : August 7, 1951. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|INDEX TO NOTICES OF JUDGMENT C. N. J. NOS. 190 TO 195|PRODUCTS|N. J. No.|Bonat shampoo |190|Coal-tar colors |194|Godan shampoo |191|Hair and scalp preparations- 190-192,|195|N. J. No.|Hydrogen peroxide |195|Oleen shampoo |192|Orrisroot |193|Peroxide, hydrogen |195|The case reported herewith was instituted in a United States district court |by a United States attorney, acting upon a report submitted by the Federal |Security Agency. Published by direction of the Federal Security Administrator.|CHARLES W. CRAWFORD, Commissioner of Food and Drugs. |WASHINGTON, D. C, January U/, 1953.|COSMETIC ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF ADULTERATION WITH |POISONOUS OR DELETERIOUS SUBSTANCES|197. Misbranding of toilet lanolin. U. S. v. 564 Tubes.csnj00197December 1953American Pharmaceutical Co., Inc.toilet lanolinDecember 5, 1952Detroit, Mich.New York, N. Y.Detroit, Mich.Eastern District of Michigan197F. D. C. No. 34587. Sample No. 54760-L.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00197csnj|197. Misbranding of toilet lanolin. U. S. v. 564 Tubes * * *. (F. D. C. No.|34587. Sample No. 54760-L.) |LIBEL FILED: February 10, 1953, Eastern District of Michigan; amended libel |filed on or about February 18, 1953.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT : On or about December 5, 1952, by the American Pharma- |ceutical Co., Inc., from New York, N. Y.|PRODUCT: 564 cartoned tubes of toilet lanolin at Detroit, Mich. Examination of |the product showed that it was a cream-colored, perfumed semisolid consisting |principally of lanolin, water, and zinc oxide.|LABEL, IN PART: \"\"APC-One Ounce Toilet Lanolin Beautifies, Soothes, Pro- |tects the Skin.\"\"|NATURE OF CHARGE: Misbranding, Section 602 (a), the label statement \"\"Toilet |Lanolin\"\" was false and misleading since the article was not lanolin but was |a mixture of lanolin with other ingredients.|DISPOSITION : March 11, 1953. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. |On March 27, 1953, an amended decree was entered providing for the delivery |of the product to a Federal institution for its use.|198. Misbranding of toilet lanolin. U. S. v. 31 Dozen Tubes.csnj00198December 1953VCA Laboratoriestoilet lanolinMay 8, 1952Brooklyn, N. Y.Newark, N. J.Brooklyn, N. Y.Eastern District of New York198F. D. C. No. 33315. Sample No. 23491-L.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00198csnj|198. Misbranding of toilet lanolin. U. S. v. 31 Dozen Tubes * * *. (F. D. C. No.|33315. Sample No. 23491-L.)|LIBEL FILED: July 1,1952, Eastern District of New York.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT: On or about May 8, 1952, by VCA Laboratories, from |Newark, N. J.|PRODUCT: 31 dozen tubes of toilet lanolin at Brooklyn, N. Y.|LABEL, IN PART : (Tube) \"\"Harco One Ounce Toilet Lanolin * * * Harco |Pharmaceutical Corporation * * * Newark New Jersey.\"\"|NATURE OF CHARGE: Misbranding, Section 602 (a), the labeling of the article |contained statements which represented and suggested that the article was |lanolin, which statements were false and misleading since the article was not |lanolin but was a mixture of lanolin with other ingredients.|DISPOSITION : June 9,1953. Default decree of condemnation. The court ordered |that the product be delivered to charitable institutions.|199. Misbranding of eyelash ointment. U. S. v. 11 1/2 Cartons, etc.csnj00199December 1953Wallace and Associates, Inc.eyelash ointmentAugust 30 and October 6,1952Los Angeles, Calif.Phoenix, Ariz.Los Angeles, Calif.Southern District of California199F. D. C. No. 34193. Sample Nos. 39867-L, 39884-L.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00199csnj|199. Misbranding of eyelash ointment. U. S. v. 11^ Cartons, etc. (F. D. C.|No. 34193. Sample Nos. 39867-L, 39884-L.)|LIBEL FILED : November 5, 1952, Southern District of California.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT : On or about August 30 and October 6,1952, by Wallace and |Associates, Inc., from Phoenix, Ariz.|PRODUCT: Eyelash ointment. 11% cartons of clear ointment and 15% cartons |of dark ointment at Los Angeles, Calif., together with a number of leaflets |enclosed in the cartons and entitled \"\"For Beautiful Eyelashes 'I Do' the Eye |do of the Stars.\"\" Each full carton contained 12 %-ounce jars.|LABEL, IN PART : \"\"I Do the Eye do of the Stars.\"\"|NATURE OF CHARGE: Misbbranding, Section 602 (a), the labeling of the article, |namely, the jar labels and the leaflets, contained statements which represented |and suggested that the article was effective for improving the growth, structure,|and thickness of the eyelashes, for stimulating eyelash growth, and for pro- |viding long, thick eyelashes, which statements were false and misleading since |the article was not effective for such purposes. |DISPOSITION: November 26, 1952. Default decree of condemnation and de- |struction.|200. Misbranding of Hairmetique. U. S. v. 5 Jars, etc.csnj00200December 1953Hairmetique, Inc.HairmetiqueOctober 16, 1952Newark, N. J.New York, N. Y.Newark, N. J.District of New Jersey200F. D. C. No. 34374. Sample No. 52332-L.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00200csnj|200. Misbranding of Hairmetique. U. S. v. 5 Jars, etc. (F. D. C. No. 34374.|Sample No. 52332-L.) |LIBEL FILED : November 28,1952, District of New Jersey.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT: On or about October 16, 1952, by Hairmetique, Inc., from |New York, N.Y.|PRODUCT: Hairmetique. 5 2-ounce jars of dark brown shade, 1 1-ounce jar |of light brown shade, and 2 %-ounce jars of warm brown shade at Newark, |N. J., together with 97 leaflets entitled \"\"Hairmetique. The Cosmetique for |Hair Please Read Carefully.\"\" Examination showed that the shades called |dark brown, light brown, and warm brown did not contain coal-tar colors, but |were colored with iron oxide and carbon black.|The regulations for the enforcement of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cos- |metic Act provide for the certification of coal-tar colors, but other colors are |not eligible for certification.|LABEL, IN PART: (Jars) \"\"Hairmetique The Cosmetique For Hair.\"\" |NATURE OF CHARGE: Misbranding, Section 602 (a), the following statement |appearing in the leaflets was false and misleading since it created the false |impression that the colors used had been certified by the Food and Drug |Administration: \"\"All color used in Hairmetique is cosmetic pigment, govern- |ment certified and approved by the Pure Food and Drug Act.\"\"|DISPOSITION: January 23, 1953. Default decree of condemnation and de- |struction.|INDEX TO NOTICES OF JUDGMENT C N. J. NOS. 197 TO 200|PRODUCTS|N. J. No.|Eyelash ointment |199|Hair preparation |200|Hairmetique |200|N. J. No.|Lanolin |197,198|Ointment, eyelash |199|SHIPPERS, MANUFACTURERS, AND DISTRIBUTORS|N. J. No. |American Pharmaceutical Co., |Inc.:|,|toilet lanolin |197|Hairmetique, Inc.:|Hairmetique |200|Harco Pharmaceutical Corp.: |toilet lanolin |198|N. J. No. |VOA Laboratories:|toilet lanolin |198|Wallace & Associates,. Inc.:|eyelash ointment |199|U S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 19?8|The cases reported herewith were instituted in the United States district |courts by the United States attorneys, acting upon reports submitted by the |Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and include, where indicated, |the results of investigations by the Department, prior to the institution of the |proceedings. Published by direction of the Secretary of Health, Education, and |Welfare.|CHAELES W. CEAWFOBD, Commissioner of Food and Drugs. |WASHINGTON, D. C, May 19,1954.|CONTENTS|Cosmetic actionable because of |adulteration with an uncerti- |fied coal-tar color |Page|130|Page |Cosmetic actionable because of|false and misleading claims 130|Index |131|297084-54|129|[C.N.J.|{yd ||COSMETIC ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF ADULTERATION WITH AN|UNCERTIFIED|*|GOAL-TAR COLOR|201. Adulteration of Lashglo eyelash dye. U. S. v. Captivante Laboratories, Inc., and Paul Thomas. Pleas of guilty. Fine of $100 against corporation and $300 against individual.csnj00201May 1954Captivante Laboratories, Inc.Lashglo eyelash dyeJanuary 25,1953New York, N. Y.New York, N. Y.New York, N. Y.Southern District of New York201F. D. C. No. 34860. Sample Nos. 4106-L, 8028-L, 35940-L, 37650-L, 44316-L.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00201csnj|201. Adulteration of Lashglo eyelash dye. U. S. v. Captivante Laboratories,|Inc., and Paul Thomas. Pleas of guilty. Fine of $100 against corpora- |tion and $300 against individual. (F. D. C. No. 34860. Sample Nos. |4106-L, 8028-L, 35940-L, 37650-L, 44316-L.) |INFORMATION FILED : September 14, 1953, Southern District of New York,|against Captivante Laboratories, Inc., New York, N. Y., and Paul Thomas,|president of the corporation.|ALLEGED VIOLATION : On or about January 25,1953, the defendants caused to be |delivered to a firm at New York, N. Y., an invoice containing a guaranty that |the merchandise listed on the invoice had been produced in full compliance |with the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. This in- |voice related to a shipment of Lashglo eyelash dye, which shipment had been |made by the defendant to the holder of the guaranty. The guaranty con- |tained in the invoice was alleged to be false in that the product to which it |related was adulterated at the time the product was delivered to the holder |of the guaranty.|NATURE OF CHARGE: Adulteration, Section 601 (e), the article was not a hair |dye, and it contained a coal-tar color, namely, Nigrosine (C. I. No. 864), which |had not been listed for use in cosmetics in accordance with the regulations |and was other than one from a batch that had been certified.|DISPOSITION: September 14, 1953. The defendants having entered pleas of |guilty, the court fined the corporation $100 and the individual $300.|COSMETIC ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF FALSE AND MISLEADING|CLAIMS|202. Misbranding of McLaran's Cream for the Scalp. U. S. v. 527 Jars, etc.csnj00202May 1954Frank &. Cerra, trading as Cerra DistributorsMcLaran's Cream for the ScalpFebruary 18, 1953Carbondale, Pa.Beverly Hills, Calif.Carbondale, Pa.Middle District of Pennsylvania202F. D. C. No. 35315. Sample No. 26470-L.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00202csnj|202. Misbranding of McLaran's Cream for the Scalp. U. S. v. 527 Jars, etc|(F. D. C. No. 35315. Sample No. 26470-L.)|LIBEL FILED : June 16,1953, Middle District of Pennsylvania.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT : On or about February 18, 1953, from Beverly Hills, Calif.|PRODUCT: 527 4-ounce jars of McLaran's Cream for the Scalp at Carbondale, |Pa., in the possession of Cerra Distributors, together with a number of cir- |culars entitled \"\"Good News! The first Real News in Hair Restoratives\"\" and |a number of calling cards headed \"\"McLaran's Cream For The Scalp.\"\"|Examination showed that the article consisted essentially of pumice, pe- |trolatum, wax, vegetable oils, camphor, boric acid, and water.|RESULTS OP INVESTIGATION : The circulars and calling cards were formulated |by and printed for the consignee of the product.|NATURE OF CHARGE: Misbranding, Section 602 (a), certain statements on the |above-mentioned circulars and calling cards accompanying the article were |false and misleading. The statements represented and suggested that the |article was effective to grow and restore hair on bald heads, whereas the |article was not effective for such purposes. The article was misbranded in |this respect while held for sale after shipment in interstate commerce.|DISPOSITION: On or about July 13, 1953. Frank &. Cerra, trading as Cerra |Distributors, claimant, having consented to the entry of a decree, judgment |of condemnation was entered and the court ordered that the product be re- |leased under bond, conditioned that the circulars and calling cards be destroyed.|The cases reported herewith were instituted in the United States district courts |by the United States attorneys, acting upon reports submitted by the Department |of Health, Education, and Welfare, and include, where indicated, the results of |investigations by the Department, prior to the institution of the proceedings. |Published by direction of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.|GEO'. P. LAEBICK, Commissioner of Food and Drugs. |WASHINGTON, D. C, September 6,1956.|CONTENTS|Page |Cosmetics actionable because of |adulteration with poisonous or |deleterious substances |134|Page |Cosmetic actionable because of |false and misleading claims |134|395319-56|133|210. Misbranding of Koxy-Ton. U. S. v. Five 1-Gallon Containers, 10 Half Gallon Containers, and 3 One-Fourth Gallon Containers of Koxy-Ton. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00210April, 1941Kilz-Jerm LaboratoryKoxy-TonJune 10, 1939Sullivan, Ind.West Toledo, OhioSullivan, Ind.Southern District of Indiana210F. D. C. No. 1761. Sample No. 5803-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00210ddnj|210. Misbranding: of Koxy-Ton. XJ. S. v. Five 1-Gallon Containers, 10 Half-|Gallon Containers, and 3 One-Fourth Gallon Containers of Koxy-Ton.|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 1761.|Sample No. 5803-E.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations re-|garding its efficacy in the treatment of the conditions indicated below.|On April 12, 1940, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|Indiana filed a libel (amended June 7, 1940) against the above .quantities of|Koxy-Ton at Sullivan, Ind., alleging that the article had been shipped in inter-|state commerce on or about June 10, 1939, by the Kilz-Jerm Laboratory from|West Toledo, Ohio; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of magnesium sulfate,|catechu, acetic acid, and water.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that its labeling bore representa-|tions that it constituted a properly balanced product for use in the prevention|and treatment of-ebecidiosis. in poultry; that eoeeidiosis may occur at any time|when chicks are 1 week to 4months old or may be found in chronic form in|older birds;, that the product should, be fed at regular intervals each week|according to directions as a preventative and that a careful program might|save many dollars already invested in chicks and,feed; that special care should|be taken during treatment that no other souree of drinking water be available|as this would reduce the amount of the drug the birds would drink and best|results would not be obtained; that one tablespoonful of the product to each|gallon of drinking water should be given 2 or 3 days each week as a preventa-|tive; that where coccidiosis is suspected or active one; or two ounces of the|product to each gallon of drinking water should be administered until all|symptoms of disease are gone; that then directions for prevention should be|followed to help avoid a reinfestation; that where coccidiosis in chronic, form|is suspected 1 ounce of the product should be used to each gallon of drinking|water, 2 or 3 days each week and that for turkeys the same proportion should|be used as for chickens, which representations were false and misleading since|the article was not efficacious for the purposes so recommended.|On June 29, 1946, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|203. Hair dryer (3 seizure actions).csnj00203September 1956Mil-Hi Laboratories, Inc.Hair dryer (3 seizure actions)9-7-54 ; 9-11-54Cleveland, Ohio ; Baltimore, Md. ; Newark, N. J.New York, N. Y.Cleveland, Ohio ; Baltimore, Md. ; Newark, N. J.N. Dist. Ohio, Dist. Md., and Dist. N. J.203F. D. C. Nos. 36995, 37301, 37323. S. Nos. 38-231 L, 72-618 L, 86-531 L.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00203csnj|203. Hair dryer (3 seizure actions). (F. D. C. Nos. 36995, 37301, 37323. S. Nos.|38-231 L, 72-618 L, 86-531 L.)|QUANTITY : 138 11-oz. cans and 349 5-oz. cans at Cleveland, Ohio, Baltimore, |Md., and Newark, N. J.|SHIPPED : Between 9-7-54 and 9-11-54, from New York, N. Y., by Mil-Hi Labora- |tories, Inc. |LABEL IN PART : \"\"No-Time Dries Wet Hair.\"\"|LIBELED: On or about 10-14-54 and 10-28-54, N. Dist. Ohio, Dist. Md., and|Dist. N. J. |CHARGE : 601 (a)-the article when shipped contained a poisonous or deleterious|substance, carbon tetrachloride, which may have rendered the article injurious|to users under the conditions of use prescribed in the labeling or under such|conditions of use as are customary or usual. |DISPOSITION : Between 11-8-54 and 12-13-54. Default-destruction.|204. Hair dryer (2 seizure actions).csnj00204September 1956Mil-Hi Laboratories, Inc.Hair dryer (2 seizure actions)9-8-54 ; 9-17-54Washington, D. C.New York, N. Y.Washington, D. C.Dist. Columbia.204F. D. C. Nos. 37302, 37304. S. Nos. 88-197 L, 88-268 L.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00204csnj|204. Hair dryer (2 seizure actions). (F. D. C. Nos. 37302, 37304. S. Nos. 88-197|L, 8S-268 L.)|QUANTITY : 142 11-oz. cans and 187 5-oz. cans at Washington, D. C.|SHIPPED : 9-8-54 and 9-17-54, from New York, N. Y., by Mil-Hi Laboratories, |Inc.|LABEL IN PART : \"\"No-Time Dries Wet Hair.\"\"|LIBELED: 10-13-54, Dist. Columbia.|CHARGE: 601 (a)-the article when shipped contained a poisonous or deleteri- |ous substance, carbon tetrachloride, which may have rendered the article |injurious to users under the conditions of use prescribed in the labeling or |under such conditions of use as are customary or usual.|DISPOSITION : 1-6-55. Default-destruction.|COSMETIC ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF FALSE AND |MISLEADING CLAIMS|205. Shampoo Plus Egg (2 seizure actions).csnj00205September 1956Helene Curtis Industries, Inc.Shampoo Plus Egg (2 seizure actions)8-20-52 ; 10-29-52Detroit, Mich.Chicago, Ill.Detroit, Mich.E. Dist. Mich.205F. D. C. No. 33704. S. Nos. 54-730 L, 65-926/7 L.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00205csnj|205. Shampoo Plus Egg (2 seizure actions). (F. D. C. No. 33704. S. Nos. 54-730|L, 65-926/7 L.)|QUANTITY : 189 1-qt. bottles, 65 4-oz. bottles, and 484 8-oz bottles at Detroit, |Mich.|SHIPPED : Between 8-20-52 and 10-29-52, from Chicago, Ill., by Helene Curtis |Industries, Inc.|LABEL IN PART: (Btl.) \"\"Helene Curtis Shampoo Concentrate Plus Egg * * * |This Shampoo Contains 2 percent Whole Fresh Eggs\"\" and \"\"Helene Curtis |Shampoo Plus Egg* Concentrate with Hair-Conditioning Action *2%.\"\"|LIBELED : 9-22-52 and 5-3-54, E. Dist. Mich.; amended libel filed 5-7-54 with |respect to the 8-oz. and 4-oz. bottle lots.|CHARGE: 602 (a)-(article in 1-qt. btls.), the statement on the label of the |article when shipped, namely, \"\"Shampoo Concentrate Plus Egg,\"\" was mis- |leading since it implied that the article would be effective for the purpose of |giving an egg shampoo.|602 (a) - (article in 4-oz. and 8-oz. btls.) the statement on the label of the |article when shipped, namely, \"\"Shampoo Plus Egg* Concentrate with |Hair-Conditioning Action *2% 4 Fl. oz.,\"\" and the statement on the retail |display carton, \"\"Shampoo Plus Egg* the only Shampoo made with fresh, |whole egg . . . Nature's own amazing hair conditioner! 2%,\"\" when viewed |in its setting and promotion, including the color of the contents of the article, |was false and misleading since the label, setting, promotion, and color repre- |sented and suggested and created the impression that the article contained a |significant amount of egg and was an egg shampoo, whereas it contained an |insignificant amount of egg, namely, approximately 1/150 of an egg per sham- |poo, and it was not an egg shampoo.|DISPOSITION : Leo E. Morris Co., Detroit, Mich., appeared as claimant in each |of the seizure actions. Thereafter, the claimant having admitted that the |articles were in interstate commerce as alleged and having advised the court |that the labeling involved had been modified in certain respects voluntarily, |and it being further represented to the court that the claimant neither ad- |mitted nor denied the other allegations in the libels but consented to the entry |of a decree, judgements were entered in each seizure action on 4/25/56, in |which the court condemned the article in each lot pursuant to some but not all |of the particulars in the libels.|On 5-8-56, supplemental decrees were entered ordering that the articles be |destroyed, except for those samples which had been released to the parties.|The cases reported herewith were instituted in the United States district courts |by United States attorneys, acting upon reports submitted by the Department |of Health, Education, and Welfare, and include, where indicated, the results of |investigations by the Department, prior to the institution of the proceedings.|Published by direction of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.|GEO. P. LAEBIOK, Commissioner of Food and Drugs. |WASHINGTON, D.C., Feoruary 17,1959.|CONTENTS|Page |Cosmetic actionable because of |adulteration with poisonous or |deleterious substance or sub- |stances |138|494947-59|Page |Cosmetic actionable because of|contamination with filth |138|Cosmetics, subject to the drug|provisions of the Act |139|137|206. Nail polish (2 seizure actions).csnj00206February 1959Harrison Laboratories, Inc.Nail polish (2 seizure actions)10-24-57 ; 12-31-57Baltimore, Md. ; St. Louis, Mo.New York, N.Y.Baltimore, Md. ; St. Louis, Mo.Dist. Md. and E. Dist. Mo.206F. D. C. Nos. 41448, 41520, S. Nos. 3-983 P, 37-209 P.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00206csnj|206. Nail polish (2 seizure actions). (F.D.C. Nos. 41448, 41520, S. Nos. 3-983 P,|37-209 P.) |QUANTITY : 997 kits at Baltimore, Md., and 60 boxes, 12 kits each, at St. Louis,|Mo. |SHIPPED : Between 10-24-57 and 12-31-57, from New York, N.Y., by Harrison|Laboratories, Inc.|LABEL IN PART : \"\"4 Complete Manicures TenDay Press-On Nail Polish.\"\"|ACCOMPANYING LABELING: Each kit contained an instruction book which read, |in part, as follows: \"\"TenDay Press-on Nail Polish * * * How To Apply Use |2 sheets of TenDay for each manicure-1 sheet for each hand. Choose the |5 petals on each sheet that best fit your 5 fingers. Measure for width only- |length doesn't matter. Start with thumb. Take largest petal on sheet and |point rounded end towards cuticle. Correct size will give almost full nail |coverage and will not touch cuticle. If too big, take the next smaller petal. |Lift petal by center tab and slowly pull off backing. Try not to touch ad- |hesive. Fit rounded end close to cuticle. If one side touches cuticle, petal |is on wrong. Lift and re-position but don't try to remove petal by pulling |or stretching. File away excess length by using fine side of emery board. |Use downward stroke all around the tip until excess is cut away. Don't |try to tear away excess. Keep filing until it comes off. Use light pressure |otherwise end is ragged. Slant emery board as picture shows.\"\"|RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION : Examination showed that the kits consisted of a |white plastic folder, covered with a clear plastic-like material, and containing |an emery board or manicure file, a booklet of instructions, and the press-on |nail color, which was a red, plastic-like material with a white plastic backing |that had been cut to represent the shape of finger nails.|Investigations revealed a significant number of nail injuries from use of |the nail polish. Such injuries were manifested by peeling of the surface of |the nail in that it was thinner, split, and cracked, and lacking luster, and in |many cases resulting in loss of a significant portion of the distal end of the |nail to the extent that normal use of the hands was prevented for varying |lengths of time.|LIBELED : 2-26-58 and 4-17-58, Dist. Md. and E. Dist. Mo.|CHARGE: 601(a)-when shipped, the article contained a poisonous or deleteri- |ous substance or substances which may have rendered the article injurious |to users under the conditions of use prescribed in the labeling.|DISPOSITION : 5-29-58 and 7-16-58. Default-destruction\"\".|COSMETIC ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF CONTAMINATION WITH FILTH|207. Hair brushes.csnj00207February 1959Aktiebolaget Husqvarna BorstfabrikHair brushes5-2-58New York, N.Y.Husqvarna, SwedenNew York, N.Y.S. Dist. N.Y.207F. D. C. No. 41930. S. No. 31-721 P.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00207csnj|207. Hair brushes. (F.D.C. No. 41930. ,S. No. 31-721 P.)|QUANTITY: 25 cases, some containing 432 hair brushes and others containing |648 hair brushes, in cartons, at New York, N.Y.|SHIPPED: 5-2-58, from Husqvarna, Sweden, by Aktiebolaget Husqvarna |Borstfabrik.|LABEL IN PART : (Carton) \"\"Royal Sweden Hair Brush.\"\"|RESULTS OP INVESTIGATION : Examination showed that the bristles of some of |the hair brushes were contaminated with insect eggs and that some of the |eggs had hatched.|LIBELED : 7-30-58, S. Dist. N.Y.|CHARGE: 601(C)-prepared, packed, and held under insanitary conditions.|DISPOSITION : 8-26-58. Default-destruction.|208. Hair brushes.csnj00208February 1959Harry D. Koenig & Co.Hair brushes5-20-58Philadelphia, Pa.West GermanyPhiladelphia, Pa.E. Dist. Pa.208F. D. C. No. 41959. S. No. 33-977 P.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00208csnj|208. Hair brushes. (F.D.O. No. 41959. S. No. 33-977 P.) |QUANTITY : 244 hair brushes in cartons at Philadelphia, Pa.|SHIPPED : The article was imported on an unknown date from West Germany,|by Harry D. Koenig & Co., New York, N.Y., who shipped them to Philadelphia,|Pa., on 4r-16-58 and 5-20-58. |LABEL IN PART: \"\"Pure Natural Bristle Germany All Bristle Pure Nat-|ural K-Way.\"\" |RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION :, Examination showed that the bristles1 of some of|the hair brushes were contaminated with insect eggs and that some of the|eggs had hatched. |LIBELED : 7-29-58, E. Dist. Pa.|CHARGE: 601(C)-prepared, packed, and held under insanitary conditions. |DISPOSITION : 9-16-58. Default-destruction.|COSMETICS, SUBJECT TO THE DRUG PROVISIONS OF THE ACT*|Reported |under |Product |D.D.N.J. No.|118. Mentos medicated lanolin |4175|119. It-Sa-Mazing wrinkle lotion |4500|120. Johannes Item hair lotion and hair cream |5033|121. Amosan tooth powder |5075|122. Extar (liquid dentifrice) |5161|123. N.S.T. skin treatment |5217|*See C.N.J., F.D.C. 96-112, 113-130, 131-146, 147-160, 161-175, 176-183, 184-189, |and 190-195 for list of Nos. 1-117.|U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: I9S9|The cases reported herewith were instituted in the United States district courts |by United States attorneys, acting upon reports submitted by the Department |of Health, Education, and Welfare, and include, where indicated, the results of |investigations by the Department, prior to the institution of the proceedings.|Published by direction of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.|GEO. P. LAEBICK, Commissioner of Food and Drugs. |WASHINGTON, D.C, November 24,1961.|Page |Cosmetics actionable because of|contamination with filth |142|Cosmetics actionable because of|false and misleading claims |142|CONTENTS|Page|Cosmetics subject to the drug pro- |visions of the Act |144|141|617530-61|COSMETICS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF CONTAMINATION WITH FILTH|209. Cosmetics.csnj00209November 1961\NCosmetics8-30-60Brooklyn, N.Y.Brooklyn, N.Y.Brooklyn, N.Y.E. Dist. N.Y.209F. D. C. No. 44984. S. No. 35-984 R.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00209csnj|209. Cosmetics. (F.D.C. No. 44984. S. No. 35-984 R.) |QUANTITY : 55 bundles, 1,760 lb. total, at Brooklyn, N.Y.|SHIPPED : The article was delivered on 8-30-60, to a ship pier at Brooklyn, N.Y., |for shipment to Iceland.|RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION: Inspection showed that the article had been sub- |merged in polluted river water. The contamination occurred as a result of a |storm on 9-13-60, which flooded the pier at Brooklyn, N.Y., where the article |was stored.|LIBELED : 10-13-60, E. Dist. N.Y.|CHARGE: 601(C)-held under insanitary conditions while in interstate com- |merce.|DISPOSITION : 1-18-61. Default-destruction.|COSMETICS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF FALSE AND MISLEADING|CLAIMS|210. Imitation oil of bergamot and denatured olive oil.csnj00210November 1961Exelento Medicine Co., Inc.Imitation oil of bergamot and denatured olive oil12-10-58 ; 10-14-59Detroit, Mich.New York, N.Y.Detroit, Mich.E. Dist. Mich.210F. D. C. No. 44183. S. Nos. 78-381/4 P.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00210csnj|210. Imitation oil of bergamot and denatured olive oil. (F.D.C. No. 44183.|S. Nos. 78-381/4 P.)|QUANTITY : 1 5-gal. container containing l^-gals. and 3 5-gal. containers of |imitation oil of bergamot; 1 55-gal. drum containing about 25 gals, of de- |natured olive oil; and 648 %-oz. btls. and 3,060 ^-oz. btls., containing a |mixture of the above raw materials, in possession of Exelento Medicine Co., |Inc., Detroit, Mich.|SHIPPED : 12-10-58 and 10-14-59, from New York, N.Y.|LABEL IN PART: (Btls.) \"\"Oil of Bergamot Synthetic * * * Manufactured by |Exelento Medicine Co., Detroit, Mich.\"\"|RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION : Investigation showed that the article in the bottles |consisted of one part of imitation oil of bergamot and 3 parts of yellow de- |natured olive oil.|The article in the bottles was manufactured by the dealer from raw materials |shipped as described above.|LIBELED : 1-22-60, E. Dist. Mich.|CHARGE: 602(a)-while held for sale, the label statement \"\"Oil of Bergamot|Synthetic\"\" was false and misleading as applied to an article which was a|mixture of imitation oil of bergamot and olive oil.|DISPOSITION: 6-28-60. Consent-claimed by Exelento Medicine Co., Inc. |Segregated; 108 %-oz. btls, and 792 %-oz. btls. were destroyed, and the |remainder of the bottles and the can and drum containing the articles were |released to the claimant for relabeling.|212. Plastic boxes of cosmetic kits and tubes of eye make-up colors.csnj00212September 1962Anita d'Foged, Inc.Plastic boxes of cosmetic kits and tubes of eye make-up colors7-13-60Beverly Hills, Calif.Beverly Hills, Calif.Beverly Hills, Calif.S. Dist. Calif.212F. D. C. No. 45703. S. No. 27-033 R.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00212csnj|212. Plastic boxes of cosmetic kits and tubes of eye make-up colors. (F.D.C.|No. 45703. S. No. 27-033 R.)|QUANTITY: 22 \"\"Type A\"\" kit plastic boxes, 12,594 1/10-oz. tubes of eye make- |up colors, and 20 \"\"Day Dew Bon Voyage\"\" kit plastic boxes, at Beverly Hills, |Calif., in possession of Anita d'Foged, Inc.|SHIPPED: The tubes of eye make-up colors were imported on 7-13-60, from |Palsgaard Castle Laboratory, Denmark, by Anita d'Foged, Inc.|LABEL IN PART: (Tube of eye make-up) \"\"Day Dew Contouring 'Fun-Eye- |Glamour' 'to make your eyes speak and sparkle' Apply with brush * * * Net |Weight 1/10 oz. Made in Denmark Anita d'Foged a/s Palsgaard Castle |Lab. Denmark.\"\"|ACCOMPANYING LABELING: Leaflets entitled \"\"Day Dew from Denmark Your |Complete Beauty Care\"\" (\"\"Type A\"\" kit) and \"\"Day Dew from Denmark Presents |Bon Voyage\"\" (\"\"Bon Voyage\"\" kit).|RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION : Examination showed that the tubes of eye make- |up contained synthetic organic colors not listed for use in products to be |applied to the area of the eye. The plastic boxes designated \"\"Type A\"\" kit |contained 6 tubes of assorted colors of eye make-up, 1 tube of mascara, 2 |brushes and a leaflet. The plastic boxes designated \"\"Day Dew Bon Voyage\"\" |kit contained 1 tube of make-up, 1 tube of Vitamin Enriched Cream, 1 tube of |Cream-Foam Cleanser, 1 brush, 3 small tubes of lip shades, 1 complete \"\"Type |A\"\" kit, and a leaflet. The kits were assembled by Anita d'Foged, Inc., after |the receipt of the tubes of eye make-up colors from Denmark.|LIBELED: 4r-10-61, S. Dist., Calif.|CHARGE: 601(e)-when shipped and while held for sale, the articles were not |hair dyes and contained synthetic organic colors, namely, Toluidine Red, C.L |No. 12120, Copper Phthalocyanine Blue, C.I. No. 74160, and Hansa Yellow |G, C.I. No. 11680, which were unsafe within the meaning of 706(a), since such |synthetic organic colors had not been provisionally listed for cosmetic use on |the basis of prior commercial sale purs'uant to Section 203 of the Color Addi- |tive Amendments of 1960.|DISPOSITION: 7-12-61. Default-destruction.|213. Eternal Youth face cream.csnj00213September 1962Mare Mano, Inc.Eternal Youth face cream4-11-61Lockport, N.Y.Pittsburgh, Pa.Lockport, N.Y.W. Dist. N.Y.213F. D. C. No. 45936. S. No. 97-081 R.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00213csnj|213. Eternal Youth face cream. (F.D.O. No. 45936. S. No. 97-081 R.) |QUANTITY : 4 cases of 36 4-oz. btls. each, at Lockport, N.Y. |SHIPPED: 4^-11-61, from Pittsburgh, Pa., by Mare Mano, Inc.|LABEL IN PART: (Btl.) \"\"Eternal Youth by Mare Mano Corrective Cosmetic |For Wrinkles and Blackheads Mare Mano, Inc., Pittsburgh, Pa. * * * Con- |tains no heavy metals.\"\"|LIBELED: 6-6-61, W. Dist. N.Y.|CHARGE : 601(e)-when shipped, the article contained a synthetic organic color, |Amaranth, C.I. No. 16185, which was unsafe within the meaning of 706(a), |since such synthetic organic color had not been provisionally listed for cos- |metic use in the area of the eye on the basis of prior commercial sale.|The libel alleged also that the article and another article of drug were mis- |branded under the provisions of the Act relating to drugs, as reported in |notices of judgment on drugs and devices.|DISPOSITION : 7-7-61. Default-destruction.|214. Eye liner pencil leads.csnj00214September 1962Jensen's, Inc.Eye liner pencil leads12-15-60 ; 2-6-61Yonkers, N.Y.Shelbyville, Tenn.Yonkers, N.Y.S. Dist. N.Y.214F. D. C. No. 45741. S. Nos. 83-211/13 R.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00214csnj|214. Eye liner pencil leads. (FJXC. No. 45741. S. Nos. 83-211/13 R.) |QUANTITY: 2 ctns., each containing 3 gross (black color) ; and 38 ctns., each|containing 3 gross (light-brown color), at Yonkers, N.Y.|SHIPPED : 12-15-60 and 2-6-61, from Shelbyville, Tenn., by Jensen's, Inc.|LIBELED : 4-25-61, S. Dist. N.Y.|CHARGE : 601(e)-when shipped, the articles contained synthetic organic colors, |namely, Rhodamine B, C.I. No. 45170 and Hansa Yellow, C.I. No. 11680, which |were unsafe within the meaning of 706(a), since such synthetic organic colors |had not been provisionally listed for cosmetic use in the area of the eye on the |basis of prior commercial sale pursuant to Section 203 of the Color Additive |Amendments of 1960.|DISPOSITION : 5-11-61. Default-destruction.|215. Eyebrow and eye liner pencil refills.csnj00215September 1962Jensen's, Inc.Eyebrow and eye liner pencil refills3-22-60 ; 3-27-61New York, N.Y.Shelbyville, Tenn.New York, N.Y.S. Dist. N.Y.215F. D. C. No. 45732. S. Nos. 83-221 R, 83-225 R, 83-227 R, 83-229 R, 83-233/4 R, 83-236 R, 83-238 R, 83-241/2 R.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00215csnj|215. Eyebrow and eye liner pencil refills. (F.D.O. No. 45732. S. Nos. 83-221 R,|83-225 R, 83-227 R, 83-229 R, 83-233/4 R, 83-236 R, 83-238 R, 83-241/2 R.) |QUANTITY: 240 ctns., each containing 1 gross (red-brown color); 140 ctns., |each containing 1 gross (light-brown color) ; 35 ctns., each containing 1 gross |(green color, numbered 5618) ; 9 ctns., each containing 1 gross (amethyst |color) ; 120 ctns., each containing 1 gross (blue color, numbered 6046) ; 10 |ctns., each containing 1 gross (green color, numbered 6429) ; 12 ctns., each |containing 1 gross (lilac color) ; 276 ctns., each containing 1 gross (green |color, numbered 8389) ; 126 ctns., each containing 1 gross (blue color, numbered |6191) ; and 84 ctns., each containing 1 gross (violet color), at New York, N.Y.|SHIPPED : Between 3-22-60 and 3-27-61, from Shelbyville, Tenn., by Jensen's, |Inc.|LIBELED: 4r-20-61, S. Dist. N.Y.|CHARGE : 601 (e)-when shipped, the articles contained synthetic organic colors, |namely, Rhodamine B, C.I. No. 45170, Hansa Yellow, C.I. No. 11680, and Lithol |Red, C.I. No. 15630, which were unsafe within the meaning of 706(a), since |such synthetic organic colors had not been provisionally listed for cosmetic use |in the area of the eye on the basis of prior commercial sale pursuant to Section |203 of the Color Additive Amendments of 1960.|DISPOSITION : 5-12-61. Default-destruction.|216. Eye liner pencil leads.csnj00216September 1962Jensen's, Inc.Eye liner pencil leadsApril 1960 and May 1961Bridgeport, Conn.Shelbyville, Tenn.Bridgeport, Conn.Dist. Conn.216F. D. C. No. 45773. S. Nos. 70-541/2 R, 70-544/6 R, 70-548 R, 70-552/3 R, 70-556 R.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00216csnj|216. Eye liner pencil leads. (F.D.C. No. 45773. S. Nos. 70-541/2 R, 70^544/6 R,|70-548 R, 70-552/3 R, 70-556 R.)|QUANTITY : 423 ctns., each containing 360 eye liner pencil leads in various col- |ors, at Bridgeport, Conn.|SHIPPED: Between April 1960 and May 1961, from Shelbyville, Tenn., by |Jensen's, Inc.|LIBELED: 5-9-61, Dist. Conn.|CHARGE: 601(e)-when shipped, the article contained synthetic organic colors, |namely, Hansa Yellow, C.I. No. 11680, and Rhodamine B, C.I. No. 15630, |which were unsafe within the meaning of 706(a), since such synthetic organic |colors had not been provisionally listed for cosmetic use in the area of the eye |on the basis of prior commercial sale pursuant to Section 203 of the Color |Additive Amendments of 1960.|DISPOSITION: 2-17-62. Default-destruction.|217. Eyebrow and eye liner pencils and refills.csnj00217September 1962Jensen's, Inc.Eyebrow and eye liner pencils and refillsApril 1959 and April 1961Binghamton, N.Y.Shelbyville, Tenn.Binghamton, N.Y.N. Dist. N.Y.217F. D. C. No. 45782. S. Nos. 96-769 R, 96-771/2 R, 97-122 R, 97-124 R.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00217csnj|217. Eyebrow and eye liner pencils and refills. (F.D.C. No. 45782. S. Nos.|96-769 R, 96-771/2 R, 97-122 R, 97-124 R.)|QUANTITY: 131 vials, each containing 2 leads (light-brown color) ; 540 vials, |each containing 2 leads (green color) ; 672 vials, each containing 2 leads (blue |color); 7,200 pencils, (light-brown color) ; and 7,200 pencils (green color), at |Binghamton, N.Y.|SHIPPED: Between April 1959 and April 1961, from Shelbyville, Tenn., (leads), |by Jensen's, Inc., and (pencils), by Cavalier Pencil Co., Inc.|LABEL IN PART: (Pencils) \"\"Light Brown [or \"\"Green\"\"] Elizabeth Post Dis- |tributor Fifth Ave., New York, N.Y.\"\"|ACCOMPANYING LABELING : Cards attached to each vial of leads reading in part |\"\"Elizabeth Post * * * Eyebrow Pencil and Eye Liner Refills (various colors) |Elizabeth Post Distributor Fifth Ave., New York.\"\"|LIBELED: 5-10-61, N. Dist. N.Y.|CHARGE: 601(e)-when shipped, the articles contained synthetic organic colors, |namely, Hansa Yellow, C.l. No. 11680, and Rhodamine B, C.l. No. 45170, which |were unsafe within the meaning of 706(a), since such synthetic organic colors |had not been provisionally listed for cosmetic use in the area of the eye on the |basis of prior commercial sale pursuant to Section 203 of the Color Additive |Amendments of 1960.|DISPOSITION : 6-13-61. Default-destruction.|218. Eyebrow and eye liner pencils.csnj00218September 1962Jensen's, Inc.Eyebrow and eye liner pencils5-5-60Mt. Vernon, N.Y.Shelbyville, Tenn.Mt. Vernon, N.Y.S. Dist. N.Y.218F. D. C. No. 45876. S. Nos. 83-283 R, 83-285/8 R, 83-290 R, 83-292/4 R, 83-297 R.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00218csnj|218. Eyebrow and eye liner pencils. (F.D.C. No. 45876. S. Nos. 83-283 R,|83-285/8 R, 83-290 R, 83-292/4 R, 83-297 R.)|QUANTITY: 272 gross (light-brown color) ; 10 gross (blue color) ; 66 gross |(blue-green color) ; 22 gross (green color) ; 52 gross (violet color) ; 16 gross |(turquoise color) ; 24 gross (\"\"Silver Eyes Blue\"\" color) ; 46 gross (\"\"Silver |Eyes Green\"\" color) ; 50 gross (\"\"Silver Eyes Violet\"\" color) ; and 79 gross (red- |brown color), at Mt. Vernon, N.Y.|SHIPPED : Between 4^6-60 and 5-5-60, from Shelbyville, Tenn., by Jensen's, Inc.|LABEL IN PART : (Ctn.) \"\"Smartee Eyebrow Eye Liner Pencils.\"\"|LIBELED : 5-12-61, S. Dist. N.Y.|CHARGE: 601(e)-when shipped, the article (all lots) contained synthetic or- |ganic colors, namely, Rhodamine B, C.I. No. 45170, and Hansa Yellow, C.I. No. |11680, which were unsafe within the meaning of 706(a), since such synthetic |organic colors had not been provisionally listed for cosmetic use in the area of |the eye on the basis of prior commercial sale pursuant to Section 203 of the |Color Additive Amendments of 1960.|DISPOSITION: On 6-12-61, Reliance Pen & Pencil Corp. filed a claim to the |article. On 9-8-61, the claimant consented to the destruction of the article. |On 10-27-61, a decree of condemnation and destruction of the article was |filed.|219. Eyebrow and eye liner pencils and refills.csnj00219September 1962Jensen's, Inc.Eyebrow and eye liner pencils and refills12-11-59 ; 3-17-60 ; 1-25-61Pelham, N.Y.Shelbyville, Tenn. ; Bridgeport, Conn.Pelham, N.Y.S. Dist. N.Y.219F. D. C. No. 45894. S. Nos. 34-381/3 R, 34-385/6 R, 34-392/3 R, 34-524 R, 34-527 R, 34-537 R.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00219csnj|219. Eyebrow and eye liner pencils and refills. (F.D.C. No. 45894. S. Nos.|34-381/3 R, 34-385/6 R, 34-392/3 R, 34-524 R, 34-527 R, 34-537 R.) |QUANTITY : 132 1 gross ctns. of refills, and 240 pencils, at Pelham, N.Y. |SHIPPED : Between 12-11-59 and 3-17-60, from Shelbyville, Tenn., by Jensen's, |Inc.; on 1-25-61 and 4r-17-61, from Bridgeport, Conn., by Connecticut Pencil Co.|LABEL IN PART: \"\"Silverized Violet 5306 * * *\"\"; Silver 5014 * * *\"\"; \"\"Silver |Blue 5304 * * *\"\"; Silver Green 549 * * *\"\"; \"\"Green 4158 * * *\"\"; \"\"Ann |Harper Eye Make-up-Lt. Brown\"\"; \"\"Ann Harper Eye Make-up-Green\"\"; and |\"\"Light Brown 4617 * * *.\"\"|LIBELED : 5-17-61, S. Dist. N.Y.|CHARGE: 601(e)-when shipped, the articles contained synthetic organic colors, |Rhodamine B, O.I. No. 45170 and Hansa Yellow, O.I. No. 11680, which were |unsafe within the meaning of 706(a), since such synthetic organic colors have |not been provisionally listed for cosmetic use in the area of the eye on the basis |of prior commercial sale pursuant to Section 203 of the Oolor Additive Amend- |ments of 1960.|DISPOSITION : 6-5-61. Default-destruction.|220. Eyebrow and eye liner pencil leads.csnj00220September 1962Jensen's, Inc.Eyebrow and eye liner pencil leads2-26-60 ; 4-19-60 ; 5-27-60 ; 10-14-60New York, N.Y.Shelby ville, Tenn.New York, N.Y.S. Dist. N.Y.220F. D. C. No. 45929. S. Nos. 56-442 R, 56-448 R, 56-451 R, 56-458/60 R, 83-128 R.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00220csnj|220. Eyebrow and eye liner pencil leads. (F.D.O. No. 45929. S. Nos. 56-442 R,|56-448 R, 56-451 R, 56-458/60 R, 83-128 R.)|QUANTITY : 209 gross at New York, N.Y.|SHIPPED: S-28-59, 2-26-60, 4-19-60, 5-27-60, and 10-14-60, from Shelby ville, |Term., by Jensen's, Inc.|LABEL IN PART : \"\"6863 Blue 046\"\"; \"\"6872 Green\"\" ; \"\"4886 Violet\"\"; \"\"4758 Green\"\"; |\"\"5730 Lt. Brown\"\" ; \"\"5115 Blue-Green\"\"; and \"\"4715 Blue.\"\"|LIBELED : 6-8-61, S. Dist. N.Y.|CHARGE: 601(e)-when shipped, the articles contained synthetic organic |colors, Rhodamine B, O.I. No. 45170 and Hansa Yellow, O.I. No. 11680, which |were unsafe within the meaning of 706(a), since such synthetic organic |colors have not been provisionally listed for cosmetic use in the area of the eye |on the basis of prior commercial sale pursuant to Section 203 of the Color |Additive Amendments of 1960.|DISPOSITION : 6-30-61. Default-destruction.|226. Eye liner pencils.csnj00226September 1962Jensen's, Inc.Eye liner pencils3-10-61New York, N.Y.Shelbyville, Tenn.New York, N.Y.S. Dist. N.Y.226F. D. C. No. 45731. S. No. 83-252 K.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00226csnj|226. Eye liner pencils. (F.D.C. No. 45731. S. No. 83-252 K.) |QUANTITY : 15,000 pencils at New York, N.Y.|SHIPPED: 3-10-61, from Shelbyville, Tenn., by Jensen's, Inc. |LABEL IN PART: \"\"Avon Eye Liner Violet.\"\" |LIBELED: 4-20-61, S. Dist. N.Y.|CHARGE : 601 (e)-when shipped, the article contained a synthetic organic color, |namely Rhodamine B, CI. No. 45170, which was unsafe within the meaning |of 706(a), since such synthetic organic color had not been provisionally listed |for cosmetic use in the area of the eye on the basis of prior commercial sale |pursuant to Section 203 of the Color Additive Amendments of 1960.|DISPOSITION : On or about 5-16-61. Default-destruction.|221. Eyebrow pencils and refills, and eye liner pencils and refills.csnj00221September 1962Jensen's, Inc.Eyebrow pencils and refills, and eye liner pencils and refills10-10-60 ; 11-21-60Brooklyn, N.Y.Shelbyville, Tenn.Brooklyn, N.Y.E. Dist. N.Y.221F. D. C. No. 45742. S. Nos. 82-782 R, 82-878 R, 82-880 R.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00221csnj|221. Eyebrow pencils and refills, and eye liner pencils and refills. F.D.O. No.|45742. S. Nos. 82-782 R, 82-878 R, 82-880 R.)|QUANTITY: 230 pencils and 7 boxes, each containing 12 3-unit vials of leads |(green color) ; 160 pencils and 13 boxes, each containing 12 3-unit vials of |leads (light-brown color); and 234 pencils and 6 boxes, each containing 12 3- |unit vials of leads (blue color), at Brooklyn, N.Y.|SHIPPED: (Leads only) 10-10-60 and 11-21-60, from Shelbyville, Tenn., by|Jensen's, Inc. |LABEL IN PART : (Pencils) \"\"Marian Bialac's Green Beautiful Eyes, Ltd., N.Y.O.\"\";|\"\"Light Brown Beautiful Eyes Ltd., N.Y.O.\"\"; and \"\"Blue Beautiful Eyes Ltd.,|N.Y.O.\"\" |RESULTS OP INVESTIGATION : The eye pencil leads had been shipped in bulk to|New York, N.Y., where a portion of the leads had been placed in mechanical|pencils and the remainder of the leads had been repackaged.|LIBELED: 4-28-61, E. Dist. N.Y.|CHARGE: 601(e)-when shipped, the article contained synthetic organic colors, |namely, Rhodamine B, C.I. No. 45170, and Hansa Yellow, C.I. No. 11680, which|- were unsafe within the meaning of 706(a), since such synthetic organic colors |had not been provisionally listed for cosmetic use in the area of the eye on the |basis of prior commercial sale pursuant to Section 203 of the Color Additive |Amendments of 1960.|DISPOSITION : 5-19-61. Default-destruction.|222. Eye liner pencil leads.csnj00222September 1962\NEye liner pencil leads4-20-61Shelbyville, Tenn.New York, N.Y.Shelbyville, Tenn.E. Dist. Tenn.222F. D. C. No. 45749. S. Nos. 82-962/3 R, 82-965 R, 82-967 R, 82-969 R, 82-973 R.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00222csnj|222. Eye liner pencil leads. (F.D.C. No. 45749. S. Nos. 82-962/3 R, 82-965 R,|82-967 R, 82-969 R, 82-973 R.) |QUANTITY : 19 boxes, each containing a number of ctns., and each ctn. contain- |ing 144 eye liner pencil leads, at Shelbyville, Tenn.|SHIPPED : 4-20-61, from New York, N.Y. This was a return shipment.|LIBELED: 5-1-61, E. Dist. Tenn.|CHARGE: 601(e)-when shipped, the article contained synthetic organic colors, |namely Hansa Yellow, C.I. No. 11680; Rhodamine B, C.I. No. 45170; and Lithol |Red, C.I. No. 15630, which were unsafe within the meaning of 706 (a), since such |synthetic organic colors had not been provisionally listed for cosmetic use in |the area of the eye on the basis of prior commercial sale pursuant to Section |203 of the Color Additive Amendments of 1960.|DISPOSITION : 6-14-61. Default-destruction.|223. Eye pencils.csnj00223September 1962Hazel Bishop, Inc.Eye pencils2-2-61New York, N.Y.Lodi, N.J.New York, N.Y.S. Dist. N.Y.223F. D. C. No. 45702. S. Nos. 35-806/10 R.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00223csnj|223. Eye pencils. (F.D.C. No. 45702. S. Nos. 35-806/10 R.)|QUANTITY: 360 (light brown), 360 (black), 360 (dark brown), 720 (green), |and 432 (blue) pencils at New York, N.Y.|SHIPPED : 2-2-61, from Lodi, N.J., by Hazel Bishop, Inc.|LABEL IN PART : \"\"Hazel Bishop Eye Pencil.\"\"|ACCOMPANYING LABELING: Display card to which pencils were attached: |\"\"Hazel Bishop No-Smear Type Eye Pencil * * * Hazel Bishop Inc. N.Y. |Distr.\"\"|LIBELED : 4-5-61, S. Dist. N.Y.|?HABGE : 601(e)-when shipped, the articles contained synthetic organic colors, |namely, Rhodamine B, C.I. No. 45170; Hansa Yellow, C.I. No. 11680; and |Lithol Red, C.I. No. 15630, which were unsafe within the meaning of 706(a), |since such synthetic organic colors had not been provisionally listed for cos- |metic use in the area of the eye on the basis of prior commercial sale pursuant |to Section 203 of the Color Additive Amendments of 1960.|DISPOSITION : 5-10-61. Default-destruction.|224. Eye pencils.csnj00224September 1962Swan Pencil Co.Eye pencils6-23-60 ; 7-5-60Trenton, N.J.Lewisburg, Tenn.Trenton, N.J.Dist. N.J.224F. D. C. No. 45718. S. Nos. 37-975/9 R.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00224csnj|224. Eye pencils. (F.D.O. No. 45718. S. Nos. 37-975/9 R.)|QUANTITY: 1,635 (turquoise color); 8,000 (blue color); 38,448 (fruited-blue |color) ; 42,768 (fruited-violet color) ; 29,124 (green color) ; 78,546 (light-brown |color) ; and 62,650 (dark-brown color) at Trenton, N.J.|SHIPPED : 6-23-60, 7-5-60, and dates unknown, from Lewisburg, Tenn., by Swan|Pencil Co. |LABEL IN PART : \"\"Hazel Bishop Eye Pencil.\"\" |LIBELED: 4-13-61, Dist. N.J.|?HABGE: 601(e)-when shipped, the article (all lots except the turquoise |color) contained synthetic organic colors, namely, Rhodamine B, C.I. 45170; |Hansa Yellow, C.I. No. 11680; and Lithol Red, C.I. No. 15630, which were |unsafe within the meaning of 706(a), since such synthetic organic colors had |not been provisionally listed for cosmetic use in the area of the eye on the basis |of prior commercial sale pursuant to Section 203 of the Color Additive Amend- |ments of 1960.|DISPOSITION : 5-15-61. Default-destruction.|225. Eye liner pencils.csnj00225September 1962Koh-I-Noor, Inc.Eye liner pencils5-16-60 ; 6-15-60Bloomsbury, N.J.Lewisburg, Tenn.Bloomsbury, N.J.Dist. N.J.225F. D. C. No. 45945. S. Nos. 38-749/52 R.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00225csnj|225. Eye liner pencils. (F.D.C. No. 45945. S. Nos. 38-749/52 R.) |QUANTITY: 12 gross (blue color), 11 gross (green color), 12 gross (violet|color), and 12 gross (turquoise color), at Bloomsbury, N.J.|SHIPPED : 5-16-60 and 6-15-60, from Lewisburg, Tenn., by Koh:I-Noor, Inc.|LABEL IN PART: (Pencil) \"\"Platinized (color) Debutante Eyeliner Pencil.\"\"|LIBELED: 6-13-61, Dist. N.J.|CHARGE: 601(e)-when shipped, the article contained synthetic organic colors, |namely, Hansa Yellow, C.I. No. 11680, and Rhodamine B, CI. No. 45170, which |were unsafe within the meaning of 706(a), since such synthetic organic colors |had not been provisionally listed for cosmetic use in the area of the eye on the |basis of prior commercial sale pursuant to Section 203 of the Color Additive |Amendments of 1960.|DISPOSITION : 8-11-61. Default-destruction.|241. Deodorant stick.csnj00241August 1963Fuller Brush Co.Deodorant stick9-1-61 ; 1-23-62East Hartford, Conn.Albany, N.Y.East Hartford, Conn.Dist. Conn.241F. D. C. No. 47173. S. No. 7-386 T.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00241csnj|241. Deodorant stick. (F.D.C. No. 47173. S. No. 7-386 T.)|QUANTITY : 135 ctns., each containing 120 plastic tubes, at East Hartford, Conn. |SHIPPED: Between 9-1-61 and 1-23-62, from Albany, N.Y., by Mohawk Brush|Co., subsidiary of Fuller Brush Co. |LABEL IN PART: (Tube) \"\"Deodorant Stick House of Fuller.\"\"|RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION : Some of the labeling of the article consisted of |printed matter formed in the plastic material of the container and was of the |same color. It was formed into the plastic base by which the deodorant stick |was pushed out of the container during use. The size of the printing, the |lack of contrasting color, and the location of the label inside the container |contributed to the inconspicuousness of this label during use.|LIBELED : 3-2-62, Dist. Conn.|CHARGE: 602(c)-when shipped, the information required to appear on the |label under 602(b) (1) and (2), namely, the name and place of business of the|manufacturer, packer, or distributor, and the quantity of contents, was not |prominently placed on the label with such conspicuousness (as compared with |other words and statements on the label) as to render such information likely |to be read by the ordinary individual under customary conditions of purchase |and use. |DISPOSITION : 5-23-62. Consent-claimed by Fuller Brush Co. and relabeled.|INDEX TO NOTICES OF JUDGMENT C.N.J. NOS. 232 TO 241|PRODUCTS|N.J. No.|Deodorant, Kings Men |240|stick |241|Eye liner pencils |232|shadow |232|N.J. No.|Hair dressing |233-239|Kings Men deodorant |240|Mascara |232|SHIPPERS, MANUFACTURERS, AND DISTRIBUTORS|N.J. No. |Agresti, F. A.:|hair dressing |233-236|Curtis, Helene, Industries, Inc.:|Kings Men deodorant 240|Emil Laboratories:|hair dressing . |235|Fuller Brush Co. See Mohawk|Brush Co. |Marks, Fred:|hair dressing |237, 238|N.J. No. |Mohawk Brush Co.:|deodorant stick * 241|Robin Sales Co.:|hair dressing |239|See also Agresti, F. A. |Valdor Laboratoires: |eye liner pencils, eye shadow,|and mascara |232|Zelart Drug Co.: |hair dressing |234|COSMETICS SUBJECT TO THE DRUG PROVISIONS OF THE ACT*|Reported |under |D.D.N.J. No. |Product|142. Erasurage device |6777|143. Figuremaker device |6778|144. Eternal Youth face cream |6815|145. Facializer device |6816|146. Beautique stockings |6817|147. Fountain-Facial with \"\"Keroxylite\"\" |6955|148. Eterna 27 face cream |6956|149. Tone Facial Exercise device |7054|150. Rejuvene device |7055|*See C.N.J., FD.C. 96-112, 113-130, 131-146, 147-160, 161-175, 176-183, 184-189. |190-95, 206-208, 209-211, and 212-231 for list of Nos. 1-141.|? ? GOVLRNHLNT PRINTING OFFICE 1963|The cases reported herewith were instituted in the United States district |courts by United States attorneys, acting upon reports submitted by the Depart- |ment of Health, Education, and Welfare, and include, where indicated, the re- |sults of investigations by the Department, prior to the institution of the |proceedings.|Published by direction of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.|GEO. P. LAEEICK, Commissioner of Food and Drugs. |WASHINGTON, D.C, August 19,1964-|Page|Cosmetics actionable because of |adulteration with poisonous or |deleterious substances 164|Cosmetics actionable because of|insanitary conditions |167|Cosmetics actionable because of |false and misleading claims 167|CONTENTS*|Page|Cosmetics actionable because of in- |conspicuousness of required|label information |168|Index |170|Cosmetics subject to the drug pro- |visions of the Act |170|227. Liquid eye liner.csnj00227September 1962Kolmar Cosmetic Specialties, Inc.Liquid eye liner4-28-60Toledo, Ohio.Matamoras, Pa.Toledo, Ohio.N. Dist. Ohio.227F. D. C. No. 45818. S. No. 47-682 R.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00227csnj|227. Liquid eye liner. (F.D.C. No. 45818. S. No. 47-682 R.)|QUANTITY: 3 1-gal. bulk containers, and 30 ctns., each containing 6 btls., at |Toledo, Ohio.|SHIPPED : 4-28-60, from Matamoras, Pa., by Kolmar Cosmetic Specialties, Inc.|LABEL IN PART: (Btl.) \"\"New Smartee Eye Liner Shadow Mink Brown.\"\"|ACCOMPANYING LABELING: Display cards reading in part \"\"New Smartee Eye- |liner and Eye Shadow * * * Cameo, Inc., Toledo, Ohio.\"\"|RESULTS OP INVESTIGATION: The dealer at Toledo, Ohio, had repacked bulk |liquid eye liner into retail bottles and attached the bottles to display cards.|LIBELED : 6-5-61, N. Dist. Ohio.|CHARGE: 601(e)-when shipped and while held for sale, the article contained |a synthetic organic color, namely, Toluidine Red, CI., 12120, which was unsafe |within the meaning of 706(a), since such synthetic organic color had not |been provisionally listed for cosmetic use in the area of the eye on the basis |of prior commercial sale pursuant to Section 203 of the Color Additive Amend- |ments of 1960.|DISPOSITION : 7-6-61. Default-destruction.|COSMETICS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF FALSE AND MISLEADING|CLAIMS|228. Robert's Nail Tone.csnj00228September 1962Allied Central Stores, Inc.Robert's Nail Tone4-25-61Kansas City, Mo.New York, N.Y.Kansas City, Mo.W. Dist. Mo.228F. D. C. No. 46046. S. No. 85-841 R.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00228csnj|228. Robert's Nail Tone. (F.D.C No. 46046. S. No. 85-841 R.) |QUANTITY : 2,068 %-oz. btls. at Kansas City, Mo., in possession of Peck's.|SHIPPED : 4-25-61, from New York, N.Y., by Ace Assembly Agency.|LABEL IN PART: (Btl.) \"\"Robert's Nail Tone For Well-Groomed Fingernails |Mfg. by Nail-Tone, Inc., * * * Miami, Fla.\"\"|ACCOMPANYING LABELING: Display card entitled \"\"Robert's Nail Tone Health- |Beauty Treatment\"\"; a leaflet entitled \"\"Nail Tone Takes The Ridges Out of |Fingernails\"\"; a leaflet copy of a newspaper advertisement reading in part \"\"At |Last! Famous Missile Scientists Discover Amazing New Fingernail Condi- |tioner\"\" ; and a newspaper advertisement mat headed \"\"Peck's Adv. Copy Mon|* * * 5/7.\"\"|RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION : Examination showed that the product was a white, |finely ground, odorless, mildly abrasive powder. The newspaper advertisement |mat had been prepared by the dealer.|LIBELED : 6-26-61, W. Dist. Mo.|CHARGE: 602(a)-when shipped and while held for sale, the labeling of the |article contained false and misleading representations that the article was |adequate and effective to produce healthier, harder nails, to smooth out ridges, |and to prevent splitting nails.|DISPOSITION : 9-20-61. Consent-claimed by Allied Central Stores, Inc., d/b/a |Peck's of Kansas City, Mo., and relabeled.|229. Beautique stockings.csnj00229September 1962Claussner Hosiery Co., Inc.Beautique stockings1-23-61Columbus, Ohio.Paducah, Ky.Columbus, Ohio.S. Dist. Ohio.229F. D. C. No. 46048. S. No. 14-336 R.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00229csnj|229. Beautique stockings. (F.D.C. No. 46048. S. No. 14-336 R.)|QUANTITY : 1,991 individually wrapped pairs in boxes, each containing 3 pairs, |at Columbus, Ohio.|SHIPPED : 1-23-61, from Paducah, Ky., by BeautiquS Stockings, Inc.|LABEL IN PART: (Box) \"\"Beautique\"\" Bathed In Precious Lotions That Beau- |tify Your Legs.\"\"|ACCOMPANYING LABELING: Leaflet reading in part, (fruit) \"\"BeautiquS Leg |Stockings * * * hosiery with a built-in beauty treatment * * * that flatters |your legs while massaging them with a softly scented emollient\"\" and (back) |\"\"Beautique Leg Lotion * * * for Problem Legs * * * Containing Mink Oil|* * * Turtle Oil * * * Royal Jelly * * * Lanolin * * * Plus the secret |formula CXS which hastens the beautifying action of these precious lotions.|* * * Beautique Stockings, Inc., Paducah, Ky. A subsidiary of Claussner- |Hosiery Co.\"\"|LIBELED: 6-26-61, S. Dist. Ohio.|CHARGE: 602(a)-when shipped, the labeling of the article contained false and|misleading representations that the article contained lotions which fed the|skin; rebuilt leg tissue; preserved the bloom of youth; softened, massaged,|lubricated and beautified the legs. |The libel alleged also that the article was misbranded under the provisions|of the law applicable to drugs and devices as reported in notices of judgment|on drugs and devices. |DISPOSITION: 7-25-61 and 8-10-61. Consent-claimed by Claussner Hosiery|Co., Inc., and reconditioned and relabeled.|230. Dusting powder, cosmetic cream, and lipsticks.csnj00230September 1962Hillshire Farms, Inc.Dusting powder, cosmetic cream, and lipsticks7-26-59 ; 8-17-59Dayville, Conn.PennsylvaniaDayville, Conn.Dist. Conn.230F. D. C. No. 45095. S. NosThe National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00230csnj|230. Dusting powder, cosmetic cream, and lipsticks. (F.D.C. No. 45095. S. Nos.|7-298/300 R, 8-021/2 R.) |j|QUANTITY: 47 8-oz. btls. of dusting powder; 714 2-oz. jars of cosmetic |cream; 110 boxes, 12 metal tubes each, of \"\"Pink Lady\"\" color lipstick; 56 boxes,|12 metal tubes each, of \"\"Fuschia\"\" color lipstick; and 43 boxes, 12 metal tubes|each, of \"\"Light\"\" color lipstick, at Dayville, Conn., in possession of HiUshire|Farms, Inc. |SHIPPED : Between 7-26-59 and 8-17-59, from the State of Pennsylvania. |LABEL IN PART: (Btl.) \"\"HiUshire Down Spring Bouquet Dusting Powder|HiUshire Farms, Inc., R.F.D. Dayville, Conn. 8 Oz.\"\"; (jar) \"\"HiUshire Down|Nature's Youth Tone HiUshire Down, Distr. RFD Dayville, Conn. Net|Contents 2 Ozs.\"\"; and (tube) \"\"For You by HiUshire.\"\" |ACCOMPANYING LABELING: Sales manual entitled \"\"HiUshire Downs Manual.\"\" |RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION : Examination showed that the dusting powder and|cosmetic cream did not contain milk solids and that the lipsticks did contain|coal-tar colors. |The sales manual had been printed in or about Dayville, Conn. |LIBELED: 11-18-60, Dist. Conn.; amended libel 6-13-61.|CHARGE: Dusting powder, 602(a)-while held for sale, the labeling accom- |panying the article contained false and misleading representations that the |article contained goats' milk.|Cosmetic cream, 602(a)-the labeling accompanying the article contained |false and misleading representations that the article was capable of prevent- |ing and eliminating wrinkles and nourishing the skin.|Lipsticks, 602(a)-the labeUng accompanying the articles contained false |and misleading representations that the articles contained no coal-tar colors. |DISPOSITION : 6-13-61. Consent-destruction.|COSMETIC ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO BEAR MANDATORY|LABELING|231. Perfume.csnj00231September 1962L'Argene Products Co., Inc.Perfume9-21-61New Bedford, Mass.New York, N.Y.New Bedford, Mass.Dist. Mass.231F. D. C. No. 46808. S. No. 6-880 T.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00231csnj|231. Perfume. (F.D.C. No. 46808. S. No. 6-880 T.)|QUANTITY : 1,591 ctns., each containing one metallic %-oz. tube with pressure- |spray cap, at New Bedford, Mass.|SHIPPED : 9-21-61, from New York, N.Y., by L'Argene Products Co., Inc.|LABEL IN PART: (Ctn.) \"\"Touch 'n' Spray perfume 300 Sprays Purse Size |y2 Oz.\"\" and (top of ctn.) \"\"Columbus Spray Perfume Distr. % Oz.\"\"|RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION: Examination disclosed that the mandatory infor- |mation required to appear on the label was incomplete and inconspicuous in that |the name of the place of business was not shown for the distributor, and |that the print was so small and blurred that it was difficult to read.|LIBELED : 12-20-61, Dist. Mass.|CHARGE : 602 (b)-when shipped, the label of the article failed to bear the name |of the place of business of the distributor; and 602(c)-the information re- |quired to appear on the label under 602(b) (1) and (b) (2), namely, the name |and place of business of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor, and an |accurate statement of the quantity of the contents, was not prominently placed |on the label with such conspicuousness (as compared with other words and |f statements on the label) as to render such information likely to be read by |the ordinary individual under customary conditions of purchase and use.|DISPOSITION : 2-20-62. Default decree providing for destruction or delivery to |a public institution.|The cases reported herewith were instituted in the United States district |courts by United States attorneys, acting upon reports submitted by the Depart- |ment of Health, Education, and Welfare, and include, where indicated, the re- |sults of investigations by the Department, prior to the institution of the |proceedings.|Published by direction of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.|GEO. P. IiARKEOK, Commissioner of Food and Drugs. |WASHINGTON, D.C., August 6,1963.|Page|Cosmetics actionable because of |adulteration with uncertified |coal-tar colors |158|Cosmetics actionable because of|false and misleading claims. _ 158|CONTENTS|Page|Cosmetics actionable because of |inconspicuousness of required|label information |161|Index |162|Cosmetics subject to the drug pro- |visions of the Act |162|693-213-63 |157|211. Misbranding of Luseaux Duo-Purpose Flock Treatment and Luseaux Duo-Purpose Tablets. U. S. v. 9 Packages and 14 Packages of Luseaux Duo- Purpose Flock Treatment, et al. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00211April, 1941Luseaux LaboratoriesLuseaux Duo-Purpose Flock Treatment and Luseaux Duo-Purpose TabletsNovember 25, 1938Bothell, Wash.Los Angeles, Calif.Bothell, Wash.Western District of Washington211F. D. C. Nos. 462, 463, 464. Sample Nos. 57071-D, 57072-D, 64420-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00211ddnj|211. Misbranding of Luseaux Duo-Purpose Flock Treatment and Luseaux Duo-|Purpose Tablets. U. \"\"S. -v. 9 Packages and 14 Packages of Luseaux Duo-|Purpose Flock Treatment, et al. Default decree of condemnation and|? destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 462, 463, 464. Sample Nos. 57071-D.-57072-D,|64420-D.).|The labeling of these products bore false and misleading representations|regarding their efficacy in the conditions indicated hereinafter.|On August 22, 1939, the United States attorney for the Western District of|Washington filed a libel against 82 packages of the above-named products at|Bothell, Wash., alleging that the articles had been shipped in interstate com-|merce by Luseaux Laboratories in part on or about November 25, 1938, from|Los Angeles, Calif., and in part on or about May 10, 1939, from Gardeha, Calif.;|and charging that they were misbranded.|Analysis showed that the articles were of substantially the same composition|and consisted essentially of nicotine alkaloid, copper oxide, copper carbonate,|and kamala, with inert ingredients.|The articles were alleged to be misbranded in that representations that they|were efficacious as treatments for common tapeworms, were efficacious for the|treatment and control of both tapeworms and roundworms in poultry, that|tapeworm control is not as easy as giving a single treatment, that regular and|systematic combating is imperative when tapeworms are known to infest birds,|their houses, and runs and that portion of the design consisting of segmented|tapeworms, appearing in the labeling of both products and the representation|that it is impossible witlua single treatment to dislodge all attached tapeworm|heads in the labeling of the Flock Treatment, were false and misleading.|On March 25, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.|232. Eye liner pencils, eye shadow, and mascara.csnj00232August 1963Valdor LaboratoiresEye liner pencils, eye shadow, and mascara3-11-61Cleveland, OhioParis, FranceCleveland, OhioN. Dist. Ohio.232F. D. C. No. 46926. ,S. Nos. 95-003 R, 95-005 R, 95-010 R, 95-017/20 R, 95-221 R, 95-223 R, 95-225/7 R, 95-231/2 R, 95-234 R.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00232csnj|232. Eye liner pencils, eye shadow, and mascara. (F.D.C. No. 46926. ,S. Nos.|95-003 R, 95-005 R, 95-010 R, 95-017/20 R, 95-221 R, 95-223 R, 95-225/7 |R, 95-231/2 R, 95-234 R.)|QUANTITY: 276 eye liner pencils, 405 boxes of eye shadow, and 762 boxes of |mascara, at Cleveland, Ohio.|SHIPPED : 3-11-61, from Paris, France, by Valdor Laboratoires.|LABEL IN PART: (Pencil) \"\"Brun [or \"\"Mauve\"\"] Etincelle Eyeliner Made in |France Arcancil Paris\"\"; (etn.) \"\"Arcancil Paris 666 Eye Shadow - fard |paupieres * * * Laboratoires Valdor Paris * * * Mauve [or \"\"Turquoise\"\" |\"\"Vert Nacre\"\" \"\"Vert\"\" \"\"Turquoise Nacre\"\" or \"\"Mauve Nacre\"\"]\"\" and \"\"Arcancil |111 Paris * * * Fard Creme Auburn [or \"\"Chataincolor\"\" \"\"Bruncolor\"\" |\"\"Vert-Emeraude\"\" \"\"Noir-Andalou\"\" \"\"Violet-Opera] Laboratories Valdor Paris.\"\"|ACCOMPANYING LABELING: Leaflets entitled \"\"Guitare Paris Beauty Hints |Arcancil Paris.\"\"|RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION : Examination showed that the articles contained |synthetic organic colors not listed for use in products to be applied to the |area of the eye.|LIBELED : 2-6-62, N. Dist. Ohio.|CHARGE: 601(e)-when shipped, the articles contained synthetic organic colors |which were unsafe within the meaning of 706(a) since such synthetic organic |colors have not been provisionally listed for cosmetic use in the area of the |eye on the basis of prior commercial sale pursuant to Section 203 of the Color |Additive Amendments of 1960.|DISPOSITION : 3-31-62. Default-destruction.|COSMETICS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF FALSE AND MISLEADING|CLAIMS|233. Hair dressing.csnj00233August 1963Francis Anthony Agresti, t/a Robin Sales Co.Hair dressing1-31-62 ; 2-2-62Clinton, Md.Philadelphia, Pa.Clinton, Md.Dist. Md.233F. D. C. No. 47128. S. No. 5-301 T.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00233csnj|233. Hair dressing. (F.D.C. No. 47128. S. No. 5-301 T.)|QUANTITY: 10,548 btls. at Clinton, Md., in possession of Francisi Anthony |Agresti, t/a Robin Sales Co.|SHIPPED : 1-31-62 and 2-2-62, from Philadelphia, Pa.|RESULTS OP INVESTIGATION : Some of the article was unlabeled and some bore |the shipper's original labels. In the normal course of the dealer's business |operations, the original label was removed and the bottles were relabeled with |a counterfeit \"\"Vitalis With V7\"\" label. The dealer had on hand, quantities |of \"\"Vitalis With V7\"\" labels and shipping cases with bottle dividers. The |article was manufactured on the order of the dealer for the purpose of counter- |feiting \"\"Vitalis.\"\"|LIBELED : 2-8-62, Dist. Md.|CHARGE: 602(a)-while held for sale, the label designation \"\"Vitalis With V7 |* * * Bristol-Myers Co. New York, N.Y.\"\" was false and misleading as applied |to the article which was not \"\"Vitalis With V7\"\" manufactured by Bristol-Myers |Co.|DISPOSITION: 3-23-62. Default-12 bottles delivered to the Food and Drug |Administration and the remainder destroyed.|234. Hair dressing.csnj00234August 1963Francis Anthony Agresti, t/a Robin Sales Co.Hair dressing12-5-61Westbury, N.Y.Philadelphia, Pa.Westbury, N.Y.E. Dist. N.Y.234F. D. C. No. 47136. S. Nos. 39-515 T, 39-517 T.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00234csnj|234. Hair dressing. ,(F.D.C. No. 47136. <S. Nos. 39-515 T, 39-517 T.) |QUANTITY : 426 cases, each containing 12 15-oz. btls., at Westbury, N.Y. |SHIPPED: 11-22-61, from Philadelphia, Pa., by Francis Anthony Agresti, t/a|Robin Sales Co., New York, N.Y.; 12-5-61, by Zelart Drug Co., Westbury, |N.Y., to Jersey City, N.J., and subsequently returned to Westbury, N.Y.|RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION : The article was a counterfeit of \"\"Vitalis With V7,\"\" |bearing a counterfeit \"\"Vitalis With V7\"\" label. Analysis showed that the |article contained the coal-tar colors D&C Red No. 19 and FD&C Yellow No. 5, |which are not contained in the authentic \"\"Vitalis.\"\"|LIBELED : 2-27-62, E. Dist. N.Y.|CHARGE: 602(a)-when shipped, the bottle label of the article was false and |misleading in its entirety as applied to a product which purported and was |represented to be \"\"Vitalis With V7\"\" manufactured by Bristol-Myers Co., New |York, N.Y., but which was a counterfeit of \"\"Vitalis With V7\"\" bearing counter- |feit \"\"Vitalis With V7\"\" labels.|DISPOSITION : 3-30-62. Default-destruction.|235. Hair dressing.csnj00235August 1963Francis Anthony Agresti, t/a Robin Sales Co.Hair dressing\NPhiladelphia, Pa.South Charleston, W. Va. ; New York ; N.Y.Philadelphia, Pa.E. Dist. Pa.235F. D. C. No. 47195. 6. No. 42-892 T.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00235csnj|235. Hair dressing. (F.D.C. No. 47195. 6. No. 42-892 T.)|QUANTITY : 132 btls. at Philadelphia, Pa.|SHIPPED : The raw materials of the article had been shipped from South |Charleston, W. Va., and New York, N.Y., on unknown dates.|RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION : The article was a counterfeit of \"\"Vitalis With V7,\"\" |bearing a counterfeit \"\"Vitalis With V7\"\" label. Analysis showed that the |article contained the coal-tar colors D&C Red No. 19 and FD&C Yellow No. 5, |which are not contained in the authentic \"\"Vitalis.\"\" The article had been |manufactured and bottled by Emil Laboratories, Philadelphia, Pa., from raw |materials shipped in interstate commerce on order of Francis Anthony Agresti, |t/a Robin Sales Co., New York, N.Y.|LIBELED : 3-5-62, E. Dist. Pa.|CHARGE: 602(a)-while held for sale, the bottle label of the article was false |and misleading in its entirety as applied to a product which purported and |was represented to be \"\"Vitalis With V7\"\" manufactured by Bristol-Myers Co., |New York, N.Y., but which was a counterfeit of \"\"Vitalis With V7,\"\" bearing |counterfeit \"\"Vitalis With V7\"\" labels.|DISPOSITION : 4-4-62. Default-destruction.|242. Fastrength.csnj00242August 1964Fastrength, Inc.Fastrength9-9-63Chicago, Ill.Sherman Oaks, Calif.Chicago, Ill.N. Dist. Ill.242F. D. C. No. 49488. S. No. 14-026 X.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00242csnj|242. Fastrength. (F.D.C. No. 49488. S. No. 14-026 X.) |QUANTITY : 177 individually ctnd. btls. at Chicago, Ill.|SHIPPED: 9-9-63, from Sherman Oaks, Calif., to Chicago, Ill., by Fastrength, |Inc.|LABEL IN PART: (Ctn.) \"\"Fastrength Your Nails Best Friend Penetrates, |Strengthens Nails. Eliminates Splitting\"\" and (btl.) \"\"Fastrength Sherman |Oaks, Calif. Caution: Contains Formaldehyde, a strong sensitizer y2 Fl. Oz.\"\"|ACCOMPANYING LABELING: Carton insert reading in part \"\"Fastrength * * *|Directions * * * For External Use Only * * * Fastrength, Inc.\"\" |LIBELED : 10-25-63, N. Dist. Ill.|CHARGE: 601(a)-when shipped, the article contained a poisonous and dele- |terious substance, namely, formaldehyde, which may have rendered the article |injurious to users when used according to directions for use prescribed in its |labeling.|DISPOSITION : 12-2-63. Default-destruction.|236. Hair dressing (3 seizure actions).csnj00236August 1963Francis Anthony Agresti, t/a Robin Sales Co.Hair dressing (3 seizure actions)11-24-61 ; 1-4-62New York ; Brooklyn, N.Y. ; Clifton, N.J.Philadelphia, Pa.New York ; Brooklyn, N.Y. ; Clifton, N.J.S. Dist. N.Y., E. Dist. N.Y., and Dist. N.J.236F. D. C. Nos. 47134/5, 47141. S. Nos. 55-801/2 T; 39-516 T; 55-803 T.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00236csnj|236. Hair dressing (3 seizure actions). (F.D.C. Nos. 47134/5, 47141. S. Nos.|55-801/2 T; 39-516 T; 55-803 T.)|QUANTITY : 334 cases, each containing 12 15-oz. btls., at New York and Brook- |lyn, N.Y., and Clifton, N.J.|SHIPPED : Between 11-24-61 and 1-4-62, from Philadelphia, Pa., by Francis |Anthony Agresti, t/a Robin Sales Co., New York, N.Y.|RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION : The article was a counterfeit of \"\"Vitalis With V7,\"\" |bearing a counterfeit \"\"Vitalis With V7\"\" label. Analysis showed that the |article contained a coal-tar color, namely, FD&C Yellow No. 5, which was not |contained in the authentic \"\"Vitalis With V7.\"\" The article had been manu- |factured to the order of the shipper.|LIBELED: 2-16-62, 2-27-62, and 2-13-62; S. Dist. N.Y., E. Dist. N.Y., and |Dist. N.J.|CHARGE: 602(a)-when shipped, the bottle label of the article was false and |misleading in its entirety as applied to a product which purported and was |represented to be \"\"Vitalis With V7\"\" manufactured by Bristol-Myers Co., New |York, N.Y., but which was a counterfeit of \"\"Vitalis With V7,\"\" bearing counter- |feit \"\"Vitalis With V7\"\" labels.|DISPOSITION: 4-4-62; 3-30-62; 4-3-62. Default-destruction.|237. Hair dressing.csnj00237August 1963Fred MarksHair dressing1-16-62Pennsauken, N.J.New York, N.Y.Pennsauken, N.J.Dist. N.J.237F. D. C. No. 47558. S. No. 43-690 T.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00237csnj|237. Hair dressing. (F.D.C. No. 47558. ,S. No. 43-690 T.)|QUANTITY: 636 cases, each containing 12 15-oz. btls., at Pennsauken, N.J.|SHIPPED : 1-16-62, from New York, N.Y., by Fred Marks.|RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION : The article was a counterfeit of \"\"Vitalis With V7,\"\" |bearing a counterfeit \"\"Vitalis With V7\"\" label. Analysis showed that the article |contained the coal-tar colors D&C Red No. 19, FD&C Yellow No. 5, and FD&C |Red No. 2 which are not contained in the authentic \"\"Vitalis.\"\"|LIBELED : 4-25-62, Dist. N.J.|CHARGE: 602(a)-when shipped, the bottle label of the article was false and |misleading in its entirety as applied to a product which purported and was |represented to be \"\"Vitalis With V7\"\" manufactured by Bristol-Myers Co., New |York, N.Y., but which was a counterfeit of \"\"Vitalis With V7,\"\" bearing counter- |feit \"\"Vitalis With V7\"\" labels.|DISPOSITION : 6-7-62. Default-destruction.|238. Hair dressing (2 seizure actions).csnj00238August 1963Fred MarksHair dressing (2 seizure actions).12-29-61 ; 1-3-62Detroit and Warren, Mich.New York, N.Y.Detroit and Warren, Mich.E. Dist. Mich.238F. D. C. Nos. 47299, 47302. S. Nos. 67-581T; 25-886 T.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00238csnj|238. Hair dressing (2 seizure actions). , (F.D.O. Nos. 47299, 47302. S. Nos.|67-581T; 25-886 T.)|QUANTITY : 169 cases, containing 12 15-oz. btls. each, and 148 15-oz. btls., at |Detroit and Warren, Mich.|SHIPPED : 12-29-61 and 1-3-62, from New York, N.Y., by Fred Marks.|RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION : The article was a counterfeit of \"\"Vitalis With V7,\"\" |bearing a counterfeit \"\"Vitalis With V7\"\" label. Analysis showed that the |article contained a coal-tar color, namely, FD&C Yellow No. 5, which is not |contained in the authentic \"\"Vitalis.\"\"|LIBELED : 4-16-62, E. Dist. Mich.|CHARGE: 602(a)-when shipped, the bottle label of the article was false and |misleading in its entirety as applied to a product which purported to be \"\"Vi- |talis\"\" manufactured by Bristol-Myers Co., New York, N.Y., but which was |shown to be a counterfeit, bearing counterfeit \"\"Vitalis\"\" labels.|DISPOSITION: 6-29-62; 6-28-62. Default-delivered to a charitable corpora- |tion for use and not for resale.|239. Hair dressing (2 seizure actions).csnj00239August 1963Robin Sales Co.Hair dressing (2 seizure actions)12-28-61 ; 12-9-61Detroit, Mich. ; Richmond, Va.New York, N.Y.Detroit, Mich. ; Richmond, Va.E. Dist. Mich., E. Dist. Va.239F. D. C. Nos. 47303, 47398. S. Nos. 61-235 T; 4-059 T.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00239csnj|239. Hair dressing (2 seizure actions). (F.D.O. Nos. 47303, 47398. S. Nos.|61-235 T; 4-059 T.)|QUANTITY: 47 cases, each containing 12 15-oz. btls., at Detroit, Mich., and |Richmond, Va.|SHIPPED: 12-28-61 and 12-9-61, from New York, N.Y., by Robin Sales Co.|RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION : The article was a counterfeit of \"\"Vitalis With V7,\"\" |bearing a counterfeit \"\"Vitalis With V7\"\" label. Analysis showed that the |article contained a coal-tar color, namely, FD&C Yellow No. 5, which is not |contained in the authentic \"\"Vitalis.\"\" |,|LIBELED : 4-16-62, 3-21-62; E. Dist. Mich., E. Dist. Va.|CHARGE: 602(a)-when shipped, the bottle label of the article was false and |misleading in its entirety as applied to a product which purported to be \"\"Vi- |talis\"\" manufactured by Bristol-Myers Co., New York, N.Y., but which was a |counterfeit, bearing counterfeit \"\"Vitalis\"\" labels.|DISPOSITION: 6-29-62; 4-24-62. Default-9 cases delivered to a charitable |corporation for use and not for resale; remainder destroyed.|COSMETICS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF INCONSPICUOUSNESS OF |REQUIRED LABEL INFORMATION|240. Kings Men deodorant.csnj00240August 1963Helene Curtis Industries, Inc.Kings Men deodorant5-8-62 ; 6-1-62Vernon, Calif.Franklin Park, Ill.Vernon, Calif.S. Dist. Calif.240F. D. C. No. 47792. S. No. 64-871 T, 64-876 T.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00240csnj|240. Kings Men deodorant. (F.D.C. No. 47792. S. No. 64-871 T, 64-876 T.)|QUANTITY : 313 cases, each containing 6 btls. and 12 2V2-OZ. tubes, at Vernon, |Calif.|SHIPPED : 5-8-62 and 6-1-62, from Franklin Park, Ill., by Helene Curtis Indus- |tries, Inc.|LABEL IN PART: (Tube) \"\"Kings Men Stick Deodorant * * * Dist. by Kings |Men Chicago.\"\"|ACCOMPANYING LABELING: Shelf display stand reading, in part, \"\"Kings Men |Stick or Spray Active Deodorant Protection.\"\"|LIBELED : 7-3-62, S. Dist. Calif.|RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION: Some of the labeling of the article consisted of |printed matter formed in the plastic material of the recessed base of the |container in a noncontrasting color, which labeling was inconspicuous at time |of purchase and during use of the article.|CHARGE: 602(c)-when shipped, the information required to appear on the |label under 602(b) (1) and (2), namely, the name and place of business of |the manufacturer, packer, or distributor and the quantity of contents, was |not prominently placed thereon with such conspicuousness (as compared with |other words, statements, designs, or devices, in the labeling) as to render it |likely to be read by the ordinary individual under customary conditions of |purchase and use.|DISPOSITION : 10-24-62. Consent-claimed by Helene Curtis Industries, Inc., |Chicago, Ill., and relabeled.|243. Nail Strength.csnj00243August 1964Cosmetics by DorieNail Strength7-23-63Chicago, Ill.Pasadena, Calif.Chicago, Ill.N. Dist. Ill.243F. D. C. No. 49348. S. No. 13-507 X.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00243csnj|243. Nail Strength. (F.D.C. No. 49348. S. No. 13-507 X.)|QUANTITY: 7 ctns., each containing 12 ^-oz. btls., at Chicago, Ill.|SHIPPED : 7-23-63, from Pasadena, Calif., by Cosmetics by Dorie.|LABEL IN PART: (Btl.) \"\"Nail Strength Use only on nail tips * * * Caution: |* * * Cosmetics by Dorie Pasadena, California.\"\"|RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION : Analysis showed that the article contained approx- |imately 19 percent of formaldehyde. |LIBELED : 9-19-63, N. Dist. Ill.|CHARGE: 601(a)-when shipped, the article contained a poisonous and dele- |terious substance, namely, formaldehyde, which may have rendered the article |injurious to users when used according to directions for use in its labeling, |namely, the bottle label.|DISPOSITION : 10-21-63. Default-destruction.|244. Nail Strength.csnj00244August 1964Cosmetics by DorieNail Strength4-22-63Seattle, Wash.Pasadena, Calif.Seattle, Wash.W. Dist. Wash.244F. D. C. No. 49120. S. No. 51-381 X.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00244csnj|244. Nail Strength. (F.D.C. No. 49120. S. No. 51-381 X.) |QUANTITY : 10 ctns., each containing 12 %-oz. btls., at Seattle, Wash. |SHIPPED : 4-22-63, from Pasadena, Calif., by Cosmetics by Dorie.|LABEL IN PART: (Btl. fruit) \"\"Nail Strength\"\" and (btl. back) \"\"Use only on nail |tips. Apply once or twice a week before polish. Caution: External use only. |Cosmetics by Dorie Pasadena, California.\"\"|RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION : Analysis showed that the article contained approx- |imately 19 percent of formaldehyde.|LIBELED : 7-25-63, W. Dist. Wash.|CHARGE: 601(a)-when shipped, the article contained a poisonous and dele- |terious substance, namely, formaldehyde, which may have rendered the article |injurious to users when used according to directions for use in its labeling, |namely, the bottle label; and 602(c)-the information required to appear on |the labeling under sections 602(b) (1) and (2), namely, the name and address |of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor, and the statement of quantity of |contents, was not prominently placed thereon with such conspicuousness (as|compared with other words, statements, designs, or devices, in the labeling) |as to render it likely to be read by the ordinary individual under customary |conditions of purchase and use, since it was on the back panel.|DISPOSITION : 10-22-63. Default-destruction.|245. Nail Strength.csnj00245August 1964Cosmetics by DorieNail Strength8-27-63Billings, Mont.Altadena, Calif.Billings, Mont.Dist. Mont.245F. D. C. No. 49563. S. No. 52-985 X.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00245csnj|245. Nail Strength. (F.D.C. No. 49563. S. No. 52-985 X.)|QUANTITY : 10% ctns., each containing 12 %-oz. btls., at Billings, Mont. |SHIPPED : 8-27-63, from Altadena, Calif., by Cosmetics by Dorie.|LABEL IN PART: (Btl.) \"\"Nail Strength * * < Use Only On Nail Tips * * * |Cosmetics by Dorie Pasadena, California.\"\"|RESULTS OP INVESTIGATION : Analysis showed that the article contained approxi- |mately 1Y2 percent of formaldehyde.|LIBELED : 12-16-63, Dist. Mont.|CHARGE: 601(a)-when shipped, the article contained a poisonous and dele- |terious substance, namely, formaldehyde, which may have rendered the article |injurious to users when used according to directions for use in its labeling; |and 602(a)-the labeling of the article contained false and misleading repre- |sentations that the article was adequate and effective for assurance of long, |beautiful, and strong fingernails by preventing splitting, breaking, and peeling, |and by helping to promote healthy fingernails.|DISPOSITION : 1-9-64. Default-destruction.|246. Nail Strength.csnj00246August 1964Cosmetics by DorieNail Strength5-16-63 ; 11-13-63Denver, Colo.Altadena, Calif.Denver, Colo.Dist. Colo.246F. D. C. No. 49549. S. Nos. 21-737/8 X.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00246csnj|246. Nail Strength. (F.D.C. No. 49549. S. Nos. 21-737/8 X.) |QUANTITY : 33 ctns., each containing 12 %-oz. btls., at Denver, Colo.|SHIPPED: Between 5-16-63 and 11-13-63, from Altadena, Calif., by Cosmetics|by Dorie. |LABEL IN PART: (Btl.) \"\"Nail Strength Use Only on Nail Tips.\"\" |RESULTS OP INVESTIGATION : Analysis showed that the article contained approxi- |mately 1% percent of formaldehyde.|LIBELED : 12-2-63, Dist. Colo.; amended libel 12-11-63.|CHARGE: 601(a)-when shipped, the article contained a poisonous and delete- |rious substance, namely, formaldehyde, which may have rendered the article |injurious to users when used according to directions for use in its labeling.|DISPOSITION : 1-16-64. Default-destruction.|247. Cinnamon Hot Tooth Picks.csnj00247August 1964Baden'sCinnamon Hot Tooth Picks6-5-62 ; 6-27-62Riverside, Calif.Independence, Kans.Riverside, Calif.S. Dist. Calif.247F. D. C. No. 48457. S. No. 31-866 V.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00247csnj|247. Cinnamon Hot Tooth Picks. (F.D.C. No. 48457. S. No. 31-866 V.)|QUANTITY : 13 cases, 95 pkgs. each, at Riverside, Calif.|SHIPPED : 6-5-62 and 6-27-62, from Independence, Kans., by Baden's.|LABEL IN PART: (Pkg.) \"\"12 Cinnamon Hot Tooth Picks. Manufactured by |Baden's Independence, Kansas Imitation Flavor.\"\"|RESULTS OP INVESTIGATION : Analysis showed that the article contained 21.5 per- |cent by weight of oil of cinnamon or 19.0 percent by weight of trans-cinnamal- |dehyde.|LIBELED : 11-23-62, S. Dist. Calif.|CHARGE: 601(a)-when shipped, the article contained an added poisonous or |deleterious substance, namely, oil of cinnamon or trans-cinnamaldehyde, which |may render it injurious to users under the customary or usual conditions of |use.|DISPOSITION : 7-11-63. Default-destruction.|248. Cinnamon Hot Tooth Picks.csnj00248August 1964Baden'sCinnamon Hot Tooth Picks6-4-62 ; 6-15-62Long Beach, Calif.Independence, Kans.Long Beach, Calif.S. Dist. Calif.248F. D. C. No. 49056. S. No. 64-003 V.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00248csnj|248. Cinnamon Hot Tooth Picks. (F.D.C. No. 49056. S. No. 64-003 V.) |QUANTITY: 737 ctns., each containing 24 12-unit pkgs., at Long Beach, Calif. |SHIPPED: 6-4-62 and 6-15-62, from Independence, Kans., by Baden's. |LABEL IN PART : (Pkg.) \"\"Cinnamon Hot Tooth Picks Manufactured by Baden's|Independence, Kansas Imitation Flavor.\"\"|RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION : Analysis showed that the article contained approxi- |mately 20.4 percent oil of cinnamon or 18.2 percent cinnamaldehyde (cinnamic |aldehyde).|LIBELED : 7-25-63, S. Dist. Calif.|CHARGE: 601(a)-when shipped, the article contained an added poisonous or |deleterious substance, namely, oil of cinnamon or cinnamaldehyde, which may |render it injurious to users under customary or usual conditions of use.|DISPOSITION : 8-28-63. Default-destruction.|249. Cinnamon Hot Tooth Picks.csnj00249August 1964Baden'sCinnamon Hot Tooth Picks4-9-63 ; 4-24-63Dallas, Tex.Independence, Kans.Dallas, Tex.N. Dist. Tex.249F. D. C. No. 49080. S. No. 20-878 V.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00249csnj|249. Cinnamon Hot Tooth Picks. (F.D.C. No. 49080. S. No. 20-878 V.)|QUANTITY : 4 cases, each containing 2,304 12-unit pkgs., at Dallas, Tex.|SHIPPED: 4-9-63 and 4-24-63, from Independence, Kans., by Baden's.|LABEL IN PART : (Pkg.) \"\"Cinnamon Hot Tooth Picks Manufactured by Baden's |Independence, Kansas Imitation Flavor.\"\"|LIBELED : 6-12-63, N. Dist. Tex.|CHARGE: 601(a)-when shipped, the article contained an added poisonous or |deleterious substance, namely, oil of cinnamon or cinnamic aldehyde, which |might render it injurious to users under customary or usual conditions of |use.|DISPOSITION : 8-6-63. Default-destruction.|250. Cinnamon Hot Tooth Picks.csnj00250August 1964Baden'sCinnamon Hot Tooth Picks10-29-62Fort Worth, Tex.Independence, Kans.Fort Worth, Tex.N. Dist. Tex.250F. D. C. No. 48865. S. No. 60-443 V.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00250csnj|250. Cinnamon Hot Tooth Picks. (F.D.C. No. 48865. S. No. 60-443 V.) |QUANTITY: 100 ctns., each containing 24 12-unit pkgs., at Fort Worth, Tex. |SHIPPED : 10-29-62, from Independence, Kans., by Baden's.|LABEL IN PART: (Pkg.) \"\"12 Cinnamon Hot Toothpicks Manufactured by |Baden's Independence, Kansas Imitation Flavor.\"\"|RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION : Analysis showed that the article contained approxi- |mately 20 percent oil of cinnamon or approximately 22 percent cinnamic alde- |hyde (cinnamaldehyde).|LIBELED : 5-21-63, N. Dist. Tex.|CHARGE: 601(a)-when shipped, the article contained an added poisonous or |deleterious substance, namely, oil of cinnamon or cinnamic aldehyde, which |may render it injurious to users under customary or usual conditions of |use.|DISPOSITION : 8-3-63. Default-destruction.|251. Cinnamon Hot Tooth Picks.csnj00251August 1964Baden'sCinnamon Hot Tooth Picks6-15-62Vernon, Calif.Independence, Kans.Vernon, Calif.S. Dist. Calif.251F. D. C. No. 47753. S. No. 64-728 T.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00251csnj|251. Cinnamon Hot Tooth Picks. (F.D.C. No. 47753. S. No. 64-728 T.) |QUANTITY : 14 cases of 96 display-type ctns., each containing 24 12-unit pkgs.,|at Vernon, Calif.|SHIPPED : 6-15-62, from Independence, Kans., by Baden's.|LABEL IN PART: (Pkg.) \"\"Cinnamon Hot Tooth Picks Manufactured by Baden's |Independence, Kansas Imitation Flavor.\"\"|RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION : Examination showed that the article contained oil |of cinnamon or cinnamic aldehyde (cinnamaldehyde).|LIBELED : 7-2-62, S. Dist. Calif.|CHARGE: 601(a)-when shipped, the article contained an added poisonous or |deleterious substance, namely, oil of cinnamon or cinnamic aldehyde, which |may render it injurious to users under customary or usual conditions of use.|DISPOSITION: On 9-10-62, August T. Baden claimed the article; denied that |it was a cosmetic; denied that it was adulterated; admitted that there was |added a small fruition of a drop of oil of cinnamon or cinnamic aldehyde; and |denied that the article was in any way injurious to users or others.|On 12-14-62, the Government served written interrogatories on the defend- |ants. On 10-29-63, by a stipulation withdrawing the claimant's answer and |claim, a default decree of condemnation and destruction was filed.|COSMETICS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF INSANITARY CONDITIONS|252. Various cosmetics.csnj00252August 1964C. G. Urness, t/a World SalvageVarious cosmetics12-4-64Minneapolis, Minn.\NMinneapolis, Minn.Dist. Minn.252F. D. C. No. 49559. S. No. 34-660 X.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00252csnj|252. Various cosmetics. (F.D.C. No. 49559. S. No. 34-660 X.)|QUANTITY : 50 bushel baskets containing various cosmetics, such as pressurized |7-oz. cans of hair spray, at Minneapolis, Minn., in possession of C. G. Urness, |t/a World Salvage.|SHIPPED: Prior to 12-4-64, by unknown shippers, from outside the State of |Minnesota.|RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION : Investigation showed that various foods, drugs, |and cosmetics were subject to fire damage on or about 12-6-61, and that they |had been held in basement storage at a retail drug store in Minneapolis, prior |to receipt by the dealer. The containers were either unlabeled or bore labels |damaged by fire, smoke, or water, and the cans were rusted and contaminated |with dirt and debris.|The foods and drugs were also libeled, as is reported in notices of judgment |on foods, No. 29500, and in notices of judgment on drugs and devices, No. |7750. |The articles were being held for sale by the dealer.|LIBELED : 12-9-63, Dist. Minn.|CHARGE: 601(c)-while held for sale, the articles had been held under insani- |tary conditions; 602(b) (1)-the articles failed to bear a label containing the |name and place of business of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor; aud |602(b)(2)-the articles failed to bear a label containing an accurate state- |ment of the quantity of the contents.|DISPOSITION : 12-24-63. Consent-destruction.|COSMETICS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF FALSE AND MISLEADING|CLAIMS*|253. Hair dressing.csnj00253August 1964Francis Anthony Agresti, t/a Robin Sales Co.Hair dressing12-14-61New York, N.Y.Philadelphia, Pa.New York, N.Y.S. Dist. N.Y.253F. D. C. No. 47187. S. No. 55-804 T.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00253csnj|253. Hair dressing. (F.D.C. No. 47187. S. No. 55-804 T.)|QUANTITY : 23 cases, each containing 12 15-oz. btls., at New York, N.Y. |SHIPPED: 12-14-61, from Philadelphia, Pa., by Francis Anthony Agresti, t/a |Robin Sales Co., New York, N.Y.|*See also No. 245.|RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION : The article was a counterfeit of \"\"Vitalis With |V7,\"\" bearing a counterfeit \"\"Vitalis With V7\"\" label. Analysis showed that |the article contained a coal-tar color, namely, FD&C Yellow No. 5, which |was not contained in the authentic \"\"Vitalis With V7.\"\" The article had been |manufactured to the order of the shipper.|LIBELED : 3-12-62, S. Dist. N.Y.|CHARGE: 602(a)-when shipped, the bottle label of the article was false and |misleading in its entirety as applied to a product which purported to be |\"\"Vitalis With V7\"\" manufactured by Bristol-Myers Co., New York, N.Y., but |which was a counterfeit of \"\"Vitalis With V7,\"\" bearing counterfeit \"\"Vitalis |With V7\"\" labels.|DISPOSITION : On or about 4-3-62. Default-destruction.|254. Ex-Cel-Cis Foot-Eze, Ex-Cel-Cis Milk White cleanser, and Ex-Cel-Cis Magic Youth crystals, lotion, and cream.csnj00254August 1964Ex-Cel-Cis Beauty Products Co., Inc.Ex-Cel-Cis Foot-Eze, Ex-Cel-Cis Milk White cleanser, and Ex-Cel-Cis Magic Youth crystals, lotion, and cream12-9-61 ; 2-27-62Lakewood, Colo.Salt Lake City, Utah.Lakewood, Colo.Dist. Colo.254F. D. C. No. 48821. S. Nos. 22644 V, 22-646/7 V.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00254csnj|254. Ex-Cel-Cis Foot-Eze, Ex-Cel-Cis Milk White cleanser, and Ex-Cel-Cis|Magic Youth crystals, lotion, and cream. (F.D.C. No. 48821. S. Nos. 22- |644 V, 22-646/7 V.)|QUANTITY: 13 8-oz. btls. of Foot-Eze; 56 1%-oz. btls. of cream; 3 ctns., each |containing 12 4-oz. btls. of cleanser; 2 ctns., each containing 6 1-oz. btls. of |crystals ; and 4 ctns. of Ex-Cel-Cis 3 Star Magic Youth Set, each ctn. containing |1 btl., each, of cream, cleanser, crystals, and lotion, at Lakewood, Colo.|SHIPPED : Between 12-9-61 and 2-27-62, from Salt Lake City, Utah, by Ex-Cel- |Cis Beauty Products Co., Inc.|LABEL IN PART: (Btl.) \"\"Foot-Eze * * * Ex-Cel-Cis, Inc., Distr.,\"\" (btl.) \"\"Milk |White Cleanser Ex-Cel-Cis, Inc., Distr.,\"\" and (btls.) \"\"Magic Youth Cream |[or \"\"Crystals\"\" or \"\"Roll-Off Lotion\"\"] Ex-Cel-Cis, Inc., Distr.\"\"|ACCOMPANYING LABELING: Leaflets entitled \"\"Stay Young and Gay The Ex-Cel- |Cis Way\"\" and \"\"Ex-Cel-Cis Cosmetics of Distinction in Living Color.\"\"|RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION : Examination showed that the Magic Youth cream |was a cream-colored semisolid having an oily texture and perfumed odor; |that the Milk White cleanser and the Roll-Off lotion were white liquids having |an oily texture and perfumed odor; that Magic Youth crystals was a pink, |homogeneous, granular material having a perfumed odor; and that the Foot- |Eze was an amber, transparent, oily liquid having an odor of camphor and |ammonia.|LIBELED : 3-26-63, Dist. Colo.|CHARGE: 602(a)-when shipped, the label of the Foot-Eze contained false and |misleading representations that the article was adequate and effective for |preventing foot odor and as a treatment for athlete's foot; and 602(a)-the |labeling of the other articles contained false and misleading representations |that the articles were adequate and effective for rejuvenating the facial |appearance by erasing wrinkles due to aging, and as a treatment for teen-age |acne, skin blemishes, blackheads, whiteheads, and skin discoloration.|DISPOSITION : 5-29-63. Default-destruction.|COSMETICS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF INCONSPICUOUSNESS OF |REQUIRED LABEL INFORMATION*|255. 5 Day stick deodorant.csnj00255August 1964Five Day Laboratories5 Day stick deodorant12-18-61 ; 12-27-61Milwaukee, Wis.Chicago, Ill.Milwaukee, Wis.E. Dist. Wis.255F. D. C. No. 48749. S. No. 13-870 V.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00255csnj|255. 5 Day stick deodorant. (F.D.C. No. 48749. S. No. 13-870 V.) |QUANTITY : 84 21/4-oz. btls., at Milwaukee, Wis.|?See also No. 244.|SHIPPED: Between 12-18-61 and 12-27-61, from Chicago, Ill., by Five Day |Laboratories.|LABEL IN PART: (Btl.) \"\"5 Day Stick Deodorant Five Day Labs. Chicago.\"\"|RESULTS OP INVESTIGATION : The article was contained in a white, opaque, cyl- |inder-shaped plastic bottle. The manufacturer's name and address and quan- |tity of contents statement were formed in the plastic base of the container and |were inconspicuous due to the location, size of print, and lack of contrasting |color.|LIBELED : 4-18-63, E. Dist. Wis.|CHARGE: 602(c)-when shipped, the information required to appear on the |label under 602(b) (1) and (2), namely, the name and place of business of |the manufacturer, packer, or distributor, and quantity of contents statement, |was not prominently placed thereon with such conspicuousness (as compared |with other words, statements, designs, or devices, in the labeling) as to render |it likely to be read by the ordinary individual under customary conditions of |purchase and use.|DISPOSITION : 5-9-63. Default-destruction.|256. Shampoo.csnj00256August 1964Clairol, Inc.Shampoo1-24-63Boston, Mass.Stamford, Conn.Boston, Mass.Dist. Mass.256F. D. C. No. 48823. S. No. 8-361 V.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domaincsnj00256csnj|256. Shampoo. (F.D.C. No. 48823. S. No. 8-361 V.)|QUANTITY: 283 8-oz. btls., and 72 display ctns., each containing 3 8-oz. btls.,|at Boston, Mass. |SHIPPED : 1-24-63, from Stamford, Conn., by Clairol, Inc. |LABEL IN PART : (Btl.) \"\"Clairol The Colorfast Shampoo.\"\"|RESULTS OP INVESTIGATION : Examination showed that the article was a deep |blue-colored liquid contained in a clear glass bottle on which the manufac- |turer's name and address and the quantity of contents statement were incon- |spicuous due to being printed on the reverse side of the sticker label and could |not be read through the intense blue color of the liquid within the bottle.|LIBELED : 3-25-63, Dist. Mass.|CHARGE: 602(C)-when shipped, the information required to appear on the |labeling under 602(b), namely, (1) the name and place of business of the |manufacturer, packer, or distributor, and (2) an accurate statement of the |quantity of the contents, was not prominently placed thereon with such con- |spicuousness (as compared with other words, statements, designs, or devices, |in the labeling) as to render it likely to be read by the ordinary individual |under customary conditions of purchase and use.|DISPOSITION : 6-10-63. Default-the court ordered that the article be de- |stroyed or delivered to a charitable institution.|1. Misbranding of B. C. Headache Powders, U. S. v. 46 Dozen Packages of B. C. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00001May 1940B. C. Remedy Co.B. C. Headache PowdersNovember 30, 1938Atlanta, Ga.Durham, N. C.Atlanta, Ga.Northern District of Georgia1F. D. C. No. 111. Sample No. 25097-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00001ddnj|1. Misbranding of B. C. Headache Powders, V. S. v. 46 Dozen Packages of|D. C. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 111.|Sample No. 25097-D.)|These powders consisted essentially of acetanilid, aspirin, caffeine, and|potassium bromide. They would be dangerous to health when used in the dosage|or with the frequency or duration prescribed, recommended, or suggested in|the labeling, which directed a dosage of one powder which might be repeated|once or twice at intervals of 3 or 4 hours if indicated. Its labeling failed to|reveal facts material with respect to the consequences which might result from|the use of the article under the conditions of use prescribed in the labeling|and failed to bear warnings against use in pathological conditions where its|use might be dangerous to health or against unsafe dosage or duration of|administration.|On or about January 4, 1939, the United States attorney for the Northern|District of Georgia filed a libel against 46 dozen packages of B. C. Headache|Powders at Atlanta, Ga.; alleging that the article had been shipped in inter-|state commerce on or about November 30, 1938, by B. C. Remedy Co. from|Durham, N. 0,; and charging that it was misbranded for the reasons appearing|above.|1 Notices of Judgment under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act are published|in three series: Foods (F. N. J.) ; Drugs and Devices (D. D. N. J.) ; and Cosmetics|(C. N. J.).|220127*-40 1 |IRECE i '?/ ED J?Hr MAY 2 81940 * ||it be permitted to withdraw its claim and answer, such petition having been|granted, and no answer or defense being before the court at that time, judgment|of condemnation was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|2. Misbranding of Stanback Headache Powders. U. S. v. 309 Dozen Packages of Stanback Headache Powders. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00002May 1940Stanback Co. from Salisbury, N. C.Stanback Headache PowdersMarch 23, 1939Atlanta, Ga.Salisbury, N. C.Atlanta, Ga.Northern District of Georgia2F. D. C. No. 207. Sample Nos. 44801-D, 44863-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00002ddnj|2. Misbranding of Stanback Headache Powders. U. S. v. 309 Dozen Packages|of Stamback Headache Powders. Default decree of condemnation and|destruction. (P. D. C. No. 207. Sample Nos. 44801-D, 44863-D.)|These powders contained acetanilid, potassium bromide, aspirin, caffeine, and|a trace of sodium bicarbonate. They would be dangerous to health when used|in the dosage or with the frequency prescribed, recommended, or suggested in|the labeling, which bore directions that one powder be taken for relief #dM;he|discomfort of simple headache and neuralgia, and muscular aches and r)a*ns, ?nd|that another powder might be taken in SO minutes if necessary; that eee..*|powder be taken as a sedative, to be repeated in 2 or 3 hours if necessaryy -|and that one powder be taken at the first sign of a cold and one 2 hours later|for relief of the discomfort of simple head colds; and stated that one powder|at night just before retiring was especially recommended for such head colds.|Its labeling failed to reveal facts material with respect to the consequences|which might result from its use under the conditions of use prescribed in the|labeling and failed to bear wirnings against use in those pathological condi-|tions in which its use might be dangerous to health, or against unsafe dosage or|duration of administration.|On March 23, 1939, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Georgia filed a libel against 309 dozen packages of Stanback Headache Powders|at Atlanta, Ga., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate com-|merce within the period from on or about January 12 to on or about March 8,|1939, by the Stanback Co. from Salisbury, N. G.; and charging that it was|misbranded for the reasons appearing hereinbefore.|On April 15, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|3. Misbranding of Goody's Headache Powder. U. S. v. 1,524 Envelopes of Goody's Headache Powder. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00003May 1940Goody's, Inc.Goody's Headache PowderMarch 1, 1939Columbia, S. C.Winston-Salem, N. C.Columbia, S. C.Eastern District of South Carolina3F. D. C. No. 211. Sample No. 45525-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00003ddnj|3. Misbranding of Goody's Headache Powder. TJ. S. v. 1,524 Envelopes of|Goody's Headache Powder. Default decree of condemnation and destruc-|tion. (F. D. C. No. 211. Sample No. 45525-D.)|These powders contained potassium bromide, acetanilid, aspirin, and caffeine.|They would be dangerous to health when used in the dosage or with the fre-|quency or duration prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling, which|directed that for headaches and neuralgia one powder be taken, and repeated in|2 hours if necessary, with succeeding doses in 3 or 4 hours if necessary; that|for muscular aches and pains one powder be taken and repeated in 3 or 4|hours as required; that as a sedative for discomfort of headaches due to au-|tomobile and train travel, one powder be taken and repeated in 2 hours if|necessary; that for simple head colds and for reducing simple fever one powder|be taken as soon as symptoms appear, to be repeated in 3 or 4 hours if re-|quired. Its labeling also failed to reveal facts material in the light of the|said directions and similar representations on the envelope, and failed to|reveal facts material with respect to consequences which might result from|use of the article under the conditions of use prescribed in the labeling, and|failed to bear adequate warnings against use of the article in those pathological|conditions or by children where its use might be dangerous to health, or against|unsafe dosage or methods or duration of administration, in such manner and|form as are necessary for the protection of users.|On April 4, 1939, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|South Carolina filed a libel against 1,524 envelopes of Goody's Headache|Powder at Columbia, S. C.; alleging that the article had been shipped in in-|terstate commerce on or about March 1, 1939, by Goody's, Inc., from Winston-|Salem, N. C.; and charging that it was misbranded for the reasons appearing|above.|On May 24, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|5. Misbranding of Hed-Lyte. U. S. v. 93 Bottles of Hed-Lyte. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00005May 1940Hed-Lyte Co.Hed-LyteMarch 6, 1939Shreveport, La.Dallas, Tex.Shreveport, La.Western District of Louisiana5F. D. C. No. 225. Sample No. 38055-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00005ddnj|5. Misbranding of Hed-Lyte. U. S. v. 93 Bottles of Hed-Lyte. Default decree|of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 225. Sample No. 38055-D.)|This drug contained acetanilid, sodium bromide, and caffeine. Its labeling|contained representations that it would relieve pain in simple headaches, simple|neuralgia, and muscular aches and pains; that it was indicated in feverish|conditions due to colds and for nervousness due to excesses; that it would|lessen the perception of pain and distress during menstruation and generally|result in increased comfort, and was of value in relieving nervousness and simple|headache which might be attributed to or might follow alcoholic or tobacco|excess. The labeling contained directions that 2 teaspoonfuls be taken in|water, to be repeated in 30 or 40 minutes if not relieved, and that the third|dose should not be taken until 2 hours after the second, with dosage for children|in proportion.|It would be dangerous to health when used in the dosage or with the fre-|quency or duration so prescribed, recommended, or suggested and its label|failed to reveal facts material with respect to consequences which might|result under the conditions of use prescribed in its labeling or under such|conditions of use as are customary or usual and failed to bear adequate warn-|ings against its use in those pathological conditions or by children where its|use might be dangerous to health, or against unsafe dosage or methods or|duration of administration in such manner and form as are necessary for the|protection of users.|On May 1, 1939, the United States attorney for the Western District of|Louisiana filed a libel against 93 bottles of Hed-Lyte at Shreveport, La.;|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|March 6, 1939, by the Hed-Lyte Co. from Dallas, Tex.; and charging that it|was misbranded for the reasons stated above.|On June 30, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|6. Misbranding of Dixie Fever and Pain Powder. U. S. v. 243 Packages and 193 Packages of Dixie Fever and Pain Powder. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00006May 1940Swamp & Dixie Laboratories, Inc.Dixie Fever and Pain PowderDecember 12, 1938, and January 12, 1939Oklahoma City, Okla.Fort Smith, Ark.Oklahoma City, Okla.Western District of Oklahoma6F. D. C. Nos. 217, 218. Sample Nos. 36991-D, 36992-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00006ddnj|6. Misbranding of Dixie Fever and Pain Powder. XT. S. v. 243 Packages and 193|Packages of Dixie Fever and Pain Powder. Default decrees of condemna-|tion and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 217, 218. Sample Nos. 36991-D, 36992-D.)|These powders contained acetanilid, sodium bicarbonate, caffeine, and|charcoal. They would be dangerous to health when used in the dosage or with|the frequency prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling which con-|tained directions that for simple headache, neuralgia, head colds, and general|relief of inorganic pains, one powder be taken, to be repeated in 2 hours if|necessary, that in case of fever, one powder be taken every 2 hours until fever is|reduced, that if the fever is very high ? powder be taken every hour, that for|children 8 to 12 years of age, ^4 to ? a powder be given according to age every|2 hours.|On April 12,1939, the United States attorney for the Western District of Okla-|homa filed a libel against 436 packages of Dixie Fever and Pain Powder at|Oklahoma City, Okla.; alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate|commerce on or about December 12, 1938, and January 12, 1939, by the Swamp &|Dixie Laboratories, Inc., from Fort Smith, Ark.; and charging that it was mis-|branded for the reasons appearing hereinbefore.|On May 13, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgments of condemnation|were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|7. Misbranding of E E Powders. U. S. v. 936 Cartons of E. E. Powders. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00007May 1940E E Medicine Co.E E PowdersOctober 7, 1938Lincolnton, N. C.Greenville, S. C.Lincolnton, N. C.Western District of North Carolina7F. D. C. No. 197. Sample No. 44932-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00007ddnj|7. Misbranding of E E Powders. U. S. v. 936 Cartons of E. E. Powders. De|fault decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 197. Sample|No. 44932-D.)|These powders contained acetanilid, acetylsalicylic acid, and potassium bromide,|and would have been dangerous to health when used as prescribed, recommended,|or suggested in the labeling. They were recommended in the labeling for the|relief of simple headache, neuralgia, muscular aches and pains, head colds, and|as an aid in reducing fever, with directions that 1 powder be taken and repeated|in 1 hour, if needed, for simple headache; that 1 powder be taken every 3 hours for|head colds and for reducing fever, and that ? powder be given to children under|10 years of age every 3 hours. Its labeling also failed to reveal facts material|with respect to the consequences which might result from its use under conditions|of use prescribed therein and failed to bear warnings against use in those patho-|logical conditions or by children where its use might be dangerous to health or,|against unsafe dosage or methods or duration of administration in such manner/|and form as are necessary for the protection of users. The labeling was further|objectionable because of the misleading statement on the envelope and shipping,|cartons that each powder contained 4 grains of acetanilid, since each powder con-|tained approximately 4.99 grains of acetanilid.|On March 10, 1939, the United States attorney for the Western District of|North Carolina filed a libel against 936 cartons of E E Powders at Lincolnton,|N. O.; alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or|about October 7,1938, by the E E Medicine Co. from Greenville, S. C.; and charg-|ing that it was misbranded.|The libel alleged that the article was also misbranded in violation of the Food|and Drugs Act of June 30, 1906, reported in notice of judgment No. 30881 pub-|lished under that act|On April 8, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|8. Misbranding of Causalin. U. S. v. 44 Packages of Causalin (and 4 other seizure actions against the same product). Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00008May 1940Amfre Drug Co.Causalinfrom July 1 to August 22, 1938Newark, N. J.; Providence, R. I.New York, N. Y.Newark, N. J.; Providence, R. I.District of New Jersey, District of Rhode Island, and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania8F. D. C. Nos. 14, 69, 70, 71, 72. Sample Nos. 25962-D, 25963-D, 25964-D, 30071-D, 30074-D, 30092-D, 30097-D, 35567-D, 35569-D, 35570-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00008ddnj|8. Misbranding; of Causalln. U. S. v. 44 Packages of Causalln (and 4 other|seizure actions against the same product). Default decrees of condemna-|tion and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 14, 69, 70, 71, 72. Sample Nos. 25962-D,|25963-D, 25964-D, 30071-D, 30074-D, 30092-D, 30097-D, 35567-D, 35569-D,|35570-D.)|This product consisted of capsules and tablets containing aminopyrine (aminodi-|methylpyrazolon), salicylic ethyl ester carbonate, and a sulfonate such as quino-|linesulf onate. It would be dangerous to health when used in the dosage, or with the|frequency prescribed, recommended, and suggested in the labeling in which it was|recommended that it be taken in the dosage as directed by the physician, that is,|1 to 2 tablets or capsules 3 times a day ? hour before meals.|On July 27, September 1, and September 8,1938, the United States attorneys for|the District of New Jersey, District of Rhode Island, and the Eastern District of|Pennsylvania filed libels against 44 packages of Causalin at Newark, N. J.; 46|packages at Providence, E. I.; and 121 packages of the product at Philadelphia,|Pa.; alleging that it had been shipped in interstate commerce by the Amfre Drug|Co. from New York, N. Y., within the period from on or about July 1 to on or|about August 22, 1938; and charging that it was misbranded for the reasons|appearing above.|The libels also charged that the article was adulterated and misbranded in|violation of the Food and Drugs Act, as reported in notice of judgment No. 29757|published under that act.|On September 7, September 20, and October 5,1938, no claimant having appeared,|judgments of condemnation were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|9. Misbranding of Causalin. U. S. v. 89 Packages, et al., of Causalin. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00009May 1940Amfre Drug Co.CausalinOctober 26, 1988, to on or about April 5, 1939Boston, Mass.New York, N. Y.Boston, Mass.District of Massachusetts9F. D. C. Nos. 226, 227. Sample Nos. 35890-D, 35895-D, 59756-D to 59759-D, Incl.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00009ddnj|9. Misbranding' of Causalln. U. S. v. 89 Packages, et al., of Causalln. Default|decrees of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 226, 227. Sample|Nos. 35890-D, 35895-D, 59756-D to 59759-D, Incl.)|This product consisted of tablets and capsules containing aminopyrine, salicylic|ethyl ester carbonate, and quinolinesulfonate. It would be dangerous to health|when used in the dosage suggested in the labeling, in which it was recommended|that it be taken in the dosage directed by the physician. Its labeling failed to|reveal facts material with respect to the consequences which might result from|its use under the conditions of use prescribed in its labeling or under such con-|ditions of use as are customary or usual, and it failed to bear adequate warnings|against unsafe dosage or methods or duration of administration in such manner|and form as are necessary for the protection of users.|filed libels against 836 packages of Causalin at Boston, Mass.; alleging that|the article had been shipped in interstate commerce by the Amfre Drug Co.|from New York, N. Y., within the period from on or about October 26, 1988,|to on or about April 5, 1939; and charging that it was misbranded for the|reasons stated above.|On August 8, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgments of condemnation|were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|227. Misbranding of 666 Nose Drops. U. S. v. 96 Retail Packages of 666 Nose Drops. Consent decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00227April, 1941Monticello Drug Co.666 Nose DropsJuly 31, 1939, and January 18, 1940Atlanta, Ga.Jacksonville, Fla.Atlanta, Ga.Northern District of Georgia227F. D. C. No. 78. Sample No. 87. 673-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00227ddnj|227. Misbranding of 666 Nose Drops. U. S. v. 96 Retail Packages of 666 Nose|Drops. Consent decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No.|78. Sample No. 87.673-D.)|The cartons enclosing this product each contained a bottle of a medicament,|a dropper, a circular, and a large corrugated paper liner. ? The bottle of medica-|ment occupied not more than one-fourth of the space in the carton.|*See also N. J. Nos. 141, 159, 175, 178, 180, 181, 222 \"\"S24, 232, 233, 236, 237, 240-243.|248, and 249.|On February 9, 1940, the United States attorney for the Northern District|of Georgia filed a libel against 96 retail packages of 666 Nose Drops at.|Atlanta, Ga., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce|on or about July 31, 1939, and January IS, 1940, by the Monticello Drug Co.|from Jacksonville, Fla.; and charging that it was misbranded in that its con-|tainers were so made, formed, or filled as to be misleading.|On February 28, 1940, the Monticello Drug Co. appeared as claimant and|filed an answer denying the misbranding alleged in the libel. On March 11,|1940, an order was entered in the Northern District of Georgia removing the|cause for trial to the Southern District of Georgia. On June 24, 1940, the:;|claimant having, ^without prejudice, withdrawn its claim, and answer., and-|having consented to the entry of a decree, judgment was entered condemning|the product, without prejudice, and ordering that it be destroyed and that costs|be taxed against the claimant.|10. Misbranding of Cal-co-cin. U. S. v. 1 Package and 2 Bottles of Cal-co-cin. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00010May 1940Crescent-Kelvan Co.Cal-co-cinAugust 17 and October 20, 1938Frederick, Md.Philadelphia, Pa.Frederick, Md.District of Maryland10F. D. C. Nos. 90-A, 101. Sample Nos. 34424-D, 34644-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00010ddnj|10. Misbranding of Cal-co-cin. U. S. v. 1 Package and 2 Bottles of Cal-eo-dn.|Default decrees of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 90-A, 101.|Sample Nos. 34424-D, 34644-D.)|This drug consisted of the calcium' salts of benzoic acid and cinchophen. It|would be dangerous to health when used in the dosage or with the frequency|prescribed, recommended, and suggested in the labeling, which directed the|dosage of one capsule four times a day, that is, after meals and on retiring.|On November 10 and 23, 1938, the United States attorney for the District|of Maryland filed libels against one package, containing 400 capsules of|Cal-co-cin, at Frederick, Md., and 2 bottles, containing 900 capsules of Cal-co-cin,|at Taneytown, Md.; alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate|commerce from Philadelphia, Pa., on or about August 17 and October 20, 1938,|by the Crescent-Kelvan Co.; and charging that it was misbranded for the reasons|stated above.|The libels alleged that the article was also misbranded in violation of the|Pood and Drugs Act of 1906, as reported in notice of judgment No. 30202 published|under that act.|On December 5 and December 15, 1938, no claimant having appeared, judg-|ments of condemnation were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|11. Misbranding of Volz Anti-Rheumin. U. S. v. 754 Cartons of Volz Anti Rheumin. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00011May 1940Strong, Cobb & Co., Inc.Volz Anti-RheuminOctober 13, 1938Erie, Pa.Cleveland, OhioErie, Pa.Western District of Pennsylvania11F. D. C. No. 103. Sample No. 42878-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00011ddnj|11. Misbranding of Volz Anti-Rhenmin. IT. S. v. 754 Cartons of \"\"Volz Anti-|Rheumin. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No.|103. Sample No. 42878-D.)|This product consisted of capsules containing cinchophen, acetophenetidin,|aspirin, lithium salicylate, and cinchona bark. It would be dangerous to health|when used in the dosage and with the frequency or duration prescribed, recom-|mended, and suggested in the labeling, which bore directions that it be taken:|8 capsules a day, 2 after breakfast, 2 after noonday meal, 2 after evening meal,|and 2 immediately before retiring, as indicated for acute rheumatic fever, to be|continued until after pain and fever subside then 4 to 6 capsules a day, children|8 capsules a day, the dosage also indicated for muscular aches and pains,|muscular lumbago, simple headaches, simple neuralgia, and gout.|On December 8, 1938, the United States attorney for the Western District of|Pennsylvania filed a libel against 754 cartons of Volz Anti-Eheumin at Erie, Pa.;|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|October 13,1938, by Strong, Cobb & Co., Inc., from Cleveland, Ohio; and charging|that it was misbranded for the reasons stated above. The product was shipped|in bulk and was packaged and labeled at Erie, Pa., while in interstate commerce,|by Robert W. Brooks, trading as the Volz Co., the promoter of the product,|which firm ordered the goods from the shipper.|On January 17, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|12. Misbranding of Cachets Algocratine. U. S. v. 224 Boxes of Cachets Algocratine. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00012May 1940E. LancosmeCachets AlgocratineAugust 18, 1938New York, N. Y.Paris, FranceNew York, N. Y.Southern District of New York12F. D. C. No. 193. Sample No. 69701-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00012ddnj|12.. Misbranding of Cachets Algocratine. V. S. v. 224 Boxes of Cachets Algoera-|tine. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 193.|Sample No. 69701-D.)|This product contained phenacetin (acetophenetidin), aminopyrine, and a|small proportion of caffeine. It would be dangerous to health when used in the|dosage or with the frequency or duration prescribed, recommended, or suggested|in the labeling, in which it was represented that each cachet contained 4? grains|of phenacetin, a derivative of acetanilid, and that it be taken in the dosage of|one cachet, to be repeated in an hour if required, and that it was rarely necessary|to exceed a daily dose of three or four.|On March 7, 1939, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|New York filed a libel against 224 boxes of Cachets Algocratine at New York,|N. Y.; alleging that the article had been shipped from Paris, France, by E.|Lancosme, arriving at the Port of New York on or about August 18, 1938; and|charging that it was misbranded for the reasons appearing above.|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|13. Misbranding of Cidic Comfort Compound. U. S. v. 8 Boxes of Cidic Comfort Compound. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00013May 1940Hy'ne Co.Cidic Comfort Compoundabout November 4, 1938Gary, Ind.Chicago, Ill.Gary, Ind.Northern District of Indiana13F. D. C. No. 116. Sample No. 32661-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00013ddnj|13. Misbranding of Gidic Comfort Compound. IT. S. v. 8 Boxes of Cidic Comfort|Compound. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C.|No. 116. Sample No. 32661-D.)|This drug consisted of capsules containing aminopyrine. It would be dan-|gerous to health when used in the dosage and with the frequency or duration|prescribed, recommended, and suggested in the labeling, which directed that|one capsule be taken at the first sign of period and that if muscular pain per-|sisted a second capsule should be taken. Its label also failed to reveal facts|material with respect to consequences which might result from the use of the|article under the conditions of use prescribed therein.|On January 17, 1939, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Indiana filed a libel against 8 boxes of Cidic Comfort Compound at Gary, Ind.;|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on about No-|vember 4, 1938, by the Hy'ne Co., from Chicago, 111.; and charging that it was|misbranded for the reasons stated above.|On March 3, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|14. Misbranding of Barmidon Tablets. U. S. v. 7 Bottles of Barmidon Tablets. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00014May 1940Endo Products, Inc.Barmidon TabletsOctober 26 and November 25, 1938Dayton, OhioNew York, N. Y.Dayton, OhioSouthern District of Ohio14F. D. C. Nos. 104, 105. Sample Nos. 58666-D, 58667-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00014ddnj|14. Misbranding- of Barmidon Tablets. TJ. S. v. 7 Bottles of Barmidon Tablets.|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 104, 105.|Sample Nos. 58666-D, 58667-D.)|This product contained barbital and aminopyrine (dimethyl-amino-antipyrine).|Its labeling recommended that it be taken in the dosage of 1 to 2 tablets, to|be repeated as required and that it be administered cautiously under a physi-|cian's supervision. It would be dangerous to health when used in the dosage|or with the frequency so prescribed, recommended, or suggested. Its labeling|also failed to reveal facts material with respect to consequences which might|result from its use under the conditions of use prescribed therein.|On December 22, 1938, the United States attorney for the Southern District|of Ohio filed a libel against 7 bottles, containing 2,600 Barmidon Tablets, at|Dayton, Ohio; alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate com-|merce by Endo Products, Inc., from New York, N. Y., on or about October 26|and November 25, 1938; and charging that it was misbranded for the reasons|stated above.|The libel alleged that the article was also misbranded in violation of the|Food and Drugs Act of 1906, reported in notice of judgment No. 30882 published|under that act.|On February 8, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|16. Misbranding of Elixir Pheno Barbidon. U. S. v. 23 Bottles and 3 Bottles of Elixir Pheno Barbidon. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00016May 1940Premo Pharmaceutical LaboratoriesElixir Pheno BarbidonOctober 19, 1938San Francisco, Calif.New York, N. Y.San Francisco, Calif.Northern District of California16F. D. C. Nos. 123, 124. Sample Nos. 86763-D, 36764-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00016ddnj|16. Misbranding: of Elixir Pheno Barbldon. V. S. v. 23 Bottles and 3 Bottles|of Elixir Pheno Barbldon. Default decrees of condemnation and destruc-|tion. (F. D. C. Nos. 123, 124. Sample NOB. 86763-D, 36764-D.)|This drug consisted essentially of aminopyrine and phenobarbital. It was|recommended in the labeling that it be administered in the dosage as directed|py the physician. Its labeling, however, created the impression that its physio-|logical effects were those of barbituric acid derivatives and failed to inform the|physician that it contained aminopyrine. It would be dangerous to health|When used as suggested in the labeling, particularly in view of the failure of|the labeling to reveal the fact that it contained aminopyrine, which fact is|material in the light of the representation in the labeling that it contained|dimethylamino-antipyrine and phenylethylmalonylurea (barbituric acid deriva-|tive), and since it was capable of producing agranulocytosis; and because of|the failure of the labeling to bear such adequate warnings against use in that|pathological condition or where its use might be dangerous to health, or against|unsafe dosage or methods or duration of administration as are necessary for|the protection of users.|On January 19, 1939, the United States attorney for the Northern District|of California filed a libel against 26 bottles of Elixir Pheno Barbldon at San|Francisco, Calif.; alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate com-|merce on or about October 19, 1938, by Premo Pharmaceutical Laboratories|from New York, N. Y.; and charging that it was misbranded for the reasons|appearing hereinbefore.|On May 9, 1939, no claimant having appeared, Judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|17. Misbranding of Tablets Sedormid \"\"Roche.\"\" U. S. v. 138 Packages and 164 Packages of Tablets Sedormid \"\"Roche.\"\" Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00017May 1940Hoffmann-La Roche,. Inc., Nutley, N. J.Tablets Sedormid \"\"Roche\"\"January 20 to on or about March 17, 1939Baltimore, Md.Nutley, N. J.Baltimore, Md.District of Maryland17F. D. C. Nos. 220, 224. Sample Nos. 47321-D, 47430-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00017ddnj|17. Misbranding: of Tablets Sedormld \"\"Roche.\"\" V. S. v. 13S Packages and 164|Packages of Tablets Sedormld \"\"Roche.\"\" Default decrees of condemnation|and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 220, 224. Sample Nos. 47321-D, 47430-D.)|This drug consisted of tablets containing allyl-isopropylacetyl-carbamide. It|would be dangerous to health when used in the dosage, or with the frequency or|duration prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling, which contained|directions that in the daytime one-half tablet be taken two or three times daily|and that at night one or two tablets be taken shortly before bedtime. Its labeling|failed to reveal facts material in the light of the recommended dosage or|material with respect to consequences which might result from its use under the|conditions of use prescribed therein, and failed to bear such adequate warnings|against unsafe dosage or methods or duration of administration or application|in such manner and form as are necessary for the protection of users.|On April 10 and 26, 1939, the United States attorney for the District of|Maryland filed libels against 292 packages of Tablets Sedormid \"\"Roche\"\" at|Baltimore, Md.; alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate com-|merce within the period from on or about January 20 to on or about March 17,|1939, by Hoffmann-La Roche,. Inc., Nutley, N. J.; and charging that it was|misbranded for the reasons appearing hereinbefore.|On May 8 and 17, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgments of con-|demnation were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|18. Misbranding of Sodasal. U. S. v. 15 Bottles and 21 Bottles of Sodasal. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00018May 1940Sodasal LaboratoriesSodasalFebruary 18 and 21, 1939Pittsburgh, Pa.Detroit, Mich.Pittsburgh, Pa.Western District of Pennsylvania18F. D. C. Nos. 194, 210. Sample Nos. 42971-D, 52224-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00018ddnj|18. Misbranding; of Sodasal. U. S. v. 15 Bottles and 21 Bottles of Sodasal.|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 194, 210.|Sample Nos. 42971-D, 52224-D.)|This product contained aminopyrine, sodium salicylate, compounds of mag-|nesium and calcium, citrates and carbonates, sugar, and water. It would be|dangerous to health when used in the dosage or with the frequency or duration|prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling, which directed that|1 tabiespoonful or 4 teaspoonfuls be taken in water, milk, or orange juice, fol-|lowed by a full glass of water or milk, 3 times a day before or after meals or on|retiring, and that the dose be cut down \"\"if the ears ring or if allergic.\"\"|On March 9 and March 25, 1939, the United States attorney for the Western|District of Pennsylvania filed libels against 36 bottles of Sodasal at Pittsburgh,|Pa., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|February 18 and 21, 1939, by the Sodasal Laboratories from Detroit, Mich.; and|charging that it was misbranded for the reasons stated above.|The libels charged that the article was also misbranded in violation of the|Food and Drugs Act of 1906, reported in notice of judgment No. 80895 published|under that act.|On April 17, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgments of condemnation|were entered and the product was ordered destroyed|19. Misbranding of Sodasal. U. S. v. 18 Bottles and 5 Bottles of Sodasal. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00019May 1940Harry EnkelSodasalJune 20, 1939Pittsburgh, Pa.Detroit, Mich.Pittsburgh, Pa.Western District of Pennsylvania19F. D. C. No. 294. Sample r No. 52441-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00019ddnj|19. Misbranding of Sodasal. TJ. S. v. 18 Bottles and 5 Bottles of Sodasal. De|fault decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 294. Sample r|No. 52441-D.) |The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-|ing its composition and its medicinal properties as shown below.|On July 17, 1939, the United States attorney for the Western District of|Pennsylvania filed a libel against 23 bottles of Sodasal at Pittsburgh, Pa., alleg-|ing that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about June|20,?1939, by Harry Enkel from Detroit, Mich.; and charging that it was|misbranded.|Analysis showed that it consisted essentially of acetophenetidin (approximately|8 grains per fluid ounce), sodium salicylate, a bicarbonate, and small propor-|tions of citrates, sugar, and water.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the representation on tho|bottle label that it was an antiacid treatment was false and misleading since|it contained, in addition to alkali and sodium salicylate, a material proportion of|acetophenetidin; (2) in that the statement in the labeling that the dose should be|cut down if the ears ring was false and misleading since it created the im-|pression that the article might be safely consumed unless it caused ringing of|the ears, whereas its consumption might be dangerous even though it did not|cause ringing of the ears; (3) in that the representations in the circular that it|contained no aspirin, no acetanilid, or other blood thinners were false and mis-|leading since it contained acetophenetidin, the consumption of which might re-|sult in serious depletion of the white blood cells; (4) in that the representation|in the circular that the article contained a U. S. P. dose of salicylates of proven;|value in rheumatoid suffering was false and misleading since it created the im-|pression-tbalrth^^ctive^iigredients^f^he^rtM|also contained acetophenetidin; (5) and in that the reference in the circular to|\"\"United States Government warnings against these Undertaker Friends-|acetanilid, antipyrine, and chloral\"\"; the admonition that labels should be read|carefully to ascertain whether news ads claims compare with label statements;|and the representations also in the circular that Sodasal Laboratory medicinals|were scientifically compounded right in every respect and contained only tested|ingredients of unquestionable merit were false and misleading since they created|the impression that the article did not contain dangerous drugs, whereas it con-|tained acetophenetidin, a dangerous drug.|Misbranding was alleged further in that the labeling contained representations|that it was an antiacid treatment; that users claimed that nothing else helped|them like Sodasal; that it would bring real comfort from suffering due to|rheumatic pains, aching muscles, lumbago, neuritis, simple nonfever, grippy dis-|comfort ; that it was of value as an anti-rheumatic anodyne or pain control and|soothing diuretic; that it would assure prompt escape from even knife-like pain;|that its anti-acid (alkaline) medicinals would flush the kidneys, often doubling|the kidney flow, thus expelling much uric acid and other impurities; that its|super-pure alkalizers would fight blood acidity; that it contained salicylates of|proven value in rheumatoid suffering; that it was an internal treatment for|rheumatic, neuritic, and backache pains or lumbago, which representations were|false and misleading since the article would not fulfill the promises of benefit|thus held out.|On August 11, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|NIPPLE SHIELDS|Nos. 20 to 34, inclusive, of this publication report the seizure and disposi-|tion of nipple shields which were made essentially of lead. They were poten-|tially dangerous because lead poisoning might result in infants fed from the|breasts of mothers using the device.|21. Misbranding of Dr. Wanshrough's Metallic Nipple Shields. U. S. v. 9 Boxes of Dr. Wansbrongh's Metallic Shields. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00021May 1940Fred Haslam & Co.Dr. Wanshrough's Metallic Nipple ShieldsOctober 5, 1938Atlanta, Ga.Brooklyn, N. Y.Atlanta, Ga.Northern District of Georgia21F. D. C. No. 150. Sample No. 44802-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00021ddnj|21. Misbranding: of Dr. Wanshrough's Metallic Nipple Shields. U. S. v. 9 Bexes|of Dr. Wansbrongh'B Metallic Shields. Default decree of condemnation|and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 150. Sample No. 44802-D.)|On February 25, 1989, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Georgia filed a libel against 9 boxes of the above-named product at Atlanta, Ga.;|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|October 5, 1938, by Fred Haslam & Co., from Brooklyn, N. Y.; and charging|that it was misbranded.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that it was dangerous to health|when used in the dosage or with the frequency prescribed, recommended, or|suggested in the labeling, in which the product was recommended for the pre-|vention and cure of sore nipples and which contained directions that the shields|should be applied as soon after delivery as possible, that in using them the only|attention required was to wipe the nipple previously to nursing and apply the|shield again immediately afterwards, and that they were in no way likely to be|injurious to the infant.|On March 8, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|35. Misbranding of Syn-O-Scope. U. S. v. 183 Packages of Syn-O-Scope (and 5 other seizure actions against the same product). Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00035May 1940Syn-O-Scope Co., Inc.Syn-O-Scope\NGrand Rapids, Mich.; Cleveland, Ohio; Evansville, Ind.; Pittsburgh, Pa., Danville, Va.Chicago, Ill.Grand Rapids, Mich.; Cleveland, Ohio; Evansville, Ind.; Pittsburgh, Pa., Danville, Va.Western District of Michigan, Northern District of Ohio, Southern District of Indiana, Western District of Pennsylvania, and Western District of Virginia35F. D. C. Nos. 106, 115, 118, 121, 125, 182. Sample Nos. 29421-D, 29424-D, 31877-D, 31878-D, 32674-D, 34980-D, 58803-D, 58804-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00035ddnj|35. Misbranding: of Syn-O-Scope. U. S. v. 183 Packages of Syn-O-Scope (and 5|other seizure actions agrainst the same product). Default decrees of|condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 106, 115, 118, 121, 125, 182.|Sample Nos. 29421-D, 29424-D, 31877-D, 31878-D, 32674-D, 34980-D, 58803-D,|58804-D.)|Between January 4 and March 11, 1939, the United States attorneys for the|Western District of Michigan, Northern District of Ohio, Southern District of|Indiana, Western District of Pennsylvania, and Western District of Virginia,|filed libels against the following lots of Syn-O-Scope: 183 packages at Grand|Rapids, Mich.; 54 packages at Cleveland, Ohio, 118 packages at Bvansville, Ind.;|39 packages at Pittsburgh, Pa.; and 26 packages at Danville, Va. It was alleged|in the libels that the article had be*n shipped in interstate commerce within|the period from on or about August 12 to on or about November 9, 1938, by|Syn-O-Scope Co., Inc., from Chicago, 111.; and charging that it was misbranded.|The accessory medicament with this device, labeled \"\"Synex Syn-O-Scope|Refill,\"\" consisted of a mixture of volatile oils including eucalyptus oil, camphor,|and alcohol.|The said device was alleged to be misbranded in that it was dangerous to|health when used with the frequency and duration prescribed, recommended,|and suggested in the labeling, in which the user was directed to place the|metal tip in the nostril and hold in position; to take the mouthpiece of rubber|hose between the lips and blow, gently at first, gradually increasing to suit;|and which contained a diagrammatic sketch of the apparatus in use, accompanied|by the explanation that the lung pressure closed the palate and forced the|medication into the infected parts.|On February 27, March 7, April 1, April 6, and September 6, 1939, no claimant|having appeared, judgments of condemnation were entered and the product|was ordered destroyed.|22. Misbranding of Dr. Wansbrough's Metallic Nipple Shields. U. S. v. 22 Packages of Dr. Wansbrough's Metallic Nipple Shields. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00022May 1940National New York Packing & Shipping Co.Dr. Wansbrough's Metallic Nipple ShieldsNovember 19, 1938San Francisco, Calif.New York, N. Y.San Francisco, Calif.Northern District of California22F. D. C. No. 162. Sample No. 36348-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00022ddnj|22. Misbranding of Dr. Wansbrough's Metallic Nipple Shields. V. S. v. 22|Packages of Dr. Wansbrongh's Metallic Nipple Shields. Default decree|of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 162. Sample No. 36348-D.)|On February 7, 1939, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|California filed a libel against 22 packages of the above-named product at San|Francisco, Calif.; alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate com-|merce on or about November 19, 1938, by the National New York Packing l&|Shipping Co. from New York, N. Y.; and charging that it was misbranded.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that it was dangerous to health|when used in the dosage or with the frequency prescribed, recommended, or sug-|gested in the labeling, in which it was recommended for the prevention and cure|of sore nipples, and which contained directions that the shields should be applied|as soon after delivery as possible, that in using them the only attention required|was to wipe the nipple previously to nursing and to apply the shield again|immediately afterwards, and that they were in no way likely to be injurious|to the infant.|On March 31, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|23. Misbranding of Metallic Nipple Shields. U. S. v. 74 3/4 Dozen Boxes of Dr. Wansbrough's Metallic Nipple Shields. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00023May 1940Penn Surgical Manufacturing Co.Metallic Nipple ShieldsDecember 21, 1938Chicago, Ill.Philadelphia, Pa.Chicago, Ill.Northern District of Illinois23F. D. C. No. 148. Sample No. 45752-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00023ddnj|23. Misbranding of Metallic Nipple Shields. TJ. S. v. 74% Dozen Boxes of Dr.|Wansbrongh's Metallic Nipple Shields. Default decree of condemnation|and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 148. Sample No. 45752-D.)|On February 6, 1939, the United States attorney for the Northern District|of Illinois filed a libel against 74? dozen boxes of the above-named product at|Chicago, 111.; alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce|on or about December 21, 1938, by the Penn Surgical Manufacturing Co. from|Philadelphia, Pa.; and charging that it was misbranded.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that it was dangerous to health|when used in the dosage or with the frequency prescribed, recommended, or sug-|gested in the labeling, in which it was recommended for the prevention and|relief of sore nipples.|On March 16, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|220127?-40 2|24. Misbranding of Dr. Wansbrough's Metallic Nipple Shields. U. S. v. 26 Boxes and 10 Packages of Dr. Wansbrough's Metallic Nipple Shields. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00024May 1940Glasco Products Co.Dr. Wansbrough's Metallic Nipple ShieldsJuly 27 and December 30, 1938New York, N. Y.; Des Moines, IowaChicago, Ill.New York, N. Y.; Des Moines, IowaSouthern District of New York and the Southern District of Iowa24F. D. C. Nos. 127, 208. Sample Nos. 53546-D, 59381-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00024ddnj|24. Misbranding of Dr. Wansbrough's Metallic Nipple Shields. TJ. S. v. 26|Boxes and 10 Packages of Dr. Wansbrough's Metallic Nipple Shields. ,|Default decrees of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 127, 208. I|Sample Nos. 53546-D, 59381-D.) |On January 20 and March 22, 1939, the United States attorneys for the|Southern District of New York and the Southern District of Iowa filed libels|against 26 boxes of Dr. Wansbrough's Metallic Nipple Shields at New York,|N. Y., and 10 packages of the same product at Des Moines, Iowa; alleging that|the article had been shipped in interstate commerce by the Glasco Products|?Co. from Chicago, 111., on or about July 27 and December 30, 1938; and charging|that it was misbranded.|It was alleged in the libel filed in the Southern District of New York that|the article was misbranded in that it was dangerous to health when used in|the dosage, or with the frequency prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the|labeling, in which it was recommended for the prevention and cure of sore|nipples and which contained directions that the shield be applied as soon|after delivery as .possible, that in using them the only attention required was|to wipe the nipple previously to nursing, and that the shield be applied again|immediately afterwards.|It was alleged in the libel filed in the Southern District of Iowa that the|article was misbranded in that it was dangerous to health when used in the|dosage, or with the frequency prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the|labeling in which it was recommended for the prevention and relief of sore|nipples, particularly in view of the failure of the labeling to reveal factls|material in the light of such representations or material with respect to con-|sequences which might result from the use of the article to which the labeling|related under the conditions of use prescribed in the labeling or under such|conditions of use as are customary and usual; and in that the labeling failed|to reveal the material fact that fatal lead poisoning might result in infants|fed from breasts of mothers using this appliance.|\"\"Oh February 7 and April 21, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgments|of condemnation were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|25. Misbranding of Dr. Wansbrough's Metallic Nipple Shields. U. S. v. 122 Boxes and 20 Boxes of Metallic Nipple Shields. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00025May 1940J. Sklar Manufacturing Co.Dr. Wansbrough's Metallic Nipple ShieldsOctober 1 to October 12, 1938Spokane, Wash.; Boston, Mass.Brooklyn, N. Y.Spokane, Wash.; Boston, Mass.District of Massachusetts and the Eastern District of Washington25F. D. C. Nos. 128, 156. Sample Nos. 48838-D, 50579-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00025ddnj|25. Misbranding of Dr. Wansbrough's Metallic Nipple Shields. IT. S. v. 122 Boxes|and 20 Boxes of Metallic Nipple Shields. Default decrees of condemnation|and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 128, 156. Sample Nos. 48838-D, 50579-D.)|On January 23 and February 6, 1939, the United States attorneys for the|District of Massachusetts and the Eastern District of Washington filed libels|against 122 boxes of the above-named product at Boston, Mass., and 20 boxes|at Spokane, \"\"Wash.; alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate|commerce by J. Sklar Manufacturing Co. from Brooklyn, N. Y., within the|period from on or about October 1 to on or about October 12, 1938; and charging|that it was misbranded.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that it was dangerous to health|when used in the dosage, or with the frequency prescribed, recommended, or|suggested in the labeling in which it was recommended for the prevention and|cure of sore nipples and which contained directions that the shields should be|applied as soon after delivery as possible, that in using them the only attention|required was to wipe the nipple previously to nursing, that they be applied|again immediately afterwards, and that they were in no way likely to be|injurious to the infant.|On February 13 and March 24, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of|condemnation was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|26. Misbranding of Dr. Wansbrough's Metallic Nipple Shields. U. S. v. 20 Packages of Metallic Nipple Shields (and 3 other seizure actions against the same product). Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00026May 1940Glasco Products Co.; H. H. Rosenthal Co.Dr. Wansbrough's Metallic Nipple ShieldsSeptember 20, 1938, to on or about January 20, 1939Los Angeles, Calif.; Brooklyn, N. Y.; Charlotte, N. C.Chicago, Ill.; New York, N. Y.Los Angeles, Calif.; Brooklyn, N. Y.; Charlotte, N. C.Southern District of California, the Eastern District of New York, and the Western District of North Carolina26F. D. C. Nos. 157, 158, 163, 166, 167, 171. Sample Nos. 18971-D, 18972-D, 18973-D, 26999-D, 27000-D, 44825-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00026ddnj|26. Misbranding of Dr. Wansbrough's Metallic Nipple Shields. TT. S. v. 20|Packages of Metallic Nipple Shields (and 3 other seizure actions against|the same product). Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. Nos. 157, 158, 163, 166, 167, 171. Sample Nos. 18971-D, 18972-D,|18973-D, 26999-D, 27000-D, 44825-D.)|Between February 8 and 16,1939, the United States attorneys for the Southern|District of California, the Eastern District of New York, and the Western Dis-|trict of North Carolina filed libels against 52 packages of Dr. Wansbrough's|Metallic Nipple Shields at Los Angeles, Calif.; 13 packages at Brooklyn, N. Y.;|and 10 packages of the same product at Charlotte, N. C. The libels alleged that (|the article had been shipped in interstate commerce within the period from on|or about September 20, 1938, to on or about January 20, 1939; that all ship-|ments, with one exception, were made by the Glasco Products Co. from Chicago, /|111.; that one shipment had been made by the H. H. Rosenthal Co. from New L|York, N. Y.; and charged that the article was misbranded.|when used in the dosage, or with the frequency prescribed, recommended, or|suggested in the labeling, in which it was recommended for the prevention and|relief of sore nipples and which contained directions that the shield be applied|as soon after delivery as possible; that in using them the only attention required|was to wipe the nipple previously to nursing and to apply the shield again|immediately afterwards, and that they were in no way likely to be injurious to|the infant, particularly in view of the failure of the labeling to reveal facts|material in the light of such representations, or material with respect to the|consequences which might result from the use of the article to which the labeling|related under conditions of use so prescribed or under such conditions of use|as are customary or usual, and because of failure of the labeling to reveal the|material fact that fatal lead poisoning may result in infants fed from breasts|of mothers using this appliance.|On March 7, March 8, April 10, and May 4, 1930, no claimant having appeared,|judgments of condemnation were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|27. Misbranding of Dr. Wansbrough's Metallic Nipple Shields. U. S. v. 34 Cartons of Dr. Wansbrough's Metallic Nipple Shields (and 7 other seizure actions against the same product). Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00027May 1940John M. Maris Co.Dr. Wansbrough's Metallic Nipple Shields\NNew York, N. Y.; Washington, D. C.; Chicago, Ill.; Oakland, Calif.; Boston, Mass.; Charlotte, N. C.; Baltimore, Md.; Minneapolis, Minn.Philadelphia, Pa.; New York, N. Y.New York, N. Y.; Washington, D. C.; Chicago, Ill.; Oakland, Calif.; Boston, Mass.; Charlotte, N. C.; Baltimore, Md.; Minneapolis, Minn.Southern District of New York, the District of Columbia, Northern District of Illinois, Northern District of California, District of Massachusetts, Western District of North Carolina, District of Maryland, and District of Minnesota27F. D. C. Nos. 126. 137, 153, 165, 173, 174, 209, 230. Sample Nos. 17576-D, 34375-D, 35879-D, 43626-D, 44826-D, 45758-D, 48340-D, 59382-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00027ddnj|27. Misbranding: of Dr. Wansbrough's Metallic Nipple Shields. TJ. S. v. 34|Cartons of Dr. Wansbrongh's Metallic Nipple Shields (and 7 other seizure|actions against the same product). Default decrees of condemnation and|destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 126. 137, 153, 165, 173, 174, 209, 230. Sample Nos.|17576-D, 34375-D, 35879-D, 43626-D, 44826-D, 45758-D, 48340-D, 59382-D.)|Between the dates of January 20 and May 25,1939, the United States attorneys|for the Southern District of New York, the District of Columbia, Northern Dis-|trict of Illinois, Northern District of California, District of Massachusetts, West-|ern District of North Carolina, District of Maryland, and District of Minnesota|filed libels against the following lots of Wansbrough's Metallic Nipple Shields: 24|cartons at New York, N. Y.; 69 cartons at Washington, D. C.; 16 packages at|Chicago, 111.; 27 packages at Oakland, Calif.; 49 packages at Boston, Mass.; 17|packages at Charlotte, N. 0-; 5 packages at Baltimore, Md.; and 9 packages at|Minneapolis, Minn. The libels alleged that the article had been shipped in|interstate commerce within the period from on or about September 8, 1988, to|on or about January 19,1939, by the John M. Maris Co. (one shipment made in the|name of John M. Maris Corporation) in part from Philadelphia, Pa., and in part|from New York, N. Y.; and charged that it was misbranded.|Misbranding was alleged in that the article was dangerous to health when|used in the dosage or with the frequency prescribed, recommended, or sug-|gested in the labeling, in which it was recommended for the prevention and cure|of sore nipples and which contained directions that the shields should be applied|as soon after delivery as possible, that in using them the only attention required|was to wipe the nipple previously to nursing, and to apply the shields again|immediately afterwards, and that they were in no way likely to be injurious to|the infant, particularly in view of the failure of the labeling to reveal facts mate-|rial in the light of such representations or material with respect to the conse-|quences which might result from the use of the article to which the labeling|related under the conditions of use prescribed therein or under such conditions|of use as are customary or usual.|Between the dates of February 7 and July 13, 1939, no claimant having ap-|peared, judgments of condemnation were entered and the product was ordered|destroyed.|28. Misbranding of Dr. Wansbrough's Metallic Nipple Shields. U. S. v. 28 Pack ages and 22 Packages of Metallic Nipple Shields. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00028May 1940McKesson & Bobbins, Inc.; W. J. Wardall, trustee for McKesson & Bobbins, Inc.Dr. Wansbrough's Metallic Nipple ShieldsAugust 16, 1939San Francisco, Calif.; Spokane, Wash.New York, N. Y.; Bridgeport, Conn.San Francisco, Calif.; Spokane, Wash.Northern District of California and the Eastern District of Washington28F. D. C. Nos. 172, 222. Sample Nos. 43632-D, 64059-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00028ddnj|28. Misbranding of Dr. Wansbrough's Metallic Nipple Shields. TJ. S. v. 28 Pack|ages and 22 Packages of Metallic Nipple Shields. Default decrees of|condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 172, 222. Sample Nos. 43632-D,|64059-D.)|On February 16 and April 20,1939, the United States attorneys for the Northern|District of California and the Eastern District of Washington filed libels against|26 packages of Dr. Wansbrough's Metallic Nipple Shields at San Francisco, Calif.,|and 22 packages of the same product at Spokane, Wash.; alleging that the|article had been shipped in interstate commerce, the former on or about August|16, 1939, by McKesson & Bobbins, Inc., from New York, N. Y. (this lot was|invoiced by John M. Maris, the manufacturer) and the latter on or about De-|cember 13, 1938, and January 24, 1939, by W. J. Wardall, trustee for McKesson &|Bobbins, Inc., from Bridgeport, Conn.; and charging that it was misbranded.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that it was dangerous to health| when used in the dosage or with the frequency prescribed, recommended, or|suggested in the labeling in vhich it was recommended for the prevention and|relief of sore nipples, and which contained directions that the shields be applied|as soon after delivery as possible, that in using them the only attention required|was to wipe the nipple previously to nursing, and apply the shield again imme-|diately afterwards, and that they were in no way likely to be injurious to the|infant, particularly in view of the failure of the labeling to reveal facts material|in the light of such representations or material with respect to consequences|which might result from the use of the article to which the labeling related under|conditions of use prescribed in the labeling or under such conditions of use as are|customary and usual.|On March 30 and June 7, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgments of|condemnation were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|29. Misbranding of Dr. Wansbrough's Metallic Nipple Shields. U. S. v. 10 Packages of Dr. Wansbrough's Metallic Nipple Shields. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00029May 1940Armstrong Cork Co.Dr. Wansbrough's Metallic Nipple ShieldsJanuary 24, 1939Salt Lake City, UtahPhiladelphia, Pa.Salt Lake City, UtahDistrict of Utah29F. D. C. No. 205. Sample No. 40911-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00029ddnj|29. Misbranding of Dr. Wansbrough's Metallic Nipple Shields. U. S. v. 10|Packages of Dr. Wansbrough's Metallic Nipple Shields. Default decrees|of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 205. Sample No. 40911-D.)|On March 13, 1939, the United States attorney for the District of Utah filed|a libel against 10 packages of Dr. Wansbrough's Metallic Nipple Shields at Salt|Lake City, Utah, alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce|on or about January 24,1939, by the Armstrong Cork Co. from Philadelphia, Pa.;|and charging that it was misbranded.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that it was dangerous to health|when used in the dosage or with the frequency prescribed, recommended, or|suggested in the labeling in which it was recommended for the prevention and|cure of sore nipples, particularly in view of the failure of the labeling to reveal|facts material in the light of such representations or material with respect to|consequences which might result from the use of the article to which the labeling|related under conditions of use prescribed in the labeling, or under such|conditions of use as are customary or usual.|On April 29,1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered, and the product was ordered destroyed.|30. Misbranding of Lead Nipple Shields. U. S. v. 10 Boxes of Wansbrough's Pure Lead Nipple Shields (and 6 other seizure actions against the same product). Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00030May 1940American Medical Specialties Co., Inc.Lead Nipple Shields\NPhiladelphia, Pa., Los Angeles, Calif., Chicago, Ill., Minneapolis, Minn., Springfield, Ohio, St. Louis, Mo., Denver, Colo.New York, N. Y.Philadelphia, Pa., Los Angeles, Calif., Chicago, Ill., Minneapolis, Minn., Springfield, Ohio, St. Louis, Mo., Denver, Colo.Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Southern District of California, Northern District of Illinois, District of Minnesota, Southern District of Ohio, Eastern District of Missouri, and District of Colorado30F. D. C. Nos. 133, 145, 152, 154, 155, 161, 181. Sample Nos. 18968-D, 31141-D, 42159-D, 45754-D, 48236-D, 53034-D, 58935-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00030ddnj|SO. Misbranding of Lead Nipple Shields. V. S. v. 10 Boxes of Wansbrough's|Pure Lead Nipple Shields (and 6 other seizure actions against the same|product). Default decrees of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C.|Nos. 133, 145, 152, 154, 155, 161, 181. Sample Nos. 18968-D, 31141-D, 42159-D,|45754-D, 48236-D, 53034-D, 58935-D.)|Between January 25 and February 25, 1939, the United States attorneys for|the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Southern District of California, Northern|District of Illinois, District of Minnesota, Southern District of Ohio, Eastern|District of Missouri, and District of Colorado filed libels against a total of 128|boxes of Wansbrough's Pure Lead Nipple Shields in various lots at Philadelphia,|Pa., Los Angeles, Calif., Chicago, 111., Minneapolis, Minn., Springfield, Ohio,|St. Louis, Mo., and Denver, Colo.; alleging that the article had been shipped|in interstate commerce within the period from on or about November 19, 1938,|to on or about January 24, 1939, by American Medical Specialties Co., Inc., from|New York, N. Y.; and charging that it was misbranded.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that it was dangerous to health|when used in the dosage or with the frequency prescribed, recommended, or|suggested in the labeling in which it was recommended for the prevention and|cure of sore nipples, particularly in view of the failure of the labeling to reveal|facts material in the light of such representations, or material with respect to|consequences which might result from the use of the article to which the labeling|relates under the conditions of use prescribed in the labeling thereof, or under|such conditions of use as are customary or usual, and because of failure of the|labeling to reveal the material fact that fatal lead poisoning might result in|infants fed from breasts of mothers using the appliance.|Between February 15 and April 27, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judg-|ments of condemnation were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|31. Misbranding of Dr. Wansbrough's Nipple Shields. U. S. v. 7 Packages of Dr. Wansbrough's Pure Lead Nipple Shields. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00031May 1940Penn Surgical Manufacturing Co., Inc.Dr. 'Wansbrough's Nipple ShieldsSeptember 22 and November 24, 1936Miami, Fla.Philadelphia, Pa.Miami, Fla.Southern District of Florida31F. D. C. No. 206. Sample No. 45144-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00031ddnj|81. Misbranding of Dr. 'Wansbrough's Nipple Shields. V. S. v. 7 Packages of|Dr. Wansbrough's Pure Lead Nipple Shields. Default decree of condemna-|tion and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 206. Sample No. 45144-D.)|On March 18, 1939, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|Florida filed a libel against 7 packages of the above-named product at Miami,|Fla.; alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or|about September 22 and November 24, 1936, by Penn Surgical Manufacturing|Co., Inc., from Philadelphia, Pa.; and charging that it was misbranded.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that it was dangerous to health|when used in the dosage or with the frequency prescribed, recommended, or|suggested in the labeling, in which it was recommended for the prevention and|shields be applied as soon after delivery as possible, that in using them the only|attention required was to wipe the nipple previously to nursing and to apply|the shield again immediately afterwards, and that they were in no way likely|to be injurious to the infant, in view of the failure of the labeling to reveal|facts material in the light of such representations or material with respect to|consequences which might result from the use prescribed in the labeling thereof,|or under such conditions of use as are customary or usual, and because of fail-|ure of the labeling to reveal the material fact that fatal lead poisoning might|result in infants fed from breasts of mothers using the appliance.|On October 6, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|32. Misbranding of Dr. Wansbrough's Metal Nipple Shields. U. S. v. 21 Boxes of Dr. Wambrough's Metal Nipple Shields. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00032May 1940Meinecke & Co.Dr. Wansbrough's Metal Nipple ShieldsDecember 21, 1938Philadelphia, Pa.New York, N. Y.Philadelphia, Pa.Eastern District of Pennsylvania32F. D. C. No. 132. Sample No. 42160-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00032ddnj|82. Misbranding of Dr. Wansbrough's Metal Nipple Shields. IT. S. v. 21 Boxes|of Dr. Wambrongh'g Metal Nipple Shields. Default decree of condemna-|tion and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 132. Sample No. 42160-D.)|On January 25, 1939, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Pennsylvania filed a libel against 21 boxes of the above-named product at Phila-|delphia, Pa.; alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce|on or about December 21, 1938, by Meinecke & Co. from New York, N. Y.; and|charging that it was misbranded.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that it was dangerous to health|when used in the dosage or with the frequency prescribed, recommended, or|suggested in the labeling, which contained directions that in using the device|the only attention required was to wipe the nipple previous to sucking, and to|apply the shield again immediately afterwards, and which contained representa-|tions that the device was in no way likely to be injurious to the infant.|On February 15, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|33. Misbranding of metallic nipple shields. U. S. v. 10 Boxes and 22 Packages of Asepticon Metallic Nipple Shields. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00033May 1940Max Weiss & Sons, Inc.metallic nipple shieldsJanuary 16 and February 7, 1939Passaic, N. J., Philadelphia, Pa.New York, N. Y.Passaic, N. J., Philadelphia, Pa.District of New Jersey and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania33F. D. CLNos. 164, 169. SampleNos. 9829-D, 59366-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00033ddnj|83. Misbranding of metallic nipple shields. .U. S. v. 10 Boxes and 22 Packages|of Asepticon Metallic Nipple Shields. Default decrees of condemnation|and. destruction.. <F. D. CLNos. 164, 169. SampleNos.J>829-D, 59366-P.)|February 10 and 14, 1939, the United States attorneys for the District of New|Jersey and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania filed libels against 10 boxes of|nipple shields at Passaic, N. J., and 22 packages of nipple shields at Philadelphia,|Pa.; alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or|about January 16 and February 7, 1939, by Max Weiss & Sons, Inc., from New|York, N. Y.; and charging that it was misbranded.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that it was dangerous to health|when used in the dosage, or with the frequency prescribed, recommended, or|suggested in the labeling, in which it was recommended for the prevention and|relief of sore nipples, particularly in view of the failure of the labeling to reveal|facts material in the light of such representations or material with respect to|consequences which might result from the use of the article to which the labeling|related under the conditions prescribed in the labeling, or under such conditions|of use as are customary or usual, and because of failure of the labeling to reveal|the material fact that fatal lead poisoning might result in infants fed from|breasts of mothers using the appliance.|On March 9 and 13, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgments of condem-|nation were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|34. Misbranding of lead nipple shields. U. S. v. 1,027 Pairs of Lead Nipple Shields (and one other seizure action against the same product). Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00034May 1940Gem Surgical Products Co., Inc.lead nipple shieldsSeptember 29 to December 20, 1938St. Louis, Mo., Chicago, Ill.New York, N. Y.St. Louis, Mo., Chicago, Ill.Eastern District of Missouri and the Northern District of Illinois34F. D. C. Nos. 141, 146, 147. Sample Nos. 45750-D, 45751-D, 53391-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00034ddnj|84. Misbranding of lead nipple shields. V. S. v. 1,027 Pairs of Lead Nipple|Shields (and one other seizure action against the same product). Default|decrees of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 141, 146, 147.|Sample Nos. 45750-D, 45751-D, 53391-D.)|On January 27 and February 6, 1939, the United States attorneys for the|Eastern District of Missouri and the Northern District of Illinois filed libels|against 1,027 pairs of lead nipple shields at St. Louis, Mo., and 281 pairs of|the same product at Chicago, 111.; alleging that the article had been shipped|in interstate commerce by the Gem Surgical Products Co., Inc., from New|York, N. Y., within the period from on or about September 29 to on or about|December 20, 1938; and charging that it was misbranded.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that it was dangerous to health|when used as suggested in the labeling, in which the device was designated|as a nipple shield.|On March 16 and 17, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgments of con-|demnation were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|VAPORIZING DEVICES|Nos. 35 to 40, Inclusive, of this publication report the seizure and disposition|of vaporizing devices which were similar in general structure and identical in|purpose. The device consisted of a small chamber (containing a wick or absorb-|ent pad) of such size and shape as to permit its fitting into the nostril to|which was attached a rubber tube fitted with a mouthpiece. An accessory|medicament was supplied or could be obtained separately. The wick or pad|was saturated with the medicament, which was vaporized by the user's blowing|into the mouthpiece and forcing the vapor into the nasal passages.|37. Misbranding of Pen-E-Scope. U. S. v. 500 Packages of Pen-E-Scope. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00037May 1940Marney Products Co.Pen-E-ScopeJanuary 14, 1939Buffalo, N. Y.Chicago, Ill.Buffalo, N. Y.Western District of New York37F. D. C. Nos. 117. 119. Sample Nos. 42654-D, 58910-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00037ddnj|87. Misbranding: of Pen-E-Scope. II. S. v. 500 Packages of Pen-E-Scope. De-|fault decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 117. 119.|Sample Nos. 42654-D, 58910-D.)|On January 13, 1939, the United States attorney for the Western District|of New York filed a libel against 500 packages of Pen-E-Scope at Buffalo,|N. Y., which had been consigned by Marney Products Co. from Chicago, 111.|On January 14, 1939, the United States attorney for the Southern District|of Ohio filed a libel against 500 packages of Pen-E-Scope at Cincinnati, Ohio,|alleging that the article had been transported from Chicago, 111., by Paul|Oleson in his own automobile. The libel alleged that the article had been|shipped in interstate commerce on or about December 21, 1938, and January|2, 1939; and charged that it was misbranded. It was labeled in part: \"\"Pen-|E-Scope Laboratories * * * Chicago, 111.\"\"|The medicament for use with the device consisted essentially of eucalyptus|oil with small proportions of pine oil, camphor, menthol, and acetone.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that it was dangerous to health|when used in the dosage and with the frequency and duration prescribed,|recommended, and suggested in the labeling, which directed that the rounded|end of the device be inserted into the nostril, that the mouthpiece be grasped|between the lips and that the user should blow steadily-not too hard at|first-and that the longer one blew, the deeper the medicated vapor pene-|trated into the nasal cavities.|On February 6, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|38. Misbranding of Peranol. U. S. v. 21 Packages of Peranol with Special Medicator (and 3 other seizure actions against the same product). Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00038May 1940Peranol ProductsPeranol\NGrand Rapids, Mich.; Topeka, Kans.; Indianapolis, Ind.Chicago, Ill.Grand Rapids, Mich.; Topeka, Kans.; Indianapolis, Ind.Western District of Michigan, the District of Kansas, and the Southern District of Indiana38F. D. C. Nos. 107, 122, 130, 131. Sample Nos. 32671-D, 36550-D, 36551-D, 58S05-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00038ddnj|38. Misbranding: of Peranol. U. S. v. 21 Packages of Peranol with Special|Medicator (and 3 other seizure actions against the same product). De-|fault decrees of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 107, 122, 130,|131. Sample Nos. 32671-D, 36550-D, 36551-D, 58S05-D.)'|On or about January 4, 20, and 26, 1939, the United States attorneys for|the Western District of Michigan, the District of Kansas, and the Southern|District of Indiana filed libels against the following consignments of Peranol|with Special Medicator: 21 packages at Grand Rapids, Mich.; 18 packages|at Topeka, Kans.; and 9 packages at Indianapolis, Ind. The libels alleged|that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce within the period|from on or about October 12 to on or about December 6, 1938, by Peranol|Products from Chicago,, 111.; and that it was misbranded.|The medicament with this device was labeled: \"\"Peranol Nasal Emollient.\"\"|It consisted of a mixture of volatile oils including eucalyptus oil, camphor,|and menthol, and alcohol (approximately 19 percent).|The device was alleged to be misbranded in that it was dangerous to health|when used in the dosage and with the frequency and duration prescribed,|recommended, and suggested in the labeling which directed that the user place|the glass mouthpiece between the lips, hold the nasal medicator to the nostril,|and blow gently; and stated that the warm air picks up the medication as|It passes through the medicator, breaking it into a very fine spray, the force|of the breath tending to carry it to all exposed or accessible parts of the|mucous membrane that lines the head passages, at the same time closing off|the opening from the head passages to the throat by the action of the breath|on the soft palate; and that this action tends to permit the medication, with|its stimulating, soothing qualities, to be properly administered to all acces-|sible parts of the membrane.|One of the lots seized at Indianapolis, Ind., was alleged to be misbranded|in violation of the Food and Drugs Act of 1906, reported in notice of judgment|No. 80884 published under that act.|On February 27, April 7, and April 28, 1939, no claimant having appeared,|judgments of condemnation were entered and the product was ordered de-|stroyed.|39. Misbranding of Hed Klear. U. S. v. 21 Packages and 9 Packages of Hed Klear. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00039May 1940Van Patten Pharmaceutical Co.Hed KlearOctober 28, 1938San Francisco, Calif.; Walla Walla, Wash.Chicago, Ill.San Francisco, Calif.; Walla Walla, Wash.Northern District of California and the Eastern District of Washington39F. D. C. Nos. 120, 204. Sample Nos. 36141-D, 64026-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00039ddnj|89. Misbranding of Hed Klear. 17. S. v. 21 Packages and 9 Packages of Hed|Klear. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos.|120, 204. Sample Nos. 36141-D, 64026-D.)|On January 16 and March 24, 1939, the United States attorneys for the|Northern District of California and the Eastern District of Washington filed|libels against 21 packages of Hed Klear at San Francisco, Calif., and 9 packages|of Hed Klear at Walla Walla, Wash.; alleging that the article had been shipped|In interstate commerce on or about October 28, 1938, by the Van Patten Phar-|maceutical Co. from Chicago, HI.} and charging that it was misbranded.|Enclosed in the carton with each device was a bottle of \"\"Hed Klear Essence,\"\"|which consisted of a mixture of volatile oils (including eucalyptus oil and?(|menthol), alcohol, acetone, and water.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that it was dangerous to health?/|when used in the dosage and with the frequency and duration prescribed,?^|recommended, and suggested in the labeling, which directed that the user place|the tip of the metal barrel into the nostril, then place the glass mouthpiece|at end of the tube between the lips and blow, very gently at first, then gradually|increasing the pressure to suit himself, alternating from nostril to nostril,|as desired. The labeling further stated that the longer one blew, the deeper|the vapors of the essence penetrated into the nasal cavities; and contained a|sketch of the apparatus in use, with a legend which represented that the breath|carries the vapors through the nasal passages to all inflamed irritated parts,|thus affording relief from discomfort of head colds, rhinitis, nasal catarrh,|sinus irritation, and hay fever.|The article was also alleged to be misbranded in violation of the Food and|Drugs Act of 1908, reported in notice of judgment No. 30879 published under|that act.|On May 10 and July 19, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgments of|condemnation were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|40. Misbranding of Nazoscope. U. S. v. 133 Devices, labeled in part \"\"Nazoscope\"\" (and 5 other seizure actions against the same product). Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00040May 1940Murray LaboratoriesNazoscope\NPortland, Oreg.; Boise, Idaho; Idaho Falls, Idaho; Salt Lake City, Utah; Ogden, UtahPacific Palisades, San Francisco, and Santa Monica, Calif.Portland, Oreg.; Boise, Idaho; Idaho Falls, Idaho; Salt Lake City, Utah; Ogden, UtahDistricts of Oregon, Idaho, and Utah40F. D. C. Nos. 113, 175, 178, 200, 201, 386. Sample Nos. 39565-D, 40915-D, 40918-D, 41370-D, 41599-D, 50598-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00040ddnj|40. Misbranding of Nazoscope. U. S. v. 133 Devices, labeled In part \"\"Nazo-|scope\"\" (and 5 other seizure actions against the same product). Default|decrees of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 113, 175, 178, 200,|201, 386. Sample Nos. 39565-D, 40915-D, 40918-D, 41370-D, 41599-D, 50598-D.)|Between January 20 and August 14, 1939, the United States attorneys for the|Districts of Oregon, Idaho, and Utah filed libels against the following consign-|ments of Nazoscope\"\" 133 packages at Portland, Oreg.; 11 packages at Boise,|Idaho; 18 packages at Idaho Falls, Idaho; 63 packages at Salt Lake City,|Utah; and 115 packages at Ogden, Utah. The libels alleged that the article|had been shipped in interstate commerce within the period from on or about|September 5, 1938, to on or about May 15, 1939, by the Murray Laboratories,|in various shipments from Pacific Palisades, San Francisco, and Santa Monica,|Calif.; and charged that it was misbranded.|The accessory medicament, labeled \"\"Nazone,\"\" consisted essentially of volatile|oils (including spearmint oil), alcohol, and water.|Misbranding was alleged in that the article was dangerous to health when|used in the dosage and with the frequency and duration prescribed, recom-|mended, and suggested in the labeling, which contained directions that the|wick be saturated with Nazone, the appliance inserted into the nostril; that|the glass mouthpiece on end of rubber tube be placed between the lips and|that the user blow gently, gradually increasing the pressure until the effects|could be felt deep in the nasal passages.|Between the dates of March 27 and October 9, 1939, no claimant having ap-|peared, judgments of condemnation were entered and the product was ordered|destroyed.|REDUCING PREPARATIONS|41. Misbranding of O. B. C. Capsules. U. S. v. 138 Packages of O. B. C. Capsules. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00041May 1940Frank & BlackO. B. C. CapsulesOctober 20, 1938Atlantic City, N. J.Philadelphia, Pa.Atlantic City, N. J.District of New Jersey41F. D. C. No. 212. Sample No. 42247-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00041ddnj|41. Misbranding of O. B. C. Capsules. V. S. v. 13S Packages of O. B. O. Capsules.|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 212. Sample|No. 42247-D.)|These capsules contained thyroid and phenolphthalein. They would be dan-|gerous to health when used in the dosage or with the frequency prescribed,|recommended, or suggested in the labeling, which contained directions that|one capsule be taken three times a day one-half hour before meals for best|results. Its labeling failed to reveal facts material with respect to the con-|sequences which might result from its use under the conditions of use pre-|scribed in the said directions and in a circular in which it was recommended|as a valuable aid in the treatment of obesity and which contained representa-|tions, among others, that it would promote the combustion of fats, thereby|bringing about gradual and appreciable loss of weight; that such loss could|be accelerated by eating sparingly of starchy foods, fats, and sugars, but that|such regulation of diet was not necessary since the article would reduce without?/|dieting. Its label also failed to bear warnings against its use in those patho-?^|logical conditions where its use might be dangerous to health or against unsafe|doses or duration of administration in such manner and form as are necessary?,|for the protection of users.|filed a libel against 138 packages of O. B. 0. Capsules at Atlantic City, N. J.;|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|October 20, 1938, by Frank & Black from Philadelphia, Pa.; and charging that|it was misbranded for the reasons appearing above. The article was labeled|in part: \"\"Thyrole Products Co., Sole Distributors, Philadelphia, Penna.\"\"|On May 3, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|42. Misbranding of Tablets Arbolone. U. S. v. 188 Packages of Tablets Arbolone. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00042May 1940Arbolone Co.Tablets ArboloneFebruary 15, 1939Chicago, Ill.Dayton, OhioChicago, Ill.Northern District of Illinois42F. D. C. No. 216. Sample No. 55108-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00042ddnj|42. Misbranding of Tablets Arbolone. U. S. v. 188 Packages of Tablets Arbolone.|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 216. Sample|- No. 55108-D.)|This drug consisted of tablets containing desiccated thyroid and extracts of|plant drugs including an iodine-containing drug such as bladder wrack and a|laxative drug such as cascara sagrada. It was recommended in its labeling|as a treatment for obesity with dosage of one to two tablets, beginning with|one after each meal and increasing the dose to Two tablets after the third day,|and continuing until the desired reduction resulted, after which the tablets|might be taken occasionally as a preventive. It was recommended further that|the dose be reduced if headache, vertigo, or heart palpitation ensued, and that|the treatment be continued several weeks or months as the case might require.|It would be dangerous to health when used in the dosage or with the fre-|quency or duration so prescribed, recommended, or suggested. Its labeling|failed to reveal facts material in the light of the representations set forth|in the labeling, or material with respect to consequences which might result|from the use of the article under the conditions of use prescribed in the label-|ing, and failed to bear warnings against its use in those pathological condi-|tions or by children where its use might be dangerous to health, or against|unsafe dosage or methods or duration of administration or application.|On April 11, 1939, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Illinois filed a libel against 188 packages of Tablets Arbolone at Chicago, 111.;|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|February 15, 1939, by the Arbolone Co. from Dayton, Ohio; and charging|that it was misbranded for the reasons appearing above.|On June 20, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|MISCELLANEOUS|59. Adulteration and misbranding of gauze bandages and absorbent cotton. U. S. v. 31 Dozen Packages of Gauze Bandages (and 6 other seizure actions against surgical dressings). Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00059May 1940Acme Cotton Products Co., Inc.gauze bandages and absorbent cottonNovember 26, 1938, to on or about September 8, 1539Chicago, Ill.; New York, N. Y.; Buffalo, N. Y.; Providence, R. I.; Los Angeles, Calif.Dayville and East Killingley, Conn.; New York, N. Y.Chicago, Ill.; New York, N. Y.; Buffalo, N. Y.; Providence, R. I.; Los Angeles, Calif.Northern District of Illinois, the Southern and Western Districts of New York, the District of Rhode Island, and the Southern District of California59F. D. C. Nos. 256, 281, 494, 607. 679, 680, 754. Sample Nos. 52193-D, 52194-D, 54929-D, 57965-D, 59474-D, 74014-D, 74015-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00059ddnj|59. Adulteration and misbranding of gauze bandages and absorbent cotton.|U. S. v. 31 Dozen Packages of Gauze Bandages (and 6 other seizure actions|against surgical dressings). Default decrees of condemnation and destruc-|tion. (F. D. C. Nos. 256, 281, 494, 607. 679, 680, 754. Sample Nos. 52193-D,|52194-D, 54929-D, 57965-D, 59474-D, 74014-D, 74015-D.)|Between July 10 and October 17, 1989, the United States attorneys for the|Northern District of Illinois, the Southern and \"\"Western Districts of New|York, the District of Rhode Island, and the Southern District of California|filed libels against 31 dozen packages of gauze bandages at Chicago, 111., 8|gross packages of absorbent cotton at New York, N. Y., 103 dozen packages|of gauze bandages at Buffalo, N. Y., 30 dozen packages of absorbent cotton at|Providence, R. I., and 282 dozen packages of absorbent cotton at Los Angeles,|Calif.; alleging that the articles had been shipped within the period from on|or about November 26, 1938, to on or about September 8, 1539, by the Acme Cot-|ton Products Co., Inc., that certain shipments had been made from Dayville|and East Killingley, Conn., into the States of New York and Rhode Island,|and that two of the shipments had been made from New York, N. Y., into the|States of Illinois and California; and charging that they were adulterated and|misbranded. The bandages were labeled in part: \"\"Sterilized After Packaging\"\"|or \"\"Sterilized After Packing.\"\" The absorbent cotton was labeled in part:|\"\"Hospital Surgical Absorbent Cotton\"\" or \"\"Sterilized [or \"\"Purified\"\"] Surgical|Absorbent Cotton.\"\"|The articles were alleged to be adulterated in that their purity or quality|fell below that which they purported or were represented to possess, since they|were not sterile.|They were alleged to be misbranded in that representations appearing|variously in the labeling that the products had been sterilized after packaging,|had been purified, were suitable for hospital and surgical use, had been|processed to a high degree of refinement, were recommended for use on|wounds and abrasions, in the sickroom and for first-aid purposes, were of high|grade and reliable quality, were extensively used by practicing physicians and|surgeons, and that exceptional and exacting care was used in manufacture,|were false and misleading when applied to products which were not sterile|but were contaminated with viable micro-organisms.|Between September 2 and November 9, 1939, no claimant having appeared,|judgments of condemnation were entered and the products were ordered|destroyed.|3399. Misbranding of Lazarin ointment. U. S. v. 1 Drum, etc.ddnj03399August 1951Old Empire Mfg. ChemistsLazarin ointmentJanuary 18, 1950Oceanside, N. Y.Newark, N. J.Oceanside, N. Y.Eastern District of New York.3399F. D. C. No. 29716. Sample No. 73215-K.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj03399ddnj|3399. Misbranding of Lazarin ointment. U. S. v. 1 Drum, etc. (F. D. C. No.|29716. Sample No. 73215-K.)|LIBEL FILED : September 6,1950, Eastern District of New York.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT : On or about January 18, 1950, from Newark, N. J., by the|Old Empire Mfg. Chemists.|PRODUCT: Lazarin ointment. 1 100-pound drum; 120 dozen cartons, each|containing a 1^4-ounce tube; and 60 dozen cartons, each containing a 4-ounce|tube, in possession of the Lazarin Co., Oceanside, N. Y.|RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION : The product was shipped in interstate commerce|in 3 drums, and portions had been repackaged in tubes by the consignee.|The tubes were enclosed in cartons, and a leaflet entitled \"\"Lazarin Ointment\"\"|was inserted in each carton. At the time of the investigation, approximately|100 pounds of the ointment remained in one of the drums. The drums at|the time bore no labeling but the word \"\"Ointment.\"\" This fact was reported|to the United States Attorney, and the libel prepared by him charged that|the product in the drums was misbranded for failure to bear labeling required|by Sections 502 (b) (1) and (2) and 502 (e) (2).|Subsequent to the filing of the libel, the shipper stated that the drums when|shipped bore tags or marks containing the name and address of the distributor|and a statement of the net weight; but he admitted that the drums failed|to bear a statement of the active ingredients, as required by Section 502 (e)|(2), and that no written agreement as to labeling was in effect pursuant to|regulations promulgated under Section 503. However, no defense was inter-|posed, and no action was taken to have the libel amended.|LABEL, IN PABT : (Carton) \"\"An Antibiotic Ointment Lazarin * * * Tyro-|thricin (.175 mg. per gram)\"\"; (tube) \"\"Lazarin With Tyrothricin An Anti-|biotic ointment containing Tyrothricin (.175 mg. per gm.).\"\"|NATURE OF CHARGE: Misbranding, Section 502 (a), the following statements|in the labeling of the repackaged product were false and misleading: (Carton)|\"\"Tyrothricin (.175 mg. per gram) * * * Combats Infection,\"\" (tube)|\"\"Tyrothricin (.175 mg. per gm),\"\" and (leaflet) \"\"Lazarin contains Tyrothricin,|a * \"\" * * antiseptic, for the prevention of infection * * * Prompt use|of Lazarin with Tyrothricin, safeguards your babies health * * '* the|anti-infective properties of Tyrothricin * * * Lazarin has proven itself|extremely effective in the treatment of the following conditions: Varicose|Ulcers Surface' Infections Diabetic Ulcers Impetiginous Conditions.\"\" The|article contained less than .175 mg. of tyrothricin per gram; it was not an|antiseptic; it would not prevent infection; and it would not be an effective|treatment for the stated conditions. The repackaged portion was misbranded|while held for sale after shipment in interstate commerce.|The libel alleged that the product in the drum was misbranded when in-|troduced into and while in interstate commerce as follows: Sections 502 (b)|(1) and (2), it failed to bear a label containing the name and place of business|of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor, and an accurate statement of|the quantity of the contents; and, Section 502 (e) (2), its label failed to|bear the common or usual name of each active ingredient.|DISPOSITION: January 30, 1951. Default decree of condemnation and|destruction.|43. Misbranding of laxative chewing gum. U. S. v. 77 Cartons of Chewing Laxative. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00043May 1940Peltz-Kauffer Co., Inc.laxative chewing gumJuly 20, 1938Chicago, Ill.South Bend, Ind.Chicago, Ill.Northern District of Illinois43F. D. C. No. 73. Sample No. 22341-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00043ddnj|43. Misbranding of laxative chewing gum. U. S. v. 77 Cartons of Chewing|Laxative. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No.|73. Sample No. 22341-D.)|This product was a gum, each piece containing 1 grain of phenolphthalein.|It would be dangerous to health when used in the dosage or with the fre-|quency or duration prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling,|which recommended that it be chewed like gum with a dosage of one to two|tablets at night or after mealtime.|On September 8, 1938, the United States attorney for the Northern District|of Illinois filed a libel against 77 cartons of chewing laxative at Chicago, 111.;|alleging that the article had been shipped on or about July 20, 1938, by Peltz-|Kauffer Co., Inc., from South Bend, Ind.; and charging that it was misbranded|for the reasons stated above. It was labeled in part: \"\"Tru-Lax Mint Flavored|Chewing Laxative.\"\"|The libel also charged that the article was misbranded in violation of the|Food and Drugs Act, reported in notice of judgment No. 30001 published under|that act.|On November 29, 1938, no claimant having appeared, judgment of con-|demnation was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|44. Misbranding of Bad-Ex-Salts. U. S. v. 27 Bottles of Bad-Ex-Salts (and 3 other seizure actions against the same product). Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00044May 1940American LaboratoriesBad-Ex-SaltsNovember 5, 1938New York, N. Y., St. Louis, Mo., Baltimore, Md., and Providence, R. I.Philadelphia, Pa.; New York, N. Y.New York, N. Y., St. Louis, Mo., Baltimore, Md., and Providence, R. I.Southern District of New York, the Eastern District of Missouri, the District of Maryland, and the District of Rhode Island44F. D. C. Nos. 109, 110, 112. 114. Sample Nos. 34931-D, 38817-D, 48833-D, 59646-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00044ddnj|44. Misbranding of Bad-Ex-Salts. V. S. -v. 27 Bottles of Bad-Ex-Salts (and S|other seizure actions against the same product). Default decrees of|condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 109, 110, 112. 114. Sample|Nos. 34931-D, 38817-D, 48833-D, 59646-D.)|This product contained tartar emetic. It would be dangerous to health|when used in the dosage or with the frequency or duration prescribed, recom-|mended, or suggested in the labeling, which contained representations that the|article contained sodium sulfate, sodium carbonate, and sodium chloride (salts|which constitute the active agents of many of the celebrated mineral springs|of Europe) with the fruit acid of grapes, and which bore directions that 1|teaspoonful be taken in a glass of water as needed, that a teaspoonful In a|glass of cold water was recommended on rising in the morning, and that|children should take one-fourth to 1 teaspoonful according to age.|On December 30, 1938, January 4, and January 9, 1939, the United States|attorneys for the Southern District of New York, the Eastern District of|Missouri, the District of Maryland, and the District of Rhode Island filed libels|against 115 bottles of Bad-Ex-Salts in various lots at New York, N. Y., St.|Louis, Mo., Baltimore, Md., and Providence, R. I.; alleging that 9 bottles of the|product had been shipped from Philadelphia, Pa., to St. Louis, Mo., on or about|November 5, 1938, by the American Laboratories; that 99 bottles of the prod-|uct had been shipped from Carlisle, Pa., in part to Baltimore, Md., on December|9, 1938, and in part to New York, N. Y., on or about December 10, 1938, by the|said American Laboratories, and that 7 bottles of the product had been shipped|from New York, N. Y., to Providence, R. I., on or about December 17, 1938,|by E. J. Barry, Inc.; and charging that the article was misbranded for the|reasons stated above.|On January 19, January 26, and February 18, 1939, no claimant having ap-|peared, judgments of condemnation were entered and the product was ordered|destroyed.|45. Misbranding of Dunwody's Turpedine Emulsion. U. S. v. 2,157 Bottles of Dunwody's Turpedine Emulsion. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00045May 1940Sam SwidlerDunwody's Turpedine EmulsionJune 24, 1939Cincinnati, OhioChicago, Ill.Cincinnati, OhioSouthern District of Ohio45F. D. C. No. 287. Sample No. 68753-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00045ddnj|45. Misbranding of Dunwody's Turpedine Emulsion. V. S. v. 2,157 Bottles of|Dnmvody's Turpedine Emulsion. Default decree of condemnation and|destruction. (F. D. C. No. 287. Sample No. 68753-D.)|The labeling of this drug preparation bore representations that it was effica-|cious as a great health builder and system purifier; to build up weak and run-|down systems while convalescing from attacks of malaria, typhoid and other|wasting fevers, pneumonia, la grippe, and influenza; to stimulate healthy secre-|tions, make red blood corpuscles, disinfect the alimentary canal, prevent auto-|intoxication and strengthen the system to resist disease; to build strong constitu-|tions, overcome disease, conserve health, promote a normal functioning of the|organs of secretion and assimilation; as a remedy for bronchial trouble; and as a|treatment for pulmonary trouble.|On July 14, 1939, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|Ohio filed a libel against 2,157 bottles of Dunwody's Turpedine Emulsion at|Cincinnati, Ohio; alleging that the article had been transported in interstate|commerce on or about June 24, 1939, by Sam Swidler from Chicago, 111.; and|charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article was an emulsion consisting essentially of|mineral oil, a small proportion of turpentine, traces of hypophosphites, an arsenic|compound, quinine alkaloid, an organic iodine compound, glycerin, and water.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that certain statements in the|labeling were false and misleading in that they represented that it was efficaci-|ous for the forementioned purposes; whereas it was not efficacious for such|purposes.|On September 8, 1989, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|46. Misbranding of Universal Formula. U. S. v. 10 1/2 Dozen Bottles of Universal Formula (and one other seizure action against the same product). Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00046May 1940Universal Antiseptic & Research Laboratories, Inc.Universal FormulaMay 26, 1939Washington, D. C.Bristol, Tenn.Washington, D. C.District of Columbia46F. D. C. Nos. 459, 505. Sample Nos. 47709-D, 47763-D, 47764-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00046ddnj|46. Misbranding of Universal Formula. TJ. S. v. 10% Dozen Bottles of Universal|Formula (and one other seizure action against the same product). De-|fault decrees of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 459, 505.|Sample Nos. 47709-D, 47763-D, 47764-D.)|The labeling of this drug bore false and misleading representations regard-|ing its efficacy in the treatment of the conditions shown below.|On August 19 and 24, 1939, the United States attorney for the District of|Columbia filed libels against 10? dozen 2-ounce bottles, 10 32-ounce bottles, and|2 12-ounce bottles of Universal Formula at Washington, D. C, alleging that the|article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about May 26, 1939, by|Universal Antiseptic & Research Laboratories, Inc., from Bristol, Tenn.; and|charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of phenol (1.84 per-|cent), alum, borax, sugar, water, and small proportions of aromatic substances,|including thymol and sage. Bacteriological tests showed that it was not anti-|septic when diluted as directed in the labeling.|it was efficacious for universal \"\"antisepticism\"\"; was efficacious as a spray for|sinus trouble, quinsy throat, asthma, catarrh, tonsillitis and croup, and in-|fected ears; as a gargle, mouthwash, and rinse for sore throat, mouth ulcers,|bleeding gums, receding gums, fever and gum blisters; as a lotion for itch, in-|flamed skin, rash, acne, stiff joints, numbness, aching areas, lameness; that it|should be used in saturated bandages for boils, hives, impetigo, lead and paint|poison, mange on domestic animals, open sores, X-ray burns, ingrown nails,|eczema, piles, and hemorrhoids; that it was efficacious in the treatment of|leucorrhea (whites) and would relieve irritation of the bladder; that it was|efficacious for loss of voice, strained vocal cords, and throat trouble; that it was|efficacious to relieve tiredness and aching from overstrained eyes, and was espe-|cially recommended to welders; and efficacious as a feminine hygiene and rectal|douche, which representations were false and misleading since the said article|would not be efficacious for the purposes recommended.|On September 18, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgments of condemna-|tion were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|47. Misbranding ot glucose solution. U. S. v. 1,176 Ampuls of Sterile Solution Glucose (Dextrose) (and 3 other seizure actions against the same product). Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00047May 1940William A. Fitchglucose solutionJanuary 27, 1939Philadelphia, Pa.New York, N. Y.Philadelphia, Pa.Eastern District of Pennsylvania47F. D. C. Nos. 129, 134. 135, 136, 140, 198. Sample Nos. 42301-D, 42308-D, 62541-D, 62974-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00047ddnj|47. Misbranding- ot glucose solution. TJ. S. v. 1,176 Ampuls of Sterile Solution|Glucose (Dextrose) (and 3 other seizure actions against the same product).|Default decrees of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 129, 134.|135, 136, 140, 198. Sample Nos. 42301-D, 42308-D, 62541-D, 62974-D.)|This product was described in its labeling as 50-cc.-sized ampuls of sterile|solution of 50-percent glucose. It would be dangerous to health when used in|the dosage suggested in the labeling, since it caused untoward reactions in|patients to whom it was administered.|On January 23, 1939, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Pennsylvania, filed a libel against 1,176 ampuls of solution glucose at Philadel-|phia, Pa. On January 25, 1939, only 123 ampuls having been seized as the|remainder had been distributed, an additional libel was filed against 1,000 ampuls|of these distributed lots that had been located at various points in Philadelphia,|Pa. On January 27, 1939, there was filed in the same district court a libel|against 190 vials of glucose solution at Ridley Park, Pa. On March 15, 1939,|the United States attorney for the Western District of Louisiana filed a libel|against 121 ampuls of glucose at Alexandria,* La. The libels alleged that the|article had been shipped in interstate commerce within the period from on or|about June 15, 1938, to on or about December 21, 1938, by William A. Fitch|from New York, N. Y.; and charged that it was misbranded for the reasons|stated above. The article was labeled: \"\"Sterile Solution 50 cc Size Glucose|(Dextrose) Each 50 cc represents 25 Gms.; or Sterile Solution 50 cc size Glucose|(Dextrose) 50 percent.\"\"|It was also alleged to be adulterated in violation of the Food and Drugs Act|of 1906, reported in notice of judgment No. 30885 published under that act.|On February 15 and 20 and May 2, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judg-|ments of condemnation were entered and the lots seized in the Eastern District|of Pennsylvania were ordered destroyed, and the lot seized in the Western Dis-|trict of Louisiana was ordered delivered to this Department for further|investigation.|ADULTERATED AND/OR MISBRANDED DRUGS AND DEVICES|PROPHYLACTICS|Nos. 48 to 58, inclusive, report the seizure and disposition of prophylactics|samples of which were found to be defective in that they contained holes.|48. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 50 Gross of Prophylactics (and 4 other seizure actions against prophylactics). Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00048May 1940Tecla Chemical CorporationprophylacticsAugust 23 to October 21, 1939New York, N. Y.; Baltimore, Md.; Pittsburgh, Pa.; Memphis, Tenn.Newark, N. J.New York, N. Y.; Baltimore, Md.; Pittsburgh, Pa.; Memphis, Tenn.Southern District of New York, District of Maryland, Western District of Pennsylvania, and Western District of Tennessee48F. D. C. Nos. 563, 716, 718, 734, 992. Sample Nos. 52499-D, 52500-D, 63900-D, 67870-D, 76841-D, 76843-D, 78908-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00048ddnj|48. Adulteration and misbranding' of prophylactics. TJ. S. v. 50 Gross of|Prophylactics (and 4 other seizure actions against prophylactics). De-|fault decrees of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 563, 716, 718,|734, 992. Sample Nos. 52499-D, 52500-D, 63900-D, 67870-D, 76841-D, 76843-D,|78908-D.)|Between September 8 and November 15, 1939, the United States attorneys|for the Southern District of New York, District of Maryland, Western District|of Pennsylvania, and Western District of Tennessee filed libels against the|following lots of prophylactics: 50 gross at New York, N. Y., 440 gross at|Baltimore, Md., 79 gross at Pittsburgh, Pa., and 83 gross at Memphis, Tenn.i|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce within the|period from on or about August 23 to on or about October 21, 1939, by Tecla|Chemical Corporation from Newark, N. J.; and charging that it was adulterated|and that a portion was also misbranded. Certain lots were labeled in part:|\"\"Made from Liquid Latex Distributed by Ace Rubber Co. [or \"\"Balto. Rubber|Co. Balto., Md.\"\" or \"\"Gotham Rubber Co., Chicago, 111.\"\"].\"\" The remaining lots|were labeled in part: \"\"Saf-T-Way Prophylactics\"\" or \"\"Tally-Ho.\"\"|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its quality fell below that|which it purported or was represented to possess.|The product labeled \"\"Saf-T-Way\"\" was alleged to be misbranded in that|representations in the labeling that it was a safe prophylactic and was air-blown|tested were false and misleading.|Between September 26 and December 12, 1939, no claimant having appeared,|Judgments of condemnation were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|50. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 22 Gross of Prophylactics (and 7 other seizure actions against prophylactics). Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00050May 1940Philip NewmanprophylacticsJuly 20, 1939Niagara Falls, N. Y.Akron, OhioNiagara Falls, N. Y.Western District of New York50F. D. C. Nos. 573 to 580, incl. Sample Nos. 52674-D, 79001-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00050ddnj|50. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. XJ. S. v. 22 Gross of|Prophylactics (and 7 other seizure actions against prophylactics). De-|fault decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 573 to 580,|incl. Sample Nos. 52674-D, 79001-D.)|On September 12, 1939, the United States attorney for the Western District|of New York filed libels against 93 gross and 38^ dozen prophylactics at Niagara|Falls, N. Y., consigned by Philip Newman; alleging that the article had been|shipped from Akron, Ohio, on or about July 20, 1939; and charging that it|was adulterated, and that with the exception of one lot, it was misbranded.|The article was labeled in part variously: \"\"Gold Town,\"\" \"\"Majestic,\"\" \"\"Dr.|Reade's Genuine Latex Tissue,\"\" \"\"Medallion,\"\" \"\"Silver-Town,\"\" \"\"Supreme Brand,\"\"|\"\"Silver Crown,\"\" or \"\"Special Selected.\"\"|It was alleged to be adulterated in that its quality fell below that which it|purported or was represented to possess.|Misbranding was alleged with respect to all goods, with the exception of|the Gold Town brand, in that the labeling of the various brands bore repre-|sentations that the article was made from the choicest grade of materials|obtainable and represented the highest quality of prophylactics, was effective|for the prevention of contagious disease, was guaranteed for 5 years, was for|medical purposes, was double and triple tested, was specially selected, was an|efficient prophylactic, and was extra quality and air tested, which representa-|tions were false and misleading.|On October 30, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgments of condemna-|tion were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|70. Misbranding of Soule's External Lotion. U. S. v. 5 Bottles and 8 Bottles of Soule's External Lotion. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00070May 1940L. M. Brock & Co.Soule's External LotionFebruary 1 and April 18, 1939Jacksonville, Fla.Lynn, Mass.Jacksonville, Fla.Southern District of Florida70F. D. C. Nos. 221, 229. Sample Nos. 10474-D, 13696-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00070ddnj|70. Misbranding: of Senile's External Lotion. U. S. v. 5 Bottles and 8 Bottles of|Soule's External Lotion. Default decrees of condemnation and destruc-|tion. (F. D. C. Nos. 221, 229. Sample Nos. 10474-D, 13696-D.)|This product contained mercuric chloride, a poisonous or deleterious substance.|It would be dangerous to health when used in the dosage or with the frequency|or duration prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling in which it was|recommended as a treatment for moth, tan, freckles, and pimples. For the|treatment of moth it was directed that a soft cloth be moistened with the|lotion, that the face be bathed morning and evening for 2 or 3 weeks or until|a slight roughness is experienced and then that it be applied evenings until|the face becomes clear; that for tan it be applied every evening; that for freckles|it be used in the same manner as for tan unless the case was severe, in which|event it should be applied as for moth; and that for pimples it should be applied|every evening but if it proved stronger than was pleasant for the face, the|cloth should be dampened in water, the lotion applied to the damp cloth, and|the applications made less frequently. Its labeling failed to bear adequate|directions for use and such adequate warnings against use in those pathological|conditions or by children where its use might be dangerous or against unsafe|dosage or methods or duration of administration or application in such manner|and form as are necessary for the protection of users.|On April 17 and May 13, 1939, the United States attorney for the Southern|District of Florida filed libels against 13 bottles of the above-named product|at Jacksonville, Fla., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate|commerce on or about February 1 and April 18, 1939, by L. M. Brock & Co.|from Lynn, Mass.; and charging that it was a misbranded drug for the reasons|appearing hereinbefore. The article was also alleged to be an adulterated cos-|metic, as reported in O. N. J. No. 22.|On June 22, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgments of condemnation|were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|52. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 231 Dozen Rubber Prophylactics. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00052May 1940Bengor Products Co.prophylacticsJuly 26, 1939Baltimore, Md.New York, N. Y.Baltimore, Md.District of Maryland52F. D. C. No. 366. Sample No. 47360-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00052ddnj|52. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. IT. S. v. 231 Dozen Robber|Prophylactics. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (P. D. C.|No. 366. Sample No. 47360-D.)|On August 7, 1939, the United States attorney for the District of Maryland|filed a libel against 231 dozen prophylactics at Baltimore, Md., alleging that the|article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about July 26, 1939, by|Bengor Products Co. from New York, N. T.; and charging that it was adult-|erated and misbranded. It was labeled in part: \"\"Texide * * * L. E.|Shunk Latex Products, Inc., Akron, Ohio.\"\"|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its quality fell below that|which it purported or was represented to possess.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the representations in the labeling|that it was a prophylactic and was guaranteed for 5 years, were false and|misleading.|On August 28, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|53. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 39 Gross and 44 Gross of Prophylactics. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00053May 1940Goodwear Rubber Co.prophylacticsJune 7 and August 14, 1939Pittsburgh, Pa.New York, N. Y.Pittsburgh, Pa.Eastern and Western Districts of Pennsylvania53F. D. C. Nos. 295, 537. Sample Nos. 51907-D, 52471-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00053ddnj|53. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 39 Gross and 44|Gross of Prophylactics. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. Nos. 295, 537. Sample Nos. 51907-D, 52471-D.)|On July 15 and September 11, 1939, the United States attorneys for the|Eastern and \"\"Western Districts of Pennsylvania filed libels (the former amended|July 17, 1939) against 39 gross of rubber prophylactics at Philadelphia, Pa., and|44 gross of the product at Pittsburgh, Pa., alleging that the article had been|shipped in interstate commerce on or about June 7 and August 14, 1939, by|Goodwear Rubber Co. from New York, N. Y.; and charging that it was adulter-|ated and misbranded. It was labeled in part: \"\"Silverpac.\"\"|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its quality fell below that|which it purported or was represented to possess.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that its labeling bore representations that|it was a disease preventative, that it was air-tested, that it was guaranteed|for 5 years, that it was guaranteed to stand any reasonable test demanded|by the Government In accordance with the \"\"Pure Food and Drug Laws,\"\" and|was guaranteed to be as good and as safe as any brand on the market today|regardless of the fact that other prophylactics are sold at much higher prices,|which representations were false and misleading.|On August 5 and October 5, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgments|of condemnation were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|54. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 263 Gross of Prophylactics (and 3 other seizure actions against the same product). Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00054May 1940Penn-Jersey Rubber Co.prophylacticsApril 15 to August 4, 1939Newark, N. J.; Chicago, Ill.; New York, N. Y.Kansas City, Mo.Newark, N. J.; Chicago, Ill.; New York, N. Y.District of New Jersey, the Northern District of Illinois, and the Southern District of New York54F. D. C. Nos. 306, 373, 425, 426, 461. Sample Nos. 44479-D, 44480-D, 44481-D, 54942-D, 55930-D 55931-D, 67867-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00054ddnj|54. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 263 Gross of|Prophylactics (and 3 other seizure actions against the same product).|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 306, 373,|425, 426, 461. Sample Nos. 44479-D, 44480-D, 44481-D, 54942-D, 55930-D|55931-D, 67867-D.)|Between July 24 and August 23, 1939, the United States attorneys for the|District of New Jersey, the Northern District of Illinois, and the Southern|District of New York filed libels against 263 gross of prophylactics at Newark,|N. J., 126?2 gross of prophylactics at Chicago, 111., and 249 gross of the prod-|uct at New York, N. Y., alleging that the article had been shipped in inter-|state commerce within the period from on or about April 15 to on or about|August 4, 1939, by L-A Export Co. from Kansas City, Mo.; and charging that|it was adulterated or misbranded or both. The article was labeled variously|in part: \"\"Truco ? * * Distributed by Penn-Jersey Rubber Co., Newark,|N. J.\"\"; \"\"Made from Liquid Latex Air Tested G. W. R. Co.\"\"; or \"\"Clinic [or \"\"Air|Tested\"\"] * * * Distributed by Gotham Rubber Co., Chicago, HI.\"\"|The lots seized in the Districts of New Jersey and Northern Illinois were|alleged to be adulterated in that the quality of the article fell below that|which it purported or was represented to possess.|Misbranding was alleged with respect to the lot seized in the Northern Dis-|trict of Illinois, and in the Southern District of New York in that the represen-|tation in the labeling that they were \"\"Air Tested\"\" and that in the labeling of|a portion that the product was a disease preventative, was dependable, and|had been manufactured of the finest quality of latex rubber, were false and|misleading.|Between August 18 and November 8, 1939, no claimant having appeared,|Judgments of condemnation were entered and the product was ordered|destroyed.|56. Adulteration of prophylactics. U. S. v. 5 Gross of Prophylactics. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00056May 1940W. H. Reed & Co.prophylacticsJune 30, 1939New York, N. Y.Atlanta, Ga.New York, N. Y.Southern District ef New York56F. D. C. No. 367. Sample No. 67757-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00056ddnj|56. Adulteration of prophylactics. IT. S. v. 5^ Gross of Prophylactics. De|fault decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 367. Sample|No. 67757-D.)|On August 10, 1939, the United States attorney for the Southern District ef|New York filed a libel against 5? gross of prophylactics at New York, N. Y.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|June 30, 1939, by W. H. Reed & Co. from Atlanta, Ga.; and charging that it|was adulterated in that its quality fell below that which it purported to possess.|On September 22, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|58. Misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 4 Gross of Prophylactics. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00058May 1940Olympia LaboratoryprophylacticsJune 20, 1939New York, N. Y.Atlanta. Ga.New York, N. Y.Southern District of New York58F. D. C. No. 255. Sample Nos. 44238-D, 44239-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00058ddnj|68. Misbranding of prophylactics. TJ. S. v. 4 Gross of Prophylactics. Default|decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 255. Sample Nos.|44238-D, 44239-D.)|On July 6, 1939, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|New York filed a libel against 4 gross of prophylactics at New York, N. Y.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|June 20, 1939, by the Olympia Laboratory from Atlanta. Ga.; and charging|that it was misbranded. It was labeled in part \"\"Amazons.\"\"|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that representations appearing|variously in the labeling that it was air-tested, was made from the choicest|grade of materials obtainable, represented the highest quality, would be effec-|tive for the prevention of contagious diseases, was 100 percent perfect, and|was made of selected material with all the care and skill which long experience|in manufacturing can give, were false and misleading when applied to a|product which was not suitable for the prevention of disease because it|contained perforations or punctures.|On July 20, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|Nos. 59 to 66, Inclusive, report the seizure and disposition of'surgical dress-|-4ngs-^whicli^were4it4nterstate commerce at the time of examination and which|were found to be contaminated with viable micro-organisms at that time.|71. Adulteration and misbranding of Miller's Anti-Mole. U. S. v. 21 Packages of Miller's Anti-Mole. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00071May 1940Miller Manufacturing Co.Miller's Anti-MoleMarch 13, 1939Kansas City, Mo.Lincoln, Nebr.Kansas City, Mo.Western District of Missouri71F. D. C. No. 228. Sample No. 66601-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00071ddnj|71. Adulteration and misbranding of Miller's Anti-Mole. tJ. S. v. 21 Packages|of Miller's Anti-Mole. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 228. Sample No. 66601-D.)|This product contained nitric and acetic acid. It would be dangerous to|health, and its labeling failed to reveal the consequences which might result|from its use.|On May 16, 1939, the United States attorney for the Western District of|Missouri filed a libel against 21 packages of Miller's Anti-Mole at Kansas City,|Mo., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or|about March 13, 1939, by the Miller Manufacturing Co. from Lincoln, Nebr.; and|charging that it was adulterated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that it was a drug which affects|the body structure and would be dangerous to health when used in the dosage|or with the frequency or duration prescribed, recommended, or suggested in its|labeling, which bore directions that it be applied with a hardwood toothpick and|used very sparingly so that all the liquid applied would be absorbed; that small|warts on the scalp usually could be rubbed off with the first application, a large|one requiring more thorough treatment, and that one application was sufficient|to remove warts when used properly. It was directed further that the user|pick gently so that the liquid would penetrate the skin if the growth treated|was very small, that when the skin turned yellow no more should be applied;|but that with a large wart enough should be used to turn it dark; that about 2|hours after applying the growth should be greased with vaseline to keep it|soft and to prevent soreness. Users were cautioned not to use the preparation|on themselves unless the growth was on arm, leg, or where freely accessible;|that the scab should not be picked off, that a little vaseline should be placed|around the growth to keep the liquid from spreading, and that the product|should not be permitted to enter the eye. The labeling also bore the word|\"\"Poison\"\" and external and internal antidotes. Its labeling did not bear adequate|directions for use and such adequate warnings against use in those pathological|conditions or by children where its use might be dangerous to health, or against|unsafe dosage or methods or duration of administration or application in such|manner and form as are necessary for the protection of users.|It was also alleged to be adulterated under the provisions of the law applicable|to cosmetics as reported in O. N. J. No. 18.|On July 21, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|60. Adulteration and misbranding of compress bandages. U. S. v. 100 Cartons of Compress Bandages. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00060May 1940Mine Safety Appliance Co.compress bandagesAugust 11, 12, and 19, 1939Houston, Tex.Pittsburgh, Pa.Houston, Tex.Southern District of Texas60F. D. C. Nos. 593, 594. Sample Nos. 63137-D, 63138-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00060ddnj|60. Adulteration and misbranding of compress bandages. U. S. v. 100 Cartons|of Compress Bandages. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. Nos. 593, 594. Sample Nos. 63137-D, 63138-D.)|On or about September 13, 1939, the United States attorney for the Southern|District of Texas, filed a libel against 100 cartons of compress bandages at|Houston, Tex., alleging that the article had been shipped on or about August 11,|12, and 19, 1939, by the Mine Safety Appliance Co. from Pittsburgh, Pa.; and|charging that it was adulterated and misbranded.|Adulteration was alleged in that the purity and quality of the article fell|below that which it purported or was represented to possess, in that its labeling|represented that it had been sterilized after packaging; whereas it was not|sterile but was contaminated with viable micro-organisms.|Misbranding was alleged in that representations in the labeling that it had|been sterilized after packaging, that the wound should be covered by gauze pad|and bound, that the wound or pad|- should not be touched with the hands, that the|compress should be placed directly over the wound, that the surface of compress|to go on the wound should not be touched, were false and misleading in that|they created the impression that the article was sterile and was suitable for|use directly upon wounds; whereas it was not sterile and was not suitable for|use directly upon wounds.|On October 14, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|61. Adulteration and misbranding of gauze bandage. U. S. v. 49 Dozen Packages of Gauze Bandage. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00061May 1940Handy Pad Supply Co.gauze bandageAugust 18, 1939New York, N. Y.Worcester, Mass.New York, N. Y.Southern District of New York61F. D. C. No. 706. Sample No. 68240-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00061ddnj|61. Adulteration and misbranding of gauze bandage. TJ. S. v. 49 Dozen Pack|ages* of Gauze Bandage. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 706. Sample No. 68240-D.)|On October 13, 1939, the United States attorney for the Southern District|of New York filed a libel against 49 dozen packages of gauze bandage at|New York, N. Y., alleging that the article had been shipped on or about|August 18, 1939, by the Handy Pad Supply Co. from Worcester, Mass.; and|charging that it was adulterated and misbranded. It was labeled in part:|\"\"Non-ravel Surgical Gauze Bandage.\"\"|It was alleged to be adulterated in that its purity or quality fell below|that which it purported or was represented to possess in that it was repre-|sented to be sterile; whereas it was not sterile but was contaminated with|viable micro-organisms.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that representations appearing in the|labeling that it was surgical gauze bandage which had been sterilized after|packaging, had been prepared especially for the medical profession and care-|fully manufactured under most sanitary conditions for surgical use and was|guaranteed to be satisfactory, were false and misleading.|On December 1, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|63. Adulteration of gauze bandage. U. S. v. 1,005 Dozen Packages, et al., of Gauze Bandage. Decree of condemnation. Product released for relabeling.ddnj00063May 1940Acme Cotton Products Co.gauze bandageJuly 27, 1939Perry Point, Md.Dayville, Conn.Perry Point, Md.District of Maryland63F. D. C. No. 629. Sample Nos. 47391-D to 47394-D, Incl. , 76816-D to 76819-D, incl.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00063ddnj|63. Adulteration of gauze bandage. U. S. v. 1,005 Dozen Packages, et al., of|Gauze Bandage. Decree of condemnation. Product released for relabel-|ing. (F. D. C. No. 629. Sample Nos. 47391-D to 47394-D, Incl., 76816-D to|76819-D, incl.)|On September 21, 1939, the United States attorney for the District of Mary-|land filed a libel against 3,775 dozen packages of gauze bandage at Perry|Point, Md., alleging that the article had been shipped on or about July 27,|1939, from Dayville, Conn., by the Acme Cotton Products Co.; and charging|that it was adulterated. These bandages were supplied to a Government|agency in accordance with Federal Standards Stock Catalogue Specifications|which require that \"\"After individual packaging, bandages shall be subjected|to a sterilizing process whereby the effectively sealed packages are subjected|to the action of steam heat sufficiently to raise the interior of the package to|a temperature of 240 degrees F., which temperature shall then be steadily|maintained as a minimum for a period of 30 minutes.\"\"|Adulteration was alleged in that the purity or quality of the article fell|below that which it purported to possess.|On December 5, 1939, judgment of condemnation was entered and it was|ordered that the product be released to the claimant on condition that it be|relabeled \"\"Not Sterile\"\" or \"\"To Be Sterilized Before Used.\"\"|64. Misbranding of First Aid Poc-Kits. U. S. v. 19 Dozen First Aid Poc-Kits. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00064May 1940Hampton Manufacturing Co., Inc.First Aid Poc-KitsMay 15, 1939Harrisburg, Pa.Carlstadt, N. J.Harrisburg, Pa.Middle District of Pennsylvania64F. D. C. No. 280. Sample No. 9830-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00064ddnj|64. Misbranding of First Aid Poc-Kits. V. S. v. 19 Dozen First Aid Poc-Kits.|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 280. Sample|No. 9830-D.)|On July 11, 1939, the United States attorney for the Middle District of Penn-|sylvania filed a libel against 19 dozen packages of First Aid Poc-Kits at Harris-|burg, Pa., alleging that the article had been shipped on or about May 15, 1939,|by the Hampton Manufacturing Co., Inc., from Carlstadt, N. J.} and charging|that it was misbranded.|Misbranding was alleged in that representations on the kit that it was In-|dispensable as a first aid for all minor injuries, and was a safeguard against|cotton were contaminated with viable micro-organisms.|On August 25, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|72. Adulteration and misbranding of O. J.'s Beauty Lotion. U. S. v. 428 Bottles of O. J.'s Beauty Lotion. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00072May 1940O. J.'s Beauty Lotion Co.O. J.'s Beauty LotionMay 8 and June 8, 1939Dallas, Tex.Shreveport, La.Dallas, Tex.Northern District of Texas72F. D. C. No. 242. Sample No. 62843-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00072ddnj|72. Adulteration and misbranding of O. J.'s Beauty Lotion. U. S. v. 428 Bottles|of O. J.'s Beauty Lotion. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 242. Sample No. 62843-D.)|This product contained mercuric chloride, a poisonous and deleterious|ingredient.|On August 8, 1939, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Texas filed a libel against 428 bottles of O. J.'s Beauty Lotion at Dallas, Tex.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce by O. J.'s|Beauty Lotion Co. from Shreveport, La. (consigned about May 8 and June 8,|1939) ; and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded. It was labeled|in part: \"\"O. J.'s Beauty Lotion, Cleanses, Clears, Bleaches, Beautifies * * *|Manufactured and guaranteed by O. J. Parham for O. J.'s Beauty Lotion Co.,|Shreveport, La.\"\"|Misbranding was alleged in that the article was a drug and was dangerous to|health when used in the dosage or with the frequency or duration prescribed,|recommended, or suggested in its labeling, and the label did not bear adequate|directions for use and such adequate warnings against use in those pathological|conditions, or by children where its use might be dangerous to health or against|unsafe dosage or methods or duration of administration or application in such|manner and form as are necessary for the protection of users. It was recom-|mended in its labeling for the removal of externally caused pimples, freckles,|superficial discoloration, tan, and sunburn. Its circular bore directions that|in the beginning of the treatment the preparation be used sparingly once or|twice a day and that the frequency of application be increased, if desired,|until a roughness or slight reddening of the skin be experienced; that if the|skin were supersensitive and the irritation became annoying, a small amount of|cold cream should be applied and the treatment discontinued for 24 hours;|that it be used daily as a cleansing agent, its astringent and beneficial qualities|making it especially desirable for such purposes; that its frequent use would|remove superficial imperfections, contract the pores and correct oiliness; that|it contained ingredients recognized and used by physicians and prescription|druggists as a bleaching agent; that it had gained supremacy in the most diffi-|cult country-the South and if used full strength daily would remove freckles|and similar spots or blemishes and the coarsening effects of tan by sun and|wind; that it be used full strength as an application to the scalp before sham-|pooing and should be used three or four times a week on the scalp in solution|of one part of the lotion to three parts of water applied with fingertips or|brush; that it was a delightful after-shaving lotion; would tend to close large|pores and leave the face clean and cool; that it was a desirable application for|cuts, scratches, and abrasions of the skin for which it should be used full|strength; that its astringent properties would prevent collection of foreign|matter and excessive oily secretions. Its labeling bore the word \"\"Poison\"\" and|directions that it should not be taken internally and should be kept out of the|hands of children.|It was also alleged to be an adulterated cosmetic as reported in C. N. J.|No. 19.|On September 20, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|282. Misbranding of Flu-Go. U. S. v. 9 Dozen Retail Packages of Flu-Go. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00282Nov. 4, 1941Flu-Go Chemical Co.Flu-GoJanuary 22, 1940South CarolinaBessemer, Ala.South CarolinaEastern District of South Carolina282F. D. C. No. 2389. Sample No. 20240-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00282ddnj|282. Misbranding: of Flu-Go. U. S. v. 9 Dozen Retail Packages of Flu-Go. Default|decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 2389. Sample No.|20240-E.)|The label of this product, in addition to failure to bear adequate warnings,|also created the false and misleading impression that it was efficacious as a|treatment for flu. Furthermore, the bottle occupied only approximately 37|percent of the space of the carton in which it was packed, and the quantity|of contents was not declared.|On or about July 23, 1940, the United States attorney for the Eastern District|of South Carolina filed a libel against 9 dozen retail packages of Flu-Go, alleging|that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about January|22, 1940, by the Flu-Go Chemical Co. from Bessemer, Ala.; and charging that|it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of mineral oil, ephedrine,|and aromatics including camphor and rose oil.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the name \"\"Flu-Go\"\" created the false|and misleading impression that it constituted a treatment for influenza; in that|the label did not bear an accurate statement of the quantity of the contents;|in that the labeling did not bear adequate warnings against use in those patho-|logical conditions or by children where its use might be dangerous to health or|against unsafe dosage or methods or duration of administration or application;|and in that its container was so made, formed, or filled as to be misleading.|On August 18, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|DRUGS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF DEVIATION FROM OFFICIAL OR|OWN STANDARDS OR BECAUSE OF SUBSTITUTION1|VITAMIN PREPARATIONS|65. Misbranding of gauze bandage. U. S. v. 31 Dozen, 28 Dozen, and 27 Dozen, Cartons of Gauze Bandage. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00065May 1940Ross Products Co.gauze bandageAugust 9, 1939Newark, N. J.New York, N. Y.Newark, N. J.District of New Jersey65F. D. C. No. 817. Sample No. 68320-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00065ddnj|65. Misbranding: of ganze bandage. TJ. S. v. 31 Dozen, 28 Dozen, and 27 Dozen,|Cartons of Gauze Bandagre. Default decree of condemnation and destruc-|tion. (F. D. C. No. 817. Sample No. 68320-D.)|This product had been shipped in interstate commerce; and at the time of|examination and while in interstate commerce, it was found to be contaminated|with viable micro-organisms. It did not consist of a continuous roll of gauze|but contained pieces of gauze formed into a roll.|On October 26, 1939, the United States attorney for the District of New|Jersey filed a libel against 86 dozen cartons of gauze bandage at Newark,|N. J., alleging that the article had been shipped on or about August 9, 1939,|by the Ross Products Co. from New York, N. Y.; and charging that it was mis-|branded. A portion was labeled in part: \"\"Doctors and Nurses Gauze Bandage.\"\"|The remainder was labeled in part: \"\"Physician's and Surgeon's Gauze Bandage|First Aid Products Corp., N. Y.\"\"|Misbranding was alleged in that representations in the labeling that the article|was appropriate for the use of doctors and nurses, physicians and surgeons,|and for first aid purposes, together with cuts depicting a nurse on some of the|packages, and a cut depicting a surgeon on other packages, were false and|misleading as applied to an article that was not sterile but was contaminated|with viable micro-organisms. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that-|its labeling failed to reveal a fact which was material in the light of the repre-|sentations made for the article, namely, that the packages did not contain a|continuous roll of gauze but contained pieces of gauze formed into one roll. u.|On November 21, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|66. Misbranding of absorbent cotton. U. S. v. 251 Packages of Richmond Aseptic Cotton Pellets. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00066May 1940Richmond Dental Manufacturing Co.absorbent cottonMay 26 to July 10, 1939Philadelphia, Pa.Niagara Falls, N. Y.Philadelphia, Pa.Eastern District of Pennsylvania66F. D. C. No. 686. Sample No. 61940-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00066ddnj|66. Misbranding: of absorbent cotton. TJ. S. v. 251 Packages of Richmond|Aseptic Cotton Pellets. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 686. Sample No. 61940-D.)|On September 11, 1939, the United States attorney for the Eastern District|of Pennsylvania filed a libel against 251 packages of absorbent cotton at Phila-|delphia, Pa., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce|within the period from on or about May 26 to on or about July 10, 1939, by|Richmond Dental Manufacturing Co. from Niagara Falls, N. Y.; and charging|that it was misbranded.|Misbranding was alleged in that the representations in the labeling that the|article was aseptic, was of the finest grade of absorbent cotton, and was absolutely|clean, were false and misleading since it was not sterile, was not suitable for|aseptic uses, was not of the finest grade of absorbent cotton, and was not|absolutely clean, but was contaminated with viable micro-organisms. It was|alleged to be misbranded further in that the label was misleading since it failed|to reveal the fact that the article was unsterile, which fact is material in the|light of the representations made in the labeling, and material with respect to|consequences which might result from the use of the article to which the labeling|related under such conditions of use as are customary or usual.|On September 30, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|COSMETICS MISBRANDED UNDER PROVISIONS OF THE LAW APPLICABLE TO DRUGS|67. Adulteration and misbranding of Madam C. J. Walker's Tan-Off. U. S. v. 717 Tins of Madam C. J. Walker's Tan-Off. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00067May 1940Madam C. J. Walker Manufacturing Co.Madam C. J. Walker's Tan-OffFebruary 2, 1939Cleveland, OhioIndianapolis, Ind.Cleveland, OhioNorthern District of Ohio67F. D. C. No. 187. Sample No. 29435-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00067ddnj|67. Adulteration and misbranding: of Madam C. J. Walker's Tan-Off. V. S. v.|717 Tins of Madam C. J. Walker's Tan-Off. Default decree of condemna-|tion and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 187. Sample No. 29435-D.)|This product contained ammonia ted mercury, a poisonous or deleterious sub-|stance. It would be dangerous to health when used in the dosage or with the|frequency or duration so prescribed, recommended, or suggested. Its labeling|did not bear adequate directions for use and such adequate warnings against|use in those pathological conditions or by children where its use might be dan-|gerous to health or against unsafe dosage or methods or duration of administra- '-|tion or application in such manner and form as are necessary for the protection|of users. It was recommended in the labeling for brightening sallow or dark skin,|treatment of tan, freckle, and skin-blotch, and for clearing the complexion, with|directions that it be applied with the tips of the fingers before retiring and|allowed to remain on the skin overnight and that after washing in the morning|it be applied and allowed to remain on from 5 to 10 minutes.|On March 8, 1939, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Ohio, filed a libel against 717 tins of the above-named product at Cleveland,|Ohio, alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or|about February 2, 1939, by the Madam O. J. Walker Manufacturing Co. from|Indianapolis, Ind.; and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded.|It was alleged in the libel that the article was a drug which affects the body|function and structure and was misbranded for the reasons stated above. It was|also alleged to be adulterated under the provisions of the law applicable to|cosmetics as reported in O. N. J. No. 17.|On September 8, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|68. Adulteration and misbranding of Palmer's Antiseptic Skin Lotion. U. S. v. 36 Bottles of Palmer's Antiseptic Skin Lotion. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00068May 1940Solon PalmerPalmer's Antiseptic Skin LotionNovember 25, 1938Richmond, Va.New York, N. Y.Richmond, Va.Eastern District erf Virginia68F. D. C. No. 183. Sample No. 35008-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00068ddnj|68. Adulteration and misbranding of Palmer's Antiseptic Skin Lotion. V. S. v.|36 Bottles of Palmer's Antiseptic Skin Lotion. Default decree of con-|demnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 183. Sample No. 35008-D.)|This product contained mercuric chloride (corrosive sublimate), a poisonous|or deleterious substance. It was recommended in its labeling that it be used for|minor cuts, burns, and bites, that bandages be applied loosely and saturated|with the lotion and that it be applied for any cuts and irritation. It would be|dangerous to health when so used. Its labeling failed to reveal facts material|with respect to the consequences which might result from its use under the|conditions of use prescribed in the labeling or under such conditions of use as|are customary or usual, and failed to bear adequate directions for use and warn-|ings against use In those pathological conditions where its use might be|dangerous to health or against unsafe methods or duration of administration.|On March 8, 1939, the United States attorney for the Eastern District erf|Virginia filed a libel against 36 bottles of Palmer's Antiseptic Skin Lotion at|Richmond, Va., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce|on or about November 25, 1938, by Solon Palmer from New York, N. T.; and|charging that it was adulterated and misbranded. It was alleged to be mis-|branded under the provisions of the law applicable to drugs for the reasons|stated above. It was also alleged to be adulterated under those applicable to|cosmetics as reported in 0. N. J. No. 21.|It was alleged to be adulterated and misbranded in violation of the Food and|Drugs Act of 1906, reported in notice of judgment No. 30883 published under|that act|On May 31,1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered, and the product was ordered destroyed.|69. Adulteration and misbranding of Othine. U. S. v. 28 Packages and 28 Jars of Othine. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00069May 1940Othine Laboratories, Inc., ftom Buffalo, N. Y.OthineMarch 15, 1939Boston, Mass.; Pittsburgh, Pa.Buffalo, N. Y.Boston, Mass.; Pittsburgh, Pa.District of Massachusetts and the Western District of Pennsylvania69F. D. C. Nos. 213, 214. Sample Nos. 85880-D, 62229-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00069ddnj|69. Adulteration and misbranding of Othine. tJ. S. v. 28 Packages and 28 Jars|of Othine. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C.|Nos. 213, 214. Sample Nos. 85880-D, 62229-D.)|This product, a skin bleach prepared especially for the removal of freckles,|contained ammoniated mercury, a poisonous or deleterious substance. It would|be dangerous to health when used in the dosage or with the frequency or dura-|tion prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling. Its labeling bore|directions that it be applied lightly with the finger tips before retiring, after|first washing the face with soap and warm water and drying thoroughly; that|it should not be rubbed in and should be left on all night and washed off in|the morning, and that directions should be followed nightly until entire Jar|had been used. The user was cautioned not to apply the cream too close to the|eyes or on eyelids, throat, or neck, nor near open cuts, and not to use it while|one has prickly heat or fresh sunburn. It was directed in the circular that|in the case of sensitive skin which showed irritation after first day's application,|It should be stopped and a little vaseline applied, and application should be|resumed after 2 or 3 days once every other day \"\"until the skin got used to it,|increasing by degrees until once a day was reached without causing irritation.\"\"|Its labeling did not bear adequate directions for use and such adequate warnings|against use In those pathological conditions or by children where its use might be|dangerous to health, or against unsafe dosage or methods or duration of admin-|istration or application, In such manner and form as are necessary for the|protection of users.|On March 30 and 81, 1939, the United States attorneys for the District of|Massachusetts and the Western District of Pennsylvania filed libels against 26|packages of Othine at Boston, Mass., and 28 jars of Othine at Pittsburgh, Pa.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce by the Othine|December 1, 1938, to on or about March 15, 1939; and charging that it was|adulterated and misbranded.|It was alleged to be a misbranded drug for the reasons stated above. It|was also alleged to be an adulterated cosmetic as reported in C. N. J. No. 20.|On April 24 and May 1, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgments of|condemnation were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|74. Adulteration and misbranding of epinephrine chloride solution. U. S. v. One Carton of Solution Epinephrine Chloride. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00074May 1940Harvey-Pittenger Co.epinephrine chloride solutionApril 29, 1939Camden, N. J.Philadelphia, Pa.Camden, N. J.District of New Jersey74F. D. C. No. 596. Sample No. 51848-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00074ddnj|74. Adulteration and misbranding of epinephrine chloride solution. U. S. v.|One Carton of Solution Epinephrine Chloride. Default decree of con-|demnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 596. Sample No. 51848-D.)|This product had a potency of not more than 65 percent of the requirement of|the United States Pharmacopoeia for epinephrine hydrochloride.|On September 14, 1939, the United States attorney for the District of New,|Jersey filed a libel against one carton, containing seven 1-ounce bottles, of epine-|phrine chloride solution at Camden, N. J., alleging that the article had been|shipped in interstate commerce on or about April 29, 1939, by Harvey-Pitten-|ger Co. from Philadelphia, Pa.; and charging that it was adulterated and mis--|branded.|It was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to be or was repre-|sented as a drug the name of which is recognized in the United States Pharma-|copoeia, and its strength differed from or its quality fell below the standard|set forth in the pharmacopoeia.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the representation in the labeling|that each fluid ounce contained 0.45 grain of epinephrine was false and mi^|leading since it contained less than 0.45 grain of epinephrine in each fluid|ounce.|On October 20, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|75. Adulteration and misbranding of Daily Vitamins. U. S. v. 84 Boxes of Daily Vitamins. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00075May 1940Daily Vitamins, Inc.Daily VitaminsDecember 22, 1938Washington, D. C.Cincinnati, OhioWashington, D.C0.District of Columbia75F. D. C. No. 556. Sample No. 47472-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00075ddnj|75. Adulteration and misbranding of Daily Vitamins. IT. S. v. 84 Boxes of Dally|\"\"Vitamins. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C.|No. 556. Sample No. 47472-D.)|This product was represented to contain 200 International Units of vitamin|IBj per capsule, whereas it contained not more than 10 International Units of|vitamin Bi per capsule.|On September 5, 1939, the United States attorney for the District of Colum-|bia filed a libel against 84 boxes of Daily Vitamins at Washington, D. 0.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|December 22, 1938, by Daily Vitamins, Inc., from Cincinnati, Ohio; and charging|that it was adulterated and misbranded.|It was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from and its|purity fell below that which it purported or was represented to possess.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the representation in the labeling|that each capsule contained not less than 400 Sherman Units (200 International|Units) of vitamin Bi, was false and misleading.|On September 26, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condem-|nation was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|Absorbal refills. Bee Surgical dress-|ings, cotton.|Anthel Tablets|Arbolone Tablets|Aseptlcon Nipple Shields|Bad-Ex-Salts|Barmidon Tablets|B-B Headache Powders|B. C. Headache Powders|Cachets Algocratine|Cal-Co-Cin|Catisalln|Chewing gum laxative|Cidic Comfort Compound|Compress bandages. See Surgical|dressings, gauze.|Cosmetics (subject to drug provisions|of the act)|Cotton, absorbent. See Surgical dress-|ings.|Dixie Fever and Pain Powder|Dunwody's Turpedine Emulsion|E E Powders|Epinephrine chloride solution|First Aid Poc-Kits|Gauze. See Surgical dressings.|Glucose solution|goody's Headache Powder??eadache powders|See also under special names.|Hed Klear?.|Hed-Lyte|Lee's Milk of Magnesia Dental Cream_|Miller's Anti-Mole|Nazoscope|Nipple shields|8,9|18.|67-73|74|1-4|89|73|71|40|20-34|N.J.|O. B. C. Capsules-|O. J's Beauty Lotion|Othine |Palmer's Antiseptic Skin Lotion|Pate-O-Graph|Patol. See Pate-O-Graph.|Pen-E-Scope|Peranol|Pheno Bardidon, Elixir?.|Prophylactics|Reducing preparations|Richmond Aseptic Cotton Pellets.|See Surgical dressings, cotton.|Sedormid \"\"Roche,\"\" Tablets|Sodasal|Soule's External Lotion|Stanback Headache Powders|Surgical dressings __|cotton, absorbent|59, 62,|Absoibal refills|Richmond Aseptic Cotton Pellets.|first aid kits|gauze| 59, 60, 61, 63|compress bandages|Syn-O-Scope|Tooth paste|Tru-Lax Mint Flavored Chewing Laxa-|tive.:|Universal Formula|Vaporizing devices?,|Veterinary remedy|Vitamins, Daily|Volz Anti-Rheumin|Walkers. Madam C. J., Tan-Off|Wansbrough's, Dr., Nipple Shields|No.|41|72|69|68|48-58|41-42|18, 19|59-66|64, 66|, 64, 65|43|85-40|46|75|11|20-32|SHIPPERS, MANUFACTURERS, AND DISTRIBUTORS|N. J. No.|Ace Rubber Co. t|prophylactics| 48|Acme Cotton Products Co., Inc.:|surgical dressings|. 69, 63|American Laboratories:|Bad-Ex-Salts| 44|American Medical Specialties Co.,|Inc.:|nipple shields| 80|Amfre Drug Co.:|Causalin|8,9|Anthel Co.:|Anthel Tablets| 15|Arbolone Co.:|Arbolone Tablets| 42|Armstrong Cork Co.:|nipple shields| 29|Baltimore Rubber Co.:|prophylactics| 48|Barry, E. J., Inc.:|Bad-Ex-Salts| 44|B. C. Remedy Co.:|B. C. Headache Powders|Bengor Products Co.:|prophylactics| 52|Brock, L. M.. & Co.:|Soule's External Lotion| 70|Brooks, R. W. :|Volz Anti-Rheumin| 11|Crescent-Kelvan Co.:|Cal-co-cin| 10|Daily Vitamins, Inc.:|Daily Vitamins?........ 75|N. J. No.|E E Medicine Co.:|E E Powders|Endo Products, Inc.:|Barmidon Tablets?;?.- 14|Enkel, Harry:|Sodasal| 19|First Aid Products Corporation :|gauze bandage| 65|Fitch, W. A.:|glucose solution| 47|Frank & Black:|O. B. C. Capsules| 41|Gem Surgical Products Co., Inc.:|nipple shields| 84|Gillespie, H. W.:|Pate-O-Graph| 86|Girvin, Edward, D. D. S.:|Absorbal refills| 62|Glasco Products Co.:|nipple shields|24, 26|Goodwear Rubber Co.:|prophylactics| 53|Goody's, Inc.:|Goody's Headache Powder??8|Gotham Rubber Co.:|prophylactics|48, 49, 54|Gotham Sales Co., Inc.:|prophylactics| 51|G. W. R. Co.:|prophylactics|?. 54|Hampton Manufacturing Co., Inc.:|First Aid Poc-Kits| 64|Handy Pad Supply Co. t|surgical gauze| 61|Harvey-Pittenger Co.:|epinephrine chloride solution? 74|Haslam, Fred. & Co.:|Dr. Wansbrough's Nipple Shields- 20.21|Hed-Lyte Co.:|Hed-Lyte|Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc.:|Sedormid \"\"Roche,\"\" Tablets? 17|Hy'ne Co.:|Cidic Comfort Compound? 13|Karg, P. G.:|prophylactics| 57|Killashun Sales Division:|prophylactics| 55|L-A Export Co.:|prophylactics| 54|Lancosme, E. :|Cachets Algocratine| 12|Liggett's Drug Store:|Pate-O-Graph| 86|Maris, J. M. :|nipple shields| 28|Maris, John M., Co.:|nipple shields| 27|Maris, John M., Corporation:|nipple shields| 27|McKesson & Robbins, Inc.:|nipple shields| 28|Meinecke & Co.:|nipple shields| 82|Miller Manufacturing Co.:|Miller's Anti-Mole . 71|Mine Safety Appliance Co.:|compress bandages . | 60|Murray Laboratories:|Nazoscope | 40|National New York Packing & Ship-|ping Co.:|nipple shields | 22|Newman, Philip :|prophylactics , | 50|O. J.'s Beauty Lotion Co. I|O. J.'s Beauty Lotion | 72|Oleson, Paul:|Pen-E-Scope | 87|Olympia Laboratory:|prophylactics | 58|Othine Laboratories, Inc.:|Othine | 69|Parnam, 0. J.:|O. J.'s Beauty Lotion | 72|Peltz-Kauffer Co., Inc.:|Tru-Lax Chewing Laxative 43|Pen-E-Scope Laboratories:|Pen-E-Scope , | 87|N. J. No.|Penn-Jersey Rubber Co. t|prophylactics | 54|Penn Surgical Manufacturing Co.:|nipple shields |23, 31|Peranol Products:|Peranol | 38|Premo Pharmaceutical Laboratories:|Pheno Barbidon Elixir | 16|Reed, W. H., & Co.:|prophylactics | 56|Richmond Dental Manufacturing Co.:|Richmond Cotton Pellets 66|Rosenthal, H. H., Co.:|nipple shields | 26|Ross Products Co.:|surgical gauze | 65|Shunk, L. E., Latex Products, Inc.:|prophylactics | 52|Sklar, J., Manufacturing Co.:|nipple shields | 25|Sodasal Laboratories:|Sodasal | 18|Solon Palmer:|Palmer's Antiseptic Skin Lotion 68|Specialty Sales Co.:|B-B Headache Powders |Stanback Co.:|Stanback Headache Powders! . 2|Strong, Cobb & Co.:|Volz Anti-Rheumin |. 11|Swamp & Dixie Laboratories, Inc.:|Dixie Fever and Pain Powder 6|Swidler, Sam:|Dunwody's Turpedine Emulsion 45|Syn-O-Scope Co., Inc.:|Syn O-Scope | 3|>|Tecla Chemical Corporation:|prophylactics | 48|Thyrole Products Co.:|O. B. C. Capsules | 41|Tobin & Snell:|Pate-O-Graph | 36|Trade Laboratories, Inc.:|Lee's Dental Cream | 73|Universal Antiseptic & Research Labo-|ratories, Inc.:|Universal Formula | 46|Universal Jtochandise Co.:|prophylactics | 49|Van Patten Pharmaceutical Co.:|Hed Klear-_ | 39|Walker, Madam C. J., Manufacturing|Co.:|Walker's. Madam C. J., Tan-Off 67|Wardall. W. J. :|nipple shields | 28|Weiss. Max, & Sons, Inc.:|nipple shields | 33|S.f. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICII U4t|76. Misbranding of Causalin. U. S. v. Amfre Drug Co., Inc., and Lewis Stern. Pleas of guilty. Fines, $1,400.ddnj00076May 1940Amfre Drug Co., Inc., and Lewis Stern, president of the corporationCausalinJuly 1 to December 27, 1938New YorkNew YorkNew Jersey, Pennsylvania, MassachusettsSouthern District of New York76F. D. C. No. 94. Sample Nos. 25962-D, 25963-D, 25964-D, 30071-D to 30074-D, incl. , 30092-D to 30097-D, incl. , 35452-D, 35453-D, 35567-D, 35569-D, 35570-D, 41997-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00076ddnj|FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION|NOTICES OF JUDGMENT UNDER THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG,|AND COSMETIC ACT|[Given pursuant to section 705 of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act]|76-140|DRUGS AND DEVICES|The cases reported herein were instituted in the United States district courts|by the United States attorneys, acting upon reports submitted by direction of|the Secretary of Agriculture.|GROVER B. HUX, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.|Washington, D. C, May &, 1940.|Page|MIsbranded sedatives, pain relievers, and|headache remedies- - , 33|Drugs seized because of deviation from official|or own standards or because of substitution. 38|Vitamin preparations. | 38|Miscellaneous. 40|Drug seized because of contamination with|filth | 43|CONTENTS|Page|Drugs labeled with false and misleading ther-|apeutio claims | 44|Dr,ugs sold for both human andf veterinary|use | 47|Veterinary remedies. | 48|Drugs in deceptive containers |- 60|Nonsterile surgical dressings | 52|Prophylactics |. 56|Index 61|MISBRANDED SEDATIVES, PAIN RELIEVERS, AND HEADACHE|REMEDIES|76. Misbranding: of Caosalin. U. S. v. Amfre Drug: Co., Inc., and Lewis Stern.|Pleas of guilty. Fines, $1,400. (F. D. C. No. 94. Sample Nos. 25962-D,|25963-D, 25964-D, 30071-D to 30074-D, incl., 30092-D to 30097-D, incl.,|35452-D, 35453-D, 35567-D, 35569-D, 35570-D, 41997-D.)|This product consisted of capsules and tablets containing aminopyrine|(aminodimethylpyrazolon,) salicylic ethyl ester carbonate, and a sulfonate|such as quinolinesulfonate. It would be dangerous to health when used in|the dosage or with the frequency prescribed, recommended, and suggested in|the labeling.|The labeling of 6 of the 7 shipments bore the recommendation that the|article be taken in the dosage as directed by the physician, 1 to 2 tablets|or capsules 3 times a day, one-half hour before meals. In the seventh ship-|ment the labeling in describing the \"\"manner of use\"\" of the article represented|that the average dose was 1 capsule or tablet 3 times daily one-half hour|before meals and that in severe or chronic cases one should start with 2|capsules or tablets 3 times daily continuing for about a week, then gradually|reducing the dosage.|On January 30, 1940, the United States attorney for the Southern District|of New York filed an information against the Amfre Drug Co., Inc., and|Lewis Stern, president of the corporation, alleging shipment by said defend-|ants within the period from on or about July 1 to on or about December 27,|1938, from the State of New York into the States of New Jersey, Pennsylvania,|Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, of quantities of Causalin which was mis-|branded for the reasons appearing above.|221827?-40- 1 |The article was also charged with being adulterated and misbranded in|violation of the Food and Drugs Act of 1906, reported in notice of judgment|No. 80996, published under that act|On January 80, 1940, pleas of guilty having been entered, the court imposed|sentences for violation of both acts, the fines against each defendant on|the counts charging violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act|amounting to $700.|77. Misbranding of Cal-co-cin. U. S. v. George T. Lambert, David Periera, and George D. Lambert. Pleas of nolo contendere. Fines, $250.ddnj00077May 1940George T. Lambert, David Periera, and George D. Lambert, trading as the Crescent-Kelvan Co., a business trust, Philadelphia, Pa.Cal-co-cinJuly 28 to October 20, 1938PennsylvaniaPennsylvaniaMarylandEastern District of Pennsylvania77F. D. C. No. 95. Sample Nos. 34424-D, 34642-D, 34644-D, 34703-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00077ddnj|77. Misbranding; of Gal-co-dn. V. 8. v. George T. Lambert, David Periera, and|George D. Lambert. Fleas of nolo contendere. Fines, $250. (F. D. C.|No. 05. Sample Nos. 34424-D, 34642-D, 84644-D, 34703-D.)|This drug consisted of the calcium salts of benzoic acid and cinchophen. It|would be dangerous to health when used in the dosage or with the frequency pre-|scribed, recommended, and suggested in the labeling, which directed the dosage|of one capsule four times a day, after meals and on retiring.|On September 18, 1939, the United States attorney for the Eastern District|of Pennsylvania filed an information against George T. Lambert, David Periera,|and George D. Lambert, trading as the Crescent-Kelvan Co., a business trust,|Philadelphia, Pa., alleging shipment by said defendants within the period from|on or about July 28 to on or about October 20, 1938, from the State of Pennsyl-|vania into the State of Maryland of quantities of Cal-co-cin, which was mis-|branded in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act for the reasons|stated above.|The information also charged that the article was misbranded in violation|of the Food and Drugs Act of 1906 reported in notice of judgment No. 30202|published under that act.|On December 8, 1939, pleas of nolo contendere were entered on behalf of the|defendants. On January 5, 1940, the court imposed fines amounting to $250 for|violation of both acts.|78. Misbranding of Sodasal. U. 8. v. Harry Enkel (Sodasal Laboratories). Plea of guilty. Sentence 1 year. Sentence suspended and defendant placed on probation for 8 years. Fine of $100 also imposed.ddnj00078May 1940Harry Enkel, trading as the Sodasal Laboratories, Detroit, Mich.SodasalJanuary 14 to March 4, 1939MichiganMichiganPennsylvaniaEastern District of Michigan78F. D. C. No. 96. Sample Nos. 42944-D, 42971-D, 43181-D, 52224-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00078ddnj|78. Misbranding of Sodasal. U. 8. v. Harry Enkel (Sodasal Laboratories).|Plea of guilty. Sentence 1 year. Sentence suspended and defendant|placed on probation for 8 years. Fine of 8100 also imposed. (F. D. C.|No. 96. Sample Nos. 42944-D, 42971-D, 43181-D, 52224-D.)|This product contained aminopyrine, sodium salicylate, compounds of potas-|sium, magnesium, and calcium, and citrates, carbonates, sugar, and water. It|would be dangerous to health when used in the dosage or with the frequency or|duration prescribed, recommended, and suggested in the labeling, which directed|that 1 tablespoonful or 4 teaspoonfuls be taken in water, milk, or orange juice,|followed by a full glass of water or milk three times a day before or after|meals or on retiring, and that the dose be cut down \"\"if the ears ring or if|allergic.\"\"|On November 14, 1939, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Michigan filed an information against Harry Enkel, trading as the Sodasal|Laboratories, Detroit, Mich., alleging shipment by said defendant within the|period from on or about January 14 to on or about March 4, 1939, from the|State of Michigan into the State of Pennsylvania of quantities of Sodasal which|was misbranded for the reasons stated above.|The information also charged that the article was misbranded in violation of|the Food and Drugs Act of 1906 reported in notice of judgment No. 80977 published|under that act|On December 4,1939, a plea of guilty having been entered, the court sentenced|the defendant to 1 year's imprisonment and imposed a fine of $100 for violation|of both acts. Prison sentence was suspended and the defendant was placed on|probation for 8 years.|79. Misbranding of Hartshorn's Headache Powders. U. 8. v. 89 Packages of Hartshorn's Headache Powders. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00079May 1940B. Hartshorn & Sons, Inc.Hartshorn's Headache PowdersJuly 22, 1939Portland, MaineNorthampton, Mass.Portland, MaineDistrict of Maine79F. D. C. No. 618. Sample No. 69095-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00079ddnj|70. Misbranding: of Hartshorn's Headache Powders. U. 8. v. 89 Packages of|Hartshorn's Headache Powders. Default decree of condemnation and|destruction. (F. D. C. No. 618. Sample No. 69095-D.)|This product consisted essentially of acetanilid, caffeine, sodium bicarbonate,|and flavoring materials. It would be dangerous to health when used in the|dosage or with the frequency or duration prescribed, recommended, or sug-|gested in its labeling, which bore directions that 1 powder be taken, to be|repeated in 20 to 80 minutes if necessary for simple headache; that 1 powder|should be taken every 2 or 8 hours as required for simple neuralgia and acute|rheumatic fever; that 1 powder be taken on retiring, to be repeated in 1 hour|If sleep is not produced, for sleeplessness and nervousness; that 1 powder be|taken and repeated in 1 hour, and 1 powder after 2 or 8 hours, for colds,|and that not more than 8 powders should be taken during a period of 8 hours.|filed a libel against 39 packages of Hartshorn's Headache Powders at Portland,|Maine, alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on|or about July 22, 1939, by B. Hartshorn & Sons, Inc., from Northampton, Mass.;|and charging that it was misbranded.|On October 9, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|80. Misbranding of Cephalgine Tablets. U. S. v. 30 Packages of Cephalgine Tablets. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00080May 1940Cephalgine Co.Cephalgine TabletsMarch 28 and April 20, 1939Concord, N. H.Spencer, Mass.Concord, N. H.District of New Hampshire80F. D. C No. 460. Sample No. 69431-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00080ddnj|80. Misbranding of Cephalgine Tablets. U. S. v. 30 Packages of Cephalgine|Tablets. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C|No. 460. Sample No. 69431-D.)|This product consisted essentially of acetanilid, caffeine, and camphor. It|would be dangerous to health when used as recommended, and its labeling|failed to reveal the consequences which might result from its use. Its labeling|was further objectionable because of false and misleading representations|regarding its efficacy in the conditions indicated hereinafter.|On August 28, 1939, the United States attorney for the District of New|Hampshire filed a libel against 30 packages of Cephalgine Tablets at Concord,|N. H., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or|about March 28 and April 20, 1939, by the Cephalgine Co. from Spencer, Mass.;|and charging that it was misbranded.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that it was dangerous to health when|used in the dosage or with the frequency prescribed, recommended, or sug-|gested in the labeling, which recommended that a dose of one or two tablets|be taken; that two more might be taken in 1 hour if needed or that two|tablets might be taken every 8 or 4 hours and that, between the ages of 5 and|10, half the above dose should be administered; and because of failure of the|labeling to bear warnings against use in those pathological conditions or by|children where its use might be dangerous to health or against unsafe dosage|or methods or duration of administration or application, in such manner and|form as are necessary for the protection of users. It was alleged to be mis-|branded further in that statements in the labeling in which It was recommended|as a relief of pain and discomfort due to simple headaches, neuralgia, and|muscular aches and pains and in which it was represented that frequent use|did not require an increase in the dose; that it contained no habit-forming|drug or narcotic were false and misleading, since it was not a safe remedy|for the conditions mentioned, and the said statements encouraged the user to|take the preparation frequently and misled the user to believe that it might|be taken with safety; whereas it contained a dangerous drug, acetanilid.|On October 18, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|90. Adulteration and misbranding of Black and White Ointment. U. S. v. 138 Packages of Black and White Ointment. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00090May 1940Plough Sales CorporationBlack and White OintmentJuly 20, 1939Atlanta, Ga.Memphis, Tenn.Atlanta, Ga.Northern District of Georgia90F. D. C. No. 424. Sample No. 48584-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00090ddnj|90. Adulteration and misbranding- of Black and White Ointment. U. S. v. 138|Packages of Black and White Ointment. Default decree of condemna-|tion and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 424. Sample No. 48584-D.)|This product contained a smaller amount of red mercuric oxide than that|declared on its label. Its label also bore false and misleading representations|regarding its medicinal properties as shown hereinafter. Furthermore, its|containers were deceptive in that the immediate container, a tin box, had a|false bottom occupying about two-thirds of its total space and this box was|placed in a carton of much larger size.|On August 17, 1939, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Georgia filed a libel against 138 packages of Black and White Ointment at|Atlanta, Ga., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce|on or about July 20, 1939, by the Plough Sales Corporation from Memphis,|Tenn. i and charging that It was adulterated and misbranded.|Analysis showed that it contained not more than 8.05 percent of red mer-|curic oxide.|Adulteration was alleged in that the strength of the article differed from|that which it purported and was represented to possess, namely, that it con-|tained 10 percent red mercuric oxide.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that its container was so made, formed,|and filled as to be misleading. It was alleged to be misbranded further in|that statements in the labeling represented that it was efficacious in relieving|the discomfort of itching, soreness, and burning accompanying ringworm,|psoriasis, and eczema (of external origin) and as a dressing in acne pimples|of external origin; as a local palliative for dressing acne pimples and as an|aid in relieving the discomfort of itching, burning, and soreness due to or asso-|ciated with eczema and simple ringworm and efficacious to retard the growth|and spread of bacteria, to stimulate cellular activity, and to promote healing;|that its use should be governed by the thinness or sensitiveness of the skin;|that it was a local antiseptic palliative; that it was an efficacious dressing|to soften crusts and relieve discomfort; that it was efficacious as an aid in|removing the scales and as a grateful relief for relieving the itching of|221827?-40 2|psoriasis, which representations were false and misleading since the article|was not efficacious for the purposes recommended.|On October 14, 1939, no claimant having appeared, Judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|81. Misbranding of Bromo-Seltzer. U. S. v. 168 Dozen Small Size, 102 Dozen Medium Size, 171 Dozen Large Size, 33 Dozen Extra Large Size, and 115 Dozen Dispensing Size of Emerson's Bromo Seltzer (and 7 otber seizure actions instituted against Bromo Seltzer). Motion filed by claimant for consolidation and removal. Motion for consolidation granted. Motion for removal denied. Cases consolidated under one libel captioned U. S. v. 376 Dozen Small Size, et al. Emerson's Bromo-Seltzer. Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered released under bond for salvaging the citric add and the containers.ddnj00081May 1940Emerson Drug Co., Baltimore, Md.Bromo-SeltzerOctober 81, 1938, to on or about March 8, 1939New York N. Y.; Atlanta, Ga.; Knoxville, Tenn.; Greensboro, N. C.Baltimore, Md.New York N. Y.; Atlanta, Ga.; Knoxville, Tenn.; Greensboro, N. C.Southern District of New York, Northern District of Georgia, Eastern District of Tennessee, and the Middle District of North Carolina81F. D. C. Nos. 184. 185, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 195, 196. Sample Nos. 44847-D, 44848-D, 44861-D, 44862-D 45051-D to 45057-D, lncl. , 45395-D to 45400-D, inch, 45501-D to 45514-D lncl. , 59378-D, 59379-D, 59380-D, 59909-D to 59914-D, lncl. , 60061-D to 60071-D, lncl. , 60101-D, 60102-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00081ddnj|81. Misbranding: of Bromo-Seltzer. IT. S. v. 168 Dozen Small Size, 102 Dozen|Medium Size, 171 Dozen Large Size, 33 Dozen Extra Large Size, and 115|Dozen Dispensing: Size of Emerson's Bromo Seltzer (and 7 otber seizure|actions instituted against Bromo Seltzer). Motion filed by claimant for|consolidation and removal. Motion for consolidation granted. Motion|for removal denied. Cases consolidated under one libel captioned IT. S. v.|376 Dozen Small Size, et al. Emerson's Bromo-Seltzer. Consent decree|of condemnation. Product ordered released under bond for salvaging|the citric add and the containers. (F. D. C. Nos. 184. 185, 186. 188. 189.|190, 191, 192, 195, 196. Sample NOB. 44847-D, 44848-D, 44861-D, 44862-D|45051-D to 45057-D, lncl., 45395-D to 45400-D, inch, 45501-D to 45514-D|lncl., 59378-D, 59379-D, 59380-D, 59909-D to 59914-D, lncl., 60061-D to|60071-D, lncl., 60101-D, 60102-D.)|. This product contained acetanilid, sodium bromide, and caffeine incorporated|In an effervescing mixture. Seizure action was instituted on the charges that|it was dangerous to health when used as directed in the labeling, and that its|labeling failed to reveal facts material with respect to consequences which|might result from its use.|On March 7, 8, and 10, 1989, the United States attorneys for the Southern|District of New York, Northern District of Georgia, Eastern District of Ten-|nessee, and the Middle District of North Carolina filed libels against a total|of 1,116? dozen small size, 798? dozen medium size, 485? dozen large size,|101? dozen extra large size, 188? dozen dispensing size packages, and 20|cards, each bearing a number of individual dose tubes of Bromo Seltzer, in|various lots at New York N. Y.; Atlanta, Ga.; Knoxville, Tenn.; and Greens-|boro, N. C, alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce|within the period from on or about October 81, 1938, to on or about March 8,|1939, by the Emerson Drug Co. from Baltimore, Md.; and charging that it|was misbranded.|On April 25, 1939, the Emerson Drug Co., Baltimore, Md., filed in the Southern|District of New York, a petition alleging that the 8 different libel proceedings|involved identical issues, that it had acquired title to all the goods involved;|that it had or would file a claim of interest in each proceeding and that it|intended to defend and had answered or would file timely answers in each|proceeding denying the material allegations of the libels. The intervenor peti-|tioned that the proceedings be consolidated and removed to the United States|District Court for the District of Maryland; and on April 26, 1939, an order to|show cause why such consolidation and removal should not be ordered was|served upon the Government. On May 9,1939, the United States attorney having|filed an affidavit in opposition to that portion of the relief prayed for which sought|the removal of the consolidated proceedings to the District of Maryland, the|motion for consolidation and removal was argued. Decision was reserved. On|May 25 the court granted the motion for consolidation, but denied the motion for|removal, handing down the following opinion:|JOHN W. GLA.NCT, District Judge. \"\"This is a motion to consolidate eight libel|proceedings into one and have it removed to the United States District Court|for the District of Maryland, wherein the claimant, a Maryland corporation,|has its principal place of business. The present proceedings are pending in the|Southern District of New York, the Northern District of Georgia, the Eastern|District of Tennessee, and the Middle District of North Carolina. The motion|was brought under Sec. 804 (b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act,|Title 21 U. S. O. A. 834, which provides in part: '* * * When libel for|condemnation proceedings under this section, involving the same claimant and|the same issues of adulteration or misbranding, are pending in two or more|jurisdictions, such pending proceedings, upon application of the claimant season-|ably made to the court of one such jurisdiction, shall be consolidated for trial by|order of such court, and tried in (1) any district selected by the claimant where|one of such proceedings is pending; or (2) a district agreed upon by stipulation|between the parties. If no order for consolidation is so made within a reason-|able time, the claimant may apply to the court of one such jurisdiction, and|such court (after giving the United States attorney for such district reasonable|notice and opportunity to be heard) shall by order, unless good cause to the|contrary is shown, specify a district of reasonable proximity to the claimant's|principal place of business, in which all such pending proceedings shall be con-|solidated for trial and tried. Such order of consolidation shall not apply so as|to require the removal of any case the date for trial of which has been fixed.|The court granting such order shall give prompt notification thereof to the|other courts having jurisdiction of the cases covered thereby.' The Government|has not objected to the consolidation but does object to the removal. The|relevant portion of this section, In its original form In the Senate, provided:|The United States District Court wherein the claimant's principal place of|business is located, or such district court as the parties may agree upon, are|hereby vested with jurisdiction to try such cases.' But the House changed it to|read: '* * * (1) any district, selected by the claimant, where one of such|proceedings is pending; or (2) a district in a State contiguous to the State of|the claimant's principal place of business, such district to be agreed upon by|stipulation between the parties, or, in case of failure to BO stipulate within a|reasonable time, to be designated by the court to which such application was|made.' This change was not accepted by the Senate. The Bill was then sent|to a Committee of Conference, whence it emerged in the form in which it was|finally enacted. We think that the record of the Committee reports and debates|in the Senate, preceding its enactment, and the Bill's language, disclose that it|was the intention of the Congress that a claimant might not obtain a removal|of the case for trial to the district of its principal place of business. The|Act affords the claimant the right to obtain a trial in any other district of|reasonable proximity to its principal place of business unless good cause to the|contrary Is shown. However, claimant here has not requested any district other|than that of its principal place of business and, in the absence of such request,|the Court, while granting the motion to consolidate, must deny the motion for|removal, thereby effectuating a consolidation in this district which is reasonably|proximate to claimant's principal place of business and wherein it saw fit to|make this motion.\"\"|On May 81, an order was filed in accordance with the said opinion, and the|Clerks of Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, Northern District of|the Southern District of New York all records in the proceedings in their|respective jurisdictions. On July 21, 1939, after the cases were consolidated as|ordered, an amended libel was filed in the Southern District of New York with|respect to all the goods under seizure.|It was alleged in the said amended libel that the article was mlsbranded In|that it was dangerous to health when used In the dosage or with the frequency|prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling. The dosage recom-|mended on the cartons and bottle labels of the small, medium, and large sizes|was a heaping teaspoonful in a half glass of water to be repeated in an hour|if not relieved, or until 3 doses had been taken within 24 hours. The label of|the extra large-size bottles and the dispensing size, the circulars enclosed in|the cartons, and the single dose tube bore directions which were substantially|the same, except that they recommended that the dose be repeated in a half|hour If not relieved, or until three doses had been taken.|The article was alleged to be misbranded further in that the labeling was|false and misleading because It failed to reveal facts material with respect to|the consequences which might result from the use of the article under the|conditions of use prescribed in the labeling.|The labeling which the libel alleged to be false and misleading, consisted|of the directions for dosage hereinbefore referred to and further statements|appearing on the cartons enclosing all sizes but the single dose tubes, state-|ments on the labels of the bottles enclosed in the said cartons, circulars accom-|panying the said bottles, the tubes containing the single dose size, and the cards|to which the tubes were attached.|The said cartons bore representations that the article was a balanced com-|pound of several medicinal ingredients for headache and neuralgia. The bottle|labels bore the representation that the article was efficacious for the relief|of headache and neuralgia. The single dose tubes and the cards bore represen-|tations that the article was efficacious for headache and neuralgia, that it was|for use at home or while traveling and that it \"\"Stops Headache Faster.\"\"|Circulars accompanying the small-, medium-, and large-sized bottles contained|representations that millions had obtained \"\"fast headache relief\"\" with Bromo|Seltzer; that it would relieve headache, settle the stomach, soothe the nerves,|and \"\"leave one keener the morning after\"\"; that it would help the head and|stomach when \"\"too much to eat had caused a sick headache\"\"; that it would be|efficacious to \"\"clear nervous headache\"\" and leave one more efficient; that it|would give rapid relief in fatigue headache; that doctors after testing a number|of products which were popular for the symptoms of over-indulgence had|found that Bromo-Seltzer relieved morning-after headaches faster than any|other remedy they tested; that it would bring speedy relief to other types of|headache; that it would relax nervous tension resulting from upset nervous|system caused by headache, and would help place the nervous system In a|more normal state; that it would help restore normal alkaline balance when|accumulation of excess acid substances accompanied headache as on morning|after; that a dose taken before going to bed, following over-indulgence or|unusual strain or fatigue, would help prevent a headache next morning and|that after waking another dose was added assurance against headache and hang-|over; and that its action, while prompt, was gentle and calming. A circular|accompanying the extra large-sized packages contained representations that|most people would rather have an occasional headache than observe the rigid|rules necessary to avoid it; that certain pain-relieving drugs (like the one|used in Bromo-Seltzer) had done more to give relief from headaches and|ordinary discomforts and to make life more comfortable and agreeable than any|other discovery of ancient or modern time; that it would save a holiday from|being spoiled by headache which might follow strenuous exercise, muscle strain,|exposure to the sun and wind; that it would end the pain of dull throbbing|head resulting from exhaustion caused by overwork; that it should be taken|at the first sign of a headache or before retiring at those times when one feels|he may have a headache; that Its granular effervescence made it the ideal|form of headache remedy because besides stopping the pain in the head, the|effervescence relieved gastric distress that so often accompanies, and even|causes, headache; that for the most complete relief It should be taken In very|cold water, a heaping teaspoonful to half a glass, stirred, and drunk at once|since in that way it would be less bubbly and the greatest quantity of gas|(CO?) would remain dissolved In the water rendering its helpful action In the|stomach more available; that its action while prompt was gentle and calming;|that one of two doses usually gave relief to periodic headaches of women; and|that it does not upset the stomach.|On August 80, 1939, the claimant filed an amended answer, which denied the|misbranding charges and challenged the constitutionality of the Federal Food,|Drug, and Cosmetic Act on the grounds: first, that it provided for unlawful|search and seizure; and second, that it was too general and uncertain in its|provisions.|On January 2, 1940, the claimant having represented to the court that since|the commencement of the several libel proceedings it had changed the formula|of the product manufactured and sold by it, and the said claimant having con-|sented to the entry of a decree, Judgment of condemnation and forfeiture was|entered. The decree contained the following provision: \"\"Ordered, Adjudged, and|Decreed, That this is a proceeding in rem and that this decree is to be without|prejudice to the rights of the United States of America or of the said claimant.|The Emerson Drug Company of Baltimore City, in any other litigation, and|without prejudice to the right of the claimant to deny in any other or future|litigation that the libeled product herein is misbranded or otherwise violates the|provisions of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, the court having taken no|proof in support of the allegations of the libel and answer.\"\"|On January 6, 1940, an order was entered by the court providing for release|of the product under bond conditioned that the citric acid and the bottles be|salvaged, and that the remaining ingredients of the product be destroyed.|DRUGS SEIZED BECAUSE OF DEVIATION FROM OFFICIAL OR OWN|STANDARDS OR BECAUSE OF SUBSTITUTION1|VITAMIN PREPARATIONS|82. Adulteration and misbranding of cod liver oil. U. S. v. One 30-gallon Drum and Three 38-pound Drums of Cod Liver Oil. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00082May 1940Val-A Co.cod liver oilSeptember 15, 1939Petoskey, Mich.Chicago, Ill.Petoskey, Mich.Western District of Michigan82F. D. C. Nos. 1082, 1083. Sample Nos. 65959-D, 65960-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00082ddnj|82. Adulteration and misbranding; of cod liver oil. V. S. v. One 30-grallon Drum|and Three 38-pound Drums of Cod Liver Oil. Default decree of con-|demnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 1082, 1083. Sample Nos.|65959-D, 65960-D.)|One lot of this product contained not more than 42.5 A. O. A. C. chick units of|vitamin D per gram; whereas the United States Pharmacopoeia requires that cod|liver oil shall contain not less than 85 U. S. P. units of vitamin D per gram (an|A. O. A. C. chick unit of vitamin D is by definition the equivalent of a U. S. P.|unit of vitamin D). The other lot was labeled as containing 400 U. S. P. vitamin|D units per gram and 8,000 U. S. P. vitamin A units per gram, but contained not|more than 50 A. O. A. G. chick units of vitamin D per gram and not more than|1,580 units of vitamin A per gram.|On November 28, 1939, the United States attorney for the Western District of|Michigan filed a libel against one 80-gallon drum of cod liver oil and three 38-|pound drums of cod liver oil at Petoskey, Mich., alleging that the article had|been shipped in interstate commerce on or about September 15, 1939, by the|Val-A Co. from Chicago, 111.; and charging that it was adulterated and mis-|branded. It was labeled in part, \"\"Val-A 'Cavalier '.\"\"|One lot of the article was alleged to be adulterated in that it was repre-|sented as a drug the name of which is recognized in an official compendium,|and its strength differed from, and its quality and purity fell below, the|standard set forth in such compendium. It was alleged to be misbranded hi|that the representation in the labeling that it contained 85 A. O. A. C. units|of vitamin D was false and misleading.|The remaining lot was alleged to be adulterated In that its strength dif-|fered from, and its purity and quality fell below, that which it purported or|was represented to possess. It was alleged to be misbranded in that the|representations in the labeling that it contained 400 U. S. P. vitamin D units per|gram and 8,000 U. S. P. vitamin A units per gram,, were false and misleading.|On January 4, 1940, no claimant having appeared, Judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|83. Adulteration and misbranding of cod liver oil. U. S. v. 4 Drums of Cod Liver Oil. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00083May 1940Consumers Import Co., Inc.cod liver oilJuly 18, 1939Waseca, Minn.New York, N. Y.Waseca, Minn.District of Minnesota83F. D. C. No. 700. Sample No. 48434-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00083ddnj|83. Adulteration and misbranding; of cod liver oil. IT. S. v. 4 Drums of Cod|Liver Oil. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (IT. D. C.|No. 700. Sample No. 48434-D.)|This product was labeled as containing 200 A. O. A. C. chick units of vitamin|D per gram, whereas it contained not more than 135 such units of vitamin D|per gram.|On October 9, 1939, the United States attorney for the District of Minnesota|filed a libel against four 80-gallon drums of cod liver oil at Waseca, Minn.,|*See also N. J. Nos. 96 (Booth's Camphorated Oil and Carbolic Salve), 115, and 123.|July 18, 1939, by the Consumers Import Co., Inc., from New York, N. T.;|and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded. It was labeled in|part: \"\"Deluxe 200 U. S. P. Non-destearinated Cod Liver Oil.\"\"|It was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from and its|purity fell below that which it purported or was represented to possess.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the representation on the drum that|it had a guaranteed potency per gram of 200 A. O. A. O. units of vitamin D,|was false and misleading as applied to an article containing less than that|number of chick units of vitamin D per gram.|On January 30, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|84. Adulteration of Hydecoyl. V. 8. v. 20 Drums of Hydecoyl. Consent decree of condemnation. Product released under bond for relabeling.ddnj00084May 1940A. C. Trask Co., a corporation, Chicago, Ill.HydecoylDecember 31, 1938Chicago, Ill.Los Angeles, Calif.Chicago, Ill.Northern District of Illinois84F. D. C. No. 350. Sample No. 45777-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00084ddnj|84. Adulteration of Hydeeoyl. V. 8. v. 20 Drums of Hydeeoyl. Consent decree|of condemnation. Product released under bond for relabeling. (F. D. C.|No. 350. Sample No. 45777-D.)|This product was represented to contain 85 U. S. P. units of vitamin D per|gram, whereas it contained not more than 50 such units per gram.|On August 12, 1939, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Illinois filed a libel against 20 drums of Hydeeoyl at Chicago, 111., alleging that|the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about December|31, 1938, by the Industrial Oil Products Corporation from Los Angeles, Calif.;|and charging that it was adulterated in that its strength differed from and its|quality fell below that which it purported or was represented to possess,|namely, not less than 85 TJ. S. P. units per gram. It was labeled in part:|(Drum) \"\"Murray Oil Products Company * * * Hydeeoyl.\"\"|On January 12, 1940, A. O. Trask Co., a corporation, Chicago, 111., claimant,|having admitted the allegations of the libel, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered released under bond conditioned that it be|properly relabeled.|85. Misbranding of Old Man Frantz Mountain Tonic. U. S. v. 36 Bottles of Old Man Frantz Mountain Tonic. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00085May 1940Old Man FrantzOld Man Franffc Mountain TonicNovember 17, 1939East Liverpool, OhioPittsburgh, Pa.East Liverpool, OhioNorthern District of Ohio85F. D. C. No. 1201. Sample No. 78890-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00085ddnj|85. Misbranding of Old Man Franffc Mountain Tonic. V. S. v. 36 Bottles of|Old Man Frantz Mountain Tonic. Default decree of condemnation and|destruction. (P. D. C. No. 1201. Sample No. 78890-D.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations re-|garding its content of vitamin A, and its efficacy in the conditions indicated|hereinafter.|On December 16, 1939, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Ohio filed a libel against 36 bottles of the above-named product at East Liver-|pool, Ohio, alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce|on or about November 17, 1939, by Old Man Frantz from Pittsburgh, Pa.;|and charging that it was misbranded.|Biological tests showed that each fluid ounce contained 178 U. S. P. units of|vitamin A, 400 International Units of vitamin Bi, 334 International Units of|vitamin C, and not more than 251 U. S. P. units of vitamin D.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that its labeling bore representa-|tions that it contained vitamin A and directions that it should be taken in|dosages of 1 ounce each day for normal persons, or 2 ounces each day for those|who require an extra amount of vitamins, which were false and misleading|since the article, if taken in accordance with the directions, would not provide|a significant amount of vitamin A. It was alleged to be misbranded further in|that its labeling bore representations that it was efficacious to increase pep,|vim, vigor, and vitality; that it \"\"would build up\"\"; that it was efficacious for|\"\"that run-down feeling,\"\" nervousness, lack of appetite, lack of vigor and ambi-|tion; that it was a vitamin tonic; would aid in maintaining resistance to in-|fections; that it was efficacious for lack of vigor, poor appetite, dry skin,|diarrhea, poor teeth, sterility and weakness; would stimulate the appetite and|aid digestion and assimilation; that it was efficacious for digestive disturbances,|poor assimilation, poor lactation, atrophy of glands, gastric atony, head retrac-|tion; that it would Improve appetite and stimulate the growth essential to|tissue respiration and glandular functions; that it was efficacious for headache,|low fertility, failure of male germ cells to develop; that it was antipellagric;|would improve growth, promote health, prolong the active life span; was|essential in the nerve tissues; that it was efficacious for dermatitis, breakdown|of central nervous system, cataract (riboflavin factor) loss of hair, ulceration of|tongue, loss in body weight of intestines and atony, which representations were|false and misleading since the article was not efficacious for the purposes|recommended.|On January 18, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|MISCELLANEOUS|5466. X 100 Cosmetic Solution.ddnj05466May 1959R. Tacon.X 100 Cosmetic Solution5-15-57Buffalo, N.Y.Detroit, Mich.Buffalo, N.Y.W. Dist. N.Y.5466F. D. C. No. 40623. S. No. 41-877 M.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj05466ddnj|5466. X 100 Cosmetic Solution. (F.D.C. No. 40623. S. No. 41-877 M.)|QUANTITY : 2 l-gal.-size btls., each containing ? of a gal.; 21 btls., each con-|taining 1 oz.; and 10 btls., each containing ? oz., at Buffalo, N.Y.|SHIPPED : 5-15-57, from Detroit, Mich., by R. Tacon.|LABEL IN PART: (1-gal. btls.) \"\"X 100 Cosmetic Solution Contains 10,0001.U. -|1, 3, 5, Estratriene a 3,17 Diol per oz. For External Use Only Distributed|by R. Tacon Detroit Mich.\"\"|RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION : The article in the 1-oz. and ?-oz. btls. was re-|packed by the dealer from the 1-gal. btls. described above. The article was,|employed by the dealer as a hair and scalp treatment, consisting of the appli-|cation of ?-fluid oz. to the hair and scalp as a single \"\"treatment.\"\"|'See also Nos. 5461, 5463.|Analysis showed that the article consisted of isopropyl alcohol, containing|1.5 mg. of estradiol and 1.8 mg. of alpha-estradiol per fluid ounce.|LIBELED : 8-30-57, W. Dist. N.T.|CHARGE : 502(e) (2)-when shipped and while held for sale, the label of the ar-|ticle failed to bear the common or usual name of each active ingredient and|the proportion of isopropyl alcohol contained in the article; 502(f) (1)-the|labeling of the article failed to bear adequate directions for use, and it did|not comply with any of the exempting regulations; and 503(b) (4)-the article|was a drug subject to 503(b) (1), and its labeling failed to bear the state-|ment \"\"Caution: Federal law prohibits dispensing without prescription.\"\"|DISPOSITION : 10-1-57. Default-destruction.|DRUGS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO BEAR ADEQUATE|DIRECTIONS OR WARNING STATEMENTS*|86. Adulteration and misbranding of Halibut Liver Oil Plain. U. S. v. 22 Pounds of Halibut Liver Oil Plain. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00086May 1940International Vitamin CorporationHalibut Liver Oil PlainOctober 10, 1939Chicago, Ill.New York, N. Y.Chicago, Ill.Northern District of Illinois86F. D. C. No. 1302. Sample No. 89303-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00086ddnj|86. Adulteration and misbranding of Halibut Liver Oil Plain. U. S. v. 22|Pounds of Halibut Liver Oil Plain. Default decree of condemnation and|destruction. (F. D. C. No. 1302. Sample No. 89303-D.)|This product was represented to consist of plain halibut liver oil, whereas it|was found to contain a material proportion of another fish liver oil.|On January 9, 1940, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Illinois filed a libel against 22 pounds of halibut liver oil plain at Chicago, 111.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|October 10, 1939, by International Vitamin Corporation from New York, N. T.;|and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded.|Adulteration was alleged in that another fish-liver oil had been substituted|wholly or in part for plain halibut-liver oil.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement on the container,|\"\"I. V. C. H. L. O. Plain,\"\" was false and misleading, since the article did not con-|sist of halibut-liver oil plain. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that it|was offered for sale under the name of another drug.|On February 9, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|87. Adulteration of tincture of digitalis; and adulteration and misbranding of Digitol. U. S. v. 9 Bottles of Tincture Digitalis and 11 Dozen Bottles of Digitol. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00087May 1940Sharp & Dohme, Inc.tincture of digitalis; DigitolMay 25 and June 13, 1939Trenton, N. J.Philadelphia, Pa.Trenton, N. J.District of New Jersey87F. D. C. Nos. 1114, 1115. Sample Nos. 69860-D, 69862-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00087ddnj|87. Adulteration of tincture of digitalis; and adulteration and misbranding: of|Dlgritol. U. S. v. 9 Bottles of Tincture Digitalis and 11 Dozen Bottles of|Digitol. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C.|Nos. 1114, 1115. Sample Nos. 69860-D, 69862-D.)|The tincture of digitalis possessed a potency of two-thirds of the requirement|of the United States Pharmacopoeia for tincture of digitalis. The Digitol was|represented in its labeling as possessing a potency equivalent to tincture of|digitalis of U. S. P. strength, whereas it possessed but two-fifths of such potency.|On December 1, 1939, the United States attorney for the District of New Jer-|sey filed libels against 9 bottles of tincture of digitalis and 11 dozen bottles|of Digitol at Trenton, N. J., alleging that the articles had been shipped in inter-|state commerce by Sharp & Dohme, Inc., from Philadelphia, Pa., on or about|May 25 and June 13,1939; and charging that they were adulterated and that the|Digitol was also misbranded. They were labeled in part: \"\"Tincture Digitalis|U. S. P. XI\"\"; or \"\"Digitol Mulford Tincture Digitalis (Fat-Free) U. S. P.|Strength.\"\"|The tincture of digitalis was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to|be and was represented as a drug, the name of which is recognized in the|United States Pharmacopoeia, but its strength differed from the standard set|forth in such compendium since its potency was only two-thirds of that speci-|fied by the pharmacopoeia.|The Digitol was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from|that which it purported or was represented to possess. It was alleged to be|misbranded in that representations on the bottle label and carton that it con-|sisted of fat-free tincture of digitalis, U. S. P. strength, and that it was a fat-|free tincture of digitalis standardized biologically by the method described in|the pharmacopoeia, were false and misleading when applied to an article which|possessed a potency of only two-fifths of that specified by the United States|Pharmacopoeia for tincture of digitalis.|On December 29, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgments of condemna-|tion were entered and the products were ordered destroyed.|88. Adulteration and misbranding of tincture of digitalis. U. S. v. 93 and 81 Bottles of Tincture of Digitalis. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00088May 1940Upsher Smith Co., Minneapolis, Minn.tincture of digitalisOctober 16 and October 23, 1939Cincinnati, OhioMinneapolis, Minn.Cincinnati, OhioSouthern District of Ohio88F. D. C. Nos. 1135, 1136. Sample Nos. 75653-D, 75554-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00088ddnj|88. Adulteration and misbranding: of tincture of digitalis. TJ. 8. v. 93 and SI|Bottles of Tincture of Digitalis. Default decree of condemnation and|destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 1135, 1136. Sample Nos. 75653-D, 75554-D.)|This product fell below the pharmacopoeial standard, one lot possessing a|potency of 51 percent and the other, 55 percent of that required by the United|States Pharmacopoeia for tincture of digitalis.|On December 7, 1939, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|Ohio filed libels against 124 bottles of tincture of digitalis at Cincinnati, Ohio,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|October 16 and October 23, 1939, by Upsher Smith Co., Minneapolis, Minn.;|and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded. It was labeled in part:|\"\"Tincture Digitalis * * * U. S. Pharmacopoeia Strength.\"\"|sented as a drug, the name of which Is recognized In the U. S. Pharmacopoeia,|and Its strength differed from and its quality fell below the standard set forth|in that compendium in that its potency was materially less than that required|by that authority.|? It was alleged to be misbranded in that representations in the labeling that|it consisted of tincture of digitalis which complied with the requirements of the|United States Pharmacopoeia, eleventh edition; that it had been standardized|biologically by the pharmacopoeial method to a potency of 1 U. S. P. unit in 1 cc.,|within the official limits of variance; that its strength had been unchanged since|1931, when the producer had adopted the International Unit, identical with the|U. S. P. unit; and that it might be dispensed on prescriptions calling for tincture|digitalis U. S. P., were false and misleading as applied to the article which pos-|sessed a potency materially less than that specified by the pharmacopoeia.|On January 2, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was destroyed.|89. Adulteration of tincture of digitalis. U. S. v. 8 Bottles of Tincture Digitalis. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00089May 1940R. J. Strasenburgh Co.tincture of digitalisAugust 23, 1939PennsylvaniaRochester, N. Y.PennsylvaniaWestern District of Pennsylvania89F. D. C. No. 1110. Sample No. 78816-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00089ddnj|89. Adulteration of tincture of digitalis. U. S. v. 8 Bottles of Tincture Digi|talis. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No.|1110. Sample No. 78816-D.) *|The potency of this product was approximately one-half of that specified by|the United States Pharmacopoeia for tincture of digitalis.|On November 29, 1939, the United States attorney for the Western District|of Pennsylvania filed a libel against 3 bottles of tincture of digitalis, alleging|that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about August 23,|1939, by R. J. Strasenburgh Co. from Rochester, N. Y.; and charging that it was|adulterated. It was labeled in part: \"\"Tincture Digitalis|\"\" U. S. P.\"\"|It was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to be and was repre-|sented as a drug, the name of which is recognized in the United States Pharma-|copoeia, namely, tincture of digitalis, and its strength differed from the standard|set forth in said compendium in that its potency was only one-half of that speci-|fied by the United States Pharmacopoeia.|On December 28, 1939^ no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|2292. Misbranding of Sun-Kraft Health Lamps. U. S. v. 20.ddnj02292December 1948Sun Kraft, Inc., from Chicago, Ill.Sun-Kraft Health LampsNovember 20, 1946San Francisco, Calif.Chicago, Ill.San Francisco, Calif.Northern District of California.2292F. D. C. No. 24299. Sample No. 32209-K.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj02292ddnj|2292. Misbranding: of Sun-Kraft Health Lamps. U. S. v. 20 * * *. (F. D. C.|No. 24299. Sample No. 32209-K.)|LIBEL FILED : January 6, 1948, Northern District of California.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT: On or about November 20, 1946, by Sun Kraft, Inc., from|Chicago, 111.|PRODUCT : 20 Sun-Kraft Health Lamps at San Francisco, Calif. Examination|showed that each lamp consisted of a cold quartz-type lamp mounted on a|metallic base and equipped with a timing mechanism. This type of lamp emits|ultraviolet radiations.|LABEL, IN PART: (Carton) \"\"Sun-Kraft Mercury Quartz Ultraviolet Health|Lamp\"\"; (lamp) \"\"Model A-l * * * 112415\"\" (or other serial number).|NATURE OF CHARGE: Misbranding, Section 502 (a), the following statements in|the booklet entitled \"\"How To Use Tour Sun-Kraft,\"\" which was shipped with|the lamps, were false and misleading, since the lamps were not capable of|producing the following benefits stated and implied: \"\"ultraviolet rays, * * *|kill bacteria, * * * strengthen bones and teeth, and help the body to combat|various ailments. * * * stimulate circulation * * * using Sun-Kraft|for stubborn skin conditions * * * For Skin Conditions such as: Acne,|Eczema, Psoriasis, Athlete's Foot * * * Daily irradiations may be ad-|visable in cases of stubborn skin conditions, * * * For Respiratory Con-|ditions such as: Asthma, Sinus, Bronchitis, Hay Fever, Catarrh and|Colds * * * For Arthritis, Rheumatism, Neuritis, etc. * * * For Hair|and Scalp * * * For respiratory conditions in children] * * * An-|other Important Use Of Sun-Kraft is Sterilization of Air. * * * The ultra-|violet rays of Sun-Kraft and the activated ozone will sterilize your room, re-|ducing the bacterial content of the air.\"\"|DISPOSITION: January 19, 1948. Hale Bros. Stores, Inc. of San Francisco,|Calif., claimant, having consented to the entry of a decree, judgment of con-|demnation was entered and the lamps were ordered released under bond for|relabeling under the supervision of the Federal Security Agency.|DRUGS FOR VETERINARY USE*|91. Adulteration and misbranding of ether. U. S. v. 850 Cans of Ether. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00091May 1940Mallinckrodt Chemical WorksetherSeptember 5, 1936Detroit, Mich.St. Louis, Mo.Detroit, Mich.Eastern District of Michigan91F. D. C. No. 266. Sample No. 64567-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00091ddnj|91. Adulteration and misbranding of ether. U. S. v. 850 Cans of Ether. De|fault decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 266. Sample|No. 64567-D.)|This drug had been shipped in interstate commerce and was in interstate|commerce when examined; and at that time 12 of the 20 cans examined were|found to contain peroxide, aldehydes, and ketones.|On July 7, 1939, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Michigan filed a libel against 850 cans of ether at Detroit, Mich., alleging|that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about Septem-|ber 5, 1936, by Mallinckrodt Chemical Works from St. Louis, Mo.; and|charging that it was adulterated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it was sold under a name|recognized in an official compendium, the United States Pharmacopoeia, and|its strength differed from or its quality fell below the standard set forth in|such compendium in that it contained peroxide, aldehydes, and ketones.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the representation on the label that|it conformed to all requirements of the Eleventh Edition of the United States|Pharmacopoeia was false and misleading.|On August 9, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered, and the product was ordered destroyed.|92. Adulteration and misbranding of Messina Efferrescente Granulare. U. S. v. 23 Cases of Messina Efferrescente Granulare. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00092May 1940Drew CorporationMessina Efferrescente GranulareJune 28 and August 21, 1939Philadelphia, Pa.Brooklyn, N. Y.Philadelphia, Pa.Eastern District of Pennsylvania92F. D. C. No. 828. Sample No. 51950-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00092ddnj|92. Adulteration and misbranding of Messina Efferrescente Granulare. TJ. S. v.|23 Oases of Messina Efferrescente Granulare. Default decree of con-|demnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 828. Sample No. 51950-D.)|It was represented in the labeling of this product that it had been \"\"prepared|with sugar, sodium bicarbonate, tartaric acid, citric acid, and oil of lemon.\"\"|It contained, however, borax in addition to said substances.|On October 27, 1939, the United States attorney for the Eastern District|of Pennsylvania filed a libel against 23 cases of Messina Effervescente Gran-|ulare at Philadelphia, Pa., alleging that the article had been shipped in|Interstate commerce on or about June 28 and August 21, 1939, by the Drew|Corporation from Brooklyn, N. Y.; and charging that it was adulterated and|misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated under the provisions of the law|applicable to drugs In that its strength differed from or Its purity or quality|fell below that which it purported or was represented to possess.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the representations in the labeling|that it had been prepared with sugar, sodium bicarbonate, tartaric acid, citric|acid, and oil of lemon, were false and misleading as applied to an article that|contained borax.|It also was alleged to be adulterated under the provisions of the law appli-|cable to foods, reported in F. N. J. No. 153.|On November 18, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of con-|demnation was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|93. Misbranding of Ma-El-Ra-Tone Herb Compound. V. 8. v. 8 Cases of Ma El-Ra-Tone Herb Compound. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00093May 1940General Products LaboratoriesMa-El-Ra-Tone Herb CompoundOctober 26, 27, and 31, 1939San Francisco, Calif.Columbus, OhioSan Francisco, Calif.Northern District of California93F. D. C. No. 1053. Sample Nos. 73043-D, 73044-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00093ddnj|93. Misbranding: of Ma-El-Ra-Tone Herb Compound. V. 8. v. 8 Cases of Ma-|El-Ra-Tone Herb Compound. Default decree of condemnation and de-|struction. (F. D. C. No. 1053. Sample Nos. 73043-D, 73044-D.)|This product was labeled to Indicate that it consisted entirely of herbs and|other vegetable substances; whereas it contained a material proportion of|magnesium sulfate (Epsom salt), a mineral substance. Moreover, its containers|were deceptive since their contents occupied only approximately one-third of|the volume of the package.|On November 22, 1939, the United States attorney for the Northern District|of California filed a libel against eight cases of Ma-El-Ra-Tone at San Francisco,|Calif., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on|or about October 26, 27, and 81, 1939, by the General Products Laboratories|from Columbus, Ohio: and charging that it was misbranded.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that its labeling bore representations|that it consisted of herbs, was an herb compound, that it was a preparation|of herbs, roots, barks, leaves, and blossoms-products of the vegetable kingdom-|gathered in various parts of this country as well as foreign countries, gathered|at the proper time of the year, properly aged, skillfully treated, and combined,|which representations were false and misleading since the article contained|further in that its container was so made, formed, or filled as to be misleading.|On December 22, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|94. Adulteration and misbranding of quinine sulfate. U. S. v. 324 Bottles of Quinine Sulfate. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00094May 1940Davis Manufacturing Co., Inc.quinine sulfateJuly 13, 1939Waycross, Ga.Knoxville, Tenn.Waycross, Ga.Southern District of Georgia94F. D. C. No. 645. Sample No. 65806-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00094ddnj|94. Adulteration and misbranding of quinine sulfate. TJ. S. v. 324 Bottles of|?nlnlne Sulfate. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.?F. D. C. No. 645. Sample No. 65806-D.)|The strength, quality, and purity of this product differed from that which|it purported to possess. Furthermore, its containers were deceptive, since their|contents occupied less than one-half the capacity of the bottle.|On September 6, 1939, the United States attorney for the Southern District|of Georgia filed a libel against 324 bottles of quinine sulfate at Waycross, Ga.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|July 13, 1939, by Davis Manufacturing Co., Inc., from Knoxville, Tenn.; and|charging that it was adulterated and misbranded.|Adulteration was alleged In that the article purported to be and was repre-|sented as a drug, the name of which is recognized in the official United States|Pharmacopoeia, namely, quinine sulfate, with 10 percent more water than|that set forth in the standard for said drug, and in that its strength differed|from and its quality and purity fell below that which it purported or was|represented to possess.|Misbranding was alleged in that the statement on the label, \"\"Quinine Sul-|phate U. S. P. X Contains 10? more water than U. S. P. XI,\"\" was false and|misleading, since the article did not conform to the U. S. P. X requirement for|quinine sulfate, and did not contain 10 percent more water than the U. S. P. XI|quinine sulfate. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that its containers|were so made, formed, or filled as to be misleading.|On October 18, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|DRUG SEIZED BECAUSE OF CONTAMINATION WITH FILTH|95. Adulteration and misbranding of Cotec. U. S. v. 9 Packages of Cotec. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00095May 1940Cotec Co.CotecNovember 22, 1939Concord, N. H.Lynn, Mass.Concord, N. H.District of New Hampshire95F. D. C. No. 1211. Sample No. 73892-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00095ddnj|OS. Adulteration and misbranding: of Gotec. TJ. S. v. 9 Package* of Cotec|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 1211.|Sample No. 73892-D.)|This product was adulterated because it consisted in part of filth, and was|misbranded because of false and misleading representations regarding its|efficacy In the conditions mentioned hereinafter.|On December 21, 1939, the United States attorney for the District of New|Hampshire filed a libel against nine packages of Cotec at Concord, N. H.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|November 22, 1939, by the Cotec Co. from Lynn, Mass.; and charging that it was|adulterated and misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of fat and excrement.|Adulteration was alleged in that the article consisted in part of a filthy|substance.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that its labeling bore representations that|it was an efficacious preparation for all kinds of piles including blind, bleed-|ing, itching, internal, and external piles; that it was a treatment that relieved|by absorption all inflammation of the lower bowel; that it would relieve such|condition without an operation or detention from business; that it was one of|the most popular and valuable of all pile treatments; that it would reduce all|congestion and swelling, and heal all sores, ulcers, and irritated parts im-|mediately ; that it would heal while one slept; that it was an efficacious prep-|aration for pile tumors; that it would be an efficacious preparation for the|symptoms of the disease (piles) among which are a kind of tenesmus, a bear-|ing-down sensation, heat, tension, and throbbing of the part varying from a|moderate degree of the sensations to the most excruciating suffering; that it|would be an efficacious preparation for prolapsus or falling of the bowels and|for various attendant symptoms of piles such as nervous pains, pain and|weakness in the back, irritation of the kidneys and bladder, and other organs|of the vicinity, pain and numbness in the legs and feet, a sense of straitness|about the chest, unnatural fullness of the abdominal viscera, accompanied by|palpitation and oppression of the heart, great derangement of the circulation,|sense of weight and pressure in the abdomen with peculiar feeling of uneasi-|ness in the bowels, sensation of bearing down ,in the rectum and perineum,|pain in the back and loins, nausea, slight pain in the stomach, scanty and high-|colored urine, pale countenance, confused sensation in the head, weariness|and irritable and discontented state of mind, sense of fullness and oppression|in the region of the stomach, feeble circulation on the surface; that it was|efficacious from the simplest first symptoms to the most aggravated type of|the disease; that it should be used in conjunction with Cotec Laxative Pills|to prevent a return of piles; that if used regularly it would effect a cure; that|it would cure quickly and permanently; that it was the best pile remedy,|which representations were false and misleading since the article was not an|adequate treatment for the conditions mentioned In the labeling but was a|filthy mixture unfit for medicinal use.|On January 24, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|DRUGS LABELED WITH FALSE AND MISLEADING THERAPEUTIC|CLAIMS |96. Misbranding of Booth's Mentholated Cough Drops, Cough and Cold Remedy, La Grippe & Cold Tablets, Liniment, and Liver Fills; and adulteration and misbranding of Booth's Camphorated Oil and Carbolic Salve. U. S. v. 1,128 Boxes of Mentholated Cough Drops, et al. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00096May 1940J. F. BoothBooth's Mentholated Cough Drops, Cough and Cold Remedy, La Grippe & Cold Tablets, Liniment, and Liver Fills; Booth's Camphorated Oil and Carbolic SalveMarch 13 and June 21, 1939Harbor Springs, Mich.Springfield, Ill.Harbor Springs, Mich.Western District of Michigan96F. D. C. Nos. 466 to 473, incl. Sample Nos. 63819-D to 53826-D, incl.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00096ddnj|96. Misbranding; of Booth's Mentholated Cough Drops, Cough and Cold Remedy,|La Grippe & Cold Tablets, Liniment, and Liver Fills; and adulteration|and misbranding: of Booth's Camphorated Oil and Carbolic Salve. V. S. v.|1,128 Boxes of Mentholated Cough Drops, et al. Default decree of con-|demnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 466 to 473, incl. Sample Nos.|63819-D to 53826-D, incl.)|The labeling of these products bore false and misleading representations re-|garding their medicinal properties as shown hereinafter. The Camphorated|Oil did not conform to the standard prescribed for such product in the United|States Pharmacopoeia, and the carbolic salve contained a smaller proportion|of carbolic acid than that declared on the label. The liniment contained|alcohol, which was not declared on the label.|On August 23, 1939, the United States attorney for the Western District of|Michigan filed a libel against 1,128 boxes of mentholated cough drops, 168|bottles of camphorated oil, 114 bottles of cough and cold remedy, 264 boxes of|la grippe and cold tablets, 426 tins of carbolic salve, 80 bottles of liniment, and|108 packages of liver pills at Harbor Springs, Mich., consigned by J. F. Booth,|alleging that the articles had been shipped in Interstate commerce on or about|March 13 and June 21, 1939, from Springfield, HI,; and charging that they|were misbranded and that the camphorated oil and carbolic salve were also|adulterated.|Analyses showed that the Mentholated Cough Drops were sugar lozenges|flavored with menthol. The article was alleged to be misbranded in that|statements in the labeling representing that one of the drops put into the|mouth before going to bed would cause the patient to enjoy a comfortable|night's sleep; that it was excellent for coughs, colds, hoarseness, etc.; that|persons troubled with coughs, hoarseness, sore throat, etc., would find im-|mediate relief by using the product, were false and misleading as applied to|sugar lozenges flavored with menthol.|Analyses showed that one shipment of the Camphorated Oil contained not|more than 12.6 percent of camphor and that the other shipment contained not|more than 9.8 percent of camphor. It was -alleged to be adulterated in that it|was represented as a drug, the name of which is recognized in the United States|Pharmacopoeia but its strength differed from the standard set forth in that|compendium since the pharmacopoeia provides that camphorated oil shall contain|not less than 19 percent of camphor. It was alleged to be misbranded in that|the representations in the labeling of one lot that it was efficacious as an anodyne|embrocation in rheumatic affection of the joints, and in the labeling of the second|lot that it was useful in rheumatism, pains, and swellings of the breasts or joints|and in colds on the chest, were false and misleading in that the article was not|efficacious for the purposes recommended.|Analyses of the Cough and Cold Remedy showed that it consisted essentially|of small proportions of extracts of plant material, ammonium chloride, and men-|thol, and sugar, alcohol and water. It was alleged to^t>e misbranded in that|statements in the labeling representing that it was a cough and cold remedy and|was efficacious for recent chronic coughs, consumption, hoarseness, bronchitis,|loss of voice and all inflamed conditions of the lungs and bronchial tubes, were|false and misleading, since the article was not efficacious for the purposes|recommended.|Analyses showed that the La Grippe & Cold Tablets contained acetanilid|(1 gram per tablet), a small proportion of salol, a quinone compound, a bromide,|1 Sec also N. J. Nos. 80, 85, 00, and 95.|branded in that statements in the labeling representing that it was the best|remedy for la grippe and was efficacious to arouse the liver and the secretions|to perfect action, were false and misleading since it was not efficacious for the|purposes recommended.|Analyses of the Carbolic Salve showed that it contained 2.9 percent of carbolic|acid. It was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from that|which it purported or was represented to possess since it was labeled \"\"Contains|5? Carbolic Acid.\"\" It was alleged to be misbranded in that representations|in the labeling that it was efficacious for ulcers, salt rheum, tetter, boils, piles,|felons, etc., sores, and cold sores, were false and misleading since it was not|efficacious for such purposes.|Analyses of the Liniment showed that it consisted essentially of volatile oils|(including oil of peppermint, oil of mustard, and methyl salicylate), alcohol|(36.1 percent by volume), and chloroform (10.8 percent). It was alleged to be|misbranded in that statements in the labeling representing that it was efficacious|in rheumatism, gout, lameness, weak joints, backache, sore lungs, etc., that it|was efficacious in removing pain and taking out inflammation and could not be|beaten for chronic rheumatism, were false and misleading since the article was|not efficacious for the purposes recommended. It was alleged to be misbranded|further in that its label failed to bear a declaration of the quantity, kind, and|proportion of alcohol that it contained.|_Analyses of the Liver Pills showed that they contained extracts of plant drugs|including capsicum, nux vomica, and a laxative drug. The article was alleged|to be misbranded in that statements in the labeling representing that it was|efficacious for headache, dizziness, torpid liver, biliousness, dyspepsia, etc., were|false and misleading since it was not efficacious for the purposes recommended.|On September 8, 1939, Jacob F. Booth, Harbor Springs, Mich., having author-|ized and requested that the products be destroyed, judgment of condemnation and|destruction was entered.|97. Misbranding of Dormalgin. U. S. v. 100 Packages and 450 Packages of Dormalgin. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00097May 1940Lawson M. LuthDormalginDecember 10, 1935Darien, Conn.Geneva, N. Y.Darien, Conn.District of Connecticut97F. D. C No. 275. Sample No. 67359-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00097ddnj|97. Misbranding of Dormalgin. U. S. v. 100 Packages and 450 Packages of|Dormalgin. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C|No. 275. Sample No. 67359-D.)|This product contained butyl-bromallylbarbituric acid and aminopyrine. It|was labeled to indicate that it was an appropriate and harmless medicament,|whereas it was a dangerous drug. Its labeling bore false and misleading repre-|sentations regarding its efficacy in the conditions indicated hereinafter.|On or about July 10, 1939, the United States attorney for the District of|Connecticut filed a libel against 100 packages, each containing 10 tablets, and|450 packages, each containing 5 tablets of Dormalgin, a? Darien, Conn., alleging|that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about December|10, 1935, by Lawson M. Luth from Geneva, N. Y.; and charging that it was|misbranded.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that representations in the labeling that|it had been submitted to the most severe laboratory and clinical tests; that the|most rigid research examinations had been conducted by prominent clinics and|medical men in private practice; that its effectiveness and harmlessness had|been repeatedly emphasized by physicians qualified to judge such a preparation j|that it vanished with the pain leaving no after effects; that it was completely|split up when it had finished its appointed work; that it was burned up in the|body leaving no disagreeable after effects such as benumbed head, lassitude,|fatigue, or drowsiness;. that it was an effective and nonpoisonous analgesic|free from cumulative, concurrent, and after effects and was indicated for all|painful diseases; that there was no danger of habit forming as is the case|with alkaloids containing analgesics; that it would agree with patients even|in large doses and had the advantage of being free from hypnotic concurrent|and after effects; that experiments had proved its harmlessness; that it|would not produce the slightest detrimental effect on heart and kidneys even|when administered in large doses; that it had been developed by a concern|which enjoys an international reputation as a manufacturer of the highest grade|pharmaceuticals and which maintained a pharmaceutical laboratory world|famous for its products; that many preparations are on the market to relieve|pain but many are ineffective and many of these which will relieve pain are|actually harmful, in that they contain narcotics and other dangerous habit-|forming drugs or ingredients which affect the heart and kidneys and that even|preparations with salicylic acid as a base, such as aspirin, are not easily|tolerated by a large group of people, but that the Dormalgin contained no habit-|forming or harmful drugs; which representations were false and misleading In|that they created the impression that the article was an appropriate and|harmless medicament for the conditions mentioned therein; whereas it was|not such an appropriate and harmless medicament but was a dangerous drug.|It was alleged to be misbranded further In that Its labeling bore representa-|tions that it was efficacious for the relief of toothache, sciatica, neuritis, rheu-|matism, lumbago, gout, painful menstruation, that it was indicated for all|painful diseases and was a valuable nerve tonic and bore directions that in|the treatment of painful menstruation one tablet should be taken and repeated|after 8 hours; that in the treatment of rheumatism, gout, and lumbago one|tablet should be taken morning and night and doubled if the case was severe;|and in the treatment of toothache 2 tablets should be taken and that if not|relieved1 one more should be taken after 8 hours; which representations and|directions were false and misleading in that the article was not efficacious for|the purposes recommended.|On November 17, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|98. Misbranding of Saurinol. U. S. v. 6 Bottles of Saurinol. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00098May 1940Saurinol Distributors CorporationSaurinolJune 22, 1939Oakland, Calif.Oakland, Calif.Oakland, Calif.Northern District of California98F. D. C. No. 269. Sample No. 56160-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00098ddnj|98. Misbranding of Saurinol. TJ. S. ?. 6 Bottles of Saurinol. Default decree|of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 269. Sample No. 56160-D.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-|ing its efficacy as a relief from sinus, hay fever, exposed cancer, varicose veins,|pyorrhea, trench mouth, laceration, ulcers, and skin diseases.|On July 7, 1939, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|California filed a libel against five bottles of Saurinol at Oakland, Calif ..alleging|that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about June 22,|1939, by Saurinol Distributors Corporation; and charging that it was misbranded|for the reasons stated above.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of medium boiling|petroleum oil.|On November 80, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|99. Misbranding of VG-341. U. S. v. 89 Jars of VG-341. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00099May 1940O. E. HenspeterVG-341October 14, 1939Chicago, Ill.Vining, Minn.Chicago, Ill.Northern District of Illinois99F. D. C. No. 898. Sample Nos. 55995-D, 65996-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00099ddnj|99. Misbranding: of VG-341. U. S. v. 89 Jars of VG-341. Default decree of|condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 898. Sample Nos. 55995-D,|65996-D.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-|ing its efficacy in the conditions indicated below.|On November 18, 1939, the United States attorney for the Northern District|of Illinois filed a libel against 89 jars of VG-341 at Chicago, HI., alleging that|the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about October 14,|1939, by O. H. Henspeter from Vining, Minn.; and charging that it was|misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of sodium hydroxide|(94 percent), sodium carbonate (8^ percent), and a trace of potassium|carbonate.|The article was alleged to be misbranded In that its labeling bore representa-|tions that it was efficacious as a vapor gas treatment for hemorrhoids or piles and|bore directions for its use, namely, that a toilet jar or bucket should be secured;|that 5 inches of steaming, boiling hot water should be placed therein; that the|Jar or bucket should be tall enough so that the body would be at least 8 inches|above boiling water; that the user after removing garments should sit on the jar|or bucket, first making certain that vapor and gases do not escape by placing|a towel around rim of vessel; that the cork should be removed from a vial and|vial and contents dropped in vessel; that the user should remain sitting for 10|minutes and should then lie down and rest for at least 2 hours after treatment;|that the second vial or treatment should be taken three nights after the first,|and that the third should be taken three nights after the second; that a dilator|should be used in case of internal piles; that the one vial usually relieved, but|that the quickness of relief depended entirely upon one's physical condition and|\"\"acceptability to this type of treatment,\"\" and that after the use of the second|or third vial and one finds pronounced allayment, comfort, and improvement|In one's condition, that the treatment should be continued for complete relief|and normal action, which representations were false and misleading, since the|article was not efficacious for the purposes recommended.|On December 12, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|100. Misbranding of Myasthene Tablets. U. S. v. 102 Bottles of Myasthene Tablets. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00100May 1940Medicinal Specialties Co.Myasthene TabletsSeptember 2, 1939Washington, D. C.New York, N. Y.Washington, D. C.District of Columbia100F. D. C. No. 660. Sample Nos. 47734-D, 47735-D, 47736-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00100ddnj|100. Misbranding of Myasthene Tablets. TT. S. v. 102 Bottles of Myasthene|Tablets. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C.|No. 660. Sample Nos. 47734-D, 47735-D, 47736-D.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations re-|garding its efficacy in the conditions indicated below.|On September 29, 1939, the United States attorney for the District of|Columbia filed a libel against 102 bottles of Myasthene Tablets at Washington,|D. O., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or|about September 2, 1939, by the Medicinal Specialties Co. from New York,|N. Y.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the tablets each contained 7.2 grains of aminoacetio|acid (glycocoll).|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that its labeling bore repre-|sentations that it was efficacious for \"\"that tired feeling\"\"; that it consisted of|glycocoll, an unusually effective compound for increasing the energy and vigor|of the tired individual; that it was intended especially for chronic tiredness|and easy fatigability known as myasthenia mitis which translated means|\"\"mild muscular weakness\"\"; that phospho-creatine must be present in sufficient|quantity in the muscles in order to provide energy for muscular action and|that if it is deficient in quantity the amount of work or energy is below par,|there is lack of physical vigor, energy, stamina, endurance, and of a normal|capacity to work and enjoy life in the fullest; that the article would increase|the amount of phosphocreatine in muscles and by doing so would increase the|amount of effort which a person could exert by as much as 200 percent or|more; that it would be valuable in other bothersome conditions such as under-|weight or weight loss in children, loss of appetite and certain types of nervous-|ness; that its value had been proved by research workers, clinical tests, and|famous physicians, which representations and others of like import in the|labeling, together with a design of a tired girl and a contrasting figure of a|vivacious girl, also of a tired man and a contrasting figure of an energetic|man, with accompanying representations that the article had produced the|improvement, were false and misleading in that the article was not efficacious|for the purposes recommended.|On November 21, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|DRUGS SOLD FOR BOTH HUMAN AND VETERINARY USE|101. Misbranding of Seeley's Spook Oil Linament. U. S. v. 22 Bottles of Seeley's Spook Oil Linament. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00101May 1940G. A. SeeleySeeley's Spook Oil LinamentSeptember 15, 1939Gibbon, Nebr.Louisville, Colo.Gibbon, Nebr.District of Nebraska101F. D. C. No. 662. Sample No. 70609-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00101ddnj|101. Misbranding: of Seeley's Spook Oil Linament. V. S. v. 22 Bottles of Seeley's|Spook Oil Linament. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(5\\ D. C. No. 662. Sample No. 70609-D.)|The labeling of this product bore representations that it was efficacious in|the treatment of human beings for tick bites, piles, colds, toothache, sunburn,|scalds, sore throat, fire burns, fin, earache, cuts, mashed toe or finger, sore|joints or rheumatic pains, and dandruff; that it was efficacious in the treatment of|horses for all external ailments, wire cuts, sore joints, and nail holes; that|it was efficacious \"\"to heal a burn fast\"\"; and that it would not allow a scab to|form and therefore would leave no scar.|On October 3, 1939, the United States attorney for the District of Nebraska|filed a libel against 22 bottles of Seeley's Spook Oil linament at Gibbon, Nebr.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|September 15, 1939, by Q. A. Seeley from Louisville, Colo.; and charging that|it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of turpentine oil (50|percent), methyl salicylate (2 percent), copper acetate (0.2 percent), and a|fatty oil.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the representations in the labeling|referred to above were false and misleading since they represented that it was|efficacious for the purposes recommended; whereas it was not efficacious for|such purposes.|On December 15, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|102. Misbranding of Yucca-Balm. U. S. v. 118 Cans of Yucca-Balm. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00102May 1940Geo. Bell Co. (Yucca Balm Co.)Yucca-BalmAugust 14, 1939Denver, Colo.Ogden, UtahDenver, Colo.District of Colorado102F. D. C. No. 686. Sample No. 70619-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00102ddnj|102. Misbranding: of Yucca-Balm. V. S. v. 118 Cans of Yucca-Balm. Default|decree of condemnation and destruction. (IT. D. C. No. 686. Sample No.|70619-D.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-|ing its efficacy in the conditions indicated below.|On October 7, 1939, the United States attorney for the District of Colorado|filed a libel against 118 cans of Yucca-Balm at Denver, Colo., consigned by|Geo. Bell Co. (Yucca Balm Co.), alleging that the article had been shipped in|interstate commerce on or about August 14, 1939, from Ogden, Utah; and|charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of soft soap and|cresol (0.30 percent).|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that its labeling contained rep-|resentations that it was efficacious in the treatment of animals for cowpox,|garget, spider, caked bag in dairy cows, bluebag in sheep, scours in calves,|sprains, sores, and infections; that it was efficacious for the relief of sore feet,|dandruff of human beings, and was valuable for the relief of human aches,|pains, and swellings; that the ingredients conformed to the standards of the|United States Pharmacopoeia and of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic|Act, and were harmless to humans and animals, which representations were|false and misleading since the article was not efficacious for the purposes|recommended.|On October 28,1939, the Geo. Bell Oo. having signed an acceptance of service|and authorization for taking of final decree, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|VETERINARY REMEDIES|103. Misbranding of Peacock's Garlic for Health and Peacock's Pure Garlic Extract. U. S. v. 9 1/2 Dozen Bottles of Peacock's Garlic for Health, and 9 Dozen Bottles of Peacock's Pure Garlic Extract. Default decree of condemnationand destruction.ddnj00103May 1940New England Products, Inc.Peacock's Garlic for Health and Peacock's Pure Garlic ExtractMarch 25 and; May 16, 1939Philadelphia, Pa.Evanston, Ill.Philadelphia, Pa.Eastern District of Pennsylvania103F. D. C. No. 1280, 1281. Sample Nos. 51987-D, 51988-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00103ddnj|103. Misbranding of Peacock's Garlic for Health and Peacock's Pure Garlic|Extract. U. S. v. 9% Dozen Bottles of Peacock's Garlic for Health, and|9 Dozen Bottles of Peacock's Pure Garlic Extract. Default decree of|condemnation- and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 1280, 1281. Sample Nos.|51987-D, 51988-D.)|The labeling of these products bore false and misleading representations|regarding their efficacy in the conditions set forth below.|On January 2, 1940, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Pennsylvania filed a libel against 18? dozen bottles of the above-named products|at Philadelphia, Pa., alleging that they had been shipped in interstate|commerce on or about March 25 and on May 16, 1939, from Evanston, 111., by|New England Products, Inc.; and charging that they were misbranded.|Analyses showed that both products consisted essentially of water, sugar,|salt, and 0.84 percent of garlic oiL|The product designated \"\"Garlic for Health\"\" was alleged to be misbranded in|that its labeling bore representations that it was an efficacious, safe remedy|for dogs, cats, foxes, etc., that it was a mild vermifuge, that treatment should|be continued until worms were expelled, that it would keep dogs in good health|and condition, and free from worms, that it was a protective food with great|medicinal value, that it was effective in treating cases of worms, constipation,|run-down condition, poor appetite, and skin ailments, that it would cleanse|the intestinal tract by stimulating gastric secretions and promoting intestinal|action, that its regular use would help maintain the digestive organs in a|healthy condition, that it would add life and luster to the dog's coat, and|help keep him free from eczema and other skin disorders, that its use by|fur farms would cause the production of superior pelts, that it would relieve|nervous tension in high-strung dogs, build up resistance, thus enabling pets|to withstand exposure, and would help avoid coughs, colds, pneumonia, and|other respiratory infections, that it would have a detoxifying effect and act|as a soothing and healing agent on the intestinal tract, that two or three|capsules a day for 2 days would act as a mild vermifuge after which one|capsule daily would act as a conditioner and preventive of worms, giving the|dog a strong constitution and cut down mortality among puppies tremendously,|which representations were false and misleading, since the article was not|efficacious for such purposes.|The product designated \"\"Garlic Extract\"\" was alleged to be misbranded in|that its labeling bore representations that it consisted of pure garlic extract,|was nature's safe remedy for dogs, cats, foxes, etc., was a mild vermifuge,|that treatments should be continued until worms were expelled, and that one-|half the amount indicated for treatment for worms, if given daily, would keep|the dog in good condition and free from worms, that it was unsurpassed as|a general conditioner, which representations were false and misleading since|the article was not efficacious for such purposes.|On February 8, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the products were ordered destroyed.|104. Misbranding of K-K Kold Kill and K-K Konker. U. S. v. 10 Jugs of K-K Kold Kill and 10 Jugs of K-K Konker. Default decrees of condemnation and destructionddnj00104May 1940Overpach Hatchery [Overpack's Hatchery]K-K Kold Kill and K-K KonkerJune 2, 1939Ogden, UtahSan Leandro, Calif.Ogden, UtahDistrict of Utah104F. D. C. Nos. 310, 811. Sample Nos. 41341-D, 41342-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00104ddnj|104. Misbranding of K-K Kold Kill and K-K Honker. U. S. v. 10 Jugs of K-K|Kold Kill and 10 Jugrs of K-K Konker. Default decrees of condemnation|and destruction, (f. D. C. Nos. 310, 811. Sample Nos. 41341-D, 41342-D.)|The labeling of these products bore false and misleading representations|regarding their efficacy in the conditions indicated hereinafter.|On August 2, 1939, the United States attorney for the District of Utah filed|libels against 10 Jugs of K-K Kold Kill and 10 jugs of K-K Konker at Ogden,|Utah, alleging that the articles had been shipped in interstate commerce on|or about June 2, 1939, by Overpach Hatchery [Overpack's Hatchery] from|San Leandro, Calif. ; and charging that they were misbranded.|Analyses showed that the Kold Kill consisted essentially of small propor-|tions of compounds of copper and iron, sulfuric and citric acid, and water;|and that the Konker consisted essentially of acetic acid, lactic acid, a small|proportion of mineral matter, and water.|The Kold Kill was alleged to be misbranded in that the labeling contained|representations that it was an effective preparation for colds, bronchitis,|chickenpox, and roup; that 1 teaspoonful should be used to each gallon of|drinking water, that this should be kept in front of the birds continually|until colds were dried up, and that in severe cases 1? teaspoonsful should be|used to each gallon of drinking water, which representations were false and|misleading since the article was not efficacious for the purposes recommended.|The Konker was alleged to be misbranded in that its labeling contained|representations that it was efficacious as an adjunct in the treatment of cocci-|diosis infection in baby chicks and as a treatment to check or control intesti-|nal infection in chicks, pullets, and mature birds; that it would assist in|inducing a resistance to coccidiosis infection by producing conditions in the|intestines that are beneficial to the health of the birds and detrimental to|intestinal parasites; that it was effective as a general conditioner; would|stimulate the appetite and bring about better food assimilation; that the baby|chicks should be started with Konker when they were 8 or 4 days old in order|to check and control coccidiosis infection; that if chicks showed symptoms|of coccidiosis infection before treatment or during treatment they should be|flushed mildly with Epsom salts for 1 day and then put on a double dose of|Konker; that in case of recurrent attacks a double dose should be used each|time the attack appears and that in severe cases it should be used for any|length of time necessary or until the birds were normal, which statements|were false and misleading in that the article was not efficacious for the|purposes recommended.|On November 6, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgments of condemna-|tion were entered and the products were ordered destroyed.|105. Misbranding of Moorman's Poultry Worm Sweep. U. S. v. 5 Bottles, et al. of Moorman's Poultry Worm Sweep. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00105May 1940Moorman Manufacturing Co.Moorman's Poultry Worm SweepJune 27, 1938Denver, Colo.Quincy, Ill.Denver, Colo.District of Colorado105F. D. C. No. 687. Sample No. 40888-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00105ddnj|10S. Misbranding: of Moorman's Poultry Worm Sweep. U. S. v. 5 Bottles, et al.|of Moorman's Poultry Worm Sweep. Default decree of condemnation and|destruction. (F. D. C. No. 687. Sample No. 40888-D.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-|ing its efficacy in the conditions indicated below.|On October 7, 1939, the United States attorney for the District of Colorado|filed a libel against 5 half-pint bottles, 1 pint bottle, 5 quart bottles, and 8 half-|gallon bottles of Moorman's Poultry Worm Sweep at Denver, Colo., consigned|by Moorman Manufacturing Co., from Quincy, 111., alleging that the article|had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about June 27, 1938; and charg-|ing that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that it consisted- essentially of a water solution of nicotine|sulfate (4.7 percent) and copper sulfate (6.7 percent), with small amounts|of arsenic and chlorides.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that its labeMng contained representa-|tions that it was efficacious for roundworms and ceca worms; that in the case|of roundworms the poultry would begin to pass worms in 4 hours after treat-|ment, and would probably continue to do so for 8 days; that although at least|75 percent of all poultry have some ceca worms, the manufacturer did not|recommend giving the treatment except in cases of unusually heavy infesta-|tion; that in treating for ceca worms the user should wait for 5 to 10 days|after treatment for roundworms, and then give the treatment; that the treat-|ment should not be given to turkeys weighing less than 2 to 2? pounds; that|the dose for turkeys for mouth treatment was as follows: 2? to 4 pounds,|? ounce; 4 to 8 pounds, ? ounce; and 8 pounds, ? ounce; and that for each|additional 8 pounds the dose should be increased ^ ounce; that in the vent|treatment for turkeys there should be at least 10 days between the 2 treat-|ments, and that the 10 to 1 solution should be used but that one-third as|much as recommended in the table should be given; and that the article was a|safe as well as a sure worm expeller, which representations were false and|misleading since the article was not efficacious for the purposes recommended.|On December 20, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|DRUGS IN DECEPTIVE CONTAINERS'|106. Misbranding of quinine sulfate. U. S. v. 8 Dozen Bottles of Quinine Sulfate. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00106May 1940South Georgia Manufacturing Co.quinine sulfateAugust 28, 1939Tallahassee, Fla.Blakely, Ga.Tallahassee, Fla.Northern District of Florida106F. D. C. No. 630. Sample No. 65983-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00106ddnj|106. Misbranding: of quinine sulfate. U. S. v. 8 Dozen Bottles of Quinine Sul|fate. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 630.|Sample No. 65983-D.)|The containers of this product were deceptive, since the contents occupied|approximately one-half of the available space in the bottle. Moreover, the|bottles contained less than one-thirtieth of an ounce, the amount declared on|the label.|On or about October 2, 1939, the United States attorney for the Northern|District of Florida filed a libel against 8 dozen bottles of quinine sulfate at|Tallahassee, Fla., alleging that the product had been shipped in interstate com-|merce on or about August 28, 1939, by South Georgia Manufacturing Co. from|Blakely, Oa. j and charging that it was misbranded.|Misbranding was alleged in that the statement on the label, \"\"^ of an|ounce,\"\" was false and misleading when applied to an article that was short|weight. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that its container was so|filled as to be misleading.|On December 19, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|107. Misbranding of salicylic add. U. S. v. 824 Packages of Salicylic Acid. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00107May 1940Cumberland Manufacturing Co.salicylic addAugust 17, 1939Stanford, Ky.Nashville, Tenn.Stanford, Ky.Eastern District of Kentucky107F. D. C. No. 1059. Sample No. 75531-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00107ddnj|107. Misbranding: of salicylic add. U. S. v. 824 Packages of Salicylic Acid.|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 1059.|Sample No. 75531-D.)|The containers of this product were filled to slightly less than half their|capacity. Weighings of the contents showed shortages from the declared|weight in most of the samples examined.|On December 1, 1939, the United States attorney for the Eastern District|of Kentucky filed a libel against 824 packages of salicylic acid at Stanford,|Ky., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or|about August 17, 1939, by the Cumberland Manufacturing Co. from Nashville,|Tenn.; and charging that it was misbranded.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the representation on the labeling|that the packages contained three-eighths of an ounce was false and mis-|leading since it was not correct It was alleged to be misbranded further|in that its container was so filled as to be misleading.|On January 8, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|108. Misbranding of Eye-Gene Eye Drops. U. S. v. 82 Packages of Eye-Gene Eye Drops. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00108May 1940Pearson Pharmacal Co., Inc.Eye-Gene Eye DropsSeptember 29, 1939Baltimore, Md.New York, N. Y.Baltimore, Md.District of Maryland108F. D. C. No. 975. Sample No. 47985-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00108ddnj|108. Misbranding: of Eye-Gene Eye Drops. V. S. v. 82 Package! of Eye-Gene|Eye Drops. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C.|No. 975. Sample No. 47985-D.)|The bottles containing this product occupied only 33.17 percent of the capacity|of the carton.|On November 14, 1939, the United States attorney for the District of Mary-|land filed a libel against 82 packages of Bye-Gene Eye Drops at Baltimore,|Md., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on|or about September 29, K)39, by Pearson Pharmacal Co., Inc., from New York,|N. T.; and charging that it was misbranded in that its containers were so|made, formed, or filled as to be misleading.|On December 6, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|109. Misbranding of Locorol. U. S. v. 23 Packages of Locorol. Default decree of condemnation.ddnj00109May 1940Peck & Sterba, Inc.LocorolAugust 9, 1939Baltimore, Md.New York, N. Y.Baltimore, Md.District of Maryland109F. D. C. No. 919. Sample No. 47982-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00109ddnj|109. Misbranding: of Locorol. U. S. v. 23 Packages of Locorol. Default decree|of condemnation. (F. D. C. No. 919. Sample No. 47982-D.)|The tubes containing this product occupied only 23.8 percent of the volume|of the carton.|* See also N. J. Nos. 90, 93, and 94. |land filed a libel|against 23 packages of Locorol at Baltimore, Md., alleging|that the article had been shipped In interstate commerce on or about August|9, 1939, by Peck & Sterba, Inc., from New York, N. X.; and charging that|it was misbranded In that its containers were so made, formed, or filled|as to be misleading. It was labeled in part: \"\"Locorol for Feminine Hygiene|B-package without applicator.\"\"|On December 6, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|110. Misbranding of ephedrine jelly. U. S. v. 120 Packages of Ephedrine Jelly. Default decree of condemnation. Product delivered to charitable institution.ddnj00110May 1940Purity Drug Co.ephedrine JellyOctober 9, 1939New York, N. Y.Passaic, N. J.New York, N. Y.Southern District of New York110F. D. C. No. 914. Sample No. 68144-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00110ddnj|110. Misbranding1 of ephedrine Jelly. U. S. v. 120 Packages of Ephedrine Jelly.|Default decree of condemnation. Product delivered to charitable insti-|tution. (F. D. C. No. 914. Sample No. 68144-D.)|The tubes containing this product occupied approximately 20 percent of the|capacity of the carton.|On November 10, 1939, the United States attorney for the Southern District|of New York filed a libel against 120 packages of ephedrine Jelly at New York,|N. Y., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on|or about October 9, 1939, by the Purity Drug Co. from Passaic, N. J.; and|charging that it was misbranded in that the cartons were so made, formed,|or filled as to be misleading.|On December 5, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and it was ordered that the product be delivered to a|charitable institution.|283. Misbranding of Old Man Frantz Mountain Tonic. U. S. v. Cnarton C. Frantz (Old Man Frantz). Plea of guilty. Fine, $100 and costs.ddnj00283Nov. 4, 1941Cnarton C. Frantz, trading as Old Man Frantz at Pittsburgh, Pa.Old Man Frantz Mountain TonicNovember 17, 1939PennsylvaniaPennsylvaniaOhioWestern District of Pennsylvania283F. D. C. No. 961. Sample No. 78890-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00283ddnj|283. Misbranding: of Old Man Frantz Mountain Tonic. U. S. v. Cnarton C.|Frantz (Old Man Frantz). Plea of gruilty. Fine, $100 and costs.|(F. D. C. No. 961. Sample No. 78890-D.)|This product was labeled to indicate that it contained vitamins A and D|in amounts sufficient to be of importance in conditions requiring administra-|tion of such vitamins; whereas it did not. Its labeling also bore false and|misleading representations regarding its efficacy in the conditions indicated|below.|On May 27, 1940, the United States attorney for the Western District of|Pennsylvania filed an information against Cnarton C. Frantz, trading as Old|Man Frantz at Pittsburgh, Pa., alleging shipment on or about November 17,|1939, from the State of Pennsylvania into the State of Ohio of a quantity of|Old Man Frantz Mountain- Tonic which was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted largely of water with small|amounts of sugars, alcohol, salicyclic acid, cellular plant matter including starch,|and a trace of oil. Tests showed that it contained 6 U. S. P. units of vitamin|A and 1 U. S. P. unit of vitamin D per cc.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, \"\"Contains|Vitamins A***D*** Dosage: 1 oz. Each day for normal persons.|2 oz. Each day for those who require an extra amount of Vitamins,\"\" borne on|the bottle label, were false and misleading in that they represented that the|article, in the dosages recommended, would supply the user with vitamins A|and D in amounts sufficient to be of importance in conditions requiring the ad-|ministration of vitamins A and D; whereas the article, in the dosages recom-|mended, would supply the user with not more than one-ninth the amount of|vitamin A required by an audit, and not more than one-tenth the minimum dose|of vitamin D recommended by the United States Pharmacopoeia.|Misbranding was alleged further in that certain statements in the circular were|false and misleading in that they represented that the article was efficacious|to increase pep, vim, vigor, and vitality, and would \"\"build up\"\"; that it was a|tonic for run down feeling, nervousness, lack of appetite, and lack of vigor and|ambition; that it would aid in maintaining resistance in infections, and would|increase the life span; that it was efficacious for poor appetite, dry skin, diar-|rhea, poor teeth, sterility, weakness, and would stimulate appetite, aid digestion|1 See also No. 281.|and assimilation; that it was efficacious for poor lactation, atrophy of glands,|gastric atony, and head retraction; that it would improve the appetite, stimu-|late growth essential to tissue respiration; that it contained ingredients essential|for glandular functions; that it was efficacious for poor resistance to infections,|restlessness, digestive disturbances, headache; that it would exert a beneficial|influence in cases of low fertility, poor lactation, and failure of male germ cells|to develop; that it was an antipellagric, would improve growth, promote health,|prolong the active life span; that it was essential in nerve tissues; that it was|efficacious in conditions which impair growth and shorten the life span, and|was efficacious in the treatment of dermatitis, breakdown of the central nervous|system, loss of hair, ulceration of tongue, loss in body weight of intestines and|atony; whereas it would not be efficacious for such purposes.|On October 7, 1940, the defendant entered a plea of guilty and the court|imposed a fine of $100 and costs.|111. Misbranding of Refill Lanteen Jelly. U. S. v. 66 Packages of Refill Lanteen Jelly. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00111May 1940Lanteen Medical Laboratories, Inc.Refill Lanteen JellyOctober 16, 1939Baltimore, Md.Chicago, Ill.Baltimore, Md.District of Maryland111F. D. C. No. 977. Sample No. 47981-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00111ddnj|111. Misbranding of Refill Lanteen Jelly. U. S. v. 66 Packages of Refill Lanteen|Jelly. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 977.|Sample No. 47981-D.)|The tubes containing this product occupied only 26.8 percent of the total|volume of the carton containers.|On November 14, 1939, the United States attorney for the District of Mary-|land filed a libel against 66 packages of Refill Lanteen Jelly at Baltimore, Md.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|October 16, 1939, by Lanteen Medical Laboratories, Inc., from Chicago, 111.;|and charging that it was misbranded in that its container was so made,|formed, or filled as to be misleading.|On December 6, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|113. Misbranding of First-Aid Bandages. U. S. v. 846 Cans of First-Aid Bandages. Default decree of condemnation. Product ordered delivered to public institution.ddnj00113May 1940Hampton Manufacturing Co.First-Aid BandagesSeptember 25, 1939Atlanta, Ga.Carlstadt, N. J.Atlanta, Ga.Northern District of Georgia113F. D. C. No. 1005. Sample No. 82507-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00113ddnj|IIS. Misbranding of First-Aid Bandages. XT. S. ?. 846 Cans of First-Aid Band-|ages. Default decree of condemnation. Product ordered delivered to|public institution. (F. D. C. No. 1005. Sample No. 82507-D.)|The containers of this product were deceptive, since the contents occupied|only approximately one-half of the available space in the package.|On or about November 18, 1939, the United States attorney for the Northern|District of Georgia filed a libel against 846 cans of bandages at Atlanta, Ga.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|September 25, 1939, by Hampton Manufacturing Co. from Carlstadt, N. J.; and|charging that it was misbranded in that its containers were so made, formed,|or filled as to be misleading. The article was labeled in part: \"\"Blue Grass|First-Aid Bandage Waterproof with Mercurochrome H W & D.\"\"|On December 6, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered delivered to a public institution.|NONSTERILE SURGICAL DRESSINGS|114. Adulteration and misbranding of cotton swab applicators. U. 8. v. 89 1/2 Dozen Sanitary Cotton Swab Applicators (and 2 other seizure actions against the same product). Default decrees of condemnation. Destruction or other lawful disposition ordered.ddnj00114May 1940Woltra Co., Inc.cotton swab applicatorsOctober 27 to December 14, 1939Washington, D. C.; Baltimore, Md.New York, N. Y.Washington, D. C.; Baltimore, Md.District of Columbia and the District of Maryland114F. D. C. Nos. 1260, 1270, 1271. Sample Nos. 76895-D, 76910-D, 76912-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00114ddnj|114. Adulteration and misbranding of cotton swab applicators. U. 8. v. 89 %|Dozen Sanitary Cotton Swab Applicators (and 2 other seizure actions|against the same product). Default decrees of condemnation. Destruc-|tion or other lawful disposition ordered. (F. D. C. Nos. 1260, 1270, 1271.|Sample Nos. 76895-D, 76910-D, 76912-D.)|This product had been shipped in interstate commerce and was in an inter-|state status at the time of examination, at which time it was found to be|contaminated with viable micro-organisms.|On December 29,1939, the United States attorneys for the District of Columbia|and the District of Maryland filed libels against 122? dozen cotton swabs at|Washington, D. C., and 56 dozen packages of the same product at Baltimore,|Md., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce within|the period from on or about October 27 to on or about December 14, 1939, by|the Woltra Co., Inc., from New York, N. Y.; and charging that it was|adulterated and misbranded.|Adulteration was alleged in that the purity and quality of the article fell|below that which it purported or was represented to possess, since its labeling|created the impression that it was sterile; whereas it was not sterile but was|contaminated with viable micro-organisms.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that its labeling bore a design of a|surgeon and a nurse, another of a physician using an applicator in the mouth|of a boy, and a third of a nurse using it on the eye of an infant; and bore|representations that it was a sanitary cotton swab applicator, was approved|and recommended by doctors and nurses, and had been made from sterilized|absorbent cotton and dipped in boric acid, which designs and representations|were false and misleading since they created the impression that the article was|sterile; whereas it was not|On January 23 and 25, 1940r no claimant having appeared, judgments of|condemnation were entered and destruction or other lawful disposition of th-|product was ordered.|115. Adulteration and misbranding of cotton swab applicators. U. S. v. 75 Cartons of Cotton Swab Applicators. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00115May 1940Woltra Co., Inc.cotton swab applicatorsAugust 23, 1939St. Louis, Mo.New York, N. Y.St. Louis, Mo.Eastern District of Missouri115F. D. C. No. 1056. Sample No. 84357-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00115ddnj|115. Adulteration and misbranding of cotton swab applicators. U. S. v. 75|Cartons of Cotton Swab Applicators. Default decree of condemnation|and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 1056. Sample No. 84357-D.)|This product had been shipped in interstate commerce and was in an inter-|state status when examined, at which time it was found to be contaminated|with viable micro-organisms. It was labeled to indicate that it contained a|substantial amount of boric acid but contained no more than a trace of|boric acid.|On November 21, 1939, the United States attorney for the Eastern District|of Missouri filed a libel against 75 cartons of cotton swab applicators at St.|Louis, Mo., alleging that the article had been shipped on or about August 23,|1939, by the Woltra Co., Inc., from New York, N. Y.; and charging that it was|adulterated and misbranded. It was labeled in part: \"\"Sanitary Cotton Swab|Applicators with Tongue Blade.\"\"|Adulteration was alleged in that the strength of the article differed from|and its purity or quality fell below that which it purported or was represented|to possess.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that representations in the labeling that|it was made from sterilized absorbent cotton and dipped in boric acid, and|that it was approved and recommended by doctors and nurses were false and|misleading as applied to an article which was not sterile but which was con-|taminated with viable micro-organisms and which contained an insignificant|amount of boric acid.|On January 19, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|116. Adulteration and misbranding of Twin-Tips. U. S. v. 44 7/13 Dozen Pack ages of Twin-Tips. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00116May 1940Williams CompanyTwin-Tips\NWashington, D. C.Washington, D. C.Washington, D. C.District of Columbia116F. D. C. No. 1268. Sample No. 76911-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00116ddnj|116. Adulteration and misbranding of Twin-Tips. V. S. v. 44%i Dozen Pack|ages of Twin-Tips. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 1268. Sample No. 76911-D.)|This product was in interstate commerce when examined, at which time it|was found to be contaminated with viable micro-organisms.|On December 29,1939, the United States attorney for the District of Columbia?C|filed a libel against 44?2 dozen packages of Twin-Tips at Washington, D. 0.,|alleging that the article was in possession of the Washington Wholesale Drug|Exchange, Washington, D. 0., and was being offered for sale in the District?[|of Columbia; and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded. It was?^-~|17 Water St, New York City.\"\"|Adulteration was alleged in that the purity and quality of the article fell|below that which it purported or was represented to possess. It was alleged|to be misbranded in that representations in the labeling that it was sanitary|and had been manufactured from sterilized cotton under a process that assured|the most sanitary swab obtainable were false and misleading as applied to the|article, since it was not sterile but was contaminated with viable micro-|organisms.|On January 25, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|579. Misbranding of Listing and Bekus Puddy. U. S. v. 19 Cases of Lishus and 18 Cases of Bekus Paddy. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00579November 1942Dr. Jackson FoodsListing and Bekus PuddyJanuary 13, 1941Portland, Oreg.Brooklyn, N. Y.Portland, Oreg.District of Oregon579F. D. C. No. 4043. Sample Nos. 55692-E, 55693-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00579ddnj|579. Misbranding: of Listing and Bekns Puddy. V. S. v. 19 Gases of Lishus and|18 Cases of Bekns Paddy. Default decree of condemnation and destruc-|tion. (F. D. C. No. 4043. Sample Nos. 55692-E, 55693-E.)|On April 7, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Oregon filed a|libel against the above-named products at Portland, Oreg., alleging that the ar-|ticles had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about January 13, 1941, by|Dr. Jackson Foods from Brooklyn, N. Y.; and charging that they were misbranded.|Analyses of samples of the articles showed that they consisted essentially of|flaxseed, rice, rice polishings, wheat, and wheat bran.|Both articles were alleged to be misbranded (1) in that the statement on the|carton, \"\"If troubled with Acid Stomach or fermentation, etc., do not use sugar,-|Cook raisins or dates in with the cereal if sweet is required,\"\" was false and mis-|leading since with or without raisins or dates they did not constitute an adequate|treatment for acid stomach, fermentation, etc.; (2) in that the pictures of a|robust man accompanied by the legends \"\"Dr. Jackson at 80,\"\" and \"\"Photo of Robert|G. Jackson, M. D., at 60,\"\" were false and misleading since use of the articles|could not be depended upon to produce or maintain robustness; and (3) in that|statements appearing in a leaflet entitled \"\"Service Bulletin #13,\"\" which repre-|sented that they were especially designed to relieve constipation and get rid of|its cause by natural means; that it would furnish sufficient roughage to stimu-|late muscular activity of the bowels and that it would furnish enough minerals|. to stimulate and support nervous control of those muscles and keep them on the|job until the waste had been discharged; and cause three to five evacuations a|day in a person ordinarily having but two movements a week, were false and|misleading since the articles would not be efficacious for such purposes.|Lishus was also alleged to be misbranded further under the provisions of the|law applicable to foods, as reported in F. N. J. No. 2995.|On May 13,1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|117. Misbranding of first aid kits. U. S. v. 44 First Aid Kits. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00117May 1940American White Cross Laboratories, Inc.first aid kitsAugust 15, 1939San Francisco, Calif.New Rochelle, N. Y.San Francisco, Calif.Northern District of California117F. D. C. No. 891. Sample No. 73029-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00117ddnj|117. Misbranding: of first aid kits. TJ. S. v. 44 First Aid Kits. Default decree of|condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 891. Sample No. 73029-D.)|This product had been shipped in interstate commerce and was in an inter-|state status at the time of examination, at which time the absorbent cotton in|the kits was found to be contaminated with viable micro-organisms.|On November 8, 1939, the United States attorney for the Northern District|of California filed a libel against 44 first aid kits at San Francisco, Calif.,|alleging that the article had been shipped on or about August 15, 1939, by the|American White Cross Laboratories, Inc., from New Rochelle, N. Y.; and|charging that it was misbranded. It was labeled in part: \"\"All Purpose First|Aid Kits.\"\"|Misbranding was alleged in that representations in the labeling that it had|been sterilized after packaging, would afford protection, was an all purpose|first aid kit, was a first aid for emergency treatment of minor injuries, such|as small cuts and burns in drder to prevent infection, together with designs|of a sterilizer and of a nurse and surgeon also appearing in the labeling, were|false and misleading when applied to absorbent cotton which was not sterile|but was contaminated with viable micro-organisms.|On December 21, 1939, no claima'nt having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|118. Adulteration and misbranding of first aid kits. U. S. v. 49 Packages and 99 Packages of First Aid Kits. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00118May 1940American White Cross Laboratories, Incfirst aid kitsNovember 17, 1939; November 10, 1938San Francisco, Calif.; Laramie, Wyo.New Rochelle, N. Y.San Francisco, Calif.;Laramie, Wyo.Northern District of California and the District of Wyoming118F. D. C. Nos. 998, 1012. Sample Nos. 70693-D, 73033-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00118ddnj|118. Adulteration and misbranding of first aid kits. U. S. v. 49 Packages and|99 Packages of First Aid Kits. Default decrees of condemnation and|destruction. (F. D. C. Noi. 998, 1012. Sample Nos. 70693-D, 73033-D.)|This product had been shipped in interstate commerce and was in an inter-|state status when examined: at that time the gauze bandage in the Lone Ranger|kits and the absorbent cotton in the Emergency kits were found to be con-|taminated with viable micro-organisms.|On or about November 17, 1939, the United States attorneys for the Northern|District of California and the District of Wyoming filed libels against 99|Eackages of first aid kits at San Francisco, Calif., and 49 packages of first aid?its at Laramie, Wyo., alleging that the former had been shipped on or about|August 7. 1936, and that tie latter had been shipped on or about November|10, 1938, by the American White Cross Laboratories from New Rochelle, N. Y.;|and charging that the article was misbranded. It was labeled in part: \"\"White|Cross Emergency First Aid Kit\"\"; or \"\"Official Lone Ranger First Aid Kits.\"\"|Both lots were alleged to be misbranded in that representations in the label-|ing of the Emergency kits that they had been sterilized and would afford|protection, and those in the labeling of the Lone Ranger kits that they had|been sterilized after packaging, would afford protection and had been scien-|tifically prepared under the most sanitary conditions, were false and misleading|as applied to an article which contained gauze bandages or absorbent cotton|Which was contaminated with viable micro-organisms.|The Lone Ranger kits were alleged to be adulterated in that their quality|fell below that which they were purported and were labeled as possessing,|namely, \"\"Sterilized.\"\"|On December 21, 1939, no claim having been entered for the goods seized|at San Francisco, Calif., judgment of condemnation and destruction was entered.|On the same date the American White Cross Laboratories, Inc. having appeared|as claimant for the goods seized at Laramie, Wyo., and having consented to|the entry of a decree, judgment of condemnation was entered; the decree, how-|ever, contained a provision for release of the goods under bond conditioned|that it be disposed of according to law. On February 2, 1940, the claimant|having failed to comply with the terms of the decree, the goods were ordered|destroyed.|119. Misbranding of absorbent cotton and adulteration and misbranding of surgical gauze. U. S. v. 24 Packages of Absorbent Cotton, 96 Packages and 23 Packages of Surgical Gauze. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00119May 1940American White Cross Laboratories, Inc.absorbent cotton; surgical gauzeJanuary 20 and September 18, 1937San Francisco, Calif.New Rochelle, N. Y.San Francisco, Calif.Northern District of California119F. D. C. Nos. 1024, 1025. Sample Nos. 73030-D, 73031-D, 73032-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00119ddnj|119. Misbranding of absorbent cotton and adulteration and misbranding' of|surgical gauze. V. S. v. 24 Packages of Absorbent Cotton, 96 Packages|and 23 Packages of Surgical Gauze. Default decree of condemnation and|destruction. (P. D. C. Nos. 1024, 1025. Sample Nos. 73030-D, 73031-D,|73032-D.)|These products had been shipped in interstate commerce and were in interstate?(|commerce when examined, and at that time they were found to be contaminated|with viable micro-organisms.|On November 21, 1939, the United States attorney for the Northern District|of California filed a libel against 24 packages of absorbent cotton and 119|packages of surgical gauze at San Francisco, Calif., alleging that the articles|had been shipped on or about January 20 and September 18, 1937, by American|White Cross Laboratories, Inc., from New Rochelle, N. Y.; and charging mis-|branding of the absorbent cotton, and adulteration and misbranding of the|surgical gauze. The articles were labeled in part: \"\"Sterilized White Cross|Absorbent Cotton [or \"\"Surgical Gauze\"\"].\"\"|Both products were alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, \"\"Ster-|ilized\"\" and \"\"The White Cross of Perfection is your Protection,\"\" appearing on|the cartons, were false and misleading when applied to articles that were not|sterile but were contaminated with viable micro-organisms.|The surgical gauze was also alleged to be adulterated in that its purity or|quality fell below that which it purported or was represented to possess.|On December 22, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the products were ordered destroyed.|120. Adulteration and misbranding of Pro-Tex Adhesive Bandage. U. S. v. 86 Dozen Packages of Pro-Tex Adhesive Gauze Bandage. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00120May 1940Pro-Tex LaboratoriesPro-Tex Adhesive BandageNovember 22, 1937Wallace, IdahoYelm, Wash.Wallace, IdahoDistrict of Idaho120F. D. C. No. 1288. Sample No. 83361-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00120ddnj|120. Adulteration and misbranding of Pro-Tex Adhesive Bandage. U. S. v. 86|Dozen Packages of Pro-Tex Adhesive Gauze Bandage. Default decree|of condemnation and destruction. (E\\ D. C. No. 1288. Sample No.|83361-D.)|This product had been shipped in interstate commerce and was in an inter-|state status when examined, and at that time it was found to be contaminated|with viable micro-organisms.|On January 6, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of Idaho filed|a libel against 36 dozen packages of Pro-Tex Adhesive Gauze Bandage at Wal-|lace, Idaho, alleging that the article had been shipped on or about November|22, 1937, by the Pro-Tex Laboratories from Xelm, Wash. { and charging that it|was adulterated and misbranded.|Adulteration was alleged in that its purity or quality fell below that which|It purported or was represented to possess since its labeling indicated that it|was sterile, whereas it was not sterile.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that representations in the labeling that|it would afford protection, was safe, sanitary, was unconditionally guaranteed;|that it should be applied directly over the wound \"\"if no sterile gauze is avail-|able\"\" ; that it was made by processing pure sterilized gauze; that it had been|sterilized in the process of manufacture; that it would permit air to circulate|about the wound, thus permitting nature to aid in the healing process; that|it was used extensively by hospitals and every branch of the medical pro-|fession, including physicians and surgeons and veterinarians; that it was|effective for home use and would protect cuts and abrasions; that it was guar-|anteed for 1 year from the date of purchase, together with a picture of a foot|with a bandage Illustrating how it might be used for protecting heel blisters,|were false and misleading when applied to an article which was not sterile|but was contaminated with viable micro-organisms.|On January 31, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|126. Adulteration and misbranding of sutures. U. S. . 4 Boxes and 5 Packages of Plain Pyoktanin Catgut. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00126May 1940Laboratory of the Ramsey County Medical SocietysuturesMarch 15, 1937, and November 10 and December 14, 1938Chicago, Ill.; Milwaukee, Wis.St. Paul, Minn.Chicago, Ill.; Milwaukee, Wis.Northern District of Illinois and the Eastern District of Wisconsin126F. D. C. Nos. 525, 1021. Sample Nos. 55052-D, 55053-D, 55992-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00126ddnj|126. Adulteration and misbranding of sutures. U. S. ?. 4 Boxes and 5 Pack|ages of Plain Pyoktanin Catgut. Default decrees of condemnation and|destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 525, 1021. Sample NOB. 55052-D, 55053-D,|55992-D.)|This product had been shipped in interstate commerce and was in an inter-|state status when examined; at that time it was found to be contaminated with|viable micro-organisms.|On September 8 and November 18, 1939, the United States attorneys for the|Northern District of Illinois and the Eastern District of Wisconsin filed libels|against four boxes of plain pyoktanin catgut at Chicago, 111., and 5 packages|of the same product at Milwaukee, Wis., alleging that the article had been|shipped on or about March 15, 1937, and November 10 and December 14, 1938,|by the Laboratory of the Ramsey County Medical Society from St, Paul, Minn. \\|and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded.|Adulteration was alleged in that the purity of the article fell below that which|it purported or was represented to possess in that its labeling conveyed the|impression that it was sterile; whereas it was not sterile, but was|contaminated.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the labeling bore representations|that it was plain pyoktanin catgut and contained directions that the envelopes|be torn and the contents dropped into a sterile solution and 3oaked before|application to make it pliable to prevent breaking at the knot, which were false|and misleading since they created the impression that the article was sterile|catgut suitable for surgical use; whereas it was not sterile catgut suitable for|surgical use.|On November 8, 1939, and January 29, 1940, no claimant having appeared,|Judgments of condemnation were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|PROPHYLACTICS|Nos. 127 to 140 of this publication report the seizure and disposition of pro-|phylactics samples of which were found to be defective because of the presence|of holes.|284. Adulteration and misbranding of vitamin tablets. U. S. v. Royal Manufacturing Co. of Duquesne, Kolomon Kovacs, Samuel S. Kovacs, and Martin Kovacs. Pleas of nolo contendere. Dismissed as to the corporation. Fine of $25 and costs imposed against each individual defendant.ddnj00284Nov. 4, 1941Royal Manufacturing Co. of Duquesne, Chicago, Ill., Kolomon Kovacs, Samuel S. Kovacs, and Martin Kovacsvitamin tabletsAugust 18, 1939IllinoisIllinoisMichiganNorthern District of Illinois284F. D. C. No. 945. Sample No. 55534-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00284ddnj|284. Adulteration and misbranding of vitamin tablets. U. S. v. Royal Manufac|turing: Co. of Duquesne, Kolomon Kovacs, Samuel S. Kovacs, and Martin|Kovacs. Pleas of nolo contendere. Dismissed as to the corporation.|Fine of $25 and costs imposed against each individual defendant.|(F. D. C. No. 945. Sample No. 55534-D.)|This product was found to contain less than one-sixtieth the amount of|vitamin A and less than one-half the amount of vitamin D delcared on the label.|On April 15, 1940, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Illinois filed an information against the Royal Manufacturing Co. of Duquesne,|Chicago, HI., Kolomon Kovacs, Samuel S. Kovacs, and Martin Kovacs, alleging|shipment on or about August 18, 1939, from the State of Illinois into the State|of Michigan of a quantity of vitamin tablets that were adulterated and mis-|branded. The article was labeled in part \"\"Saxon Six Vitamins in Tablet Form.\"\"|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from|and its quality fell below that which it purported or was represented to possess|in that each of said tablets was represented to contain not less than 3,138|U. S. P. units of vitamin A and not less than 314 U. S. P. units of vitamin D;|whereas each tablet contained not more than 50 U. S. P. units of vitamin A|and not more than 150 U. S. P. units of vitamin D.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, \"\"Each Tablet Contains|Not Less Than: Vitamin A, 3138 U. S. P. units * * * Vitamin D, 314 U. S. P.|units * * * Vitamin C,\"\" borne on the carton, and \"\"Directions: Adults take|two to four tablets daily. Children one to three tablets daily,\"\" borne on the bottle|label, were false and misleading in that they represented that each of said tablets|contained not less than 3,138 U. S. P. units of vitamin A and not less than 314|U. S. P. units of vitamin D and that when taken according to directions would|provide a substantial amount of vitamin C; whereas the said tablets contained|less than 3,138 U. S. P. units of vitamin A and less than 314 U. S. P. units of|vitamin D, and when taken in accordance with directions would not supply a|substantial amount of vitamin C in that four tablets would supply less than|one-tenth the amount of vitamin C required daily by adults, and three tablets|would supply less than one-seventh the amount of vitamin C required daily by|children less than 1 year old and less than one-tenth the amount required daily|by children 1 to 12 years old.|On November 28, 1940, pleas of nolo contendere were entered. The court,|after the facts had been presented and arguments of counsel had been heard,|suggested that the defendant corporation be dismissed and, upon motion of the|United States attorney, the case against the corporation was dismissed.|Fines of $25 and costs were imposed against each individual defendant, with the|provision that payment of the fine on the first count satisfy both counts.|121. Adulteration and misbranding of selvage gauze. U. S. v. 8 Packages of Curity Selvage Gauze. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00121May 1940Lewis Manufacturing Co.selvage gauzeAugust 4, 1939Walpole, Mass.Chicago, Ill.Walpole, Mass.District of Massachusetts121F. D. C. No. 749. Sample No. 73825-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00121ddnj|121. Adulteration and misbranding of selvage gauze. V. S. v. 8 Packages of|Curity Selvage Gauze. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 749. Sample No. 73825-D.)|This product had been shipped in interstate commerce and was in interstate|commerce at the time of examination; at that time it was found to be con-|taminated with viable micro-organisms.|On October 17, 1939, the United States attorney for the District of Massa-|chusetts filed a libel against eight packages of Curity Selvage Gauze at Walpole,|Mass., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or?(|about August 4,1939, by Lewis Manufacturing Co. from Chicago, 111.; and charg-|ing that it was adulterated and misbranded.|Adulteration was alleged in that its purity or quality fell below that which|it purported or was represented to possess, namely, \"\"Sterilized,\"\" since it was not|sterile but was contaminated wtih viable micro-organisms.|It had been sterilized after packaging, which statement was false and mislead-|ing as applied to an article that was not sterile.|On December 18, 1939, claim and answer having been withdrawn by the|intervenor, Judgment of condemnation was entered and the product was ordered|destroyed.|122. Adulteration and misbranding of surgical dressings. U. S. v. 12 Dozen Cartons of Gauze Bandages and 70 Packages of Surgical Gauze. Decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00122May 1940American White Cross Laboratoriessurgical dressingsMarch 9 and May 1, 1939Denver, Colo.; Los Angeles, Calif.New Rochelle, N. Y.Denver, Colo.; Los Angeles, Calif.District of Colorado and the Southern District of California122F. D. C. Nos. 549, 755. Sample Nos. 30800-D, 67961-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00122ddnj|122. Adulteration and misbranding of surgical dressings. IT. S. v. 12 Dozen|Cartons of Gauze Bandages and 70 Packages of Surgical Gauze. Decrees|of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 649, 755. Sample Nos.|30800-D, 67961-D.)|This product had been shipped in interstate commerce and was in an inter-|state status when examined; at that time it was found to be contaminated with|viable micro-organisms.|On September 6 and October 17, 1989, the United States attorneys for the|District of Colorado and the Southern District of California filed libels against|12 dozen cartons of gauze bandages at Denver, Colo., and 70 packages of surgical|gauze at Los Angeles, Calif., consigned by the American White Cross Labora-|tories, alleging that the article had been shipped on or about March 9 and May 1,|1939, from New Rochelle, N. Y. j and charging that it was adulterated and mis-|branded. It was labeled in part: \"\"Hospital Bandage\"\" or \"\"Sterilized White Cross|Surgical Gauze.\"\"|It was alleged in the libel that the article was adulterated in that its purity|and quality fell below that which it purported or was represented to possess.|The hospital bandage was alleged to be mlsbranded in that its labeling bore|representations that it had been sterilized after packaging, that it was a suit-|able hospital bandage, that It had been prepared under the most sanitary and|scientific conditions, and that absolute satisfaction was guaranteed; and the|design of a surgeon and a nurse, which representations and design were false|and misleading when applied to an article that was not sterile and therefore|was not suitable for hospital use or use by surgeons and nurses, and which|had not been prepared under the most scientific conditions. The surgical gauze|was alleged to be mlsbranded In that Its labeling bore the representation that|it was surgical gauze, which representation was false and misleading when|applied to an article that was not sterile and was not suitable for use in clinics.|On September 19 and November 9, 1939, no claim having been entered for|the product, Judgments of condemnation were entered and it was ordered|destroyed.|123. Misbranding of Kelson's First Aid Treated Strips. U. S. v. 35 1/4 Gross of Nelson's First Aid Treated Strips. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00123May 1940Gero Products, Inc.Kelson's First Aid Treated StripsOctober 10 and 27, 1939New York, N. Y.South Boston, Mass.New York, N. Y.Southern District of New York123F. D. C. No. 1146. Sample Mo. 68576-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00123ddnj|123. Misbranding of Kelson's First Aid Treated Strips. TJ. S. v. 35% Gross of|Nelson's First Aid Treated Strips. Default decree of condemnation and|destruction. (F. D. O. Mo. 1146. Sample Mo. 68576-D.)|This product had been shipped in Interstate commerce and was in an inter-|state status when examined; and at that time It was found to be contaminated|with viable micro-organisms. It was labeled to indicate that it contained an|appreciable amount of boric add, but it contained only a trace of boric acid.|On December 7, 1939, the United States attorney for the Southern District|of New York filed a libel against 85*4 gross packages of the above-named product|at New York, N. Y., alleging that the article had been shipped on or about|October 10 and 27, 1939, by the Gero Products, Inc., from South Boston, Mass.-|and charging that It was mlsbranded.|It was alleged to be mlsbranded in that representations In the labeling that|It should be applied to the wound as a first aid for minor cuts, wounds, and|abrasions and that it was borated, were false and misleading when applied to|an article which was not sterile and which contained an insignificant amount|of boric acid.|On February 1, 1940, no claimant having appeared, Judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|124. Misbranding of gauze bandage. U. S. v. 80 Cartons of Gauze Bandage. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00124May 1940Supreme First Aid Co., Inc.gauze bandageSeptember 27, 1939North CarolinaNew Tork, N. Y.North CarolinaWestern District of North Carolina124F. D. C. No. 1163. Sample No. 82598-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00124ddnj|124. Misbranding of gauze bandage. TJ. S. v. 80 Cartons of Gauze Bandage.|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Mo. 1163.|Sample Mo. 82598-D.)|This product had been shipped In Interstate commerce and was in interstate|commerce when examined j at that time it was found to be contaminated with|viable micro-organisms.|On December 9, 1989, the United States attorney for the Western District of|North Carolina filed a Ubel against 80 cartons of gauze bandage at Charlotte,|N. 0., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|September 27, 1939, by the Supreme First Aid Co., Inc., from New Tork, N. T. ||and charging that it was misbranded.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that representations in the labeling that|it be used as a first aid dressing for household, office, and factory use, and that|it be kept constantly on hand for emergencies, were false and misleading when|applied to an article which was not sterile but was contaminated with viable|micro-organisms and therefore was not suitable as a first aid dressing for|emergencies.|On January 19, 1940, no claimant having appeared, Judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|125. Misbranding of gauze bandage. U. S. v. 1 Gross Packages of Gauze Bandages. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00125May 1940Mills Sales Co.gauze bandageMay 9, 1938Wilkes-Barre, Pa.New York, N. Y.Wilkes-Barre, Pa.Middle District of Pennsylvania125F. D. C. No. 274. Sample No. 51887-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00125ddnj|125. Misbranding; of gauze bandage. V. S. v. 1 Gross Packages of Gauze Band|ages. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. O. No.|274. Sample No. 51887-D.)|This product had been shipped in interstate commerce. At the time of|examination and while in interstate commerce, it was found to be contaminated|with viable micro-organisms.|On July 7, 1939, the United States attorney for the Middle District of Pennsyl-|vania filed a libel (amended July 13, 1939) against 1 gross packages of gauze|bandage at Wilkes-Barre, Pa., alleging that the article had been shipped on or|about May 9, 1938, by the Mills Sales Co. from New York, N. Y.; and charging|that it was misbranded. It was labeled in part: \"\"Physicians and Surgeons|Gauze Bandage First Aid Products Corp.\"\"|It was alleged to be misbranded in that representations in the labeling that|it was appropriate for use by physicians and surgeons and was appropriate|for use as a first aid, were false and misleading when applied to an article|that was not sterile.|. On August 25, 1939, no claimant having appeared, Judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|127. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 87 Gross and S3 Gross of Prophylactics. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00127May 1940Gotham Sales Co.prophylacticsSeptember 27 and October 19, 1939Memphis, Tenn.; Akron, OhioNew York, N. Y.Memphis, Tenn.; Akron, OhioWestern District of Tennessee and the Northern District of Ohio127F. D. C. Nos. 1014, 1029. Sample Nos. 75446-D, 84149-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00127ddnj|127. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. IT. S. v. 87 Gross and S3|Gross of Prophylactics. Default decrees of condemnation and destruc-|tion. (F. D. C. Nos. 1014, 1029. Sample Nos. 75446-D, 84149-D.)|On November 18 and 21, 1939, the United States attorneys for the Western|District of Tennessee and the Northern District of Ohio filed libels against 87|gross of prophylactics at Memphis, Tenn., and 33 gross of prophylactics at Akron,|Ohio, alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or|N. Y.; and charging that it was adulterated and that one lot was also mis-|branded. The article was labeled in part: \"\"Tally-Ho\"\" or \"\"Saf-T-Way.\"\"|The article in both lots was alleged to be adulterated in that its quality fell|below that which it purported or was represented to possess.|The Saf-T-Way brand was alleged to be misbranded in that its labeling con-|veyed the false and misleading impression that it was a safe prophylactic.|On December 12 and 20, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgments of|condemnation were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|128. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 108 Gross, 169 Gross, and 13 Gross of Prophylactics. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00128May 1940Universal Merchandise Co.prophylacticsOctober 25, 26, and 31, 1939Memphis, Tenn.; Houston, Tex.New York, N. Y., and New Orleans, La.Memphis, Tenn.; Houston, Tex.Western District of Tennessee and the Southern District of Texas128F. D. C. Nos. 1045, 1046, 1227. Sample Nos. 62614-D, 63372-D, 63373-D, 63374-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00128ddnj|128. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. TJ. S. v. 108 Gross, 169|Gross, and 13 Gross of Prophylactics. Default decrees of condemnation|and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 1045, 1046, 1227. Sample Nos. 62614-D,|63372-D, 63373-D, 63374-D.)|On November 21 and December 21, 1939, the United States attorneys for the|Western District of Tennessee and the Southern District of Texas filed libels|against 277 gross of prophylactics at Memphis, Tenn., and 13 gross of prophy-|lactics at Houston, Tex., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate|commerce on or about October 25, 26, and 31, 1939, by Universal Merchandise|Co. from New York, N. Y., and New Orleans, La.; and charging that it was|adulterated and that one lot was also misbranded. It was labeled in part:|\"\"Tally-Ho\"\" or \"\"Clinic.\"\"|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its quality fell below that|which it purported or was represented to possess.|The Clinic brand was also alleged to be misbranded in that representations|in the labeling that it was dependable, would prevent disease and was guaranteed|for 5 years were false and misleading.|On December 19, 1939, and January 23, 1940, no claimant having appeared,|judgments of condemnation were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|129. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 107 5/12 Gross of Prophylactics (and 10 other seizure actions against prophylactics). Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00129May 1940Tecla Chemical Co. (or Tecla Chemical Corporation)prophylacticsSeptember 13 to on or about December 2, 1939Atlanta, Ga.; St Louis, Mo.; Akron, Ohio; Detroit, Mich.; Chicago, HI.; New Orleans, La.; Scranton, Pa.New York, N. Y., and Newark, East Newark, and Harrison, N. J.Atlanta, Ga.; St Louis, Mo.; Akron, Ohio; Detroit, Mich.; Chicago, HI.; New Orleans, La.; Scranton, Pa.Northern District of Georgia, Eastern District of Missouri, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern District of Michigan, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern District of Louisiana, and Middle District of Pennsylvania129F. D. C. Nos. 877, 90S, 909, 1030, 1111, 1112, 1113, 1121, 1206, 1238, 1240. Sample Nos. 46842-D, 61485-D, 61487-D, 61491-D, 61492-D, 75447-D, 75448-D, 79614-D, 79615-D, 79629-D, 79630-D, 79704-D, 79705-D, 79706-D, 82608-D, 84354-D 84355-D, 85677-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00129ddnj|129. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 107%2 Gross of|Prophylactics (and 10 other seizure actions against prophylactics).|Default decrees of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 877, 90S,|909, 1030, 1111, 1112, 1113, 1121, 1206, 1238, 1240. Sample Nos. 46842-D,|61485-D, 61487-D, 61491-D, 61492-D, 75447-D, 75448-D, 79614-D, 79615-D,|79629-D, 79630-D, 79704-D, 79705-D, 79706-D, 82608-D, 84354-D 84355-D,|85677-D.)|Within the period from on or about November 6 to December 28, 1939, the|United States attorneys for the Northern District of Georgia, Eastern Dis-|trict of Missouri, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern District of Michigan,|Northern District of Illinois, Eastern District of Louisiana, and Middle|District of Pennsylvania filed libels against 107-6/12 gross of prophy-|lactics at Atlanta, Ga., 88 gross at St Louis, Mo., 119 gross at Akron, Ohio,|59 gross at Detroit, Mich., 458 gross at Chicago, HI., 151-9/12 gross at New|Orleans, La., and 89 gross of prophylactics at Scranton, Pa., alleging that the|article had been shipped in interstate commerce within the period from on about|September 13 to on or about December 2, 193Q, by Tecla Chemical Co. (or Tecla|Chemical Corporation) in various shipments from New York, N. Y., and|Newark, East Newark, and Harrison, N. J.; and charging that it was adulterated|and that portions were also misbranded. The article was labeled in part vari-|ously: \"\"Tally-Ho\"\"; or \"\"Saf-T-Way\"\"; \"\"Saf-T-Skin\"\"; \"\"Latex\"\"; \"\"A product of|Liquid Latex\"\"; \"\"Crescent\"\"; \"\"Liquitex\"\"; \"\"Rx 95\"\"; \"\"R 97.\"\"|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its quality fell below that|which it purported or was represented to possess.|Portions of the article were alleged to be misbranded in that the labeling of|the said portions collectively bore representations that it was a dependable,|reliable, and safe prophylactic, that it would prevent disease, was guaranteed|for 5 years, was of excellent quality, and was air-blown tested, which repre-|sentations were false and misleading.|On November 29, December 12, 13, and 20, 1939, January 5, 8, and 18, and|February 7 and 8, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgments of condemna-|tion were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|130. Misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 71 Gross of Prophylactics. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00130May 1940Killashun Sales DivisionprophylacticsJune 13, 1939Philadelphia, Pa.Akron, OhioPhiladelphia, Pa.Eastern District of Pennsylvania130F. D. C. No. 1342. Sample Nos. 70133-D, 70136-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00130ddnj|130. Misbranding of prophylactics. IT. S. v. 71 Gross of Prophylactics. Default|decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 1342. Sample Nos.|7013&-D, 70136-D.)|On January 11, 1940, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Pennsylvania filed a libel against 71 gross of prophylactics at Philadelphia, Pa.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|June 13, 1939, by Killashun Sales Division from Akron, Ohio; and charging|that it was adulterated and misbranded. It was labeled In part: \"\"Apris\"\" or|\"\"Silver-Tex.\"\"|It was alleged to be adulterated in that its quality fell below that which it|purported or was represented to possess.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that representations in the labeling that|it was a prophylactic and disease preventative were false and misleading.|On February 3, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|139. Adulteration of prophylactics. U. S. v. 94 Gross of Prophylactics. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00139May 1940Standard Latex Products CorporationprophylacticsFebruary 28, 1939Houston, Tex.New York, N. Y.Houston, Tex.Southern District of Texas139F. D. C. No. 1166. Sample No. 62610-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00139ddnj|139. Adulteration of prophylactics. U. S. v. 94 Gross of Prophylactics. De|fault decree of condensation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 1166. Sample|No. 62610-D.)|On December 8, 1939, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|Texas filed a libel against 94 dozen prophylactics at Houston, Tex. On Decem-|ber 15, 1939, the libel was amended to cover 94 gross. It was alleged in the|libel as amended that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on|or about February 28, 1939, by Standard Latex Products Corporation from|New York, N. Y.; and that it was adulterated in that its quality fell below|that which it purported or was represented to possess. It was labeled in|part: \"\"Silver Bond.\"\"|On January 16, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|131. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 69 Gross and 11 Gross of Prophylactics. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00131May 1940Akron Drug & Sundries Co.prophylacticsNovember 29 and December 7, 1939Houston, Tex.Akron, OhioHouston, Tex.Southern District of Texas131F. D. C. No. 1247. Sample Nos. 62617-D, 62618-D, 62619-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00131ddnj|131. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. 17. S. v. 69 Gross and 11|Gross of Prophylactics. Default decree of condemnation and destruc-|tion. (F. D. C. No. 1247. Sample Nos. 62617-D, 62618-D, 62619-D.)|On December 27, 1939, the United States attorney for the Southern District|of Texas filed a libel against 80 gross of prophylactics at Houston, Tex.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|November 29 and December 7, 1939, by the Akron Drug & Sundries Co. from|Akron, Ohio; and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded. It was|labeled in part: \"\"Derbies\"\" or \"\"Apris.\"\"|It was alleged to be adulterated in that its quality fell below that which it|purported or was represented to possess.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that representations in the labeling of|the Apris brand that it was a prophylactic; and those in the labeling of the|Derbies brand that it was effective for prevention of disease, that its quality|was guaranteed and that it consisted of a carefully selected prophylactic, and|was guaranteed against deterioration for 2 years, were false and misleading.|On January 31, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|132. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 164 Gross of Prophylactics. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00132May 1940Ace Sales Co.prophylacticsSeptember 21, 1939Philadelphia, Pa.Baltimore, Md.Philadelphia, Pa.Eastern District of Philadelphia132F. D. C. No. 1333. Sample No. 70142-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00132ddnj|132. Adulteration and misbranding: of prophylactics. U. S. v. 164 Gross|of Prophylactics. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 1333. Sample No. 70142-D.)|On January 10, 1940, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Philadelphia filed a libel against 154 gross of prophylactics at Philadelphia,|Pa., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or|about September 21, 1939, by the Ace Sales Co. from Baltimore, Md.; and|charging that it was adulterated and misbranded. It was labeled in part|\"\"Shur-Tex.\"\"|It was alleged to be adulterated in that its quality fell below that which|it purported or was represented to possess.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the representation in the labeling|that it was a prophylactic was false and misleading.|On February 3, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|133. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 58 Gross and 22 Gross of Prophylactics. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00133May 1940International Distributors Co.prophylacticsSeptember 11 and September 21, 1939Houston, Tex.Memphis, Tenn.Houston, Tex.Southern District of Texas133F. D. C. Nos. 1249, 1296. Sample Nos. 61285-D, 62620-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00133ddnj|133. Adulteration and misbranding: of prophylactics. U. S. v. B8 Gross and|22 Gross of Prophylactics. Default decrees of condemnation and de-|struction. (F. D. C. Nos. 1249, 1296. Sample Nos. 61285-D, 62620-D.)|On December 27, 1939, and January 4, 1940, the United States attorney for|the Southern District of Texas filed libels against 80 gross of prophylactics|at Houston, Tex., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate com-|merce on or about September 11 and September 21, 1939, by the International|Distributors Co. from Memphis, Tenn.; and charging that it was adulterated|and misbranded. It was labeled in part \"\"Apris.\"\"|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its quality fell below that|which it purported or was represented to possess.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the representation on the labeling|that it was a prophylactic was false and misleading.|On January 31 and February 8, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judg-|ments of condemnation were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|134. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 38 Gross of Prophylactics. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00134May 1940Goodwear Rubber Co.prophylacticsSeptember 22, 1939Scranton, Pa.New York, N. Y.Scranton, Pa.Middle District of Pennsylvania134F. D. C. No. 1225. Sample No. 85678-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00134ddnj|134. Adulteration and misbranding: of prophylactics. U. S. v. 38 Gross of|Prophylactics. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 1225. Sample No. 85678-D.)|On December 20, 1939, the United States attorney for the Middle District|of Pennsylvania filed a libel against 38 gross of prophylactics at Scranton, Pa.f|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|September 22, 1939, by the Goodwear Rubber Co. from New York, N. T.; and|charging that it was adulterated and misbranded. It was labeled in part|\"\"Stags.\"\"|which it purported or was represented to possess.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that representations in the labeling that|it had been air-tested and was effective for the prevention at disease, were false|and misleading.|On February 8, 1840, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|325. Adulteration of prophylactics. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00325Nov. 4, 1941Rubber Research Products CorporationprophylacticsAugust 8, 1940Philadelphia, Pa.Jersey City, N. J.Philadelphia, Pa.Eastern District of Pennsylvania325F. D. C. No. 2552. Sample No. 14386-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00325ddnj|325. Adulteration of prophylactics.|Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|Sample No. 14386-E.)|On August 14, 1940, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Pennsylvania filed a libel against 57 gross of rubber prophylactics at Philadel-|phia, Pa., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on|or about August 8, 1940, by the Rubber Research Products Corporation, from|Jersey City, N. J.; and charging that it was adulterated in that its quality fell|below that which it purported or was represented to possess.|On October 18, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|INDEX TO NOTICES OF JUDGMENT D. D. NOS. 276-825|PRODUCTS|N. J. No.|Adhesives. Bee Surgical dressings.|Anti-Poison|Arbolone Tablets|Avirem Poultry Remedy-|Boric acid|Bromo-Thein|Cod-liver-oil concentrate|Codroll|Coston's 6 and 3 Herb Compound|Cotton, absorbent. See Surgical dress-|ings.|Cotton Sticks.|304|276|301|305|281|286|286|306|318|Croup syrup| 311|Deane's Adhesive Bandage? 320|Diabet-Tea| 307|Digitalis leaves|287,288|powdered| 289|Dry Dip| 302|Ealy's, Dr. T. F., Baby Powders? 277|Eczematone| 278|Endiphrin Inhalant| 294|Ether|292, 293|?Flu-Go| 282|Frantz, Old Man, Mountain Tonic? 283|Hart's, Dr. Seth, Croup Syrup? 311|Herb remedies| 306|Hydrogen peroxide| 295|Kotalko| 315|Lamps, therapeutic|299, 300|L. B. Hair Oil| 296|N. J. No.|Lightning Hot Drops| 813|Milk of Soya Bean| 308|Mineral oil|291, $14|Miracle Lotion| 298|Moleskin adhesive plaster. See Sur-|gical dressings, moleskin.|Moorman's Hog Black Minerals? 303|Nuval-Aid| 285|Odell's Quinine for the Hair? 297|Oster Massagett| 309|Paregoric| 312|Pessaries| 279|Prophylactics |321-325|Purity Fine Disinfectant| 310|Reducing preparation| 276|Rock-A-Way Tablets| 280|Saligen, Elixir| 290|Saxon Six Vitamins Tablets.? 284|Scalp remedies|296, 298, 315|Scholl's, Dr., Moleskin Adhesive Plas-|ter | 316|Soybean milk. See Milk of Soya|Bean.|Surgical dressings-|adhesives| 316. 320|cotton, absorbent|317-319|swabs|318, 319|Veterinary remedies|286, 301-303|Vibrators, electric| 309|Vitamin preparations|283-286|SHIPPERS, MANUFACTURERS, AND DISTRD3UTORS|N. J. No.|Acme Cotton Products Co.:|absorbent cotton| 317|Anti-Poison Medicine Co.:|Anti-Poison| 304|Arbolone Co.:|Arbolone Tablets| 276|Arno Plaster Corporation:|Dr. Scholl's Moleskin Adhesive Plas-|ter | 316|Barlow Chemical Association:|Eczematone| 278|Carstens, H., Manufacturing Co.:|pessaries| 279|Certified Pharmacal Co.:|mineral oil| 291|Coston, C. S.:|Coston's 6 and 3 Herb Compound? 306|Cottonsticks Co.:|cotton swabs| 318|Deane Plaster Co.:|Deane's Adhesive Bandage? 320|Diabet-Tea Co.:|Diabet-Tea| 307|326. Misbranding of Pachanga Mineral Water. U. S. v. Tripo M. Lukovich, trading as T. M. Lukovich, D. C. Plea of guilty. Fine of $100 on count I. Imposition of sentence suspended on count II and defendant placed on probation for 2 years.ddnj00326March 1942Tripo M. Lukovich, trading as Dr. T. M. Lukovich, D. C, Elsinore, Calif.Pachanga Mineral WaterSeptember 5 and November 25, 1940CaliforniaCaliforniaMichiganSouthern District of California326F. D. C. No. 2956. Sample Nos. 31518-E, 31532-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00326ddnj|FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY|FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION|NOTICES OF JUDGMENT UNDER THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG,|AND COSMETIC ACT|[Given pursuant to section 705 of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act]|326-125|DRUGS AND DEVICES|The cases reported herewith, commenced prior to June 30, 1940, were insti-|tuted in the United States District Courts by the United States attorneys acting|upon reports submitted by direction of the Secretary of Agriculture; and those|commenced on and after that date were similarly instituted upon reports sub-|mitted by direction of the Federal Security Administrator.|PATTL V. MCNUTT, Administrator, Federal Security Agency.|Washington, D. C, January 15, 19$.|Page|Drugs and devices actionable because of poten-|tial danger when used according to direc-|tions | 149|Drugs actionable because of failure to bear ade-|quate directions or warning statements... 157|Drugs actionable because of deviation from|official or own standards 160|Criminal prosecutions. 160|Seizures |~ 170|CONTENTS|Page|Drugs and devices actionable because of false|and misleading therapeutic claims. 172|Drugs also failing to bear common or usual|name or required ingredient statement... 172|Criminal prosecutions |.. 176|Seizures | 186|Drugs in deceptive containers 198|Nonsterile surgical dressings. 199|Prophylactics. | 201|Index | 208|DRUGS AND DEVICES ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF POTENTIAL DANGER|WHEN USED ACCORDING TO DIRECTIONS|826. Misbranding of Pachanga Mineral Water. V. S. v. Tripo M. Lukovich, trad-|ing as T. M. Lukovich, D. C. Plea of guilty. Fine of $100 on count I.|Imposition of sentence suspended on count II and defendant placed on|probation for 2 years. (F. D. C. No. 2956. Sample Nos. 31518-E, 31532-E.)|This product contained excessive fluorine and would be dangerous to health|when used as directed in the labeling. Its labeling failed to reveal the fact that it|contained fluorine and failed to bear adequate warnings against use by children.|The labeling of one lot contained false and misleading representations regarding|its efficacy in certain ailments and conditions and failed to bear an accurate|statement of the quantity of the contents.|On April 24,1941, the United States attorney for the Southern District of Cali-|fornia filed an information against Tripo M. Lukovich, trading as Dr. T. M.|Lukovich, D. C, Elsinore, Calif., alleging shipment on or about September 5 and|November 25, 1940, from the State of California into the State of Michigan of|quantities of Pachanga Mineral Water that was misbranded.|149|440180\"\"-42 1|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of sodium chloride,|sodium sulfate, sodium bicarbonate, sodium carbonate, a fluorine compound,|and a trace of an iron compound, dissolved in water. The total amount of dis- __|solved matter was 2 percent. Samples taken from the two shipments were found f|to contain 52.2 and 60 parts, respectively, per million of fluorine.|The product in both shipments was alleged to be misbranded in that it would be|dangerous to health when used in the dosage or with the frequency prescribed,-|recommended, and suggested in the labeling, namely, (one shipment) \"\"Direc- f|tions: From V2 to ? of an ordinary glass before breakfast and before retiring\"\"; V|(second shipment) \"\"Natural Water,\"\" since it contained an excessive amount of|fluorine.|Both lots were alleged to be misbranded further in that the labeling was mis-|leading since it failed to reveal the fact that the article contained fluorine, a|poisonous substance, which fact is material in the light of the representations|made in the labeling and material with respect to consequences which might|result from the use of the article under the conditions of use prescribed in the|labeling and under such conditions of use as are customary or usual.|Both lots were alleged to be misbranded further in that the labeling did not|bear adequate warnings against use by children, where its use might be dangerous|to health or against unsafe dosage or methods or duration of administration in|such manner and form as are necessary for the protection of users. The ship-|ment of September 5, 1940, was alleged to be misbranded further in that the fol-|lowing statements in the labeling, \"\"Try Pachanga Water for the Relief of certain|ailments of Stomach, Bowels, Liver, Kidney, etc.\"\" and \"\"Chemical Analysis show|that Pachanga Water contains many mineral ingredients in a combination which|has proven remarkably beneficial for many ailments of the human system,\"\" borne|on the bottle label, were false and misleading since the article would not be eftica-|cious and beneficial in the treatment of such ailments. This shipment was alleged|to be misbranded further in that the bottle label failed to bear an accurate state-|ment of the quantity of the contents.|On May 26,1941, a plea of guilty having been entered, the court imposed a fine|of $100 on count I and ordered that imposition of sentence be suspended an count|II and that the defendant be placed on probation for 2 years.|135. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 24 Gross, 13 Gross, 17 1/4 Gross, and 19 Gross of Prophylactics. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00135May 1940Dean Rubber Manufacturing Co.prophylacticsJuly 16 to November 9, 1989Houston, Tex.; Miami, Fla.Kansas City or North Kansas City, Mo.Houston, Tex.; Miami, Fla.Southern District of Texas and the Southern District of Florida135F. D. C. Nos. 1052, 1067, 1069, 1239. Sample Nos. 62616-D, 62878-D, 62874-D, 66088-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00135ddnj|135. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 24 Gross, 13|Gross, 17% Gross, and 19 Gross of Prophylactics. Default decrees of|condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 1052, 1067, 1069, 1239.|Sample Nos. 62616-D, 62878-D, 62874-D, 66088-D.)|On or about November 22, December 1, 18, and 27, 1989, the United States|attorneys for the Southern District of Texas and the Southern District of|Florida filed libels against 56 gross ctf prophylactics at Houston, Tex., and|17? gross of prophylactics at Miami, Fla., alleging that the article had been|shipped in interstate commerce within the period from on or about July 16|to on or about November 9, 1989, by Dean Rubber Manufacturing Co. from|Kansas City or North Kansas City, Mo.; and charging that it was adulterated|and misbranded. The article was labeled In part: \"\"Sekurity\"\" or \"\"Genuine|Peacocks.\"\"|It was alleged to be adulterated in that its quality fell below that which|it purported or was represented to possess.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the representations appearing in the|labeling of the Sekurity brand that it would afford security, would aid in|preventing venereal disease, was air-blown-tested, and was guaranteed 2 years|against deterioration; and those appearing in the labeling of the Peacock brand|that it would afford protection, was guaranteed against deterioration for 5|years, was air-blown-tested, was the best that money could buy, that all defects|were discarded and selects only were packed under the brand, that all seconds|were destroyed, and that it was of exceptional quality were false and|misleading.|On December 28, 1989, and January 81 and February 9, 1940, no claimant|having appeared, judgments of condemnation were entered and the product|was ordered destroyed.|136. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 6 Gross, 7 Gross, and 59 Dozen Prophylactics. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00136May 1940Lorica Laboratories, Inc.prophylacticsAugust 11 to September 8, 1939Philadelphia, Pa.Jersey City, N. J.Philadelphia, Pa.Eastern District of Pennsylvania136F. D. C. Nos. 614, 615, 648, 649, 668, 659. Sample Nos. 61943-D, 61944-D, 61953-D to 61956-D, incl.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00136ddnj|136. Adulteration and misbranding: of prophylactics.' 17. S. v. 6 Gross, 7 Gross,|and 59 Dozen Prophylactics. Default decrees of condemnation and de-|struction. (F. D. C. Nos. 614, 615, 648, 649, 668, 659. Sample Nos. 61943-D,|61944-D, 61953-D to 61956-D, incl.)|On September 19, 28, and 29, 1939, the United States attorney for the|Eastern District of Pennsylvania filed libels against lT1^ gross of prophy-|lactics at Philadelphia, Pa., alleging that the article had been shipped in inter-|state commerce within the period from on or about August 11 to on or about|September 8, 1939, by Lorica Laboratories, Inc., from Jersey City, N. J.; and|charging adulteration and misbranding. The article was labeled in part:|\"\"Lorica Transparent [or \"\"Velveen\"\"] Shorts * * * For Prevention of|Disease.\"\"|The article was alleged to be adulterated In that its quality fell below that|which it purported or was represented to possess.|Misbranding was alleged in that representations In the labeling that it would|be effective for the prevention of disease were false and misleading. It was|alleged to be misbranded further In that it was dangerous to health when used|as directed In the labeling.|On December 15, 1989, no claimant having appeared, judgments of condem-|nation were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|137. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 15 1/4 Gross of Prophylactics. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00137May 1940Everett Rubber Co.prophylacticsNovember 1, 1939Boston, Mass.New York, N. Y.Boston, Mass.District of Massachusetts137F. D. C. No. 1188. Sample No. 73891-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00137ddnj|137. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. TJ. S. v. 15% Gross of|Prophylactics. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 1188. Sample No. 73891-D.)|On December 14, 1939, the United States attorney for the District of Massa-|chusetts filed a libel against 15? gross of prophylactics at Boston, Mass.,|alleging that the article had been shipped In interstate commerce on or about|November 1, 1939, by the Everett Rubber Co. from New York, N. Y.; and charg-|ing that it was adulterated and misbranded. The article was labeled in part:|\"\"Les Genuine Liquid Latex.\"\"|It was alleged to be adulterated in that its quality fell below that which it|purported or was represented to possess.|The article was alleged to be misbranded In that representations In the label-|ing that it would be efficacious for the prevention of disease and was guaran-|teed for 5 years were false and misleading.|On January 29,1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|138. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 47 Gross of Prophylactics. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00138May 1940Ross ProductsprophylacticsNovember 10, 1939Columbia, S. C.New York, N. Y.Columbia, S. C.Eastern District of South Carolina138F. D. C. No. 1251. Sample No. 87279-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00138ddnj|1S8. Adulteration and misbranding: of prophylactics. TJ. S. v. 47 Gross of|Prophylactics. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 1251. Sample No. 87279-D.)|On or about January 2, 1940, the United States attorney for the Eastern|District of South Carolina filed a libel against 47 gross of prophylactics at|Columbia, S. 0., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate com-|merce on or about November 10, 1939, by Ross Products from New York, N. Y.;|and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded. It was labeled in part:|\"\"Genuine Latex Shield Prophylactics.\"\"|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its quality fell below that|which it was purported or was represented to possess.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that representations in the labeling that|it was a prophylactic, was air-tested, and was effective for the prevention of|disease, were false and misleading.|On January 25,1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|328. Misbranding of Aspirol Tablets and headache tablets. U. S. v. 1,005 Bottles of Aspirol Tablets and 1,416 Bottles of Headache Tablets. Consent decree of condemnation. Aspirol Tablets ordered released nnder bond for relabeling; headache tablets ordered destroyed.ddnj00328March 1942G. C. Heberling Bros., Bloomington, Ill.Aspirol Tablets and headache tabletsJuly 3, 1939, and April 19, 1940Bloomington, Ill.Winona, Minn.Bloomington, Ill.Southern District of Illinois328F. D. C. Nos. 2222, 2223. Sample Nos. 15165-B, 15169-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00328ddnj|328. Misbranding of Aspirol Tablets and headache tablets. U. S. v. 1,005 Bottles|of Aspirol Tablets and 1,416 Bottles of Headache Tablets. Consent decree|of condemnation. Aspirol Tablets ordered released nnder bond for re-|labeling; headache tablets ordered destroyed. (F. D. C. Nos. 2222, 2223. /|Sample Nos. 15165-B, 15169-E.) |The product Aspirol Tablets was labeled to indicate that it was an aspirin '\"\"|preparation; whereas it contained other physiologically active ingredients. Its r\"\"|label also failed to bear a statement of the quantity of acetophenetidin that it V|contained. The headache tablets contained acetanilid and would be dangerous|to health when used as directed, and the label failed to reveal the consequences|which might result from their use.|On June 17, 1940, the United States attorney for the Southern District of Illi-|nois filed a libel against 1,005 bottles of Aspirol Tablets and 1,416 bottles of|headache tablets at Bloomington, 111., alleging that the articles had been shipped|in interstate commerce on or about July 3, 1939, and April 19, 1940, by the J.|R. Watkins Co. from Winona, Minn.; and charging that they were misbranded.|The Aspirol Tablets were alleged to be misbranded in that the name was false|and misleading because it was derived from the ingredient aspirin; whereas|they contained other active ingredients, including acetophenetidin and caffeine|citrate. They were alleged to be misbranded further in that they were fabri-|cated from two or more ingredients and the label failed to bear a statement of the|quantity of acetophenetidin contained in each tablet.|The Headache Tablets were alleged to be misbranded in that the statements|in the labeling, \"\"Headache * * * If pain is severe take two tablets for|first dose * * * Directions: Adults: One tablet every 2 hours until relieved.|Take no more than 4 tablets in 24 hours. Children: Over 10 (only) half dose,\"\"|were false and misleading since they created the impression that the article|constituted an appropriate treatment for headache; whereas it was not such a|safe and appropriate remedy but was a dangerous drug, and the label failed to|reveal the fact, material in the light of the representations made as quoted here-|inbefore, that the use of the article in accordance with the directions might|cause serious blood disturbances, anemia, collapse, or a dependence on the drug.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that it was dangerous to health when|used in the dosage or with the frequency or duration prescribed, recommended,|or suggested in the labeling.|On February 25, 1941, G. C. Heberling Bros., Bloomington, 111., having|appeared as claimant and having consented to the entry of a decree, judgment|of condemnation was entered and it was ordered that the Aspirol Tablets be|released under bond conditioned that they be properly relabeled under the|supervision of the Food and Drug Administration and that the headache tablets|be destroyed.|140. Misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 18 7/12 Gross of Prophylactics. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00140May 1940W. H. Reed & Co.prophylacticsAugust 15, 1939New York, N. Y.Atlanta, Ga.New York, N. Y.Southern District of New York140F. D. C. No. 1004. Sample No. 68146-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00140ddnj|140. Misbranding: of prophylactics. XT. S. v. 18%j Gross of Prophylactics. De|fault decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 1004. Sample|No. 68146-D.)|On November 22, 1939, the United States attorney for the Southern District|of New York filed a libel against 18?2 gross of prophylactics at New York, N. Y.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|August 15, 1939, by W. H. Reed & Co. from Atlanta, 6a.; and charging that|the article was misbranded. The article was labeled in part: \"\"Three Star|Brand * * * Genuine Goldbeaters.\"\"|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the representations in the|labeling that it was double-selected, was made from a choice grade of materials,|that it represented high quality, and was effective for the prevention of disease|were false and misleading.|On December 12, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|141. Misbranding of Bromo-Citra. U. S. v. 74 Cartons and 22 Cartons of Bromo Citra. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00141April, 1941Drexel Co.Bromo-CitraJanuary 15 and February 14, 1940Detroit, Mich.Elgin, Ill.Detroit, Mich.Eastern District of Michigan and the District of Nebraska141F. D. C. Nos. 1656, 1831. Sample Nos. 55485-D, 72169-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00141ddnj|141. Misbranding of Bromo-Citra. U. S. v. 74 Cartons and 22 Cartons of Bromo-|Citra. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C, Nos.|1656, 1831. Sample Nos. 55485-D, 72169-D.)|This product contained acetanilid, sodium bromide, caffeine, sodium chloride,|sodium bicarbonate, and citric and tartaric acids. It would be dangerous to|health when used in the dosage or with the frequency prescribed, recommended, or|suggested in the labeling. Its labeling was further objectionable for the reasons|indicated hereinafter.|299926?-41-|On March 22 and April 29, 1940, the United States attorneys for the Eastern|District of Michigan and the District of Nebraska filed libels against 74 cartons|of Bromo-Citra at Detroit, Mich., and 22 cartons of the product at Kenesaw,|Nebr., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or|about January 15 and February 14, 1940, by the Drexel Co. from Elgin, 111.; and|charging that it was misbranded.|The product in both shipments was alleged to be misbranded in that it was|dangerous to health when used in the dosage or with the frequency prescribed,|recommended, or suggested in the labeling; and in that the labeling failed to reveal|facts material with respect to consequences which might result from the use of the|article under the conditions of use prescribed in the labeling. Misbranding was|alleged with respect to both shipments for the reason that the name \"\"Bromo-Citra\"\"|was false and misleading since it indicated that the article was derived from the|ingredient sodium bromide; whereas the principal ingredient was acetanilid.|Misbranding was alleged with respect to both shipments for the further reason that|the representation in the labeling that the average net weight was 100 grams|was false and misleading since the net weight of sample vials taken from the|shipments showed an average of 6.73 grams and 7.12 grams, respectively.|The shipment of January 15, 1940, to Detroit, Mich., was alleged to be mis-|branded further in that the representation in the labeling that each ounce contained|16 grains of sodium bromide, was false and misleading since each ounce contained|more than represented, namely, not- less than 18.36 grains of sodium bromide.|The shipment of February 14, 1940, to Kenesaw, Nebr., was alleged to be mis-|branded further in that its labeling bore representations that it was to be used|as a relief for the discomfort due to simple headache, neuralgia, overindulgence,|i. e., too much food, drink, or smoking; that the dose consisted of the contents|of the vial in ? glass of water, that not more than 3 doses should be taken within|a period of 24 hours, which were false and misleading since they created the im-|pression that the article constituted an appropriate treatment in such conditions;|whereas it was not a safe and appropriate remedy but was a dangerous drug.|On May 14 and June 28, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of con-|demnation were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|142. Misbranding of Koenig's Nervine. U. S. v. 45 Bottles of Koenig's Nervine. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00142April, 1941Koenig Medicine Co.Koenig's NervineFebruary 15, 1940Detroit, Mich.Chicago, Ill.Detroit, Mich.Eastern District of Michigan142F. D. C. No. 1529. Sample No. 89142-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00142ddnj|142. Misbranding of Koenig's Nervine. IT. S. v. 45 Bottles of Koenig's Nervine.|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 1529. Sample|No. 89142-D.) |This product contained sodium, potassium, and ammonium bromides, extracts|of plant material (including valerian), glycerin, alcohol, and benzoic acid. It|would be dangerous to health when used as directed, prescribed, recommended,|or suggested in its labeling. The labeling was further objectionable since it|created the impression that the article was an appropriate treatment for the|conditions for which it was recommended and because of failure to reveal the|consequences which might result from its use.|On February 29, 1940, the United States attorney for the Eastern District|of Michigan filed a libel against 45 bottles of Koenig's Nervine at Detroit, Mich.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|February 15, 1940, by the Koenig Medicine Co. from Chicago, 111.; and charging|that it was misbranded.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that its labeling bore representa-|tions that it was indicated as a sedative in common nervousness, sleeplessness,|restlessness, nervous irritability, functional nervous disturbances, and headache|due to common nervousness, and bore directions that the dose for an adult was|? to ? tablesr/oonful in ? glass of water 3 times a day, that it should preferably|be taken after the noonday and evening meals and at bedtime, that the dose for|children 12 to 18 years old was one-half the adult dose, that ? to ? tablespoonful|should be taken in ? glass of water after the evening meal for sleeplessness due|to nervousness and that the dose should be repeated before retiring if needed;|that some individuals are more easily affected by the sedative action of the|product and the dose should be regulated accordingly; that if sleepiness occurs|during the day the dose should be reduced; that for the conditions indicated it|should not be necessary to use the product continuously for long periods and that|in cases of persistent nervousness a physician should be consulted; that the|product had been used for 50 years and contained no opiates; that some persons|are peculiarly susceptible to bromides and on those persons their use might produce /|a rash; that if such rash appeared the use of the product should be discontinued {|until the rash disappeared, when its use might be resumed in smaller doses and *|gradually increased to the point of tolerance; that a very large percentage of|nervous disorders are due to a strained, overworked, and irritable condition of|sedative action which would accomplish a quieting and soothing influence and|take the strain, and tension from the overtaxed nerves and help them function|calmly-which representations were false and misleading in that they created|the impression that the article constituted an appropriate treatment for use as|a sedative in common nervousness, sleeplessness, restlessness, nervous irritability,|functional nervous disturbances, and headache due to common nervousness;|whereas it did not constitute an appropriate treatment for such conditions but|was a dangerous drug. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that its|labeling failed to reveal the fact,- material in the light of the representations|made, that the use of the article in accordance with the directions might lead|to mental derangement, skin eruptions, and other serious effects. It was alleged|to be misbranded further in that it was dangerous to health when used in the|dosage or with the frequency or duration prescribed, recommended, or suggested|in the labeling.|On May 27, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the \"\"product was ordered destroyed.|143. Misbranding of Capsules Ka-No-Mor. U. S. v. 144 Packages of Capsules Ka-No-Mor. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00143April, 1941A. G. Luebert, P. D.Capsules Ka-No-MorApril 23, 1940Wilmington, Del.Coatesville, Pa.Wilmington, Del.District of Delaware143F. D. C. No. 1941. Sample No. 14238-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00143ddnj|143. Misbranding: of Capsules Ka-No-Mor. U. S. v. 144 Packages of Capsules|Ka-Jfo-Mor. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C.|No. 1941. Sample No. 14238-E.)|This product contained acetanilid, caffeine, and aspirin; and it would be|dangerous to health when used in the dosage or with the frequency or duration|prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling. It was misbranded|further for the reasons indicated below.|On May 9, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of Delaware filed|a libel against 144 packages of Ka-No-Mor at Wilmington, Del., alleging that|the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about April 23, 1940,|by A. G. Luebert, P. D., from Coatesville, Pa.; and charging that it was|misbranded.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the labeling bore representations that|it would give quick relief from pains and aches, headache, neuralgia, colds,|fever, toothache, neuritis, and rheumatic pains; would relieve pain and dis-|comfort of simple headaches and neuralgias, head colds, muscular pains and|aches; and that it did not contain opiates or narcotics in any form, that one|capsule should be taken with a half glass of water and repeated in 20 minutes|if necessary, then one every 3 hours as required; that for simple headaches one|capsule should be taken with a glass of water and if not relieved within 1 hour,|that the dose should be repeated; that when pain is severe, one capsule could|be taken every 3 hours until relief is obtained; that for simple neuralgia, such|as nerve pains of the head, face, back or limbs, 1 capsule should be taken with|a glass of water; repeated in 1 hour if necessary and continued every 3 or 4|hours as required; that it would relieve toothache and was splendid for the|relief of pain after extraction of teeth and would relieve the ache after sensitive|teeth had been filled; that common colds would usually respond more quickly|if one capsule were taken every 3 hours; that it would tend to reduce fever|and that it could be taken regularly every 4 hours if required when pain is|severe and continual, which representations were false and misleading in that|they created the impression that the article constituted an appropriate treat-|ment for these conditions; whereas it was not such a safe and appropriate|remedy but was a dangerous drug and also because the label failed to reveal|the fact, material in the light of the representations above referred to, that the|use of the article in accordance with directions might cause serious blood|disturbances, anemia, collapse, or dependence on the drug.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that its label failed to bear|adequate directions for use and adequate warnings for the protection of users.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that it was dangerous to health|when used in the dosage or with the frequency or duration prescribed,|recommended, or suggested in the labeling.|On June 10, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|144. Misbranding of Renton's Hydrocin Tablets. U. S. v. 10 Bottles, 14 Bottles, and 2 Bottles of Renton's Hydrocin Tablets. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00144April, 1941Pasadena, Products, Inc.Renton's Hydrocin TabletsAugust 31, 1938, to January 3, 1939Ogden, Utah; Spokane, Wash.Pasadena, Calif.Ogden, Utah; Spokane, Wash.District of Utah and the Eastern District of Washington144F. D. C. Nos. 138, 139. Sample Nos. 41545-D, 5056;-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00144ddnj|144. Misbranding of Renton's Hydrocin Tablets. IT. S. v. 10 Bottles, 14 Bottles,|and 2 Bottles of Renton's Hydrocin Tablets. Default decrees of con-|demnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 138, 139. Sample No's. 41545-D,|50567;-D.) |This product contained cinchophen. Its labeling bore representations regard-|ing its use as an analgesic and antipyretic, recommending a dose of 1 to 2|tablets as directed by the physician and that it should be used solely under a|physician's guidance. Investigation, however, disclosed that the drug was|frequently dispensed without a physician's prescription. It would be dangerous|to health when used in the dosage, or with the frequency or duration prescribed,|recommended, or suggested in the labeling.|On January 25 and 30, 1939, the United States attorneys for the District of|Utah and the Eastern District of Washington filed libels against 10 bottles each|containing 50 Renton's Hydrocin Tablets at Ogden, Utah, and 16 bottles con-|taining a total of 1,700 tablets of the same product at Spokane, Wash., alleging|that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce by Pasadena, Products,|Inc., from Pasadena, Calif., within the period .from on or about August 31, 1938,|to on or about January 3, 1939; and charging that it was misbranded for the|reasons appearing above.|On March 13 and 24, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgments of|condemnation were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|145. Misbranding of Neuroine. U. S. v. 11 Bottles of Neuroine. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00145April, 1941Link Chemical Co.NeuroineJanuary 30, 1940Kansas City, Mo.Emporia, Kans.Kansas City, Mo.Western District of Missouri145F. D. C. No. 1677. Sample No. 37513-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00145ddnj|145. Misbranding of Xeuroine. U. S. v. 11 Bottles of JTeuroine. Default decree|of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 1677. Sample No. 37513-D.)|This product contained sodium bromide and alcohol, and would be dangerous|to health when used in the dosage or with the frequency or duration prescribed,|recommended, or suggested in the labeling. It contained more sodium bromide|and less alcohol than the amounts declared.|On March 22, 1940, the United States attorney for the Western District|of Missouri filed a libel against 11 bottles of Neuroine at Kansas City, Mo.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|January 30, 1940, by the Link Chemical Co. from Emporia, Kans.; and charging|that it was misbranded.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the representations in the labeling|that it contained 60 grains of sodium bromide and 25 percent of alcohol, were|false and misleading since the bottle (1 pint) contained very materially more|than 60 grains of sodium bromide and materially less than 25 percent of alcohol.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that it was dangerous to health|when used in the dosage or with the frequency or duration prescribed, recom-|mended, or suggested in the labeling, which directed a dosage for adults of a|tablespoonful to an ounce, as necessary to control case, with proportionate|dosage for children.|On June 22, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|146. Adulteration and misbranding of Migro Headache Powder. U. S. v. 13 Boxes of Migro Headache Powder. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00146April, 1941C. J. CzarneckiMigro Headache PowderFebruary 6, 1940South Bend, Ind.Detroit, Mich.South Bend, Ind.Northern District of Indiana146F. D. C. No. 1745. Sample No. 88912-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00146ddnj|146. Adulteration and misbranding of Migro Headache Powder. U. S. v. 13 Boxes|of Migro Headache Powder. Default decree of condemnation and de-|struction. (F. D. C. No. 1745. Sample No. 88912-D.)|These powders consisted essentially of acetanilid, sodium bicarbonate, tartaric|acid, and milk sugar. They would be dangerous to health when used in the|dosage or with the frequency or duration prescribed in the labeling, which|failed to reveal the consequences which might result from their use. The|labeling was further objectionable, as indicated below.|On April 15, 1940, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Indiana filed a libel against 13 boxes of Migro Headache Powder at South|Bend, Ind., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce|on or about February 6, 1940, by C. J. Czarnecki from Detroit, Mich.; and|charging that it was adulterated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from|that which it purported or was represented to possess, namely, 5 grains of|acetanilid per powder since it contained materially more than 5 grains of|acetanilid per powder.|Misbranding was alleged in that the representations on the label that each|powder contained 5 grains of acetanilid was false and misleading since it|contained materially more than 5 grains of acetanilid per powder.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that its labeling bore representa-|tions that it was a headache powder, was intended for the relief of|simple headache, and bore directions that one powder be taken and repeated|in 1 hour if not relieved, which were false and misleading since the impression|was created thereby that the article constituted an appropriate treatment for|conditions such as those described in the labeling; whereas it was not a|safe and appropriate remedy but was a dangerous drug and the labeling failed|to reveal the fact, which was material in the light of the representations|made on the label, that the use of the article in accordance with the directions|the drug.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that it was dangerous to health|when used in the dosage, or with the frequency or duration prescribed, recom-|mended, or suggested in the labeling; in that the labeling failed to bear a|statement of the common or usual names of the active ingredients, including|the quantity of acetanilid since the declaration of the quantity of acetanilid|was incorrect; and in that its labeling failed to bear adequate directions for use|and adequate warnings for the protection of users.|On June 29, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|147. Misbranding of Nervease Headache Powders. U. S. v. 99 Packages of Nervease Headache Powders. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00147April, 1941Nervease Co.Nervease Headache PowdersMarch 27, 1939Bangor, MaineBoston, Mass.Bangor, MaineDistrict of Maine147F. D. C. No. 521. Sample No. 69457-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00147ddnj|147. Misbranding of Nervease Headache Powders. IT. S. v. 99 Packages of|Nervease Headache Powders. Default decree of condemnation and de-|struction. (F. D. C. No. 521. Sample No. 69457-D.)|These powders, contained acetanilid and caffeine. They would be dangerous to|health when used in the dosage, or with the frequency or duration prescribed,|recommended, or suggested in the labeling. Moreover, their labeling bore false|and misleading representations regarding their efficacy in the conditions indicated|below.|On August 30, 1939, the United States attorney for the District of Maine|filed a libel against 99 packages of Nervease Headache Powders at Bangor,|Maine, alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or|about March 27, 1939, by the Nervease Co. from Boston, Mass.; and charging^|that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that each powder contained 4.6 grains of acetanilid and 0.87|grains of caffeine together with milk sugar and pink coloring.|Misbranding was alleged in that the labeling bore representations that the|product was a nervease headache powder, that it had been in use all over this|country for 45 years, and that during that time many hundreds of testimonials|had been received from people who had been benefited by its use; that it did|not contain any opiates or cathartic drugs, that each powder contained 4-|grains of acetanilid combined with other drugs for the relief of pain-espe-|cially headache, that it had been found to be a valuable remedy for the relief of|pain and discomfort that ladies suffer from at certain periods and that one|powder should be taken 2 or 3 times a day for that purpose, that it was an|efficient remedy for colds and should be taken in the dosage of one powder|every 4 hours for that purpose, that one powder should be taken for headache|and that if pain had not disappeared in 30 minutes another powder should be|taken; that in most cases of headache one powder would give relief in from|5 to 15 minutes; that if the second powder did not give relief it would indicate|that the pain proceeded from some cause that the powder would not remove,|and that it would be advisable to try a Eochelle powder and to wait for at|least 2 or 3 hours before taking a third powder; which representations were|false and misleading since the article was not efficacious for the purposes so|recommended. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that it was danger-|ous to health when used in the dosage, or with the freqnency or duration pre-|scribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling.|On September 28, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condem-|nation was entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.|VAPORIZING DEVICES|329. Misbranding of Watkins Laxative Gold Tablets. U. S. v. 300 Boxes of Laxative Cold Tablets. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00329March 1942J. R. Watkins Co.Watkins Laxative Gold TabletsFebruary 15, 1940Charlotte, N. C.Newark, N. J.Charlotte, N. C.Western District of North Carolina329F. D. C. No. 2310. Sample No. 323-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00329ddnj|329. Misbranding: of 'Watkins Laxative Gold Tablets. TJ. S. v. 300 Boxes of Laxa-|tive Cold Tablets. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 2310. Sample No, 323-E.)|This product would be dangerous to health when used as directed in the|labeling and was not labeled to indicate the consequences that might result from|its use. It was misbranded further because it was labeled to indicate that it was|a safe and appropriate remedy for the conditions for which it was recommended|and in the other respects referred to hereinafter.|On July 6, 1940, the United States attorney for the Western District of North|Carolina filed a libel against 300 boxes of laxative cold tablets at Charlotte,|N. 0., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|February 15, 1940, by the J. R. Watkins Co., from Newark, N. J.; and charging|that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article contained 1.9 grains of acetanilid (1.9 grains|per tablet), total alkaloids including quinine and alkaloids of belladonna (0.25|grain per tablet), and extracts of plant drugs including a laxative drug.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements|(tin container) \"\"Directions * * * For Cold Symptoms. Adult Dose: Take|two tablets every three hours until three doses have been taken. This should|cause the bowels to move freely. Then take one tablet three times a day|until all symptoms are removed. For Casual Headaches. Adult Dose: Two|tablets to be followed by one every three hours when necessary (not ex-|ceeding 6 in 24 hours). If headaches persist or return frequently, consult your|physician. For children. Over ten years of age one-half adult dose; over five|years of age one-fourth adult dose,\"\" and (circular) \"\"At The First * * * Chill,|Or Fever * * * Take Watkins Laxative Cold Tablets * * * Watkins|Laxative Cold Tablets contain ingredients that are selected to be used to treat|the symptoms of colds and headaches. Especially good for sneezing or nasal|discharge, headache and other disagreeable symptoms usually associated with|colds. They increase the action of the bowels. In this manner they help to|carry off from the system waste substances that tend to keep up the headache|and other discomforts and aid in warding off the effects or in lessening the|severity of symptoms. When you find yourself sneezing, chilly and have other|symptoms of a cold coming on, do not wait but take early precautions to check|their advance and to throw them off before they become severe. The convenience|of Watkins Laxative Cold Tablets is something to be appreciated. They are a|compound of medicines that have laxative and other properties which assist in|overcoming the disagreeable symptoms which are associated with colds. Take as|directed and rest as much as possible,\"\" and similar directions in various foreign|languages, were false and misleading since they created the impression that it|constituted an appropriate treatment in these conditions; whereas it was not|such a safe and appropriate remedy but was a dangerous drug; and also because|the label failed to reveal the fact, material in the light of the representations made|as quoted above, that its use in accordance with the directions might cause serious|blood disturbances, anemia, collapse, or a dependence on the drug.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the statement \"\"Total alkaloids|1/25,000 grain per tablet\"\" and similar statements in foreign languages were false|and misleading since the article was found to contain total alkaloids extremely|in excess of this amount.|The article was alleged to be misbranded further in that the labeling did|not bear adequate directions for use; in that the labeling did not bear adequate|warnings against use in those pathological conditions or by children where|its use might be dangerous to health, or against unsafe dosage or methods of|administration or application, in such manner and form, as were necessary|for the protection of users; and in that it was dangerous to health when used|in the dosage, or with the frequency or duration prescribed, recommended, or|suggested in the labeling thereof as quoted above.|On July 29, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|330. Adulteration and misbranding of One Minute Toothache Stick. U. S. v. 20 Dozen Packages of Toothache Stick. Default decree of destruction.ddnj00330March 1942One Minute Remedies Co.One Minute Toothache StickApril 12, 1940Louisville, Ky.St. Louis, Mo.Louisville, Ky.Western District of Kentucky330F. D. C. No. 2159. Sample No. 5305-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00330ddnj|330. Adulteration and misbranding of One Minute Toothache Stick. U. S. v. 20|Dozen Packages of Toothache Stick. Default decree of destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 2159. Sample No. 5305-E.)|This product contained carbolic acid. It would be dangerous to health when|used as directed in the labeling and would not be efficacious for certain conditions|for which it was recommended in the labeling. It also contained a smaller per-|centage of carbolic acid than that declared on the label.|On or about June 7,1940, the United States attorney for the \"\"Western District|of Kentucky filed a libel against 20 dozen packages of toothache stick at Louis-|ville, Ky., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on|or about April 12,1940, by the One Minute Remedies Co. from St. Louis, Mo.; and|charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of carbolic acid (23 per-|cent), paraffin, cotton, and small amounts of oils of clove and cinnamon.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from|that which it purported or was represented to possess, namely, 30 percent car-|bolic acid. It was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements|contained in the accompanying circular were false and misleading, since they|purported and represented that it would be efficacious in the conditions named|therein: \"\"More than thirty-eight years ago this company determined that the|crude and old-fashioned remedy of toothache drops must be abandoned for some-|thing better. Drops scald the mouth and gums and lead to sores which may pro-|duce serious conditions. After many experiments this Toothache Stick was con-|sidered the best; and millions of satisfied users in the last thirty-eight years tes-|tify that it stops toothache instantly.\"\" It was alleged to be misbranded further|in that it would be dangerous to health when used in the dosage or with the|frequency or duration prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling:|\"\"Directions: Remove all substances from the tooth, cut a piece of the stick the|size required and press firmly into the tooth. Where no cavity exists, press flat|and apply as a plaster.\"\" It was alleged to be misbranded further in that it|was fabricated from two or more ingredients and the label on the bottle did not|bear the common or usual name of the active ingredients.|The article was also alleged to be misbranded in violation of the Federal Caustic|Poison Act, as reported in notices of judgment published under that act.|On October 15, 1940, no claimant having ap'peared, judgment was entered|ordering that the product be destroyed.|148. Misbranding of Hexadrin. U. S. v. 25 Packages of Hexadrin. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00148April, 1941Murray Products Go.HexadrinNovember 6, 1939Bismark, N. Dak.San Francisco, Calif.Bismark, N. Dak.District of North Dakota148F. D. C. No. 1602. Sample No. 75142-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00148ddnj|148. Misbranding of Hexadrin. U. S. v. 25 Packages of Hexadrin. Default|decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 1602. Sample No.|75142-D.)|This device consisted of a glass tube so shaped as to permit its being fitted|into the nostril, and to which was attached a rubber tube fitted with a mouth-|piece. The glass tube contained a roll of cotton saturated with an oily medica-|ment. The user by blowing into the mouthpiece forced the medicated vapor|into the nasal passages. The device would be dangerous to health when used|in the dosage, or with the frequency or duration prescribed, recommended,|or suggested in the labeling, which bore directions that the tube be inserted|in the nostril, that the mouthpiece be placed between the lips, and that the|user blow, gently at first, gradually increasing the pressure until the effects|could be felt deep in the nasal passages.|On March 7, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of North|Dakota filed a libel against 25 packages of Hexadrin at Bismark, N. Dak.,|consigned about November 6, 1939, alleging that the article had been shipped|in interstate|commerce by the Murray Products Go. from San Francisco, Calif.;|and charging that it was misbranded for the reasons appearing above.|On June 11,1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.|149. Misbranding of Nazoscope. U. S. v. 135 Packages of Nazoscope. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00149April, 1941Murray LaboratoriesNazoscopeOctober 21, 1938Salt Lake City, UtahSanta Monica, Calif.Salt Lake City, UtahDistrict of Utah149F. D. C. No. 199. Sample No. 40912-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00149ddnj|149. Misbranding of Nazoscope. TJ. S. v. 135 Packages of Nazoscope. Default|decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 199. Sample No.|40912-D.)|This device consisted of a vaporizing chamber (containing a wick) of such|size and shape as to permit its fitting into,the nostril and to which was attached|a rubber tube fitted with a mouthpiece. An accessory medicament labeled|\"\"Nazone,\"\" which accompanied the article, consisted essentially of volatile oils|(including spearmint oil), alcohol, and water. The device would be dangerous|to health when used in the dosage and with the frequency or duration pre-|scribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling, which contained directions|that 10 to 15 drops of Nazone be placed on the wick, the appliance inserted into|the nostril, that the glass mouthpiece on the end of the rubber tube be placed|between the lips, and that the user blow gently, gradually increasing the pres-|sure until the effects could be felt deep in the nasal passages.|On March 14, 1939, the United States attorney for the District of Utah filed|a libel against 135 packages of Nazoscope at Salt Lake City, Utah, alleging|that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about October|21, 1938, by the Murray Laboratories from Santa Monica, Calif.; and charging|that it was misbranded.|On May 25, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|NIPPLE SHIELDS|Nos. 150 and 151 report the seizure and disposition of nipple shields which|were made essentially of lead. They were potentially dangerous because lead|poisoning might result in infants fed from the breasts of mothers using the|device.|150. Misbranding of nipple shields. U. S. v. 71 Boxes of Dr. Wansbrough's Metallic Nipple Shields. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00150April, 1941Glasco Products Co.nipple shieldsJuly 1, 1936Great Falls, Mont.Chicago, Ill.Great Falls, Mont.District of Montana150F. D. C. No. 1914. Sample No. 6973-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00150ddnj|150. Misbranding of nipple shields. TJ. S. v. 71 Boxes of Dr. Wansl>roug\\h's|Metallic Nipple Shields. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 1914. Sample No. 6973-E.)|On May 21, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of Montana filed|a libel against 71 boxes of Dr. Wansbrough's Metallic Nipple Shields at Great|Falls, Mont., alleging the article had been shipped in interstate commerce|on or about July 1, 1936, by the Glasco Products Co. from Chicago, 111.; and|charging that it was misbranded.|The article, a device, was alleged to be misbranded in that the representa-|tions in the labeling that it was for the prevention and cure of sore nipples, /|that it should be applied as soon after delivery as possible, that in using '|it the only attention required was to wipe the nipple previously to nursing|and apply immediately afterwards, and that it wis in no way likely to be|injurious to the infant, were false and misleading in chat the said representations|gave the impression that the device was a preventative and cure for sore|nipples; whereas it was not a safe and appropriate remedy or cure for sore|nipples but was a dangerous drug. The device was alleged to be misbranded|further in that the labeling was misleading since it failed to reveal the facts,|material in the light of the representations made therein, and material with|respect to consequences which might result from the use of the device under|the conditions of use prescribed in the labeling and under such conditions of|use as are customary and usual, that the use of the device in accordance with|the directions might cause fatal lead poisoning in infants fed from breasts|of mothers using said device. It was alleged to be misbranded further in|that it was dangerous to health when used with the frequency or duration|prescribed, recommended, and suggested in the labeling thereof.|On July 25, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|151. Misbranding of nipple shields. U. S. v. 15 Boxes of Dr. Wansbrough's Metallic Nipple Shields. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00151April, 1941J. Sklar Manufacturing Co.nipple shieldsOctober 6, 1938Providence, R. I.Brooklyn, N. Y.Providence, R. I.District of Rhode Island151F. D. C. No. 151. Sample No. 48920-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00151ddnj|151. Misbranding of nipple shields. U. S. v. 15 Boxes of Dr. Wansbrough's|Metallic Nipple Shields. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 151. Sample No. 48920-D.) |On February 3, 1939, the United States attorney for the District of Rhode V_,>|Island filed a libel against 15 boxes of the above-named article at Providence,|6, 1938, by the J. Sklar Manufacturing Co. from Brooklyn,' N. Y.; and charging|that it was misbranded.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that it was dangerous to health when|used in the dosage, or with the frequency prescribed, recommended, or suggested|in the labeling, in which the article was recommended for the prevention and|treatment of sore nipples and which contained directions that the shields should|be applied as soon after delivery as possible, that in their use the only attention|required was to wipe the nipple before nursing and apply the shield again|immediately afterwards, and that they were in no way likely to be injurious|to the infant.|On August 27, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|MISCELLANEOUS|152. Misbranding of Bad-Ex Salts. U. S. v. Dr. Frederick M. Lawrence (American Laboratories). Plea of guilty. Fine, $50.ddnj00152April, 1941Dr. Frederick M. Lawrence, trading as the American Laboratories, at Carlisle, Pa.Bad-Ex SaltsNovember 5 to December 10, 1938PennsylvaniaPennsylvaniaMaryland, Missouri, OhioMiddle District of Pennsylvania152F. D. C. No. 97. Sample Nos. 34931-D, 38817-D, 58508-D, 59646-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00152ddnj|152. Misbranding: of Bad-Ex Salts. TJ. S. v. Dr. Frederick M. Lawrence (American|Laboratories). Plea of guilty. Fine, $50. (F. D. C. No. 97. Sample Nos.|34931-D, 38817-D, 58508-D, 59646-D.)|This product contained tartar emetic. Its labeling bore directions and rec-|ommendations that a teaspoonful be taken in a glassful of water when needed,|that a teaspoonful be taken in a glassful of cold water on arising in the morn-|ing, that children should take one-fourth to 1 teaspoonful according to age,|that the salts should be added to the water, stirred, and drunk as effervescence|subsided, and that it should never be taken less than a half hour before meals|unless otherwise directed. It would be dangerous to health when used in the|dosage and with the frequency or duration . so prescribed, recommended, or|suggested in the labeling.|On November 21, 1939, the United States attorney for the Middle District of|Pennsylvania filed an information against Dr. Frederick M. Lawrence, trading|as the American Laboratories, at Carlisle, Pa., alleging shipment by said de-|fendant within the period from on or about November 5 to on or about Decem-|ber 10, 1938, from the State of Pennsylvania into the States of Maryland,|Missouri, Ohio, and New York, of quantities of Bad-Ex Salts which was mis-|branded for the reasons stated above.|The article was also charged to be adulterated and misbranded in violation|of the Food and Drugs Act of 1906, reported in notices of judgment published|under that act.|On December 4, 1939, a plea of guilty was entered by the defendant and the|court imposed a fine of $50.|344. Misbranding of Wittone. U. S. v. 180 Dozen Bottles of Wittone. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00344March 1942Wittone Sales Agency of United Distributors, Inc.Wittone\NWashington, D. C.Washington, D. C.Washington, D. C.District of Columbia344F. D. C. No. 2331. Sample No. 1662-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00344ddnj|344. Misbranding of Wittone. U. S. v. 180 Dozen Bottles of Wittone. Default|decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 2331. Sample No.|1662-E.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-|ing its efficacy in the conditions indicated hereinafter. Its labeling was further|objectionable because of misleading representations regarding the quantities of|certain minerals present, regarding its alleged tonic effects and because of|failure to bear adequate directions and adequate warnings as required by law.|On July 8, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of Columbia filed|a libel against 180 dozen bottles of Wittone at Washington, D. C, alleging that|the article was being offered for sale in the District of Columbia at the Wittone|Sales Agency of United Distributors, Inc., of Louisville, Ky., at Washington,|D. C.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of a water solution of|Epsom salt (29.5 grams per 100 cc.) together with essentially inconsequential|proportions of iron and ammonium citrate (0.8 gram per 100 cc), sodium|salicylate (0.5 gram per 100 cc.), sodium phosphate (0.7 gram per 100 cc.), sodium|bicarbonate, and flavoring materials.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that representations in the labeling|that it was efficacious for the health, would help one eat well, sleep well, and keep|well; that it was efficacious in bilious spells, dizziness, headaches, sour stomach,|dull tired-out feeling, coated tongue, bad taste, and loss of appetite; that it was|efficacious to correct the results of over-indulgence and constipation; would cor-|rect the cause of restless nights; that it was a mild diuretic and would stimulate|elimination of urea and uric acid, regulate elimination, keep the system free from|impurities, aid the blood, and cleanse the intestinal tract, were false and mis-|leading since it would not be efficacious for such purposes.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the word \"\"Tone,\"\" forming a|part of the name \"\"Wittone\"\" appearing in the labeling, was false and misleading|because the article contained no significant amount of tonic ingredient and would|not act as a tonic. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the statements|in the labeling, \"\"Ingredients-Epsom Salts (Magnesium Sulphate), 3.3 oz. Iron|and Ammonium Citrate, 40 grs.; Sodium Salicylate, 27 grs.; Sodium Phosphate,|27 grs.; Sodium Bicarbonate, 40 grs.; Oil of Cassia, 2?o min.; Oil of Cloves., ?o|min.; Saccharine, 3?o min.,\"\" were false and misleading since they failed to reveal|the material fact that the amounts of iron and ammonium citrate, sodium salicy-|late, sodium phosphate, and sodium bicarbonate in the product, were in inconse-|quential proportions when the medicine was consumed in accordance with the|directions in the labeling.|It Vas alleged to be misbranded further in that the statements in the labeling,|(contact card) \"\"Please Contact: Name ? Address ? City |State? I am confident he will be relieved of?through the consistent|use of Wittone as I have been benefited,\"\" and the statements (business reply|card) \"\"Wittone Representative: I would like to use Wittone. Please deliver to|me a bottle of your Famous and Celebrated Medicine for I believe Wittone will|benefit me as it has countless other suffering people,\"\" were false and misleading|since it was not efficacious for the purposes recommended.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the labeling failed to bear|adequate directions for use since the directions appearing on the bottle, as|follows, \"\"Adults-1 to 2 tablespoonfuls once or twice a day in water before|eating. Children-1 teaspoonful to a tablespoonful as above. General Direc-|tions. Wittone is full-strength, with a pure, sharp taste. Adults should take|About two tablespoonfuls twice a day in a glass of water before eating. Please|note we say 'about' two tablespoonfuls. We say this because we do not believe|it is possible to prepare directions which will fit all people. Perhaps you should|take a trifle more than two tablespoonfuls as your dose. Or, you may find that|less than two tablespoonfuls is your proper dose. You can easily determine this|soon after you start using the medicine and should then continue to take your|proper dose twice daily. Laxatives should not be used continuously so that the|bowels may resume their normal action. For Children up to 10 years of age,|two teaspoonfuls more or less, two times a day as for adults, later reducing|to one dose per day for a sufficient period,\"\" were not appropriate for the product|and were not adequate.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the labeling failed to bear|adequate warnings against use in those pathological conditions or by children|where its use might be dangerous to health and against unsafe dosage or methods|or duration of administration in such manner and form as are necessary for the|protection of users since there was no warning against the administration of the|medicine to young children to whom its use might be dangerous nor against|frequent or continued use of the article which might result in the establishment|of dependence upon laxatives.|On August 16, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation,|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|DRUGS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF DEVIATION FROM OFFICIAL|OR OWN STANDARDS|CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS|345. Adulteration and misbranding of Heron's Pure Eucalyptus Oil. U. S. v. Norman C. Heron (N. C. Heron Co.). Tried to the court and jury. Verdict of guilty. Fine, $300.ddnj00345March 1942Norman C. Heron, trading .as N. C. Heron Co., Los Angeles, Calif.Heron's Pure Eucalyptus OilNovember 23, 1939CaliforniaCaliforniaIdahoSouthern District of California345F. D. C. No. 2091. Sample No. 97364-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00345ddnj|345. Adulteration and misbranding of Heron's Pure Eucalyptus Oil. U. S. v.|Norman C. Heron (N. G. Heron Co.). Tried to the court and jury. \"\"Verdict|of guilty. Fine, $300. (F. D. C. No. 2091. Sample No. 97364-D.)|This product did not meet the requirements of the United States Pharma-|copoeia for eucalyptus oil. Its labeling also bore false and misleading repre-|sentations regarding its efficacy in the conditions indicated hereinafter.|On September 12, 1940, the United States attorney for the Southern District|of California filed an information against Norman C. Heron, trading .as N. C.|Heron Co., Los Angeles, Calif., alleging shipment on or about November 23,|1939, from the State of California into the State of Idaho, of a quantity of|Heron's Pure Eucalyptus Oil which was adulterated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to be and was|represented as a drug the name of which is recognized in the United States|Pharmacopoeia but its strength differed from, and its quality and purity fell|below, the standard set forth in that compendium in that it contained not more|than 68 percent of eucalyptol and was not soluble in 5 volumes of 70 percent|alcohol; whereas the United States Pharmacopoeia provides that eucalyptus oil|shall contain not less than 70 percent of eucalyptus and shall be soluble in 5|volumes of 70 percent alcohol, and the difference in strength, quality, and purity|of the article from the standard for eucalyptus oil set forth in the said com-|pendium was not stated plainly on its label.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements borne on|the bottle label were false and misleading since they represented that it was|pure eucalyptus oil; that it was an all-around family remedy, and was efficacious|for internal or external use from the youngest to the oldest; that said article,|when used alone or in connection with Heron's Liver Regulator, had no equal|in the treatment of Bright's disease and diabetes; that it was the only remedy|without an enemy, implying that it was a remedy approved by everyone; that|it was efficacious in the treatment of anything that originated from a cold;|that it was efficacious in the treatment of cough, whooping cough, croup,|sore throat, diphtheria, pleurisy, pneumonia, fever, stomach and kidney troubles,|diabetes, catarrh, asthma, bronchitis, headache, earache, toothache, neuralgia,|burns, poison oak, wounds of all kinds, consumption in its first stages, fever|of all kinds, rheumatism, gravel, dyspepsia, kidney disease, and cuts; whereas|it was not pure eucalyptus oil and was not efficacious for the said purposes.|On October 25, 1940, the defendant having entered a plea of not guilty, the (|case came on for trial before the court and jury. The trial was concluded v|on October 28, 1940, on which date the court delivered the following instruc-|tions to the jury:|HARBISON, District Judge. \"\"You have listened to counsel on both sides, and|now you will have to listen to the court for a few moments as I read the in-|structions to you.|\"\"By the filing of an information, no presumption whatsoever arises to in-|dicate that a defendant is guilty, or that he has had any connection with, or|responsibility for, the act charged against him. A defendant is presumed to|be innocent at all stages of the proceeding until the evidence introduced on|behalf of the Government shows him to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.|And this rule applies to every material element of the offense charged. Mere|suspicion will not authorize a conviction. A reasonable doubt is such a doubt|as you may have in your minds when, after fairly and impartially considering|all of the evidence, you do not feel satisfied to a moral certainty of the defendant's|guilt. In order that the evidence submitted shall afford proof beyond a reason-|able doubt, it must be such as you would be willing to act upon in the most|important and vital matters relating to your own affairs.|\"\"Reasonable doubt is not a mere possible or imaginary doubt or a bare con-|jecture ; for it is difficult to prove a thing to an absolute certainty.|\"\"You are to consider the strong probabilities of the case. A conviction is|justified only when such probabilities exclude all reasonable doubt as the same|has been defined to you. Without it being restated or repeated, you are to un-|derstand that the requirement that a defendant's guilt be shown beyond a|reasonable doubt is to be considered in connection with and as accompanying|all the instructions that are given to you.|\"\"In judging of the evidence,. you are to give it a reasonable and fair con-|struction, and you are not authorized, because of any feeling of sympathy or|other bias, to apply a strained construction, one that is unreasonable, in order|to justify a certain verdict when, were it not for such feeling or bias, you would|reach a contrary conclusion. And whenever, after a careful consideration of|all of the evidence, your minds are in that state where a conclusion of inno-|cence is indicated equally with a conclusion of guilt, or there is a reasonable|doubt as to whether the evidence is so balanced, the conclusion of innocence|must be adopted.|\"\"You are the sole judges of the credibility and the weight which is to be|given to the different witnesses who have testified upon this trial. A witness|is presumed to speak the truth. This presumption, however, may be repelled|by the manner in which he testifies; by the character of his testimony, or by|evidence affecting his character for truth, honesty, and integrity or his|motives; or by contradictory evidence. In judging the credibility of the wit-|nesses in this case, you may believe the whole or any part of the evidence of|any witness, or may disbelieve the whole or any part of it, as may be dictated|by your judgment as reasonable men. You should carefully scrutinize the|testimony given, and in so doing consider all of the circumstances under which|any witness has testified, his demeanor, his manner while on the stand, his|intelligence, the relations which he bears to the Government or the defendant,|the manner in which he might be affected by the verdict and the extent to|which he is contradicted or corroborated by other evidence, if at all, and every|matter that tends reasonably to shed light upon his credibility. If a witness|is shown knowingly to have testified falsely on the trial touching any material|matter, the jury should distrust his testimony in other particulars, and in that|case you are at liberty to reject the whole of the witness' testimony.|\"\"There is nothing peculiarly different in the way a jury is to consider the|proof in a criminal case from that by which men give their attention to any|question depending upon evidence presented to them. You are expected to|use your good sense, consider the evidence for the purposes only for which it|has been admitted, and in the light of your knowledge of the natural tenden-|cies and propensities of human beings, resolve the facts according to deliberate|and cautious judgment; and while remembering that the defendant is entitled|to any reasonable doubt that may remain in your minds, remember as well|that if no such doubt remains the Government is entitled to a verdict. Jurors|are expected to agree upon a verdict where they can conscientiously do so;|you are expected to consult with one another in the jury room and any juror|should not hesitate to abandon his own view when convinced that it is|erroneous. In determining what your verdict shall be you are to consider|only the evidence before you. Any testimony as to which an objection was|sustained, and any testimony which was ordered stricken out, must be wholly|left out of account and disregarded. The opinon of the judge as to the guilt|or innocence of a defendant, if directly or inferentially expressed in these|instructions, or at any time during the trial, is not binding upon the jury.|For to the jury exclusively belongs the duty of determining the facts. The|law you must accept from the court as correctly declared in these instructions.|\"\"Should you believe that Heron's Pure Eucalyptus Oil contains some ingre-|dient which you believe to have a therapeutic or curative value in the treat-|ment of the disease for which it is recommended, then there is no misbranding|as to such disease.|\"\"You are charged that to establish the fact that Heron's Pure Eucalyptus Oil|is misbranded within the meaning of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic|Act and as charged in the information, the Government must prove beyond|a reasonable doubt:|\"\"That the labeling carries some statement regarding the contents of Heron's|Pure Eucalyptus Oil which is false and misleading in some particular; and|\"\"That the statements made on the labeling regarding the curative or thera-|peutic effects of Heron's Pure Eucalyptus Oil are false and misleading; and|\"\"Such false and misleading labeling must be established by competent proof|and by credible and convincing evidence.|\"\"You- are instructed that, among other things, before you can find the defendant|guilty of count I, you must find that Heron's Pure Eucalyptus Oil is a drug that|is recognized in the United States Pharmacopoeia and that the strength of Heron's|Pure Eucalyptus Oil differed from, and its quality and purity fell below, the|standard set forth in the United States Pharmacopoeia in that Heron's Pure|Eucalyptus Oil contained only 68 percent eucalyptol and that Heron's Pure|Eucalyptus Oil is not soluble in 5 volumes of 70 percent alcohol; and should you|so find as I have above instructed you, before you can find the defendant guilty|you must find further that the fact that Heron's Pure Eucalyptus Oil contains|but 68 percent eucalyptol and is not soluble in 5 volumes of 70 percent alcohol|as the test prescribed by the United States Pharmacopoeia to test the strength,|quality, and purity of Heron's Pure Eucalyptus Oil and unless you so find, you|must find the defendant not guilty of count I.|\"\"If the evidence in this case, as to any particular count, is susceptible of two|constructions or interpretations, each of which appears to you to be reasonable,|and one of which points to the guilt of the defendant, and the other to his|innocence, it is your duty under the law to adopt that interpretation which will|admit of the defendant's innocence, and reject that which points to his guilt.|\"\"You are further instructed that if any material claim or statement on either|the label, carton, or circular is false or misleading then, regardless of the intent|of the mind of the defendant, you are to find the defendant guilty.|\"\"You are instructed that it is against the law of the United States for any|person to introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce of any|food, drug, device, or cosmetic that is adulterated or misbranded.|\"\"You are further instructed that a drug or device shall be deemed to be adul-|terated if it purports to be or is represented as a drug the name of which is|recognized in an official compendium, and its strength differs from, or its quality|or purity falls below, the standard set forth jn such compendium.|\"\"You are further instructed that the Pharmacopoeia of the United States,|Volume XI, is an official compendium.|\"\"You are further instructed that a drug or device shall be deemed to be mis-|branded if its label is false or misleading in any particular.|\"\"You are further instructed that the term 'labeling' means all labels and|other written, printed, or graphic matter (1) upon any article or any of its|containers or wrappers or (2) accompanying such article.|\"\"You are further instructed that if you find, from the evidence in this case,|that Norman C. Heron did on or about November 21, 1939, deliver a package of|Heron's Pure Eucalyptus Oil to an agent of the Railway Express Co. in Los|Angeles, Calif., addressed to Nelson Drug Co. at Gooding, Idaho, and that said|Railway Express Co. did send said package to Gooding, Idaho, you are to find|that said package was introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate|commerce.|\"\"You are further instructed that if you -find, from the evidence introduced in|this case, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Norman C. Heron did on or about|November 23, 1939, introduce into interstate commerce, a package of Heron's|Pure Eucalyptus Oil at Los Angelesi Calif., consigned to Nelson's Drug Store,|Gooding, Idaho, that said eucalyptus oil fell below the standards required for oil|of eucalyptus as set forth in the Pharmacopoeia of the United States, Volume|XI, then you are to find the defendant Norman C. Heron guilty as charged in|count I of the information.|\"\"You are instructed that if you find, from the evidence introduced in this case,|beyond a reasonable doubt, that Norman C. Heron did on or about. November 23,|1939, introduce into interstate commerce a package of Heron's Pure Eucalyptus|Oil at Los Angeles, Calif., said package being consigned to Nelson's Drug Store,|Gooding, Idaho; that in said packages were labels, cartons, and circulars contain-|ing false and misleading statements as to the curative and therapeutic efficacy of|said Heron's Pure Eucalyptus Oil, then you are to find the defendant Norman O.|Heron guilty as charged in count II of the information.|\"\"I have advised you that the defendant is charged with having violated certain|provisions of what is known as the 'Food and Drugs Act,' the purpose of which|was and is to protect consumers against impure and adulterated food and drugs,|and also against the use of food or drugs which do not show what they contain by|the brands on the packages ; or which are misbranded or which contain misleading|claims pertaining to the therapeutic and curative efficacy of the product. The|prohibition of this act is directed only against the introduction into interstate|commerce of any article of food, drink, or of any drug either adulterated or mis-|branded. In arriving at your decision in this case you are not concerned with the|wisdom of this act of Congress in passing the Food and Drugs Act. You are only|concerned with the facts in this case. You must determine what the facts are in|relation to the issue which is formed by the information filed and the plea entered|by the defendant.|\"\"Ordinarily, in the trial of cases in court, witnesses are confined in their testi-|mony to facts within their personal knowledge and they are not permitted to draw|conclusions or express opinions. That is the general rule, but there is an excep-|tion to that rule where the points in issue arise out of a particular science or art|concerning which there are trained minds who have special knowledge, learning,|or schooling in that particular field. Such persons are called experts and because|of that special training or learning they are entitled to express opinions concern-|ing the matters at issue. You will, of course, weigh and evaluate the testimony|of the expert witnesses in this case precisely as you weigh the testimony of any|nonexpert witnesses; that is to say, you will take into account the probability and|reasonableness of the matters to which they have testified, the schooling of the|person giving it, the learning that he has in his profession, or the want of it, and|the breadth of his experience in the field which would enable him to arrive at a|correct conclusion. In other words, his testimony should be given such weight as|you believe it is entitled to receive.|\"\"Under the Federal Food and Drugs Act the term 'drug' includes any substance|or mixture of substances intended to be used for the cure, mitigation, or preven-|tion of disease of mankind. The aim of the act is to prevent indirection and|ambiguity in the labeling of drugs, as well as to prevent statements which are|literally false. It is not difficult to choose statements, designs, or devices concern-|ing the curative or therapeutic effect of an article of drugs which will not deceive.|Those which are ambiguous and likely to mislead should be read favorably to the|accomplishment of the purposes of the act and, if you find the labels used by the|defendant, Norman C. Heron, describing the curative and therapeutic effect of|the article or drug, Heron's Pure Eucalyptus Oil, contain statements that are|likely to mislead, you should find the defendant guilty of misbranding.|\"\"If you find that the circulars introduced in evidence in this case were contained|in the packages admitted to have been shipped in interstate commerce by the|defendant, and if you further find that said circulars contain statements describ-|ing the curative and therapeutic effect of the article or drug, Heron's Pure Euca-|lyptus Oil, and if you further find that such statements are likely to mislead, you|should find the defendant guilty of misbranding.|\"\"The Food and Drugs Act is plain and direct. Its comprehensive terms con-|demn erery statement, design, and device which may mislead or deceive and which|are falsey and fraudulently made. Deception may result from use of statements|not technically false or which may be literally true. The law is to prevent that|resulting from indirection and ambiguity, as well as from statements which are|false. It is not difficult for one making and distributing drugs in interstate com-|merce to choose statements, designs, and devices which will not deceive. That is|his duty when engaged in such business. Too, statements which are ambiguous|and likely to mislead should be read favorably to the accomplishment of the aims|and purposes of the Food and Drugs Act.|\"\"This is important legislation intended to protect the people so far as this case|is concerned from the transportation and sale of misbranded medicines, experi-|ence having shown that men and women afflicted with disease are disposed to|try a professed remedy, no difference how useless or even harmful it may be if|it is strongly recommended, and it is to protect the sick and afflicted and people|who are easily imposed upon, from fraudulent practices of the unprincipled and|avaricious that this law was passed. It is a wise law and in proper cases should|be rigidly enforced.|\"\"If, after hearing the evidence in this case, you reach the conclusion that the|drug or product known as 'Heron's Pure Eucalyptus Oil' was harmless, that|does not excuse the defendant, if you find that he placed statements upon said|drugs which were false, concerning the curative and therapeutic effects of said|products, as the danger and injury to the public from representations of this|type is considerable in that it induces persons frequently to rely in serious cases|upon preparations without healing virtue when, but for this reliance, they|would no doubt secure proper advice and treatment for the ills which affect|them.|\"\"If, in these instructions, any rule, direction, or idea be stated in varying ways,|no emphasis thereon is intended by me, and none must be inferred by you. For|that reason, you are not to single out any certain sentence, or any individual|point or instruction, and ignore the others, but you are to consider all the instruc-|tions and as a whole, and to regard each in the light of all the others.|\"\"At times throughout the trial the court has been called upon to pass on the|question whether or not certain offered evidence might properly be admitted.|With such rulings and the reasons for them you are not to be concerned. Whether|offered evidence is admissible is purely a question of law, and from a ruling|on such a question you are not to draw any inference as to what weight should|be gfren the evidence, or as to the credibility of a witness. In admitting evidence|to which an objection is made, the court does not determine what weight should|be given such evidence. As to any offer of evidence that was rejected by the|court, you, of course, must not consider the same; as to any question to which|an objection was sustained, you must not conjecture as to what the answer|might have been or as to the reason for the objection.|\"\"You are instructed that if the judge has said or done anything which has|suggested to you that he is inclined to favor the claims or position of either|party, you will not suffer yourself to be influenced by any such suggestion.|\"\"I have not expressed, nor intended to express, nor have I intimated nor in-|tended to intimate, any opinion as to what witnesses are, or are not, worthy of|credence; what facts are, or are not, established; or what inferences should be|drawn from the evidence adduced. If any expression, of mine has seemed to|indicate an opinion relating to any of these matters, I instruct you to disregard it.|\"\"The verdict to be rendered must represent the considered judgment of each|juror.|\"\"In order to return a verdict it is necessary that each juror agree thereto.|Your verdict must be unanimous.|\"\"When you retire to your jury room to deliberate, you will select one of your|number as foreman and he will sign your verdict for you when it has been|agreed upon. You will then return into court with the verdict and your foreman|will represent you as your spokesman in the further conduct of this case in this|court.|\"\"Forms of verdicts have been prepared for your convenience, and when you|have agreed upon a verdict, the foreman will sign the verdict upon which you|agree and return it into court.|\"\"Are there any exceptions on any of these instructions?\"\"|Mr. COTTER. \"\"NO, your honor.\"\"|THE COURT. \"\"The clerk will now swear the officers to take charge of the jury.\"\"|(Whereupon the officers were duly sworn to take charge of the jury.)|THE COURT. \"\"The court will hand you the form of verdict, and you will now|retire to the jury room for your deliberations.|\"\"Is it stipulated that the jury may have the exhibits?\"\"|Mr. COTTER. \"\"SO stipulated.\"\"|Mr. LAW. \"\"SO stipulated.\"\"|The jury thereupon retired and after due deliberation returned a verdict|of guilty. The court suspended the sentence on the first count for a period|of 2 years, and sentenced the defendant to 6-months' imprisonment on the|second count, which was also suspended for 2 years and the defendant was|placed on probation for that period. The court also imposed a fine of $300.|153. Misbranding of Bull's 1001 Obesity Capsules. U. S. v. 3 Packages of Bull's 1001 Obesity Capsules. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00153April, 1941J. W. BullBull's 1001 Obesity CapsulesMarch 24, 1939Sheboygan, Wis.Chicago, Ill.Sheboygan, Wis.Eastern District of Wisconsin153F. D. C. No. 1914. Sample No. 6073-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00153ddnj|153. Misbranding: of Bull's 1001 Obesity Capsules. 17. S. v. 3 Packages of Bull's|1001 Obesity Capsules. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 1914. Sample No. 6073-E.)|These capsules contained thyroid and small proportions of sulfur, licorice,|and nux vomica; and would be dangerous to health when used in the dos-|age or with the frequency or duration prescribed, recommended, or suggested|in the labeling, which bore directions that 1 capsule should be taken 4 times|a day, one immediately after each meal and at bedtime.|On January 31, 1940, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Wisconsin filed a libel against 3 packages of Bull's 1001 Obesity Capsules at|Sheboygan, Wis., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate com-|merce on or about March 24, 1939, by J. W. Bull from Chicago, 111.; and|charging that it was misbranded for the reasons appearing above.|On March 8, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.|154. Misbranding of Young's Preparation. U. S. v. 36 Bottles of Young's Preparation. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00154April, 1941O. L. BrunsonYoung's PreparationMay 31, 1940Jacksonville, Fla.Waycross, Ga.Jacksonville, Fla.Southern District of Florida154F. D. C. No. 2302. Sample No. 537-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00154ddnj|154. Misbranding: of Young's Preparation. U. S. v. 36 Bottles of Young's Prepa|ration. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No.|2302. Sample No. 537-E.)|This product contained acetic acid; and would be dangerous to health when|used in the dosage, or with the frequency or duration prescribed, recommended,|or suggested in the labeling, in which it was recommended for the relief of|itching skin and scalp and which bore directions that the bottle be shaken|well and the product applied to afflicted parts two or three times a day; that|if the parts were raw it should be diluted with water until it could be used|full strength and that it was natural for the product to sting when first|applied.|On or about July 8, 1940, the United States attorney for the Southern District|of Florida filed a libel against 33 bottles of Young's Preparation at Jacksonville,|Fla., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce by|O. L. Brunson from Waycross, Ga., on or about May 31, 1940; and charging|that it was misbranded in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic|Act for the reasons appearing above.|It was also alleged to be misbranded in violation of the Federal Caustic|Poison Act reported in notice of judgment No. 102 published under that act.|On September 9, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.|DRUG ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF CONTAMINATION WITH FILTH|155. Adulteration and misbranding of Cotec. U. S. Thomas E. Connor (The Cotec Co.). Plea of guilty. Fine, $25.ddnj00155April, 1941Thomas E. Connor, trading as the Cotec Co., at Lynn, Mass.CotecNovember 22, 1939MassachusettsMassachusettsNew HampshireDistrict of Massachusetts155F. D. C. No. 949. Sample No. 73892-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00155ddnj|155. Adulteration and misbranding of Cotee. V. S. Thomas E. Connor (The|Cotec Co.). Plea of guilty. Fine, $25. (F. D. C. No. 949. Sample No.|73892-D.)|This product was found to consist of fatty substances and filth, as indicated|by the presence of viable micro-organisms. Furthermore, its labeling bore|false and misleading representations regarding its efficacy in the conditions|indicated below.|On April 22, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of Massachu-|setts filed an information against Thomas E. Connor, trading as the Cotec Co.,|at Lynn, Mass., alleging shipment by said defendant on or about November|22, 1939, from the State of Massachusetts into the State of New Hampshire,|of a quantity of Cotec which was adulterated and misbranded. The article|was labeled in part: \"\"Cotec, a preparation for all kinds of piles.\"\"|It was alleged to be adulterated in that it consisted in whole or in part of|a filthy substance.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that its labeling bore representations|that it was an efficacious and appropriate treatment for all kinds of piles,|including blind, bleeding, itching, internal and external piles; would relieve,|by absorption, all inflammation of the lower bowel, without an operation; that|it was one of the most valuable of all pile treatments and would do all that|was claimed for it; that it would reduce all congestion and swelling, and|heal all sores, ulcers, and irritated parts immediately; that it would heal|while one slept; that it was an efficacious preparation for pile tumors; that|it would be an efficacious preparation for the symptoms of the disease (piles),|among which are bearing-down sensation, heat, tension, and throbbing of|the part, varying from a moderate degree of the sensations to the most excru-|ciating suffering; that it would be an efficacious preparation for prolapsus or|fall of the bowels and for various attendant symptoms of piles such as nervous|pains, pain and weakness in the back, irritation of the kidneys and bladder, and|other organs of the vicinity, pain and numbness in the legs and feet, a sense|of straitness about the chest, unnatural fullness of the abdominal viscera,|accompanied by palpitation and oppression of the heart, great derangement|of the circulation, sense of weight and pressure in the abdomen with peculiar|feeling of uneasiness in the bowels, sensation of bearing down in the rectum|and perineum, pain in the back and loins, nausea, slight pain in the stomach,|scanty and high-colored urine, pale countenance, confused sensation in the|head, weariness and irritable and discontented state of mind, sense of fullness|and oppression in the region of the stomach, and feeble circulation on the|surface; that it was eflBcacious from the first symptom to the most aggravated|type of the disease; that, in conjunction with Cotec Laxative Pills, it would|constitute a complete treatment for piles, would reach the seat of the ailment,|restore to a healthy condition, prevent the return of piles, and would guar-|antee to all perfect immunity from the complaint; that if used regularly it|would effect a cure; that it would cure quickly and permanently; and that it|was the best pile remedy, were false and misleading in that the said article|contained no ingredient possessing efficacy in the said conditions, but did consist|of a filthy mixture unfit for medicinal use.|On October 1, 1940, the defendant entered a plea of guilty and the court|imposed a fine of $25.|OWN STANDARDS OR BECAUSE OF SUBSTITUTION |156. Adulteration and misbranding of Elixir Sodium Salicylate Compound. U. S. v. Standard Pharmacal Co. Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $25.ddnj00156April, 1941Standard Pharmacal Co., a corporation, Chicago, Ill.Elixir Sodium Salicylate CompoundJuly 31, 1939IllinoisIllinoisIndianaNorthern District of Illinois156F. D. C. No. 956. Sample No. 55545-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00156ddnj|156. Adulteration and misbranding of Elixir Sodium Salicylate Compound.|V. S. v. Standard Plsarmacal Co. Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $25.|(F. D. C. No. 956. Sample No. 55545-D.)|This product was represented to be a drug the name of which is recognized|in the National Formulary. It contained potassium iodide in excess of the|amount specified in the National Formulary, and in excess of the amount|declared on its label.|On May 14, 1940, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Illinois filed an information against the Standard Pharmacal Co., a corporation,|Chicago, 111., alleging shipment by said company on or about July 31, 1939, from|the State of Illinois into the State of Indiana, of a quantity of elixir sodium|salicylate compound which was adulterated and misbranded.|Adulteration was alleged in that the article was represented as a drug the|name of which i& recognized in an official compendium, the National Formulary,|and its strength differed from the standard set forth in said compendium in|that 1,000 cubic centimeters of the article contained not less than 20.2 grams|of potassium iodide, equivalent to 9.19 grains per fluid ounce; whereas the|National Formulary provides that compound elixir of sodium salicylate shall|contain in each 1,000 cubic centimeters 15 grams of potassium iodide, equivalent|to 6.84 grains per fluid ounce and the difference in strength of the article from|the said standard was not stated plainly on the label.|Misbranding was alleged in that the representation on the label that each fluid|ounce represented 3? grains of potassium iodide was false and misleading since|each fluid ounce of the article contained not less than 9.19 grains of potassium|iodide.|On June 24, 1940, a plea of nolo contendere was entered on behalf of the|defendant, and the court imposed a fine of $25.|157. Adulteration and misbranding of mineral oil. U. S. v. 1,149 Packages of Mineral Oil. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00157April, 1941Tyler Products Co.mineral oilApril 5, 1940Springfield, Mass.Pawtucket, R. I.Springfield, Mass.District of Massachusetts157F. D. C. No. 1944. Sample No. 2344-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00157ddnj|157. Adulteration and misbranding of mineral oil. U. S. v. 1,149 Packages of|Mineral Oil. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C.|No. 1944. Sample No. 2344-E.)|This product failed to comply with the standard prescribed by the United|States Pharmacopoeia since tests showed that it contained carbonizable sub-|stances; whereas the pharmacopoeia provides that white mineral oil shall be|free from such substances.|On May 16, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of Massachusetts|filed a libel against 1,149 packages of mineral oil at Springfield, Mass1( alleging|that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about April 5,|1940, by the Tyler Products Co. from Pawtucket, E. I.; and charging that it|was adulterated and misbranded. It was labeled in part: \"\"Federal Mineral|Oil * * * U. S. P. Standard.\"\"|Adulteration was alleged in that the article purported to be and was repre-|sented as a drug the name of which is recognized in the United States Pharma-|copoeia and its quality or purity fell below the standard set forth in the pharma-|copoeia and its difference from the standard was not plainly stated on the label.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the representations in the label that|it was mineral oil of United States Pharmacopoeial standard, was false and|misleading since it did not comply with the tests laid down in the pharma-|copoeia for mineral oil.|On June 24, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|167. Adulteration and misbranding of digitalis tablets. U. S. v. 1 Metal Drum and 10,791 Bottles of Digitalis Tablets. Decree ordering product released under bond for relabeling.ddnj00167April, 1941Wilber Co., Inc., Dumbarton, Va.digitalis tabletsMarch 11 to March 23, 1938Dumbarton, Va.Newark, N. J.Dumbarton, Va.Eastern District of Virginia167F. D. C. No. 675. Sample No. 47831-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00167ddnj|167. Adulteration and misbranding of digitalis tablets. U. S. v. 1 Metal Drum|and 10,791 Bottles of Digitalis Tablets. Decree ordering product released|under bond for relabeling. (F. D. C. No. 675. Sample No. 47831-D.)|These tablets were represented to contain 92.3 milligrams of powdered digitalis|each; whereas they contained approximately 50 milligrams of powdered digitalis|each.|On October 5, 1939, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Virginia filed a libel against 1 metal drum containing 70,000 digitalis tablets,|and 10,791 bottles containing a total of 1,083,560 digitalis tablets, at Dumbarton,|Va., alleging that the article had been introduced into interstate commerce|within the period from on or about March 11 to on or about March 23, 1938,|by the Maltbie Chemical Co. from Newark, N. J.; and charging that it was|adulterated and misbranded. When introduced into interstate commerce, it|was labeled: \"\"Each tablet contains: Po. Digitalis, 92.3 Milligrams.\"\"|It was alleged in the libel that the article, when introduced into interstate|commerce, was adulterated in that its strength differed from that which it|purported or was represented to possess.|It was further alleged that the article was misbranded when introduced into|interstate commerce in that the representation in the labeling that each tablet|contained 92.3 milligrams of powdered digitalis was false and misleading, since|each tablet contained less than so represented.|On December 19, 1939, the Wilber Co., Inc., Dumbarton, Va., having ap-|peared as claimant, judgment was entered ordering that the product be released|under bond conditioned that it be relabeled in conformity with the law under|the supervision of the Food and Drug Administration.|158. Adulteration and misbranding of mineral oil. U. S. v. 117 Bottles of Russian Oil. U. S. P. Mineral Oil. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00158April, 1941Diamond Drug & Magnesia Co., Boston, Mass.mineral oilFebruary 20, 1940Providence, R. I.Boston, Mass.Providence, R. I.District of Rhode Island158F. D. C. No. 1779. Sample No. 2247-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00158ddnj|158. Adulteration and misbranding of mineral oil. U. S. v. 117 Bottles of Russian|Oil V. S. P. Mineral Oil. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 1779. Sample No. 2247-E.)|This product was light mineral oil and not heavy mineral oil as indicated by|its labeling.|On April 11, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of Rhode Island|filed a libel against 117 bottles of mineral oil at Providence, R. I., alleging that|the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about February 20,|1940, by Diamond Drug & Magnesia Co., Boston, Mass.; and charging that it|1 See also N. J. Nos. 146, 182, and 215.|299926?-41 2|was adulterated find misbranded. It was labeled in part: \"\"Russian Oil U. S. P.|Mineral Oil * * * General Drug & Oil Co., Inc., Boston, Mass.\"\"|It was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to be and was repre-?V|sented as a drug the name of which is recognized in an official compendium|and its strength differed from, or its quality or purity fell below, the standard|set forth in such compendium.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the representations in the labeling|that it was \"\"Genuine Pure Russian -Oil U. S. P. Mineral Oil\"\" were false and|misleading.|On May 2, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.|159. Adulteration and misbranding of quinine sulfate. U. S. v. 132 Bottles of Quinine Sulfate. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00159April, 1941Frank Tea & Spice Distributing Co.quinine sulfateSeptember 18, 1939Port Smith, Ark.Cincinnati, OhioPort Smith, Ark.Western District of Arkansas159F. D. C. No. 1313. Sample No. 84280-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00159ddnj|159. Adulteration and misbranding of quinine sulfate. TJ. S. v. 132 Bottles of|Quinine Sulfate. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 1313. Sample No. 84280-D.)|This product contained moisture in excess of the amount specified by the United|States Pharmacopoeia. The containers were deceptive since their contents|occupied only about 89 percent of the capacity of the bottles. Most of the bottles|examined contained less than the amount indicated by the label.|On or about January 15, 1940, the United States attorney for the Western|District of Arkansas filed a libel against 132 bottles of quinine sulfate at Port|Smith, Ark., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on|September 18, 1939, by the Frank Tea & Spice Distributing Co. from Cincinnati,|Ohio; and charging that it was adulterated and. misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to be and was|represented as a drug the name of which is recognized in the United States|Pharmacopoeia and its strength differed from and its quality fell below the|standard set forth in the said pharmacopoeia since the moisture content was 8.9|percent; whereas the pharmacopoeia specifies that quinine sulfate shall contain not|more than 5 percent moisture.|Misbranding was alleged in that representations appearing in the labeling|that the article was U. S. P. X. quinine sulfate and contained about 15 percent|water of crystallization and complied with tests laid down in the U. S. Pharma-|copoeia for quinine sulfate, were false and misleading. The article was alleged|to be misbranded further in that the statement \"\"No. ?,\"\" borne on the wrapper|and carton, meant that the bottles contained V8 ounce, and was false and mislead-|ing since it was incorrect. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the|containers were so made, formed, or filled as to be misleading.|On March 25, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.|160. Adulteration and misbranding of peroxide of hydrogen. U. S. v. 708 Bottles of Peroxide of Hydrogen. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00160April, 1941Sunlight Chemical Corporationperoxide of hydrogenSeptember 28, 1939New London, Conn.Phillipsdale, R. I.New London, Conn.District of Connecticut160F. D. C. No. 838. Sample No. 74042-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00160ddnj|160. Adulteration and misbranding of peroxide of hydrogen. TJ. S. v. T08 Bottles|of Peroxide of Hydrogen. Default decree of condemnation and destruc-|tion. (F. D. C. No. 838. Sample No. 74042-D.)|This product contained not more than 1.87 grams of H2O2 per 100 cc.; whereas the|pharmacopoeia requires that solution of hydrogen peroxide shall contain not less|than 2.5 grams of H2O2 per 100 cc. It contained about double the amount|of preservative (in this case acetanilid) specified in the pharmacopoeia and about|double the amount declared on the label. Its labeling bore false and misleading|representations regarding its efficacy in the treatment of boils, sores, and|abscesses.|On or about October 30, 1939, the United States attorney for the District of|Connecticut filed a libel against 708 bottles of peroxide of hydrogen at New|London, Conn., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce|on or about September 28, 1939, by the Sunlight Chemical Corporation from|Phillipsdale, R. I.; and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded.|Adulteration was alleged in that the article purported to be or was represented|as a drug the name of which is recognized in the United States Pharmacopoeia,|and its strength differed from and its quality and purity fell below the standard|set forth therein for solution of hydrogen peroxide. It was alleged to be adul-|terated further in that its strength differed from and its quality fell below|that which it purported or was represented to possess in that it was represented|to contain 3 percent of H2O2 but contained a smaller amount.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that representations in the labeling that|it contained ?e grain of acetanilid per fluid ounce and was efficacious in the|treatment of boils, sores, and abscesses, were false and misleading since it con-|tained slightly less than ? grain of acetanilid per fluid ounce and was not a|competent treatment for boils, sores, and abscesses.|was entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.|161. Adulteration of peppermint oil. U. S. v. 66 Cases of Peppermint Oil. Consent decree of condemnation. Product released under bond to be relabeled and disposed of for technical purposes.ddnj00161April, 1941Transpacific Trading Corporationpeppermint oilDecember 5, 1939New York, N. Y.Los Angeles, Calif.New York, N. Y.Southern District of New York161F. D. C. No. 1332. Sample No. 86071-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00161ddnj|161. Adulteration of peppermint oil. IT. S. v. 66 Gases of Peppermint Oil. Con-|sent decree of condemnation. Product released under bond to be re-|labeled and disposed of for technical purposes. (F. D. C. No. 1332. Sample|No. 86071-D.)|This product differed from the pharmacopoeial standard for oil of peppermint.|On January 10, 1940, the United States attorney for the Southern District|of New York filed a libel against 66 cases, each containing 60 pounds, of pepper-|mint oil at New York, N. Y., alleging that the article had been shipped in|interstate commerce on or about December 5, 1939, by the Transpacific Trading|Corporation from Los Angeles, Calif.; and charging that it was adulterated.|It was labeled in part \"\"Peppermint Oil.\"\"|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to be or was|represented as a drug the name of which is recognized in the United States|Pharmacopoeia and its strength differed from and its quality and purity fell|below the standard set forth in that compendium in that it yielded not more|than 2.9 percent of esters calculated as menthyl acetate, it failed to comply with|the test \"\"distinction from oil from Mentha arvensis,\"\" its color was dark yellow|or amber, and its odor was not characteristic of oil of peppermint; whereas the|pharmacopoeia specifies that oil of peppermint shall yield not less than 5 percent|of esters calculated as menthyl acetate, a specific test is provided in the pharma-|copoeia to distinguish peppermint oil obtained from Mentha piperita Linn6 from|Mentha arvensis. It specifies that peppermint oil is a colorless liquid, and|the difference in strength, quality, and purity from such standard was not|stated plainly on the label.|On March 29, 1940, the Transpacific Trading Corporation, claimant, having|admitted the allegations of the libel and having consented to the entry of a|decree, judgment of condemnation was entered, and it was ordered that the|product be released under bond conditioned that it be relabeled \"\"Cornmint Oil|Partially Dementholized Imported from China, * * *. For Technical use|only,\"\" and disposed of for technical uses only.|162. Adulteration of citrate of magnesia. U. S. v. 201 Bottles of Solution Citrate of Magnesium. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00162April, 1941F. & M. Chemical Co.citrate of magnesiaJanuary 10, 1940Louisville, Ky.Indianapolis, Ind.Louisville, Ky.Western District of Kentucky162F. D. C. No. 1604. Sample No. 64997-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00162ddnj|162. Adulteration of citrate of magmesia. U. S. v. 201 Bottles of Solution Citrate|of Magnesium. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 1604. Sample No. 64997-D.)|This product contained less magnesium citrate and less total citric acid than|required by the United States Pharmacopoeia.|On March 8, 1940, the United States attorney for the Western District of|Kentucky filed a libel against 201 bottles of solution citrate of magnesium at|Louisville, Ky., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce|on or about January 10, 1940, by the F. & M. Chemical Co. from Indianapolis,|Ind.; and charging that it was adulterated.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to be or was|represented as a drug the name of which is recognized in the United States|Pharmacopoeia, but its strength differed from the standard set forth in the|said compendium and its difference in strength from such standard was not|stated plainly on the label.|On April 3, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.|163. Adulteration and misbranding of sandalwood oil capsules. U. S. v. 7 Boxes, 21 Boxes, and 19 Boxes of Sandalwood Oil. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00163April, 1941Red Mill Drug Co.sandalwood oil capsulesOctober 2 to October 24, 1939Boston, Mass.Brooklyn, N. Y.Boston, Mass.District of Massachusetts163F. D. C. No. 1274. Sample Nos. 86606-D, 86607-D, 86608-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00163ddnj|163. Adulteration and misbranding of sandalwood oil capsules. 17. S. v. 7 Boxes,|21 Boxes, and 19 Boxes of Sandalwood Oil. Default decree of condemna-|tion and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 1274. Sample Nos. 86606-D, 86607-D,|86608-D.)|Samples of this product yielded not more than 73.5, 45.1, and 44.9 percent,|respectively, of alcohols calculated as santalol, were completely insoluble in 5|volumes of 70 percent alcohol, and did not have the characteristic odor of sandal-|wood; whereas the United States Pharmacopoeia requires that sandalwood oil|shall yield not less than 90 percent of alcohols calculated as santalol, shall he|soluble in 5 volumes of 70 percent alcohol, and have the characteristic odor of|sandalwood. Furthermore, the specific gravity of the product, its optical ro-|tation, and in some samples its color and refractive index did not conform to|the pharmacopoeial specifications.|On January 2,1940, the United States attorney for the District of Massachusetts|filed a libel against 47 boxes of sandalwood oil at Boston, Mass., alleging that|the artiele had been shipped in interstate commerce within the period from on|or about October 2 to on or about October 24, 1939, by the Red Mill Drug Co.|from Brooklyn, N. Y.; and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded.|It was labeled in part: \"\"Pure East India (U. S. P.) Sandalwood Oil.\"\"|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to be or was|represented as a drug the name of which is recognized in the United States Pharma-|copoeia but its strength differed from, and its quality and purity fell below, the|standard set forth in that compendium, and its difference in strength, quality, and|purity from such standard was not plainly stated on its label.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the representation in the labeling|that it was pure East India U. S. P. sandalwood oil was false and misleading.|On March 18, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|164. Adulteration and misbranding of sandalwood oil. U. S. v. 5 Boxes and 12 Boxes of Sandalwood Oil. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00164April, 1941Red Mill Drug Co.sandalwood oilFebruary 2 to October 18,1939Philadelphia, Pa.Brooklyn, N. Y.Philadelphia, Pa.Eastern District of Pennsylvania164F. D. C. Nos. 1282, 1330. Sample Nos. 77631-D, 77632-D, 77634-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00164ddnj|164. Adulteration and misbranding of sandalwood oil. IT. S. v. 5 Boxes and 12|Boxes of Sandalwood Oil. Default decree of condemnation and destruc-|tion. (F. D. C. Nos. 1282, 1330. Sample Nos. 77631-D, 77632-D, 77634-D.)|This product differed from the pharmacopoeial standard in the following|respects: It yielded less than 90 percent of alcohols calculated as santalol,|it did not have the characteristic odor of sandalwood, and was not soluble in|5 volumes of 70 percent alcohol. It also differed from the standard with respect|to its specific gravity and optical rotation.|On January 2 and January 10, 1940, the United States attorney for the East-|ern District of Pennsylvania filed libels against 17 boxes of sandalwood oil at|Philadelphia, Pa., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate com-|merce within the period from about February 2 to October 18,1939, from Brooklyn,|N. Y., by the Red Mill Drug Co.; and charging that it was adulterated and|misbranded.|It was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to be or was represented|as a drug, the name of which is recognized in the United States Pharmacopoeia but|its strength differed from, and its quality and purity fell below, the standard|set forth in the pharmacopoeia; and its difference in strength, quality, and purity|from such standard was not plainly stated on the label.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the representation in the labeling that it|consisted of pure East India (U. S. P.) sandalwood oil was false and misleading.|On February 3, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgments of condemnation|were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|165. Adulteration and misbranding of tincture digitalis. U. S. v. 2 Bottles and 4 Bottles of Tincture Digitalis. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00165April, 1941Burrough Bros. Manufacturing Co.tincture digitalisAugust 4 and September 26, 1939Washington, D. C.Baltimore, Md.Washington, D. C.District of Columbia165F. D. C. No. 1459. Sample No. 76917-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00165ddnj|165. Adulteration and misbranding of tincture digitalis. TJ. S. v. 2 Bottles and|4 Bottles of Tincture Digitalis. Default decree of condemnation and|destruction. (F. D. C. No. 1459. Sample No. 76917-D.)|The potency of this article exceeded the maximum potency for tincture of|digitalis as specified in the United States Pharmacopoeia.|On February 8, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of Columbia|filed a libel against 2 bottles each containing 4 fluid ounces, and 4 bottles|each containing 1 pint, of tincture of digitalis at Washington, D. C, alleging|that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about August|4 and September 26, 1939, by Burrough Bros. Manufacturing Co. from Balti-|more, Md.; and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded.|Adulteration was alleged in that the article purported to be and was|represented as a drug the name of which is recognized in the United States|Pharmacopoeia and its strength differed from the standard set forth in that|official compendium.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the representations in the labeling|that it was tincture of digitalis, U. S. P. XI, that 1 cc. possessed an activity|equivalent to 1 to 1.1 U. S. P. digitalis units, were false and misleading since|each cc. of the article did not possess an activity equivalent to 1 to 1.1|U. S. P. digitalis units but did possess a greater activity.|On February 29, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.|166. Adulteration of digitalis leaves. U. S. v. 106 Packages of Digitalis. Consent decree of condemnation. Product released under bond for relabeling.ddnj00166April, 1941Western Trading Co., Inc.digitalis leavesApril 5, 6, and 7, 1939New York, N. Y.Salem, Oreg.New York, N. Y.Southern District of New York166F. D. C. No. 1391. Sample Nos. 68453-D, 68454-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00166ddnj|166. Adulteration of digitalis leaves. 17. S. v. 106 Packages of Digitalis. Consent|decree of condemnation. Product released under bond for relabeling.|(F. D. C. No. 1391. Sample Nos. 68453-D, 68454-D.)|This product differed from the pharmacopoeial requirements, one shipment|having a potency of 62 percent and the other having a potency of 61 percent|of that required.|On January 22, 1940, the United States attorney for the Southern District|of New York filed a libel against 106 sacks of digitalis leaves at New York,|N. Y, alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on|charging that it was adulterated.|Adulteration was alleged in that the article purported to be or was repre-|sented as a drug the name of which is recognized in the United States Pharma-|copoeia and its strength differed from the standard set forth for digitalis|since its potency varied between 61 percent and 62 percent of that required.|On May 22, 1940, the Western Trading Co., Inc., claimant, having admitted|the allegations of the libel and having consented to the entry of a decree,|judgment of condemnation was entered and it was ordered that the product|be released under bond conditioned that it be properly labeled and that it|be disposed of in the manufacture of preparations which are not official,|and in which properly calculated extra quantities of the drug should be|used to standardize such preparations to their ordinary or usual potency of|digitalis extract.|168. Adulteration and misbranding of drugs. U. S. v. 1 3/4 Gallons of Eczema Lotion and various other drug products. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00168April, 1941Pharmacal Products Co., Dr. C. H. Hadley, receiverdrugsJanuary 30, 1939Camden, N. J.Easton, Md.Camden, N. J.District of New Jersey168F. D. C. No. 1160. Sample Nos. 70301-D, 70303-D to 70306-D, incl. , 70308-D, 70309-D, 70311-D, 70312-D, 70313-D, 70315-D, 70321-D. 70322-D, 70324-D to 70329-D, incl.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00168ddnj|168. Adulteration and misbranding of drugs. U. S. v. 1% Gallons of Eczema|Lotion and various other drug1 products. Default decree of condemnation|and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 1160. Sample Nos. 70301-D, 70303-D to|70306-D, incl., 70308-D, 70309-D, 70311-D, 70312-D, 70313-D, 70315-D, 70321-D.|70322-D, 70324-D to 70329-D, incl.)|These products were adulterated and/or misbranded as indicated hereinafter.|On December 11, 1939, the United States attorney for the District of New|Jersey filed a libel against the following drugs located at Camden, N. J.:|1? gallons of Eczema Lotion, 19? gallons of Chlorotonic, 2 pints of Bromo-|forbia, 4? gallons of Compound Mixture of Glycyrrhiza, 3? gallons of Chill|Tonic, 22,300 Compressed Laxatonic Cold Tablets, 22,300 Compressed Nitro|Glycerin Compound Tablets, 28,300 Iron, Arsenic, and Strychnine Tablets, 4,200|Strychnin Sulphate Tablets, 2,500 Tablets Three Iodides, 5,5C0 Tablets Tonic|(Aiken), 14,600 Blaud and Sumbul Compound Tablets, 12,800 Ferruginous|Tonic Tablets, 13,150 Blaud and Manganese Compound Tablets, 13,000 Cactus|Compound Tablets, and 19,700 Cathartic Compound Tablets. It was alleged in|the libel that the articles had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|January 30, 1939, by the Pharmacal Products Co., Dr. C. H. Hadley, receiver,|from Easton, Md.; and that they were adulterated and/or misbranded.|Analysis of the Eczema Lotion showed that it consisted essentially of small|proportions of mercuric bichloride, hydrocyanic acid, nitric acid, glycerin, and|water. It was alleged to be misbranded in that the representations in the|labeling regarding its efficacy in the treatment of eczema and other diseased|conditions of the integument, were false and misleading.|Analysis of the Chlorotonic showed that it contained less than ? grain of|arsenic chloride per fluid ounce, namely, 0.145 grain of arsenic chloride. It was|alleged to be adulterated in that its labeling represented that each fluid ounce|represented ? grain of arsenic chloride; whereas its strength differed from|and its purity and quality fell below that which it purported or was presented|to possess. It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement in the|labeling that each fluid ounce represented ? grain of arsenic chloride, was|false and misleading. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that repre-|sentations in the labeling that it was an alterative in the treatment of latent|syphilis, was a stimulant to the glandular system, and was very effective in|anemia, was false and misleading.|Analysis of the Bromophorbia showed that it contained less than 16 grains|of sodium iodide, namely, 8.5 grains per fluid ounce. It was alleged to be|adulterated in that its labeling represented that each fluid ounce represented|16 grains of sodium iodide; whereas its strength differed from and its purity|and quality fell below that which it purported or was represented to possess.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement on the label that each|fluid ounce represented 16 grains of sodium iodide, was false and misleading.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the statement in the labeling|that it was formerly known as Asthmabrom was false and misleading.|Analysis of the Compound Mixture of Glycyrrhiza showed that it contained|a very material proportion of sediment which occupied approximately 22 per-|cent of the volume of the mixture. It was alleged to be adulterated in that|it purported to be or was represented as a drug the name of which is recog-|nized in the United States Pharmacopoeia but its quality and purity fell below|the standard set forth in that compendium and the difference in quality and|purity was not plainly stated on the label.|Analysis of the Chill Tonic showed that it contained less than 8 grains of|quinine sulfate, namely, 7.03 grains of quinine sulfate per fluid ounce. It was|alleged to be adulterated in that its labeling represented that each fluid ounce|contained 8 grains of quinine sulfate; whereas its strength differed from and|its purity and quality fell below such representation. It was alleged to be mis-|branded in that the representation in the labeling that each fluid ounce con-|tained 8 grains of quinine sulfate was false and misleading. It was alleged to|be misbranded further in that representations in the labeling that it was a chill|tonic, was an antimalarial, and that it should be administered in a dosage of 1|to 2 teaspoonfuls well diluted every 3 hours until laxative action resulted, then|3 times daily, were false and misleading, since the article was not efficacious|for the purposes recommended.|Analysis of the Laxatonic Cold Tablets showed that each tablet contained|less than V2 grain of quinine sulfate, namely, 0.42 grain of quinine sulfate. It|was alleged to be adulterated in that it was represented in its labeling as con-|taining ? grain of quinine sulfate per tablet; whereas its strength differed|from and its purity and quality fell below such representation. It was alleged|to be misbranded in that the representation in the labeling that each tablet|contained ? grain of quinine sulfate was false and misleading.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that its name was false and mis-|leading since it was not a laxative tonic as indicated by its name.|Analysis of the nitroglycerin compound tablets showed that they contained|less than 1/100 grain, namely, 0.008 (1/125 grain) of nitroglycerin. The article|was alleged to be adulterated in that its labeling represented that each tablet|contained 1/100 grain of nitroglycerin, whereas its strength differed from and|its purity and quality fell below such representation. It was alleged to be|misbranded in that the representation in the labeling that each tablet contained|1/100 grain of nitroglycerin was false and misleading.|Analysis of the iron, arsenic, and strychnine tablets showed that the product|consisted essentially of small proportions of iron, arsenous acid, and strychnine|sulfate. It was alleged to be misbranded in that the representation in the|labeling regarding its efficacy in neuralgia and general debility was false and|misleading since the article was not efficacious for such purpose.|Examination showed that the Strychnine Sulfate Tablets contained not less|than 129 percent of the labeled amount of strychnine sulfate. It was alleged|to be adulterated in that it purported to be or was represented as a drug the|name of which is recognized in the National Formulary, but its strength differed|from and its quality and purity fell below the standard set forth in that com-|pendium, and its difference in strength, quality, and purity was not plainly|stated on the label. It was alleged to be misbranded in that the representation?/|on the label that each tablet contained 1/20 grain of strychnine sulfate, was t^_|false and misleading since each tablet contained more than 1/20 grain of strych-|nine sulfate.|tially of small proportions of mercuric iodide, arsenic iodide, and iron iodide.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the representations in the labeling|that it was a hematinic, hepatic stimulant, and general tonic, were false and|misleading since it was not efficacious for the purposes recommended.|Analysis of the Aiken Tonic Tablets showed that each tablet contained less|than 1 grain of quinine sulfate, namely, 0.73 grain of quinine sulfate, and less|than 1/50 grain of arsenous acid, namely, 0.017 grain of arsenous acid. The|article was alleged to be adulterated in that its labeling represented that'each|tablet contained 1 grain of quinine sulfate and 1/50 grain of arsenous acid;|whereas its strength differed from and its purity and quality fell below such|representations. It was alleged to be misbranded in that the representation|in the labeling that each tablet contained 1 grain of quinine sulfate and 1/50|grain of arsenous acid, was false and misleading. It was alleged to be mis-|branded further in that the representation in the labeling that it was efficacious|as a general tonic in all forms of anemia, was false and misleading since it|was not efficacious for such purposes.|Analysis of the Blaud and Sumbul Compound Tablets showed that each tablet|contained less than 1/50 grain, namely, 0.015 grain of arsenous acid. The|article was alleged to be adulterated in that its labeling represented that each|tablet contained 1/50 grain of arsenous acid; whereas its strength differed from|and its purity and quality fell below such representation. It was alleged to|be misbranded in that the representation in the labeling that each tablet con-|tained 1/50 grain of arsenous acid was false and misleading. It was alleged|to be misbranded further in that its name was false and misleading since the|article contained active ingredients other than Blaud's mass and sumbul.|Analysis of the Ferruginous Tonic Tablets showed that each tablet contained less|than 1/50 grain of arsenous acid, namely 0.014 grain of arsenous acid. The article|was alleged to be adulterated in that its labeling represented that each tablet|contained 1/50 grain of arsenous acid; whereas its strength differed from and|its purity and quality fell below such representation. It was alleged to be|misbranded in that the representation in the labeling that each tablet contained|1/50 grain of arsenous acid was false and misleading. It was alleged to be|misbranded further in that the name was false and misleading since the article|contained ingredients possessing tonic properties besides iron.|Analysis of the Blaud and Manganese Compound Tablets showed that the|article consisted essentially of iron, manganese, arsenic, strychnine, zinc, aloin,|and damiana. It was alleged to be misbranded in that the name was false and|misleading since the tablets contained active ingredients other than Blaud's|mass and manganese compound. One shipment of the article was alleged to|be misbranded further in that the representations in the labeling regarding its|efficacy in anemia, chlorosis, and debility^ whether from impoverished blood or|chronic malaria, were false and misleading since the article was not efficacious|for such purposes.|Analysis of the Cactus Compound Tablets showed that the tablets contained|less than M.00 grain, namely, ?0o grain of nitroglycerin, each. The article|was alleged to be adulterated in that its labeling represented that each tablet|contained ?oo grain of nitroglycerin; whereas its strength differed from and|its purity and quality fell below such representation. It was alleged to be|misbranded in that the representation in the labeling that each tablet con-|tained ?oo grain of nitroglycerin was false and misleading. It was alleged to|be misbranded further in that the name was false and misleading since it|contained active ingredients other than cactus.|Analysis of the Cathartic Compound Tablets showed that they contained less|than 1 grain of calomel, namely, 0.6 grain of calomel each. The article was|alleged to be adulterated in that its labeling represented that each tablet con-|tained 1 grain of calomel; whereas its strength differed from and its purity|and quality fell below such representation. It was alleged to be misbranded|in that the representation in the labeling that each tablet contained 1 grain of|calomel was false and misleading. It was alleged to be misbranded further in|that representations in the labeling regarding its efficacy in bilious fever, hepati-|tis and jaundice, were false and misleading since it was not efficacious for the|purposes recommended.|On January 11, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the products were ordered destroyed.|169. Adulteration and misbranding of Mercurochrome 2% Solution. U. S. v. 145 7/12 Dozen Bottles of Mercurochrome. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00169April, 1941Regent Merchandise CorporationMercurochrome 2% SolutionOctober 24, 1939Baltimore, MdChicago, Ill.Baltimore, MdDistrict of Maryland169F. D. C. No. 1916. Sample No. 1269-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00169ddnj|169. Adulteration and misbranding of Mercurochrome 2% Solution. U. S. V.|145%2 Dozen Bottles of Mereuroehrome. Default decree of- condemnation ^ s|and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 1916. Sample No. 1269-E.) |This product contained a smaller percentage of mercurochrome than that|declared on its label.|On May 3, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of Maryland filed?f|a libel against 145?2 dozen bottles of mercurochrome at Baltimore, Md.,?V|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|October 24, 1939, by the Regent Merchandise Corporation from Chicago, 111.; .|and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded. It was labeled in|part: \"\"Mercurochrome * * * 2? Solution * * * G. Barr & Company,|Chicago.\"\"|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from|and its quality fell below that which it purported or was represented to pos-|sess, namely, of \"\"Mercurochrome Dibrom Oxymercuri Fluorescein 2? Solution\"\";|whereas it contained less than 2 percent by weight of mercurochrome.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the representation on the label that|it consisted of \"\"Mercurochrome Dibrom Oxymercuri Fluorescein 2? Solution,\"\"|was false and misleading since it was not correct.|On May 25, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|170. Adulteration and misbranding of Anterior Pituitary Sex Hormone. U. S. v. 20 Vials of Anterior Pituitary Sex Hormone Solution. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00170April, 1941Difco Laboratories, Inc.Anterior Pituitary Sex HormoneAugust 11, 1939Philadelphia, Pa.Detroit, Mich.Philadelphia, Pa.Eastern District of Pennsylvania170F. D. C. No. 1471. Sample No. 70132-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00170ddnj|170. Adulteration and misbranding of Anterior Pituitary Sex Hormone. U. S.|v. 20 Vials of Anterior Pituitary Sex Hormone Solution. Default decree|of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 1471. Sample No. 70132-D.)|The potency of this product was found to be less than that declared in its|labeling.|On February 8, 1940, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Pennsylvania filed a libel against 20 vials of the above-named product at Phila-|delphia, Pa., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce|on or about August 11, 1939, by the Difco Laboratories, Inc., from Detroit,|Mich.; and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded.|Adulteration was alleged in that the strength of the article differed from|that which it purported or was represented to possess in that it was represented|to contain 100 rat units per cc.; whereas it did not contain 100 rat units per|cc. but did contain a smaller amount.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that representations in the labeling that|it consisted of anterior pituitary sex hormone solution 100 rat units per cc.|was false and misleading since it contained less than 100 rat units per cc.|On March 26, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.|171. Adulteration and misbranding of Slumber Ointment. U. S. v. 56 Packages of Slumber Ointment. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00171April, 1941Nolan Co.Slumber OintmentDecember 14, 1939Toungstown, OhioGreenville, Pa.Toungstown, OhioNorthern District of Ohio171F. D. C. No. 1496. Sample No. 78759-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00171ddnj|171. Adulteration and misbranding of Slumber Ointment. TJ. S. v. 56 Packages|of Slumber Ointment. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 1496. Sample No. 78759-D.)|This product contained mercuric nitrate in excess of the amount declared|on the label and its labeling bore false and misleading representations re-|garding its efficacy in the conditions indicated below.|On February 20, 1940, the United States attorney for the Northern District|of Ohio filed a libel against 56 packages of Slumber Ointment at Toungstown,|Ohio, alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or|about December 14, 1939, by the Nolan Co. from Greenville, Pa.; and charging|that it was adulterated and misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article contained mercuric nitrate (7.96 percent),|calcium and magnesium compounds, turpentine, soap, and water, in a fatty|acid base.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from|and its purity and quality fell below that which it purported to possess.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the representation in the labeling|that it contained 7 percent of mercuric nitrate was false and misleading since|it did not contain 7 percent of mercuric nitrate, but did contain a greater|amount. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that its labeling bore|representations that it was efficacious in the treatment of eczema, salt rheum,|poisons, or other skin diseases, acne, pimply face, grease or rubber poisoning,|blackheads, boils, piles, ringworms, burns and sunburn, dandruff, scaly and|itching scalp, varicose ulcer, warts, ingrown toenails, and itch; that it had?f|worked wonders in killing spotty baldness, the hair growing again in a re-?^-'|markably short time and that for this condition it should be applied once a|was a \"\"grand treatment\"\" and great relief for chillblains, and that if the|ointment seemed to irritate for several days, one should not become alarmed|as that was the \"\"nature of the ointment,\"\" together with a. design showing|\"\"before\"\" and \"\"after,\"\" which representations and design were false and mis-|leading, since they represented that the article was efficacious for the purposes|recommended; whereas it was not efficacious for such purposes.|On June 3, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation!|was entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.|172. Adulteration and alleged misbranding of special formula tablets. U. S. v. 10,980 Tablets Kamala. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00172April, 1941Shores Co., Inc.special formula tabletsNovember 1, 1940Clay Center, Nebr.Cedar Rapids, IowaClay Center, Nebr.District of Nebraska172F. D. C. No. 1860. Sample No. 66759-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00172ddnj|172. Adulteration and alleged misbranding of special formula tablets. U. S. v.|10,980 Tablets Kamala. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 1860. Sample No. 66759-D.)|This veterinary remedy contained less kamala powder and less nicotine|alkaloid than was declared on the label.|On April 24, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of Nebraska|filed a libel against 10,980 Tablets Kamala at Clay Center, Nebr., alleging that|the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about November 1,|1940, by the Shores Co., Inc., from Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and charging that it|was adulterated and misbranded.|Adulteration was alleged in that the strength of said article differed from that|which it purported or was represented to possess since each tablet was repre-|sented to contain 15 grains of kamala powder and 1? grains of nicotine alka-|loid ; whereas each tablet contained not more than 9.2 grains of kamala powder|and not more than 1.08 grains of nicotine alkaloid.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the representation in the labeling|that each tablet contained 15 grains of kamala powder and 1? grains of|nicotine alkaloid, was false and misleading since the tablets contained less|amounts of kamala powder and nicotine alkaloid.|On June 28, 1940, no claimant having-appeared, judgment was entered finding|the product adulterated and ordering that it be condemned and destroyed.|173. Adulteration of IVC A B D G Capsules. U. S. v. 46,000 A B D G Capsules. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00173April, 1941International Vitamin CorporationIVC A B D G CapsulesSeptember 13, 1939San Diego, Calif.Brooklyn, N. Y.San Diego, Calif.Southern District of California173F. D. C. No. 1886. Sample No. 58345-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00173ddnj|173. Adulteration of IVC A B D G Capsules. V. S. v. 46,000 A B D G Capsules.|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 1886.|Sample No. 58345-D.)|This product contained fewer units of vitamins A, Bi, and D than it was|represented to contain.|On April 26, 1940, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|California filed a libel against 46,000 capsules at San Diego, Calif., alleging|that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about September|13, 1939, by the International Vitamin Corporation from Brooklyn, N. Y.; and|charging that it was adulterated.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from|that which it was represented to possess in that it was represented to contain|50 International Units of vitamin Bi, 945 International Units of vitamin D, and|10,000 International Units of vitam A per capsule; whereas it contained not more|than 25 International Units of vitamin Bi, not more than 800 International|Units of vitamin D, and less than 10,000 International Units of vitamin A per|capsule.|On June 12, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|174. Adulteration and misbranding of halibut liver oil capsules. U. S. v. 15 Dozen Packages of Halibut Liver Oil Capsules. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00174April, 1941Gelatin Products Co.halibut liver oil capsulesOctober 11, 1939New York, N. Y.Detroit, Mich.New York, N. Y.Southern District of New York174F. D. C. No. 1616. Sample No. 85923-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00174ddnj|174. Adulteration and misbranding of halibut liver oil capsules. U. S. v. 15|Dozen Packages of Halibut Liver Oil Capsules. Default decree of con-|demnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 1616. Sample No. 85923-D.)|This product was represented to consist of plain halibut liver oil, but con-|sisted in part or other fish-liver oils.|On March 11, 1940, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|New York filed a libel against 15 dozen packages, each containing 100 cap-|sules, of halibut liver oil at New York, N. Y.; alleging that the article had|been shipped in interstate commerce on or about October 11, 1939, by the|Gelatin Products Co. from Detroit, Mich.; and charging that it was adulterated|and misbranded. The article was labeled in part: \"\"Premo Halibut Liver Oil|Capsules Plain.\"\"|Adulteration was alleged in that another fish-liver oil had been substituted|wholly or in part for plain halibut liver oil.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that representations in the labeling that|it consisted of halibut liver oil capsules plain and that it had been prepared|299926?-41?3|from fresh halibut livers biologically standardized, were false and misleading,|since it was not halibut liver oil plain, but was a mixture of various fish-liver|oils. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that it was offered for sale|under the name of another drug.|On April 4, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.|DRUGS AND DEVICES ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF FALSE AND|MISLEADING THERAPEUTIC CLAIMS |DRUGS ALSO FAILING TO BEAR REQUIRED INGREDIENT STATEMENT|175. Misbranding of San-Yak K-L-B Pills. U. S. v. 9 Bottles of Dr. Burnham's San-Yak K-L-B Pills. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00175April, 1941Lee Chemical Co.San-Yak K-L-B PillsMarch 16, 1940Richmond, Ind.Birmingham, Mich.Richmond, Ind.Southern District of Indiana175F. D. C. No, 1817. Sample No. 5761-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00175ddnj|175. Misbranding of San-Yak K-L-B Pills. U. S. v. 9 Bottles of Dr. Bnrnham's|San-Yak K-L-B Pills. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No, 1817. Sample No. 5761-B.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-|ing its efficacy in the conditions indicated below. Moreover, its label failed to|bear a statement of the quantity of contents and also failed to bear a statement|of the active ingredients contained in the product.|On April 20, 1940, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|Indiana filed a libel against nine bottles of the above-named product at Rich-|mond, Ind., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce|on or about March 16, 1940, by the Lee Chemical Co. from Birmingham, Mich.;|and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted chiefly of plant extractives includ-|ing cinchona alkaloids, sandalwood, and emodin-bearing drugs; and magnesium,|calcium, and iron salts.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that its labeling bore representa-|tions that it would be efficacious to reduce sugar in the blood and urine, that -|It would be efficacious in frequent urination and for aches and pains in the|back or joints and piles; that rheumatism, sugar in the blood, and high blood|pressure are frequently caused by the improper functioning of the kidneys and|liver, and that one pill taken daily would often be found beneficial in correcting|these disorders; that it was an efficacious remedy for kidney, liver, and bladder|disorders; that it had been used over 45 years by Dr. Burnham, a well-known|specialist, who had devoted many years to the treatment of persons afflicted|with kidney, liver and bladder disorders, which representations were false and|misleading since the article was not efficacious for the purposes recommended.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the representations in the|labeling that each and all of the 15 ingredients used in the composition of the|product were neither misbranded nor adulterated within the meaning of the|pure food and drug act, was false and misleading. It was alleged to be mis-|branded further in that it was in package form and its label failed to bear a|statement of the quantity of contents; and in that its label failed to bear a|statement of the active ingredients contained in the preparation.|On June 25,1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|176. Misbranding of Dr. Stover's Golden Oil. U. S. v. Six 2-Ounce Bottles and Six 6-Ounce-Bottles of Dr. Stover's Golden Oil. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00176April, 1941Planet Products Co.Dr. Stover's Golden OilFebruary 29, 1940Detroit, Mich.Orlando, Fla.Detroit, Mich.Eastern District of Michigan176F. D. C. No. 2028. Sample No. 4029-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00176ddnj|176. Misbranding of Dr. Stover's Golden Oil. U. S. v. Six 2-Ounce Bottles and|Six 6-Ounce-Bottles of Dr. Stover's Golden Oil. Default decree of con-|demnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 2028. Sample No. 4029-E.)|This product contained a smaller proportion of chloroform than that declared,|and its labeling bore false and misleading representations regarding its efficacy|in the treatment of the conditions indicated below.|On May 25, 1940, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Michigan filed a libel against the above-named quantities of Dr. Stover's Golden|Oil at Detroit, Mich., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate|commerce on or about February 29, 1940, by the Planet Products Co. from|Orlando, Fla.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of mineral oil, oil of|turpentine, oil of mustard, and chloroform (0.88 minims per fluid ounce)|together with a coloring material.|Misbranding was alleged in that the labeling of the article bore representa-|tions that it was an anti-pain remedy, would stop pain and colds instantly, that|it would be efficacious to rub out all bodily aches, pains, lameness and swelling;?(^|? See also N. J. Nos. 141-143, 150, 155, 160, and 171.|that when used In an atomizer to spray nose and throat it would relieve|asthma, hay fever, and sinus trouble quickly and positively and would destroy|the germs lodged in the air passages, that by rubbing on the outside and spray-|ing the throat it would stop sore throat at once; that to stop a cold the throat|and chest should be rubbed thoroughly with the product to relieve the conges-|tion ; that it contained 2 minims of chloroform per ounce; that aching feet and|ankles should be rubbed thoroughly with the article; that for lame back it|should be rubbed in thoroughly and that 5 drops of oil might be taken on a|little sugar 3 times a day; that it should be used as a rub as often as seemed|necessary for ordinary aches and pains, lameness or swelling; that it should be|rubbed on the chest and throat to relieve the congestion of colds and that|when used in a spray, it would destroy the germs of influenza, which repre-|sentations were false and misleading since the article would not be efficacious|for the purposes so recommended.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the label did not bear the|common or usual name of each active ingredient, including the quantity of|chloroform'contained therein.|' Oh July 8) 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment, of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|177. Misbranding of Domino Brand Antiseptic Rubbing Compound. U. S. v. 3 5/6 Gross Packages of Domino Brand Antiseptic Rubbing-Compound. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00177April, 1941Halitosine Co.Domino Brand Antiseptic Rubbing CompoundMarch 25, 1940Memphis, Tenn.St. Louis, MoMemphis, Tenn.Western District of Tennessee177F. D. C. No. 2033. Sample No. 15446-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00177ddnj|177. Misbranding of Domino Brand Antiseptic Rubbing- Compound. TI. S. v. 3%|Gross Packages of Domino Brand Antiseptic Rubbing-Compound. Default|decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 2033. Sample No.| 15446-E.)|The labeling of this product created the false and misleading impression|that it was rubbing alcohol or the equivalent of rubbing alcohol, and failed|to bear a statement of the presence and proportion of isopropyl alcohol con-|tained in the product.|On May 31, 1940, the United States attorney .for, the Western District of|Tennessee filed a libel against 3? gross packages of the above-named product|at Memphis,; Tenni, alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate|commerce on or about March 25, 1940, by the Halitosine Co. from St. Louis,|Mo:; and charging that it was misbranded. .|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that its labeling bore repre-|sentations that it was an antiseptic rubbing-compound to be used instead of|rubbing alcohol; that it was for use for massaging, sponging, and after bath;|that it was cooling and refreshing for hospital and home; that the product|was not affected by T. D. (Treasury Decision) 4963; and that it contained|no SDA (specially denatured), alcohol, which representations created the false|and misleading impression that, the product was rubbery? alcohol or an equiva-|lent of rubbing alcohol. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that its|label failed to bear a statement of'the \"\"presence and proportion of isopropyl|alcohol that it contained.-|On. July 6, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|NOSE DROPS AND INHALERS|178. Misbranding of Hill's Nose Drops. U. S. v. 35 Packages of Hill's Nose Drops. Consent decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00178April, 1941Anacin Co. (Wyeth Chemical Co., distributors, Jersey City, N. J.)Hill's Nose DropsMarch 1, 1940Atlanta, Ga.Jersey City, N. J.Atlanta, Ga.Northern District of Georgia178F. D. C. No. 1744. Sample No. 618-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00178ddnj|178. Misbranding- of Hill's Nose Drops. TJ. S. v. 35 Packages of Hill's Nose Drops.|Consent decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 1744.|Sample No. 618-E.)|This product was labeled with false and misleading representations regarding|its efficacy in the conditions indicated below, and it occupied less than 24 per-|cent of the capacity of the packages in which it was packed.|On April 3, 1940, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Georgia filed a libel against 35 packages of Hill's Nose Drops at Atlanta, Ga.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|March 1, 1940, by the Anacin Co. (Wyeth Chemical Co., distributors, Jersey|City, N. J.) from Jersey City, N. J.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Misbranding was alleged in that the labeling bore representations that it|was efficacious for the quick relief of simple or nasal catarrh and that it would|bring prompt relief in cases of tightness in the throat, which were false and|misleading since the article was, not efficacious for the purposes so recommended.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the containers were so made,|formed, or filled as to be misleading.|On May 21, 1940, the Wyeth Chemical Co., respondent, having alleged own-|ership and having admitted the allegations of the libel and consented to the|entry of a decree, judgment of condemnation was entered and the product was|ordered destroyed.|179. Misbranding of Holford's Famous Inhaler. U. S. v. 294 Packages of Holford's Famous Inhaler. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00179April, 1941Holford Co.Holford's Famous InhalerFebruary 13, 1940Los Angeles, Calif.Minneapolis, Minn.Los Angeles, Calif.Southern District of California179F. D. C. No. 1845. Sample No. 7331-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00179ddnj|179. Misbranding: of Hertford's Famous Inhaler. IT. S. v. 294 Packages of|Holford's Famous Inhaler. Default decree of condemnation and destruc-|tion. (F. D. C. No. 1845. Sample No. 7331-E.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-|ing its efficacy in the conditions indicated below.|On April 22, 1940, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|California filed a libel against 294 packages of Holford's Inhaler at Los Angeles,|Calif., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or|about February 13, 1940, by the Holford Co. from Minneapolis, Minn.; and|charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article was a mixture of plant material including|eucalyptus leaves and lavender flowers, saturated with essential oils including|mustard oil, eucalyptus oil, and camphor.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that its labeling bore repre-|sentations that it was efficacious in the treatment of catarrh, headaches, asthma,|hayfever, sinus and many other troubles, headaches caused by eyestrain,|nervousness, stomach trouble, inhaling vapors of gases, strong paints or sim-|ilar causes; cold in the lungs, simple sore throat, constant coughing, asthma,|tonsilitis, toothache and neuralgia in the jaws or temple, that its constant,|use was recommended for hay fever and catarrh, that on dusty dry days or|when one has been sitting too long in a close stuffy room inhaling a few times|would clear the head and dispel drowsiness; that inhaling the vapors at the first|feeling of faintness would usually relieve fainting spells, that for those who|have trouble arising in the morning due to sluggish or lazy feeling inhaling the|vapors from the cork would give one a vigorous feeling; that it would afford|quick relief from distress of minor troubles which affect the head or throat,|which representations were false and misleading since the article was not|efficacious for the purposes recommended.|On May 15, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was.|entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.|205. Misbranding of Shivar Spring Water. U. S. v. 39 Carboys of Shivar Spring Water. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00205April, 1941Shivar Springs, Inc.Shivar Spring WaterNovember 24, 1939Charlotte, N. C.Shelton, S. C.Charlotte, N. C.Western District of North Carolina205F. D. C. No. 1253. Sample No. 87460-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00205ddnj|805. Misbranding of Shivar Spring \"\"Water. U. S. v. 39 Carboys of Shivar Spring|Water. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No.|1253. Sample No. 87460-D.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations|regarding its efficacy in the conditions indicated hereinafter.|On January 3, 1940, the United States attorney for the Western District of|North Carolina filed a libel\"\" against 39 carboys of Shivar Spring Water at|Charlotte, N. C, alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate com-|merce on or about November 24, 1939, by Shivar Springs, Inc., from Shelton,|S. C.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article was a slightly mineralized, slightly alkaline|water containing less than one-half of 1 percent of inorganic salts consisting|mainly of calcium and sodium sulfates, chlorides, and bicarbonates.|The article Was alleged to be misbranded in that its labeling bore representa-|tions that two dr three glasses (a pint or more) of the article taken in the|morning at least 30 minutes before breakfast would dissolve and wash away|any catarrhal mucus, would cleanse the stomach and bowel and prepare them|for food and would also flush the kidneys, help to wash out impurities of the|blood which may have accumulated during the night and cleanse and refresh|the system;.that a glass with each meal sipped slowly as one ate would aid|poor appetite and poor stomach; that patrons had reported special benefits,|in cases, of dyspepsia and indigestion, from drinking the water hot before|meals, that the heat would jstimulate the stomach ajid the alkaline water would|dissolve and wash away the catarrhal mucus; that ;in?cases of functional dis-|order of the kidneys and bladder it might be found'keCessary, temporarily, to|use the water less frequently than recommended; that the article was mildly|laxative but in cases of obstinate constipation a teaspoonful of Rochelle salts|dissolved in a glass of the water should be taken 30 minutes before breakfast|and repeated every second or third morning as necessary until the bowels act|regularly, which representations were false and misleading since the article was|not efficacious for the purposes for which it was recommended in the said|statements.|On February 8, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.|813. Misbranding of Purola Female Pills. U. S. v. 44 Packages of Purola Female Pills. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00813December 1943McKesson & Bobbins, Inc.Purola Female PillsNovember 19, 1941Seattle, Wash.Portland, Oreg.Seattle, Wash.Western District of Washington813F. D. C. No. 6864. Sample No. 93031-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00813ddnj|813. Misbranding: of Purola Female Pills. U. S. v. 44 Packages of Purola Female|Pills. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No.|6864. Sample No. 93031-E.)|On February 18, 1942, the United States attorney for the Western District|of Washington filed a libel against 44 packages of Purola Female Pills at Seattle,|Wash., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on|or about November 19, 1941, by McKesson & Bobbins,' Inc., from Portland, Oreg.|The article was labeled in part: \"\"Purola Female Pills * * * Packed for|Blumauer-Frank Drug Co. Portland, Oregon.\"\"|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of laxative plant drugs|Including aloes, oil of tansy, alkaloidal material, probably derived from ergot,|and iron sulfate.|It was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that it was a laxative when used as|directed, but its labeling failed to bear warnings that it should not be used|present, and that frequent or continued use might result in dependence upon|laxative; (2) in that the statements (carton) \"\"Female Pills\"\" and (slip in box)|\"\"Take one pill three times daily for four or five days previous to expected|period,\"\" were false and misleading since they created the impression that it|would be effective in promoting the menstrual flow, whereas it would not be so|effective.|On July 22,1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|180. Misbranding of Nazene Drops for Nose and Throat. U. S. v. 66 Packages of Nazene Drops for Nose and Throat. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00180April, 1941Brunswig Drug Co.Nazene Drops for Nose and ThroatAugust 3, 1939Phoenix, Ariz.Los Angeles, Calif.Phoenix, Ariz.District of Arizona180F. D. C. No. 1874. Sample No. 7111-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00180ddnj|180. Misbranding of Nazene Drops for Nose and Throat. U. S. v. 66 Packages of|Nazene Drops for Nose and Throat. Default decree of condemnation and|destruction. (F. D. C. No. 1874. Sample No. 7111-E.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations|regarding its efficacy in the conditions indicated below, and examination of|the packages in which it was packed showed that they were only approximately|one-fourth full.|On April 30, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of Arizona|filed a libel against 66 packages of the above-named product at Phoenix, Ariz.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate comerce by the|Brunswig Drug Co. from Los Angeles, Calif., on or about August 3, 1939; and|charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted of small proportions of ephedrine,|chlorobutanol, menthol, and cinnamic aldehyde in a mineral-oil base.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that its labeling bore representations|that it was a treatment for minor sore throat, for superficial inflammatory|conditions of the nose and throat; that it was useful for huskiness, stuffiness of|the head and similar superficial inflammatory conditions of the nose and|throat, which were false and misleading since the article was not efficacious|for the purposes so recommended.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the containers were so|made, formed, or filled as to be misleading.|On July 22, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|181. Misbranding of Premo Nasal Drops. U. S. v. 426 Packages of Premo Nasal Drops. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00181April, 1941Premo Pharmaceutical LaboratoriesPremo Nasal DropsDecember 26, 1939Atlanta, Ga.New York, N, Y.Atlanta, Ga.Northern District of Georgia181F. D. C. No. 1741. Sample No. 622-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00181ddnj|181. Misbranding of Prcmo Nasal Drops. IT. S. v. 426 Packages of Premo Nasal|Drops. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No.|1741. Sample No. 622-B.)|The bottle and carton labels of this product bore false and misleading|representations regarding its efficacy in the conditions indicated below. Fur-|thermore, the bottles contained smaller quantities of the product than that|declared on the label; and they occupied less than 33 percent of the capacity|of the cartons.|On April 3, 1940, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Georgia filed a libel against 426 packages of Premo Nasal Drops at Atlanta,|Ga., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or?(^|about December 26, 1939, by the Premo Pharmaceutical Laboratories from:|New York, N, Y.; and charging that it was misbranded.|sentations that it would aid in temporarily relieving the discomfort of nasal|catarrh and that it was efficacious in the relief of mucous inflammation, which|were false and misleading since it was not efficacious for the purposes for|which it was so recommended.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the statements (bottle)|\"\"? Fid. Oz.\"\" and (carton) \"\"? Fluid Ounce\"\" were false and misleading since|the volume was less than ? fluid ounce. It was alleged to be misbranded|further in that its containers were so made, formed, or filled as to be mis-|leading.|On April 20, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|182. Misbranding of Medovapo Inhaler. U. S. v. 313 Retail Kits of Medovapo Inhaler. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00182April, 1941Med-O-Vapo Co.Medovapo InhalerJuly 22, 1939Chicago, Ill.Minneapolis, Minn.Chicago, Ill.Northern District of Illinois182F. D. C. No. 1008. Sample No. 46609-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00182ddnj|182. Misbranding: of Medovapo Inhaler. U. S. v. 313 Retail Kits of Medovapo|Inhaler. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No.|1008. Sample No. 46G09-D.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations re-|garding its efficacy in the conditions indicated below. Moreover, it contained|materially less benzoic acid than the amount declared on the label.|On November 22, 1939, the United States attorney for the Northern District|of Illinois filed a libel against 313 kits of Medovapo Inhaler at Chicago,|111., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on|or about July 22, 1939, by the Med-O-Vapo Co. from Minneapolis, Minn.; and|charging that it was misbranded.|Examination showed that the article consisted of an inhaling device and a|bottle of medicament consisting chiefly of alcohol (57.8 percent), benzoic acid|(1.9 grains per fluid ounce), menthol, camphor, thymol, pine oil, and water.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that representations in the labeling that|it was a modern inhaling treatment of hay fever, sinus pains, catarrhal con-|gestion, and bronchitis; that the benefit of inhaling treatment for helping|nature throw off germs was generally recognized by physicians and known|by experience to many people; that most sufferers from sinus pains and|catarrhal congestion find greatest relief in the application of heat as directly|as -possible to the affected region and that the article provided the most|direct and effective method of applying heat to the affected sinus regions;|that most users get relief after the first few inhalations; that in many|cases it had helped to reduce the swelling and had assisted nature in draining|the congested sinus cavities, thus releasing the pressure on the nerves which|cause the pain; that Medovapo inhalations would usually help and generally|had been found to be more effective than outside dry heat applications or open|steam inhalation; that sore throat, bronchitis, and other similar afflictions|from colds had also been treated with Medovapo inhalations to help reduce|the swelling, loosen the mucus, and lessen the tightness; that the product offered|a convenient, inexpensive means of breathing water-washed, pollen-free, medi-|cated air at any time, wherever one might be; that by using hot water in|the inhaler and adding a few drops of Medovapo Inhalant (or one's doctor's|prescription) one would enjoy the additional benefits of mild soothing medica-|tion and heated vapor, which would have a flushing, cleansing action on the|irritated membranes and help nature in eliminating the mucus and make the|relief more lasting; that many hay fever sufferers had discovered that it|helps greatly to start Medovapo treatment 2 or 3 weeks in advance of the|usual hay fever season; that four 10-minute treatments daily during the|season generally would keep them comfortable; that even with cold water|the device was effective; that in cases where the nasal passages had become|so irritated that they were too sensitive for such a mild medication as the|Inhalant that hot or cold water might be used, then as the irritation was|relieved one drop of the Inhalant might be used and later the amount in-|creased; that it was advisable to use the device at least every night and|morning the year round by those who experience symptoms similar to hay|fever, because they are allergic to house dust, soap, feathers, and many other|things that are in the air all year round; that allergic asthma sufferers had|reported that four 10-minute treatments of the device daily would usually|leave the passages so free that symptoms were not as severe as to cause any|great distress and that the throat tube as well as the usual bulbs were used|for this treatment; which representations were false and misleading with|reference to the effects of the article in hay fever, disease conditions of the|sinus, catarrhal congestion, bronchitis, sore throat, and allergic asthma.|The article was alleged to be misbranded further in that the statement|\"\"Contains * * * Acid Benzoic 5 gr. * * * Q. S. 1 ounce\"\" was false|and misleading since it contained materially less than 5 grains of benzoic|acid per fluid ounce.|On January 8, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-?.|tion was entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.|VAPORIZING DEVICES|183. Misbranding of Jiffy Vaporizer. U. S. v. 27 Packages of Jiffy Vaporizer. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00183April, 1941Spielman & Co.Jiffy VaporizerJanuary 23, 1940Philadelphia, Pa.New York, N. Y.Philadelphia, Pa.Eastern District of Pennsylvania183F. D. C. No. 1740. Sample No. 14682-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00183ddnj|183. Misbranding1 of Jiffy Vaporizer. U. S. v. 27 Packages of Jiffy Vaporizer.|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 1740.|Sample No. 14682-E.)|This product consisted of an electrically heated device intended to produce|steam. Its labeling bore false and misleading representations regarding its|efficacy for the relief of bronchitis, asthma, hay fever, whooping cough, laryn-|gitis, and catarrh; and for purifying the air.|On April 1, 1940, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Pennsylvania filed a libel against 27 packages of Jiffy Vaporizer at Philadelphia,|Pa., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or|about January 23,1940, by Spielman & Co. from New York, N. Y.; and charging|that it was misbranded for the reasons appearing above.|On May 2, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.|184. Misbranding of electric vaporizers. U. S. v. 181 Packages of Kaz Electric Vaporizers. Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered released under bond for relabeling.ddnj00184April, 1941Kaz Manufacturing Co.electric vaporizersNovember 25, 1939Cleveland, OhioNew York, N. Y.Cleveland, OhioNorthern District of Ohio184F. D. C. No. 1549. Sample No. 33180-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00184ddnj|184. Misbranding of electric vaporizers. IT. S. v. 181 Packages of Kaz Electric|Vaporizers. Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered released|under bond for relabeling. (F. D. C. No. 1549. Sample No. 33180-D.)|This product was an electric heating device for producing steam and a|bottle of a liquid labeled \"\"Kaz For Colds,\"\" consisting essentially of oils|of eucalyptus, peppermint, wintergreen, and lavender together with menthol|and camphor dissolved in a mineral-oil base. Its labeling bore false and|misleading representations regarding its efficacy in the conditions indicated|below.|On February 29, 1940, the United States attorney for the Northern District|of Ohio filed a libel against 181 vaporizers at Cleveland, Ohio, alleging that the|article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about November 25,|1939, by the Kaz Manufacturing Co. from New York, N. Y.; and charging|that it was misbranded.|The device was alleged to be misbranded in that its labeling bore repre-|sentations that it was efficacious and effective in the treatment of throat,|lung, and nasal congestions including croup, whooping cough, asthma, chest|colds, and similar complaints; that it would penetrate the sore, inflamed,|and congested membranes of the nose, throat, and chest and carry with it|the soothing, beneficial vapors of a scientifically prepared medication combined|in correct proportions to give instant relief; and that it would give quick|relief to throat and nasal congestions, which were false and misleading since|it was not efficacious for the purposes recommended.|On August 21, 1940, the Kaz Manufacturing Co., claimant, having admitted|the allegations of the libel, judgment of condemnation was entered and|the product was ordered released under bond on condition that it be relabeled|under the supervision of the Food and Drug Administration.|185. Misbranding of vaporizers. U. S. v. 251 American Electric Vaporizers. Decree ordering product released under bond for relabeling.ddnj00185April, 1941American Sundries Co. Inc.vaporizersNovember 10, 1939, to February 8, 1940Pittsburgh, Pa.Brooklyn, N. Y.Pittsburgh, Pa.Western District of Pennsylvania185F. D. C. No. 1617. Sample No. 3104-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00185ddnj|185. Misbranding of vaporizers. TJ. S. v. 251 American Electric Vaporizers.|Decree ordering product released under bond for relabeling. (F. D. C.|No. 1617. Sample No. 3104-E.)|This device consisted of a jar equipped with two electrodes and was intended|for the production of vapors. Its labeling bore false and misleading represen-|tations regarding its efficacy in the conditions indicated below.|On March 12, 1940, the United States attorney for the Western District of|Pennsylvania filed a libel against 251 vaporizers at Pittsburgh, Pa., alleging|that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce within the period from|on or about November 10,1939, to on or about February 8, 1940, by the American|Sundries Co. Inc., from Brooklyn, N. Y.; and charging that it was misbranded.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that its labeling bore representations that|it was efficacious as an efficient agency of administration in cases of bronchitis,?(|asthma, whooping cough, laryngitis, and other similar respiratory ailments,?V_|that by vaporizing a few drops of pine needle oil it would purify the air in|sleeping rooms, living rooms, or in public gathering quarters, which representa-?^|lions were false and misleading since it was not efficacious for the purposes so|^recommended.|On May 1, 1940, the American Sundries Co., Inc., having admitted the allega-|tions of the libel and having petitioned leave to relabel the device, a decree was|entered ordering its release under bond conditioned that it be so relabeled.|186. Misbranding of electric vaporizers. U. S. v. 22 Electric Vaporizers. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00186April, 1941Practical Products Co.electric vaporizersFebruary 10, 1940Philadelphia, Pa.New Yorky N. Y.Philadelphia, Pa.Eastern District of Pennsylvania186F. D. C. No. 1618. Sample No. 14301-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00186ddnj|186. Misbranding- of electric vaporizers. TJ. S. v. 22 Electric Vaporizers. De|fault decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. -C. No. 1618. Sample|No. 14301-E.)|. This product \"\"was a kettle-shaped electric vaporizing device. Its labeling bore|false and misleading representations regarding its efficacy in the conditions|indicated below.|Oh/March 11, 1940, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Pennsylvania filed a libel against 22 electric vaporizers at Philadelphia, Pa.,-|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|February-10-,|' 1940, by the Practical Products Co. from New Yorky N. Y.; and|charging? that it was misbranded. The article was labeled in part: \"\"The|Prak-t-kal Electric Vaporizer.\"\"|The device was alleged to be misbranded in that the labeling bore representa-|tions that-it> was & -practical road to health; that it was efficacious ? in the|treatment of asthma, bronchitis, laryngitis, and whooping cough; that it would|bring prompt relief for asthma and bronchitis; that it would generate healing,|medicated vapors, and that these healing vapors would penetrate the throat|and nasal passages and relieve congestion from head to chest, which representa-|tions were false and misleading since it was not efficacious for the purposes|recommended.|On March 30, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the article was ordered destroyed.|187. Misbranding of electric vaporizers. U. S. v. 17 Rogers Electric Vaporizers. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00187April, 1941Rogers Electric Laboratories, Inc.electric vaporizersOctober 9, 1939Minneapolis, Minn.Cleveland, OhioMinneapolis, Minn.District of Minnesota187F. D. C. No. 1363. Sample No. 74442-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00187ddnj|187. Misbranding of electric vaporizers. U. S. v. 17 Rogers Electric Vaporizers.|\"\" Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 1363.|Sample No. 74442-D.)|This product was an electric device for vaporizing water* the vapor passing|over cotton which had been saturated with some medicinal ;agent. Its labeling|bore false and misleading representations regarding its efficacy in the conditions|indicated below.|On January 18, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of Minnesota|filed a libel against 17 electric vaporizers at Minneapolis, Minn., alleging that|the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about October 9,|1939, by the Rogers Electric Laboratories, Inc., from Cleveland, Ohio; and|charging that it was misbranded.|The device was alleged to be misbranded in that the representations in the|labeling . that it was efficacious in the treatment VJO1 bronchitis, pneumonia,|influenza, and asthma, were false and -misleading since-jrt was not efficacious for|such purposes.|On March 19, 1940* no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|188. Misbranding of vaporizers. U. S. v. 33 Sterno Vaporizers. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00188April, 1941S. Sternau & Co., Inc.vaporizersJanuary 27, and March 1, 1940Jacksonville, Fla.New York, N. Y.Jacksonville, Fla.Southern District of Florida188F. D. C. No. 1696. Sample Nos. 481-E, 483-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00188ddnj|188. Misbranding of vaporizers. U. S. v. 33 Sterno Vaporizers. Default decree|of condemnation and destruction. ? (F. D. C. No. 1696. Sample Nos. 481-E,|483-E.)|This product was a device designed to vaporize water and other liquids.|Its labeling bore false and misleading representations regarding its efficacy in|the conditions indicated below.|On March 26, 1940, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|Florida filed a libel against 33 Sterno Vaporizers at Jacksonville, Fla., alleging|the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about January 27,|and March 1, 1940, by S. Sternau & Co., Inc., from New York, N. Y.; and|charging that it was misbranded.|The device was alleged to be misbranded in that its labeling bore representa-|tions that it was efficacious for quick relief for coughs and sore throat, bron-|chitis, hay fever, whooping cough, catarrh, and asthma; that it was efficacious|in the treatment of coughs, grippe, bronchitis, hay fever, sinus, influenza,|coughs, sore throat, and related ills; that inhalation is the recognized modern|method of scientifically combating inflammation and congestion of the respira-|tory organs; that the warm vapors would open up the membranes and tissues,|permitting the antiseptic, healing ingredients to penetrate quickly and effectively|to surfaces not otherwise reached, that such symptoms as coughing, throat|irritations, chest congestion or increased body temperature should receive|instant attention and that inattention to seemingly slight ills often results in|serious future complications and that inhalation would in most cases prevent|further development, which representations were false and misleading since|the device was not efficacious for the purposes for which it was so recommended.|On July 18, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|189. Misbranding of Vapo-Spa Vapor Bath. U. S. v. 20 Reta11 Packages of Vapo-Spa Vapor Bath. Consent decree of condemnation. Product released under bond to be relabeled.ddnj00189April, 1941Health-Glo Laboratories, Inc.Vapo-Spa Vapor BathFebruary 10 and March 4, 1940Washington, D. C.New York, N. Y.Washington, D. C.District of Columbia189F. D. C. No. 1786. Sample No. 1806-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00189ddnj|189. Misbranding: of Vapo-Spa Vapor Bath. U. S. v. 20 Retail Packages of|Vapo-Spa \"\"Vapor Bath. Consent decree of condemnation. Product re- I|leased under bond to be relabeled. (F. D. C. No. 1786. Sample No. 1806-E.) >|The packages of this product each contained a rubberized cloth garment, a|device for producing vapors, a bottle of Vapo-Spa Pine Needle Oil, and circulars.|Its labeling bore false and misleading representations regarding its efficacy in|the conditions indicated hereinafter.|On April 10, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of Columbia|filed a libel against 20 retail packages of Vapo-Spa Vapor Bath at Washington,|D. C, alleging that the article had ben shipped in interstate commerce on oi|about February 10 and March 4, 1940, by the Health-Glo Laboratories, Inc.,|from New York, N. Y.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Examination of the liquid showed that it consisted essentially of pine-needle|oil.|The article, was alleged to be misbranded in that its labeling bore representa-|tions that it was efficacious as a scientific aid to slenderizing, would stimulate|and cleanse respiratory tracts when the vapor was inhaled, and would help to|relieve grippe, would aid the vapor to remove bacteria-laden <|ust carrying mil-|lions of unseen micro-organisms picked up by the skin and body every day;|that it was a scientific aid to good health, was a new health and beauty sensa-|tion which would help to guard the health and keep one physically fit, would|reduce over-weight, take inches off the waist, and purify the blood; that the|respiratory tracts were reached by the beneficial vapor, and that it would help|to relieve insomnia, arthritis, lumbago, and many other ailments, would loosen|phlegm, and help break up local congestion in the air passages, and would ma-|terially help drive cold germs from the system, congestion from the throat and|lungs, and stiffness and soreness from the entire body, were false and misleading|since the article would not be efficacious for the purposes recommended.|On May 8, 1940, the Health-Glo Laboratories, Inc.* claimant, having admitted|the allegations of the libel and having consented to the entry of a decree,|judgment of condemnation was entered, and it was ordered that the product|be released under bond conditioned that it be relabeled under the supervision|of the Food and Drug Administration.|THERAPEUTIC LAMPS AND HEAT PACKS|190. Misbranding of therapeutic lamps. U. S. v. 12 Therapeutic Lamps with Bulb. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00190April, 1941Rodale Manufacturing Co.therapeutic lampsJanuary 19 and February 7, 1940Atlanta, Ga.Emaus, Pa.Atlanta, Ga.Northern District of Georgia190F. D. C. No. 1746. Sample No. 437-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00190ddnj|100. Misbranding: of therapeutic lamps. IT. S. v. 12 Therapeutic Lamps with|Bulb. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No.|1746. Sample No. 437-E.)|This device consisted of an incandescent bulb fitted into a reflector attached|to a wooden handle. Its labeling bore false and misleading representations|regarding its efficacy in the conditions indicated below.|On April 3, 1940, the United States- attorney for the Northern District of|Georgia filed a libel against 12 therapeutic lamps at Atlanta, Ga., alleging that|the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about January 19|and February 7, 1940, by the Rodale Manufacturing Co. from Emaus, Pa.;|and charging that it was misbranded.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that its labeling bore representations|that it was efficacious in the treatment of colds, headaches, backaches, chest|inflammation, rheumatism, lumbago, neuralgia; that its regular application for|a few minutes a day would do wonders for the health; that it would invigorate|tissue and that once the tissue is exposed to the rays nature itself promotes|healing and cures by increased circulation, which representations were false|and misleading since it was not efficacious for such purposes.|On April 20, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the article was ordered destroyed.|191. Misbranding of infra-red therapeutic lamps. U. S. v. 19 Mastercraft Infra-Red Therapeutic Lamps Type No. 62. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00191April, 1941Northern Electric Co.infra-red therapeutic lampsOctober 20 and November 25, 1939St. Louis, Mo.Chicago, Ill.St. Louis, Mo.Eastern District of Missouri191F. D. C. No. 1349. Sample Nos. 84842-D, 84843-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00191ddnj|191. Misbranding: of infra-red therapeutic lamps. TJ. S. v. 19 Mastercraft Infra-|Red Therapeutic Lamps Type Jio. 62. Default decree of condemnation|and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 1349. Sample Nos. 84842-D, 84843-D.) |This device consisted of. a table model reflector lamp fitted with an incan-?\\|descent bulb. Its labeling bore false .and misleading representations regarding|its efficacy in the conditions indicated below.|On or about January 15, 1940, the United States attorney for the Eastern?'|District of Missouri filed a libel against 19 of the above-named devices at St.|on or about October 20 and November 25, 1939, by the Northern Electric Co.|from Chicago, 111.; and charging that it was misbranded.|The device was alleged to be misbranded in that its labeling bore represen-|tations that it would help one to fight aches and pains with nature's soothing|healing rays from the sun; that from the flaming disk of the sun are cast|forth the mysterious infra-red rays without which life on this planet would be|impossible; that such rays penetrate deep into the flesh, stimulate the nerves,|and cause greatly increased circulatory action which destroys infections, re-|builds diseased tissues, and promotes bodily health and vitality; that the device|would be efficacious in the treatment of backache due to weakness or fatigue,|bladder trouble, bronchitis, catarrh, eczema, rheumatism, cramps, earaches,|hysteria, lumbago, menstrual pains (dysmenorrhea), toothache, pain, neuralgia,|neuritis, sleeplessness or insomnia and sciatica; that a catarrhal condition of|the bladder would be relieved by a 10-minute application; that the device|would afford a very prompt and effective treatment for colds in the head; that|congestion would be broken up and inflammation relieved by applying the|device to the blood vessels at the back of the head and along the spine; that|general body treatments would be useful in stimulating the blood; and that with|the application of the device heat rays penetrate down into the tissues, muscles,|and even vital organs, bringing comfort and relief, which representations were|false and misleading.|On February 9, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|814. Misbranding of Stevens Concentrated Mineral Water. U. S. v. 67 Bottles of Stevens Concentrated Mineral Water. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00814December 1943E. A. StevensStevens Concentrated Mineral WaterMarch 2, 1942Washington, D. C.Dawson Springs, Ky.Washington, D. C.District of Columbia814F. D. C. No. 7522. Sample 87789-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00814ddnj|814. Misbranding of Stevens Concentrated Mineral Water. U. S. v. 67 Bottles|of Stevens Concentrated Mineral Water. Default decree of condemnation|and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 7522. Sample 87789-E.)|On May 15, 1942, the United States, attorney for the District of Columbia filed|a libel against the above-named product at Washington, D. C, alle^iiig\"\,fhat the|article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about March 2, 1942, by|E. A. Stevens, from Dawson Springs, Ky.|Analysis of a sample of the articlei'sBowed that it consisted essentially of water,|magnesium sulfate, calcium sulfate and small proportions of sodium sulfate,|sodium chloride, calcium carbonate, and potassium chloride.|The article was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that its labeling failed to bear|adequate directions for use since it was a laxative and the directions provided|for continuous administration, whereas a laxative should not be used continu-|ously; (2) in that its labeling failed to warn that a laxative should not be taken|in cases of nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, or other symptoms of appendicitis,|and failed to| warn that its frequent or continued use might result in dependence|upon a laxative; and (3) in that statements in the labeling which represented|and suggested that it had given remarkable results for years in many of the ail-|ments of the human system, was efficacious as a regulator and would be effica-|cious to maintain and restore health, would be efficacious in the treatment|of liver, kidney, and stomach trouble, dropsical trouble, rheumatism, malaria,|and poor appetite, loss of weight, nervousness, headaches, gas on the stomach,|sleeplessness, pains in the legs and a generally depressed condition of the spirits,|stomach trouble, constipation, pains in the side, gall-bladder trouble, dead liver,|chronic gastric, prostrated gland suffering, flu, run-down condition, acute and|chronic nephritis, bedema, dyspnoea and anasarca with indications for the elimi-|nation of both fluids and toxins to prevent uremia, engorged condition of the liver|or kidneys, gout or any of the uric acid diatheses, bilious conditions, jaundice,|intestinal derangements, anemias chlorasis, all blood and constitutional diseases,|sluggish portal circulation, coated tongue, and sallow complexion, were false and|misleading since the article would not be efficacious for such purposes.|On June 29, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|DRUGS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF DEVIATION FROM OFFICIAL OR|OWN STANDARDS|192. Misbranding of infra-red lamps. U. S. v. 5 Infra-Red Lamps. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00192April, 1941F. C. Hermann Co.infra-red lampsDecember 28, 1939Cincinnati, OhioChicago, Ill.Cincinnati, OhioSouthern District of Ohio192F. D. C. No. 1343. Sample No. 64982-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00192ddnj|192. Misbranding of infra-red lamps. U. S. v. 5 Infra-Red Lamps. Default|decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 1343. Sample No.|64982-D.)|This product consisted of a metal goose-neck table model reflector lamp|fitted with a heating unit.|On January 12, 1940, the United States attorney for the Southern District|of Ohio filed a libel against five infra-red lamps at Cincinnati, Ohio, alleging|that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about December|28, 1939, by the F. C. Hermann Co. from Chicago, 111.; and charging that it was|misbranded. The article was labeled in part: \"\"No. 21 Doctorheat Table Model|Infra Red Lamp.\"\"|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the representations in the labeling|regarding its use in the treatment of arthritis, asthma, boils, bronchitis, cold|in chest, cold in^head, earache, influenza, insomnia, neuritis, painful menstru-|ation, pleurisy, pneumonia, sinus trouble, and sore throat, were false and mis-|leading since the said article would have no therapeutic value beyond that|produced by its warming effect and would not constitute an adequate treatment|for the disease conditions named.|On March 15, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the article was ordered destroyed.|193. Misbranding of infra-red ray lamps. U. S. v. 95 Infra-Red Ray Lamps. Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered released under bond for relabeling.ddnj00193April, 1941Knapp Monarch Co.infra-red ray lampsDecember 20, 1939Chicago, Ill.St. Louis, Mo.Chicago, Ill.Northern District of Illinois193F. D. C. No. 1347. Sample No. 46744-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00193ddnj|193. Misbranding of infra-red ray lamps. IT. S. v. 95 Infra-Red Ray Lamps.|Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered released under bond|for relabeling. (F..D. C. No. 1347. Sample No. 46744-D.)|This product was a table model lamp fitted with a heating element. Its|labeling bore false and misleading representations regarding its efficacy in the|conditions indicated below.|On January 17, 1940, the United States attorney for the Northern District|of Illinois filed a libel against 95 infra-red ray lamps at Chicago, 111., alleging|that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about December|20, 1939, from St. Louis, Mo., by the Knapp Monarch Co.; and charging that|it was misbranded. It was labeled in part: \"\"No. L-ll-9 Modern Infra Red Ray|Lamp.\"\"|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the labeling bore representations that|the infra-red rays would penetrate deeply under the surface of the skin, forming|heat units which would cause an excess accumulation of blood-this action|being known as hyperemia; that it would produce beneficial chemical changes,|increase nutrition, and cause the white corpuscles to destroy any microbes which|might be present; that by producing hyperemia through the' use of the infra-red|rays, nature would be aided in the natural curative powers which reside in|the blood; that daily repetition of the treatments would tend to restore normal|conditions gradually; that the circulation of the skin would become more ac-|899926?-41 4|tive and the amount of the blood in the over-burdened internal organs would|be diminished as the vital resistance of the tissues was increased; that catarrhs|of the stomach and intestines would tend to disappear, the digestive secretions|would resume their normal functioning, and the liver, adrenals, lymphatic|glands, and other poison-destroying, organs would again become effective; that|infra-red rays would hasten the disappearance of fat by oxidation of excess|tissue; that they were of great value in the treatment of organic or functional|heart disease because from one-third to one-half of the entire volume of blood|could be stored in the capillary system, thereby relieving the heart of its hard-|est work; that women experiencing trouble at menstruation would find comfort-|ing relief by using infra-red rays; that it was beneficial for abscesses or boils,|angina pectoris, asthma, biliousness, bronchitis, colds, earache, felon, gangrene,|stomach disturbances, heart disease, infections, insomnia, itch, kidney diseases,|laryngitis, liver diseases; lumbago, muscle diseases, delayed or painful menstrua-|tion, rheumatism, sciatica, gout, neuralgia, neuritis, sinus trouble, sprains, sore|throat, stiff neck, swollen glands, ulcers, and wounds, that infra-red rays were|also beneficial for inflammation of the gall bladder, inflammation of the bladder,|pus in the pleural cavities, hysteria, nervous diseases, inflammation of the|ovaries, inflammation of the bone membranes, inflammation of veins, inflamma-|tion of the fallopian tubes, septicemia, and inflammation of joints, which repre-|sentations were false and misleading.|On January 31, 1940, the claimant, the Knapp Monarch Co., having admitted|the allegations of the libel, judgment of condemnation was entered and the|product was ordered released under bond for the purpose of relabeling in|accordance with the provisions of the law.|194. Misbranding of therapeutic lamps. U. S. v. 144 Relievo Therapeutic Lamps. Deeree of condemnation. Product released under bond.ddnj00194April, 1941Kas-Kel Electric Co., Inc.therapeutic lampsNovember 21 and December 7, 1939Philadelphia, Pa.New York, N. Y.Philadelphia, Pa.Eastern District of Pennsylvania194F. D. C. No. 1470. Sample No. 77737-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00194ddnj|194. Misbranding of therapeutic lamps. IT. S. v. 144 Relievo Therapeutic Lamps.|Deeree of condemnation. Product released under bond. (F. D. C. No. 1470.|Sample No. 77737-D.)|This device was a table model lamp equipped with an incandescent heating|element. Its labeling bore false and misleading representations regarding its|efficacy in the conditions indicated below.|On February 8, 1940, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Pennsylvania filed a libel against 144 therapeutic lamps at Philadelphia, Pa;,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|November 21 and December 7, 1939, from New York, N. Y., by the Kas-Kel|Electric Co., Inc.; and charging that it was misbranded.|The device was alleged to be misbranded in that representations in its label-|ing that it would relieve pain, rheumatism, lumbago, earache, deep-seated pains,|mental and physical fatigue; that its penetrating rays would relieve congestion|and the healing heat would take out the sore spots; that it would produce|health-giving rays; that it would penetrate the tissues and tone up the whole|system, and assist in throwing off constitutional troubles; that it would in-|vigorate the tissues, and that once the tissues were exposed to the rays nature|itself would promote healing and cure by increased circulation, were false and|misleading as applied to a table model lamp equipped with an incandescent|heating element.|On February 16, 1940, judgment of condemnation was entered and the prod-|uct was ordered released to the claimant, the Kas-Kel Electric Co., Inc., under|bond conditioned that it be relabeled under the supervision of the Food and|Drug Administration.|195. Misbranding of therapeutic lamps. U. S. v. 65 Therapeutic Lamps. Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered released under bond for relabeling.ddnj00195April, 1941Eagle Electric Manufacturing Cotherapeutic lampsAugust 16 and December 16, 1939San Francisco, Calif.Brooklyn, N. Y.San Francisco, Calif.Northern District of California195F. D. C. No. 1536. Sample No. 56348-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00195ddnj|195. Misbranding of therapeutic lamps. U. S. v. 65 Therapeutic Lamps. Consent|decree of condemnation. Product ordered released under bond for re-|labeling. (F. D. C. No. 1536. Sample No. 56348-D.)|This device consisted of an incandescent bulb screwed into a goose-neck table|type lamp. Its labeling bore false and misleading representations regarding its|efficacy in the treatment of the conditions indicated below.|On February 27, 1940, the United States attorney for the Northern District|of California filed a libel against 65 therapeutic lamps at San Francisco, Calif.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|August 16 and December 16, 1939, by the Eagle Electric Manufacturing Co.|from Brooklyn, N. Y.; and charging that it was misbranded. It was labeled?/'|in part: \"\"No. 357 Table Type Therapeutic Lamp.\"\"|The device was alleged to be misbranded in that its labeling bore repre-?,-'\"\"\"\"|sentations that it was efficacious in the treatment of abscess, colds, backache,?(|lumbago, neuritis, neuralgia, rheumatism, all pains caused by indigestion; that?\"\"'|only affected the surface but would reach the deep-seated pain affording relief|in- spinal or-rectal irritation; and that application to the spine and back of|neck would relieve the effects of mental or physical fatigue and would stop|the pain of stiff neck, boils, carbuncles, ulcers and abscesses, etc., which rep-|resentations were, false and misleading since it was not efficacious for the pur-|poses recommended.|On April 4, 1940, .the Eagle Electric Manufacturing Co. -having appeared as|claimant, judgment of: condemnation was entered and the product was ordered|released under bond on condition that it be relabeled to comply with the pro-|visions of law. -|196. Misbranding of heat and light applicators. U. S. v. 5 Thermolite Heat and Light Applicators. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00196April, 1941H. G. McFaddin & Co., Inc.heat and light applicatorsJanuary 18, 1940Richmond, Va.New York, N. Y.Richmond, Va.Eastern District of Virginia196F. D. C. No. 1566. Sample No. 77196-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00196ddnj|196. Misbranding of heat and light applicators. 17. S. v. 5 Thermolite Heat and|Light Applicators. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 1566. Sample No. 77196^-D.)|This device consisted of an incandescent'electric bulb inserted into a socket|and equipped with a parabolic mirror reflector. Its labeling fore false and mis-|leading representations regarding its efficacy in the conditions indicated below.|On March 4, 1940, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Virginia filed a libel against five heat and light applicators at Richmond, Va.,|alleging that the article had been shipped m interstate commerce on or about|January 18, 1940, by H. G. McFaddin & Co., Inc., from New York, N. Y.; and|charging that it was misbranded.|The device was alleged to be misbranded in that its labeling bore representa-|tions that it was efficacious for relief of almost any pain, sprains, bruises,|neuralgia, lumbago, rheumatism, neuritis, stomach and abdominal pains, backache,|constipation, headache, head and chest colds, affections of the ear, ulcerations, and|burns; that it would cause colds and congestion in the head to yield readily; that|an application on the spine upon retiring would usually induce slumber; that|sunlight is nature's best stimulant for vitality, and that the rays of the device|were \"\"sunlike\"\"; that it would promote the growth of hair and improve its|appearance|' by stimulating the circulation, thus nourishing the roots in the|scalp; that it was the best first aid, would relive pain and discomfort of sore|throat, laryngitis, inflamed breast, ovarian neuralgia* menstrual irregularities,|cramps, etc.; that the therapeutic value of radiant heat was greatly enhanced|by its combination with radiant light and would reach deep-seated pain and afford|relief in spinal or renal irritation, bruises, backache, lumbago, sciatica, and|many other complaints; that: it would relieve nervous tension of spine and nerve|centers and induce restful sleep and would relieve aching arches, earache, and|head colds by its deep penetrating-heat,: which representations were false and|misleading since the device would not be efficacious for the purposes recommended.|,, On May 22, 1940; no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|197. Misbranding of heat and light applicator. U. S. v. 15 Heat and Light Applicators. Default decree entered. Product ordered delivered to charitable institutions.ddnj00197April, 1941Varick Electric Manufacturing Co., Inc.heat and light applicatorSeptember 11, 1939New Haven, Conn.New York, N. Y.New Haven, Conn.District of Connecticut197F. D. C. No. 1485. Sample No. 86167-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00197ddnj|197. Misbranding of heat and light applicator. IT. S. v. 15 Heat and Light|Applicators. Default decree entered. Product ordered delivered to|charitable institutions. (E. D. C. No. 1485. Sample No. 86167-D.)|This device consisted of an electric lamp inserted in a socket fitted with a|metal reflector. Its labeling bore false and misleading representations regarding|its efficacy in the conditions indicated below.|On or about February 16, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of|Connecticut filed a libel against 15 heat and light applicators at New Haven,|Conn., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or|about September 11,1939, by the Varick Electric Manufacturing Co., Inc., from|New York, N. Y.; and charging that it was misbranded. It was labeled in part:|\"\"Varicure Heat and Light Applicator.\"\"|The device was alleged to be misbranded in that its labeling bore representa-|tions that its use was effective in the treatment of abscess, backache, colds, ear-|ache, eczema, lumbago, neuritis, neuralgia, rheumatism, skin diseases, and all|pains caused by congestion and poor circulation; that for the hair, sunlight|is nature's best stimulant for vitality, and that the sunlike rays of the|device would promote its growth and improve its appearance by stimulating the|circulation, thus nourishing the hair and scalp; and that it was beneficial in the|treatment of any ailment, which representations were false and misleading since|the device was not efficacious for the purposes recommended.|On April 26, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment was entered order-|ing distribution of the article to charitable institutions and destruction of the|circulars which accompanied it.|441. Misbranding of Crawford's Sa-Lax and Crawford's Formula 53 with Vitamin E. U. S. v. 9 Bottles and 4 Bottles of Crawford's Formula 53 with Vitamin E and 50 Tins of Crawford's Sa-Lax. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00441September 1942Crawford Foods, Inc.Crawford's Sa-Lax and Crawford's Formula 53 with Vitamin EJuly 18, 1940Tucson, Ariz.Eagle Rock, Calif.Tucson, Ariz.District of Arizona441F. D. C. Nos. 8556, 8558. Sample Nos. 32615-E, 32622-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00441ddnj|441. Misbranding of Crawford's Sa-OLax and Crawford's Formula 53 with Vitamin|E. U. S. v. 9 Bottles and 4 Bottles of Crawford's Formula 53 with Vitamin|E and 50 Tins of Crawford's Sa-Lax. Default decree of condemnation and|destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 8556, 8558. Sample Nos. 32615-E, 32622-E.)|The label of Crawford's Sa-Lax failed to bear adequate directions and warning|statements; and the labeling of both products bore false and misleading thera-|peutic claims.|On January 6, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Arizona|filed a libel against the above-named products at Tucson, Ariz., alleging that|Crawford's Formula 53 had been transported on or about July 18, 1940, by|Walter Bopp from Eagle Rock, Calif., and that Crawford's Sa-Lax had been|transported on or about July 26, 1940, by Crawford Foods, Inc., from Los Angeles,|Calif.; and charging that they were misbranded.|Analyses of samples of the articles showed that Crawford's Sa-Lax Tablets|contained the laxative drugs rhubarb root and senna leaf together with Irish|moss, okra, and leafy plant materials such as parsley; and that Crawford's For-|mula 53 Tablets contained plant materials, largely alfalfa (lucerne) leaf and stem|tissues, with smaller proportions of other plant materials including tomato|seed, anise, fennel, Cayenne pepper (capsicum), celery seed, a leafy material|such as parsley, and yeast.|Crawford's Sa-Lax was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that its package failed|to bear adequate directions for use since the directions on the bottle label, \"\"The|dosage of Crawford's Sa-Lax must be determined by the severity of the case.|The adult dosage suggested is two tablets upon retiring, to be increased tp one|tablet four times per day, with meals and upon retiring in the more severe|cases. Children in proportion to age,\"\" were not suitable nor appropriate directions|for the use of a laxative preparation of the composition of this one and therefore|were not adequate; and (2) in that its labeling failed to bear adeqtiate warnings|against use in certain pathological conditions or methods or duration of admin-|istration in such manner and form as are necessary for the protection of users|since its label failed to inform the purchaser that it would be dangerous if|consumed by a person suffering from appendicitis, and it failed to inform pur-|chasers that frequent or continued use might result in dependence on laxatives.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the following statements appearing|on the bottle label were false and misleading with respect to the active laxative|ingredients and with respect to the effects it would produce upon the consumer:|\"\"The active principles in this formula are parsley and asparagus. Parsley and|asparagus appear to maintain a higher alkalinity through the intestine and into|the colon than do other vegetables of higher initial alkaline content. Any|decrease in the acidity of the waters absorbed from the colon and carried by|the portal circulation to the liver evidently minimizes the alkaline demand upon|the liver to bind such acid. Any conservation of the alkaline demand upon the|liver facilitates the liver's fabrication and secretion of a more alkaline or normal|bile, which will result in more complete digestion, minimized fermentation and|lowered putrefaction within the colon. Neither parsley nor asparnaius produces|any laxative effect. Okra is included in this formula for the excellent property|of its vegetable mucin. Irish mos<5 is included for its property of absorbing|and holding the water and thus effecting a higher degree of softness of the|colonic residues.\"\"|Crawford's Formula 53 with Vitamin E was alleged to be misbranded in|that representations and suggestions in the labeling that it would be efficacious|in building blood, supplying the necessary vitamins and minerals to the blood|stream for restoring the normal functions of the body mechanism; that it would|be efficacious in maintaining the tone of the sacral nervous system, in help-|ing to maintain the sex power, in helping to maintain high vitality through|building up the entire glandular system; that it would aid in building up the|skin tissuses and that it would endow the blood with such properties as would|give the consumer long life, health, energy, and vitality; that it would be|efficacious in case of pale and livid complexion, dry skin, bluish, white, or gray|gums, transparent and waxy ears, habitually cold feet, continually clammy|hands, bluish and lusterless fingernails, dull-looking hair, decaying teeth, pyor-|rhea, drawn face, coarse and yellow skin, or foul breath; that it would be|efficacious when physical exertion causes shortness of breath, palpitation of the|heart, or rapid or weak puise; that it would be efficacious when mental and|emotional fatigue are present, when one feels fear or apprehension, loses faith|in oneself, or is nervous, listless, unstable, and despondent; that because of|its ability to form red cells in the blood and increase the amount of hemoglobin|in the red cells it would be efficacious in anemia accompanied by lack of energy,|languor, fatigue, and lack of persistence; that it would be efficacious in nour-|ishing and rebuilding the tissues, regardless of the nature of the ailment; that|it would be efficacious in the treatment of arthritis, rheumatism, heart disease,|degenerative diseases, and bladder, liver, and kidney troubles; and that it would|develop a strong friendly overpowering personality which would command the|respect and love of everyone and allow the user to be more useful to himself,|friends, and children; that it would be efficacious when one is grouchy, tired,|feeling miserable, cannot sleep, and is suffering from pains all over the body;|that it would rejuvenate the body; that it would be efficacious for the treat-|ment of tumors and growths such as cancer by dissolving the tumor and growth;|and that its use would enable the user to regain health and vigor, were false|and misleading since it would not be efficacious for such purposes.|The libel alleged that Crawford's Formu1a 53 was also misbranded under the|food provisions of the law as reported in F. N. J. No. 2819.|On February 21, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the products were ordered destroyed.|198. Misbranding of heat packs. U. S. v. 20 Packages of Wonder Heat Packs. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00198April, 1941Wonder Heat-Pack Co.heat packsJanuary 20 and February 3, 1940Philadelphia, Pa.Chicago, Ill.Philadelphia, Pa.Eastern District of Pennsylvania198F. D. C. No. 1705. Sample No. 14302-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00198ddnj|198. Misbranding: of heat packs. XT. S. v. 20 Packages of Wonder Heat Packs.|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 1705.|Sample No. 14302-E.)|This product consisted essentially of a bag containing chemicals which would|produce heat when moistened with water. Its labeling bore false and misleading|representations regarding its efficacy in the conditions indicated below.|On March 25, 1940, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Pennsylvania filed a libel against 20 Wonder Heat Packs at Philadelphia, Pa.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about Jan-|uary 20 and February 3, 1940, from Chicago, 111., by the Wonder Heat-Pack|Co.; and charging that it was misbranded.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the representations in the labeling|that it was efficacious in the treatment of colds, colic, cramps, sprains, lumbago,|neuritis, pleurisy, neuralgia, bronchitis, pneumonia, infections, toothache, rheu-|matism, inflammation, muscle soreness, and poor circulation, were false and mis-|leading since it was not efficacious for the purposes recommended*|On April 18, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|ELECTRIC VIBRATORS|199. Misbranding of vibrators. U. S. v. 7 Beautysage Vibrators. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00199April, 1941Beauty Appliance CorporationvibratorsJanuary 18, 1940New Orleans, La.Racine, Wis.New Orleans, La.Eastern District of Louisiana199F. D. C. No. 1521. Sample No. 61887-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00199ddnj|199. Misbranding; of-vibrators. -U. S. .v. 7 Beautysage Vibrators. Default decree|of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 1521. Sample No. 61887-D.)|This device consisted of an electric vibrator fitted with three differently shaped|rubber appliances. Its labeling bore false and misleading representations re-|garding its efficacy in the conditions indicated below.|On February 26, 1940, the United States attorney for the Eastern District|of Louisiana filed a libel against seven vibrators at New Orleans, La., alleging|the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about January 18,|1940, by the Beauty Appliance Corporation from Racine, Wis.; and charging|that it was misbranded.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that its labeling bore repre-|sentations that it would assist nature in stimulating the minute blood vessels,|help to force blood through the tissues, and instill new life into the nerves; that|the exercise and stimulation of the device would maintain the firm contours|of face and figure with its gentle, massaging action; that it would check falling|of dry and brittle hair and stimulate new growth; that the tingling action of|the prong applicator would excite and energize the tiny cells, increase nutrition|to roots of the hair and restore vigor and strength; that it would be efficacious|in the treatment of aches, pains, neuralgia, earache, lumbago, fatigue, sprains,|stiffness, and other ailments; that impaired circulation of blood and lymph|affects the muscular and nervous system and causes many of our common body|ills; that the daily use of the device would hasten the flow of blood, assist in|building up a run-down condition and would carry away waste, restore new|life and vigor; that the said device would heal; that it was an aid for almost|every imaginable ailment, would keep the body in good working order, and|would restore youthful contours to face and figure; that it was an indispensable|aid; and would relieve tired nerves and muscles; would restore vigor and|vitality to any part of the body; and that it would increase circulation, would|eradicate dandruff, would help to build new tissue and would relieve tired|muscles, fatigue, kinks in the back, and other ailments usually caused by poor|circulation, or cramped position of nerves, which representations were false|and misleading since the said device was not efficacious for the purposes|recommended.|On September 16, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the device was ordered destroyed.|200. Misbranding of vibrators. U. S. v. 11 Vibrators. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00200April, 1941Bersted Manufacturing Co.vibratorsOctober 12, 1939Washington, D. C.Fostoria, OhioWashington, D. C.District of Columbia200F. D. C. No. 1752. Sample No. 1804.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00200ddnj|200. Misbranding of vibrators. TJ. S. v. 11 Vibrators. Default decree of con|demnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 1752. Sample No. 1804.)|This article was an electric vibrator fitted with several attachments. Its|labeling bore false and misleading representations regarding its efficacy in|the conditions indicated below.|On April 4, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of Columbia|filed a libel, against 11 vibrators at Washington, D. C, alleging that the-article?/|had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about October 12, 1939, by?(|the Bersted Manufacturing Co. from Fostoria, Ohio; and charging that it|was misbranded. The article was labeled in part: \"\"Bersted's Eskimo * * *|Vibrator.\"\"|that it would enable one to vibrate one's way to health and beauty; that it|was efficacious for sore muscles, for complexion, headaches, rheumatism, and|constipation; that it would be helpful in conditions where increased circulation|and stimulation of the nerves would cause curative action; that its strong|vibratory action penetrated very deeply into the parts under treatment; that|it was efficacious for sore muscles, neuralgia, blackheads, obesity, insomnia,|headaches, nervousness, double chin, wrinkles, sagging muscles, acute rheuma-|tism ; that lifeless skin and. sagging facial muscles could be improved by|massaging two or three minutes each day by working from the chin up and|from the mouth toward the ears using a rotary motion; and that for double|chin the sponge applicator should be used three minutes at a time working|upward from the base of the neck towards the ears, never downward, were|false and misleading in that the said statements represented that the device|was efficacious for the purposes for which it was recommended; whereas it|was not efficacious for such purposes.|On May 7, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|201. Misbranding of vibrators. U. S. v. 24 Electric Vibrators. Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered released nnder bond for relabeling.ddnj00201April, 1941A. C. Gilbert Co.vibratorsFebruary 6, 1940New York, N. Y.New Haven, Conn.New York, N. Y.Southern District of New York201F. D. C. No. 1503. Sample No. 68476-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00201ddnj|201. Misbranding- of vibrators. IT. S. v. 24 Electric Vibrators. Consent decree of|condemnation. Product ordered released nnder bond for relabeling'.|(F. D. C. No. 1503. Sample No. 68476-D.)|This device was an electric vibrator with three attachments consisting of|a button, a rubber cup, and a rubber brush. Its labeling bore false and mis-|leading representations regarding its efficacy in the conditions indicated below.|On February 19, 1940, the United States attorney for the Southern District|of New York filed a libel against 24 electric vibrators at New York, N. Y.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|February 6, 1940, by the A. C. Gilbert Co. from New Haven, Conn.; and|charging that it was misbranded. It was labeled in part \"\"Gilbert Vibrator.\"\"|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the representations in the labeling|that it would restore health, was efficacious for the relief of rheumatism|resulting from blood congestion; that it would be efficacious for indigestion|and constipation; would cleanse the pores of the skin; would help one attain|blemish-free complexions; would be efficacious for headaches, insomnia, nerv-|ousness, neuralgia, obesity; that it would be efficacious in developing the|bust; that it would overcome thin brittle hair caused by the failure of the|natural oils to function properly; that it was beneficial for double chin and|wrinkles, that it would build one up and keep one up; that if used regularly,|it would renew the youthful suppleness of body, clear the waste matter and|dead cells from the blood, stimulate the circulation and bring the bloom of|youth to the cheeks; that it was efficacious in the treatment of many common|diseases and ailments; that a longer treatment, pressing lightly with the|vibrator was required in nervousness, sleeplessness, and obesity, which treat-|ment would soothe while the shorter, harder treatment would stimulate; that|it was ideal for reducing and would restore health, which representations|were false and misleading since the article was not efficacious for the purposes|recommended.|On March 29, 1940, the A. C. Gilbert Co., claimant, having admitted the allega-|tions of the libel, judgment of condemnation was entered and the article was|ordered released under bond on condition that the labels, circulars, and tags|be destroyed, and that those which were In compliance with the law be substituted.|202. Misbranding of electric vibrators. U. S. v. 63 Vibrators. Decree of condemnation and order for release of product under bond for relabeling.ddnj00202April, 1941Vidrio Products Corporationelectric vibratorsDecember 10 and December 22, 1939Houston, Tex.Chicago, Ill.Houston, Tex.Southern District of Texas202F. D. C. No. 1477. Sample No. 61308-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00202ddnj|202. Misbranding- of electric vibrators. U. S. v. 63 Vibrators. Decree of con|demnation and order for release of product under bond for relabeling:.|(F. D. C. No. 1477. Sample No. 61308-D.)|This device was an electric vibrator, with various attachments, intended to|apply mechanical vibration to the body. Its labeling bore false and misleading|representations regarding its efficacy in the conditions indicated below.|On February 9, 1940, the United States attorney for the Southern District|of Texas filed a libel against 63 vibrators at Houston, Tex., alleging that the|article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about December 10 and|December 22, 1939, by the \"\"Vidrio Products Corporation from Chicago, 111.;|and charging that it was misbranded. The article was labeled in part:|\"\"Mastei-craft Two Speed Electric Vibrator.\"\"|The device was alleged to be misbranded in that the labeling bore repre-|sentations that it was efficacious for indigestion, constipation, baldness, bruises|and sprains, blackheads, neuralgia, head colds, sciatica pains, head pains,|eyestrain, sleeplessness, double .chin, acute rheumatism, and wrinkles; that it|would cleanse the skin, reduce weight, reduce swelling, and stimulate blood|circulation, that for wrinkles the affected parts should be massaged once a|day for 3 minutes, which would strengthen muscles, stimulate blood circula-|tion, and invigorate sluggish tissue; that for double chin, one should massage|from shoulders and breast bones upward to point of chin, never downward, for|3 minutes at a time two or three times a day; that it would eliminate dandruff,|would be efficacious in the treatment of rheumatism, headache, nervousness,|insomnia and obesity, and would develop the bust, which representations were|false and misleading since it was not efficacious for the purposes recommended.|On June 1, 1940, the claimant, the Walgreen Co., Houston Tex., having|admitted the allegations of the libel, judgment of condemnation was entered|and the product was ordered released under bond on condition that it be|properly relabeled.|\"\"HEALTH FOODS\"\"|203. Misbranding of Grandma's Cocoanut Bars. U. S. v. 30 Cartons of Grandma's Cocoanut Bars. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00203April, 1941Grandma Cookie Co.Grandma's Cocoanut BarsNovember 15 and 18, 1939Seattle, Wash.Portland, Oreg.Seattle, Wash.Western District of Washington203F. D. C. No. 1138. Sample No. 83933-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00203ddnj|203. Misbranding' of Grandma's Cocoanut Bars. U. S. v. 30 Cartons of Grandma's|Cocoanut Bars. Default decree of condemnation and. destruction. (F. D. C.|No. 1138. Sample No. 83933-D.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations re-._|garding its efficacy in the conditions indicated hereinafter.|On December 5, 1939, the United States attorney for the Western District|of Washington filed a libel against 30 cartons of Grandma's Cocoanut Bars|at Seattle, Wash., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate|commerce on or about November 15 and 18, 1939, from Portland, Oreg., by|Grandma Cookie Co.; and charging that it was misbranded.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that representations in the|labeling that it was nature's aid to digestion and general health and was|an unsurpassed bone-building delicacy which children all love, were false and|misleading since the article was not efficacious for the purposes recommended.|It was also alleged to be misbranded under the provisions of the law|applicable to foods, as reported in F. N. J. No. 52.|On March 25, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.|204. Misbranding of honey. U. S. v. 3237 Jars of Honey. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00204April, 1941Cuban Health Products; Cuban Honey, Inc.honeyDecember 11, 1939; January 18, 1940Chicago, Ill.Lansing, Mich.Chicago, Ill.Northern District of Illinois204F. D. C. No. 1412. Sample No. 88943-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00204ddnj|204. Misbranding: of honey. TJ. S. v. 3237 Jars of Honey. Default decree of|condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 1412. Sample No. 88943-D.)|This product was displayed for sale on a table in the establishment of the|dealer. The jars were labeled in part: \"\"El Aguinaldo Cuban Wonder Honey.\"\"|Accompanying the article was further labeling consisting of a display card and|a number of pamphlets stacked on the table for distribution. This labeling|contained false and misleading representations regarding the article and its|efficacy in the conditions indicated below.|On February 2, 1940, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Illinois filed a libel against 237 various-sized jars of honey at Chicago, I1L,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce, in part on|or about December 11, 1939, by Cuban Health Products, and in part on or about|January 18, 1940, by Cuban Honey, Inc., ffoth lots from Lansing, Mich.; and|charging that it was misbranded.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the labeling of the 96-ounce|jars bore the word \"\"Health\"\" and that accompanying all sizes bore representa-|tions that carbohydrates in this form (honey) mean \"\"pep\"\" and pep means \"\"a|better you\"\"; that it contained many of the necessary salts; that it had been|clinically tested, and that such tests had been carried on in cases of bronchial|asthma and bronchitis under the care of reputable physicians; that it had|been found to be a desirable food supplement to a bland diet in cases of stomach|ulcers and other digestive disorders; that the contents of the stomach had been|examined at specific intervals and X-rays taken and that all cases showed|much greater improvement when El Aguinaldo Cuban Honey was a part of the|diet than without it; that the diets used tended to relieve discomfort, increase|vitality, improve the appetite and provide a mild laxative and that as the use|of the article is new to some the user should write for information regarding|these clinical cases; that it was recommended by many physicians; that it was|very beneficial in different digestive disorders which retard assimilation in|general; that it had been used with wonderful effects; that it had been used|in various types of illness with very pleasing results in many cases; that it?(^|would do everything for which it was recommended; that the article would be|with coughs, colds, asthma, and bronchitis; that for sinus and hay fever it|should be diluted with water and used as a nasal spray, and should be taken|internally 1 or 2 teaspoonfuls one-half hour before meals and before retiring;|that in stomach ulcers where a soft bland diet would be prescribed it should|be used as a special-purpose food; that it was efficacious for asthma, bronchitis,|coughs, colds, asthmatic cough, cough resulting from bronchial pneumonia,|sinus conditions, positive ulcer, stomach distress, and lack of strength and pep,|which representations in the labeling were false and misleading since the|article Was not efficacious for the purposes recommended.|On March 4, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered to be turned over to a hospital for|food purposes only. On March 12, 1940 this order was vacated and the product|was ordered destroyed.|MINERAL WATERS |212. Misbranding of Pratt's Hog Powder. U. S. v. Forty-six 3-Pound Packages and Thirty-four 7-Pound Packages of Pratt's Hog Powder. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00212April, 1941Pratt Food Co., Philadelphia, Pa.Pratt's Hog PowderNovember 1, 1939Harrisonburg, Va.Philadelphia, Pa.Harrisonburg, Va.Western District of Virginia212F. D. C. No. 1364. Sample No. 78453D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00212ddnj|212. Misbranding of Pratt's Hog Powder. U. S. v. Forty-six 3-Pound Packages|and Thirty-four 7-Pound Packages of Pratt's Hog Powder. Default decree|of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 1364. Sample No. 78453^D.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-|ing its efficacy in the conditions indicated below.|On or about January 20, 1940, the United States attorney for the Western|District of Virginia filed a libel against the above-named quantities of Pratt's|Hog Powder at Harrisonburg, Va., consigned by the Pratt Food Co., Philadel-|phia, Pa., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on|or about November 1, 1939, from Philadelphia, Pa.; and charging that it was|misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of dried sodium sulfate|(dried Glauber's salt, approximately 62 percent), bone meal, charcoal (approxi-|mately 10 percent), sulfur (approximately 9.5 percent), small proportions of|American wormseed, a trace of quassia, iron sulfate (approximately 2.3 per-|cent), and small amounts of copper, manganese, and iodine compounds. In|addition, the product in the 3-pound packages contained traces (less than 0.001|percent each) of nickel and cobalt compounds.|Misbranding was alleged in that the package bore representations that the|article should be used in the treatment of worms twice a month by forced|feeding and that it would help expel many large roundworms, which representa-|tions were false and misleading in that the article would not be efficacious for?/|such purposes. (|^On March 25, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.|213. Misbranding of Sananize. U. S. v. Two 5-Gallon Cans and Sixteen 2-Gallon Cans of Sananize. Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction.ddnj00213April, 1941Farm Sananize Manufacturing Co.SananizeAugust 19, 1939Freeport, Ill.Sibley, IowaFreeport, Ill.Northern District of Illinois213F. D. C. No. 1301. Sample No. 79708-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00213ddnj|.213. Misbranding of Sananize. U. S. v. Two 5-Gallon Cans and Sixteen 2-Gallon|Cans of Sananize. Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and de-|struction. (F. D. C. No. 1301. Sample No. 79708-D.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-|ing its efficacy in the conditions indicated below.|? , |On or about January 19, 1940, the United States attorney for the Northern|District of Illinois filed a libel against two 5-gallon cans and sixteen 2-gallon|cans of Sananize at Freeport, 111., alleging that the article had been shipped in|interstate commerce on or about August 19, 1939, by the Farm Sananize Manu-|facturing Co. from Sibley, Iowa; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis of samples showed that the product consisted essentially of coal-tar|naphtha and mineral oil, with small amounts of phenolic bodies and formalde-|hyde. No lime-sulfur was present and no iodine was detected. The product|was not miscible in water.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that its labeling bore representa-|tions that it would immunize poultry, hog and farm buildings from diseases, that|chickens would inhale the odor which would help to keep them in good con-|dition; that it would prevent hog flu, necro, cholera, leueemia, roup, tuberculosis,|etc.; that for hog flu, coughs and colds the hogs should be put in a small space|and sprayed lightly to help keep germs out of herd; that hogs should be sprayed|thoroughly for mange and scurf; that by sanatizing before the herd becomes|ailing 75 to 90 percent of losses could be avoided; that hog flu pneumonia could|be stopped in two or three evenings, mange and scurf cleaned from hogs in 2|weeks, that necro germs and any germs would he wiped out by Sananize; that|it would keep the nostrils of poultry open; that croup, bronchitis, diphtheria|and any ailments caused by colds can be stopped and prevented with Sananize in|2 to 4 days; that it would prevent sleeping sickness and other horse diseases;|that it was commonly known or believed that prussic acid poison starts sleeping|sickness which is then carried from a sick animal to others by flies, which|representations were false and misleading, since the article would not be effica-|cious for the purposes recommended.|The article also was alleged to be misbranded under the Insecticide Act of|1910, as reported in notices of judgment published under that act.|On June 3, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.|MISCELLANEOUS DRUGS AND DEVICES|214. Misbranding of Diaplex. U. S. v. 32 Cartons, 29 Cartons, and 94 Packages of \"\"Diaplex A Variety of Saltbush.\"\" Decrees of condemnation. Portion of product ordered destroyed. Remainder ordered released under bontf for relabeling.ddnj00214April, 1941Diaplex LaboratoriesDiaplexOctober 23, 1939, to March 7, 1940San Francisco, Calif.; Seattle, Wash.; Boise, IdahoDenver, Colo.San Francisco, Calif.; Seattle, Wash.; Boise, IdahoNorthern District of California, the Western District of Washington, and the District of Idaho214F. D. C. Nos. 1552, 1626, 1679. Sample Nos. 2649-D, 73520-D, 6322-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00214ddnj|214. Misbranding: of Diaplex. V. S. v. 32 Cartons, 29 Cartons, and 94 Packages|of \"\"Diaplex A Variety of Saltbush.\"\" Decrees of condemnation. Portion|of product ordered destroyed. Remainder ordered released under bontf|for relabeling:. (F. D. C. Nos. 1552, 1626, 1679. Sample Nos. 2649-D, 73520-1}|6322-E.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-|ing its efficacy in the treatment of the conditions indicated below.|On March 5, 14, and 22, 1940, the United States attorneys for the Northern|District of California, the Western District of Washington, and the District|of Idaho filed libels against 32 cartons of Diaplex at San Francisco, Calif., 29|cartons of the product at Seattle, Wash., and 94 packages at Boise, Idaho,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce within the|period from on or about October 23, 1939, to on or about March 7, 1940, by the|Diaplex Laboratories from Denver, Colo.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of plant material|including stem and leaf tissues.|Misbranding was alleged in that the labeling in all shipments bore directions|' that 2 or 3 heaping tablespoonfuls of the product be used in each pint of water,|that it be brought to a boil or percolate for 10 minutes, and that it should be|served hot; and representations that it was efficacious in diabetes, that the|diabetic patient should drink at least 2 quarts daily for from 3 to 9 months,|that such use should produce amazing results as indicated by daily urine tests;|that persons using the product should make urine tests daily and that as the|pancreas increased its normal function the amount of insulin should be reduced|to avoid insulin reaction; that only enough insulin should be used to take care|of the surplus sugar and that eventually insulin could be eliminated entirely;|that the article should be used until the patient was well and strong; that|persons who have never used insulin or whose blood sugar does not test over|140 mg. per 100 cc. of blood or not in coma would find it unnecessary to do so|and that the only thing required was to adhere to a good diabetic diet and|drink 2 quarts daily of the product to produce the grand activity of good|health and vigor; and the labeling in one shipment contained the further repre-|sentations that the article would improve the condition of the heart and appen-|dix, would induce good sleep, eliminate pain in the liver; would be efficacious in|the treatment of cardiac rheumatism, bloating of the stomach, constant belch-|ing, diabetic gangrene, would aid one in gaining weight, aid the digestion,|benefit the kidneys, induce sleep and eliminate gangrenous infection in the|feet, which representations were false and misleading since the article was not|efficacious for the purposes recommended.|On April 2 and May 29, 1940, no claimant having appeared for the lots seized|at San Francisco, Calif., and Seattle, Wash., judgments of condemnation were|entered and the two lots ordered destroyed. On May 10, 1940, Henry Legler,|Boise, Idaho, claimant for the lot seized at Boise, Idaho, having consented to|the entry of a decree, Judgment of condemnation was entered and the said lot|was ordered released under bond, conditioned that it be relabeled in compliance|with the law.|215. Adulteration and misbranding of Germ-I-Tabs. U. S. v. 1 1/2 Dozen Boxes of Germ-I-Tabs. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00215April, 1941Esteys, Inc.Germ-I-TabsJanuary 3, 1940Butte, Mont.Seattle, Wash.Butte, Mont.District of Montana215F. D. C. No. 1915. Sample No. 6325-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00215ddnj|215. Adulteration and misbranding- of Germ-I-Tabs. IT. S. v. 1% Dozen Boxes|of Germ-I-Tabs. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(P. D. C. No. 1915. Sample No. 6325-E.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations re-|garding its antiseptic and germicidal properties and its efficacy in the treatment|of the conditions indicated below.|On May 18, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of Montana|filed a libel against 1? dozen boxes of Germ-I-Tabs at Butte, Mont., alleging|that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about January|3, 1940, by Esteys, Inc., from Seattle, Wash.; and charging that it was adul-|terated and misbranded.|Analysis showed that it consisted of tablets containing starch and 22.40|percent of sodium paratoluenesulfonchloramide (chloramine-T). Bacteriologi-|cal tests showed that it was not an antiseptic or germicide in the dilutions|recommended.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from|that which it purported or was represented to possess, namely, \"\"Antiseptic.\"\"|Misbranding was alleged in that the labeling bore representations that it|was an antiseptic and would prevent infection; that it was the modern anti-|septic for professional and home use; that it was a convenient means of always|having an ample supply of an effective germicide, antiseptic, and personal|deodorant; was very effective in destroying objectionable germs; that it would|retain its strength in ordinary stoppered bottles over a period of many months;|that it was advisable to make up a solution by dissolving one tablet in a|small bottle of water and that when only a small amount of the solution was|needed enough water should be added to make the strength desired, which|method was especially recommended in the home or shop where solutions are|frequently used for treatment of cuts, scratches, or for a mouthwash or gargle;|that it was efficacious in the treatment of acne (pimples), etc., which rep-|resentations were false and misleading since the article was not efficacious for|the diseases and conditions so stated in the labeling.|On July 30, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|216. Misbranding of Parker's Hair Balsam. U. S. v. 19 Dozen Retail Packages of Parker's Hair Balsam. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00216April, 1941Hiscox Chemical WorksParker's Hair BalsamAugust 26, 1939, and January 27, 1940Atlanta, Ga.Patchogue, N. Y.Atlanta, Ga.Northern District of Georgia216F. D. C. No. 1832. Sample No. 174-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00216ddnj|216. Misbranding of Parker's Hair Balsam. U. S. v. 19 Dozen Retail Packages of|Parker's Hair Balsam. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 1832. Sample No. 174-B.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations re-|garding its efficacy in the conditions indicated below.|On April 18, 1940, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Georgia filed a libel against 19 dozen packages of Parker's Hair Balsam at|Atlanta, Ga., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce|on or about August 26, 1939, and January 27, 1940, by Hiscox Chemical Works|from Patchogue, N. Y.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that it consisted essentially of lead acetate, sulfur, water,|and glycerin, together with perfume materials.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the labeling contained|representations that baldness is only a question of time unless means be taken|at once to arrest the decay of the root [of the hair], or to restore the scalp|to its proper condition of softness and cleanliness and that the hair would (|not only fall out, but the bulbs themselves would become atrophied and in-|or becoming harsh and brittle, it is very necessary to keep the scalp free from|dandruff scales and in a soft and pliant condition, that the said article would|be found helpful for this purpose; that it wouldl supply the requisite moisture|to the scalp and hair and would enable one to avoid premature grayness or|loss of hair by giving the scalp care and attention, that it would promote a|condition favorable to hair growth and that if the hair or scalp was in a bad|condition the said article was just what was needed, which representations|were false and misleading.|- On May 13, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.|217. Misbranding of Axine Plates. U. S. v. 19 Sets of a device called Axine. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00217April, 1941W. Gordon PervisAxine PlatesSeptember 30, 1939Higginsville, Mo.Tennille, Ga.Higginsville, Mo.Western District of Missouri217F. D. C. No. 825. Sample No. 72023-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00217ddnj|217. Misbranding: of Axlne Plates. U. S. v. 19 Sets of a device called Axlne.|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 825. Sample|No. 72023-D.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations as indi-|cated hereinafter.|On or about November 9, 1939, the United States attorney for the Western|District of Missouri filed a libel against 19 sets of Axine Plates at Higginsville,|Mo., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|September 30, 1939, by W, Gordon Pervis from Tennille, Ga.; and charging that|it was misbranded.|Examination showed that the device consisted of two metal plates made of|copper and zinc, respectively, which were to be worn in the shoes of the user, a|plate in each shoe.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that its labeling bore representations|that it would produce health and vigor by means of electricity in the human body;|would relieve the stiffness of old age and make one feel young again; would rid|the blood of uric acid; would be efficacious in the mitigation, treatment, and pre-|vention of high blood pressure, low blood pressure, headache, asthma, paralysis,|kidney trouble, rheumatism, diabetes, eczema, eold hands and feet, and poor|circulation; and would be efficacious \"\"to draw the acid from the larynx gland|and thus stop excessive coughing of asthma,\"\" which were false and misleading|since the said article would not be efficacious for the said purposes.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that its labeling represented that|uric acid forms in the stomach, that it forms as the result of eating food that|disagrees with the stomach, that the acid then filters through the blood and travels|through the blood as a very fine crystal; that the device consisted of a composition of|metals \"\"which would act upon the human electricity and would make the human|electricity fast\"\"; that the device would heat the blood about 2 degrees and thus|dissolve uric acid in the blood; that uric acid would pass through the blood into|the said device; that the cause of high blood pressure is the uric acid crystals|stopping in the arteries, hardening of the arteries, and enlarging the heart; that|the device would stimulate one's own electric current; that the electric current|would pass through the brain and dissolve and draw away clot on the brain; that|uric acid stiffens the prostate gland; that because of uric acid the prostate glands|stand open and will not \"\"pan down\"\"; that failure of the prostate glands to \"\"pan|down\"\" causes diabetes; that the device would produce heat by the metals' acting|as a battery on the human electricity and that the heat thus produced would|cause the prostate gland to \"\"pan down\"\" and relieve the patient entirely, which|representations were false and misleading.|On March 25,1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.|218. Misbranding of foot exerciser. U. S. v. 70 Retail Packages of H&H Foot Exercisers. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00218April, 1941Hussmann-Holmes Co.foot exerciserApril 29, 1940Kansas City, Mo.El Paso, Tex.Kansas City, Mo.Western District of Missouri218F. D. C. No. 2157. Sample No. 16801-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00218ddnj|218. Misbranding- of foot exerciser. U. S. v. 70 Retail Packages of H&H Foot|Exercisers. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C.|No. 2157. Sample No. 16801-E.)|This article consisted of a wooden roller. Its labeling bore false and misleading|representations regarding its efficacy in the conditions indicated below.|On or about June 7, 1940, the United States attorney for the Western District|of Missouri filed a libel against 70 retail packages of H & H Foot Exercisers at|Kansas City, Mo., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce|on or about April 29, 1940,. by the Hussmann-Holmes Co. from El Paso, Tex.;|and charging that it was misbranded.|The article was alleged to be-misbranded in that the labeling bore representa-|tions that it was efficacious in the treatment of weak arches, flat feet, metatarsal|trouble, burning calluses, \"\"chronic leg muscle,\"\" and limitations of foot motion;|that it would regenerate the nerves, develop strength in \"\"the muscles and flexibility|in the joints; would strengthen weak ankles and other ankle disturbances, such|as swelling, enlargement and strain due to trauma, would oxidize the fat around|the ankle by breaking up the fat cells, would relieve fatigue for persons wlio|stand for long periods, and would relieve cold feet, the result of poor circulation,?i|that all suffering from such conditions is needless and is easily relieved by the|device; that it would eradicate foot suffering, would produce vim, vigor, and|new energy, and replace weariness and pain; that it would enable one to enjoy|improved health, -greater comfort, a finer and sweeter personality and a new ibody \"\"|by spending a few minutes and a little patience each day with the device; that foot|comfort means bodily comfort and health.;, that mpst body .ailments are caused|by bad feet and that ho other part of the body can affect the general health^ as|much as the feet; that when the feet hurt it is often nature's signal of something|worse to come and that aching feet may be nothing to what may follow if the|trouble is hot corrected; that the device would relieve-most pains quickly; that|when the muscles are weakened or bones displaced, even slightly, trouble is sure|to follow; that headaches, backaches, leg pains, nervous conditions, and other|ailments can often be traced to simple foot faults, and that when these are|corrected the pain disappears; that the device was a most remarkable contri-|bution for-relief of foot ailments, that it was a health-building appliance, built|on scientific and orthopedic principles incorporating all exercises for feet; that it|was the same principle used for correcting flat feet and weak arches in concentra-|tion camps during the war; that it would relieve the three main causes of foot|trouble, tension in joints, strain on muscles, and limitation of foot motion; that|if the feet were normal it would keep them in perfect condition, that the con-|dition of the general health depends on the attention given the feet, and that|most foot troubles can be avoided by preventive measures; that if the foot muscles|grow weak and allow the arches to fall, there is pressure on sensitive nerves caus-|ing pains as severe as rheumatism, backaches, headaches, that the sight is af-|fected and curvature, neuritis, arthritis, and many other ailments result; that|when the system is suffering from fatigue, the heart is working overtime; that the|feet being most remote from the heart do not receive their quota of blood and|become cold, clammy, and that the supporting structures (muscles and ligaments)|are deprived of their normal amount of heat necessary to function, and that dis-|locations and deformities often result; that the device would hasten the return|to normalcy by restoring circulation and muscle tone to feet and legs; that|conditions related to faulty foot posture which would be relieved by correct foot|balance are: (Neck and head) stiff neck, headache, congestion, strain, localised|pain, neuritis; (spine and: pelvis) nervousness, postural defects, sway back, round|shoulders, arthritis, rheumatic pains, compaction of spine, lumbosacral strain,|sacro-iliac strain, neurasthenia, muscle spasm, flexible curvature, musele-joint|strain, myositis, \"\"twisted pelvis,\"\" unlevel hips, Unlevel shoulders, neuritis, promi-|nent shoulder blades; (thigh and calf) cramps, muscular pains, rheumatic pains,|sciatica, contracted ham strings, varicose veins, stiffness on arising, excessive|tiredness from walking or standing, swelling and congestions; and (ankle and|foot) arthritis, rheumatic pains, flat feet, pronation, muscle unbalance, fallen|arches, chronic strain, acute strain, swollen ankles, weak ankles, painful heel,|\"\"Morton's Toe,\"\" corns, bunions, excessive perspiration, burning feet, cold feet,|numbness, ingrowing nails, hammer toes, muscle cramps, splay foot, contracted|foot, defective gait, clumsiness, stiffness on arising, strain of heel cord, shortened|heel cord, \"\"Shaffer's foot,\"\" bony subluxations, muscle-joint strains, retracted|toes, rigid joints, plantar neuralgia, pointed toes, rotated heel, inverted ankles,|varicose veins, and calluses; that cold, clammy, sweaty feet, tired and aching|muscles, and many cases of so-called rheumatism are nothing but nerve pres-|sure caused by ill feet; that the device would gently force bones and ligaments|back into place, relax tired muscles, stimulate circulation, and build up the arches;|that it was beneficial for convalescing patients who have had crushing injuries|to the feet or bad sprains of the foot muscles and tendons, also for invalids who|have been confined to bed for long periods; and that it would aid in restoring|articular motion to the feet, which representations were false and misleading|since the device was not efficacious for the purposes recommended.|On August 31, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation?V|Was entered and the article was ordered destroyed.|369. Misbranding of Double Quick Liver Tablets, Compound Herb Tea, Blessed Herb Tea, Herb Wash, and St. Bernard Compound Herb Tea. U. S. v. Dr. Lyncha A. Johnson. Plea of guilty. Fine, $1,500. Sentenced to 6 months' imprisonment in a jail or a Federal prison camp.ddnj00369March 1942Dr. Lyncha A. Johnson, trading as Dr. Lyncha A. Johnson, at Memphis, Tenn.Double Quick Liver Tablets, Compound Herb Tea, Blessed Herb Tea, Herb Wash, andJanuary 4 to January 16, 1940TennesseeTennesseeArkansas and MissouriWestern District of Tennessee369F. D C. No. 2112. Sample Nps. 84175-D to 84183-D, Incl. , 84380-D, 84641-D, 84642-D, 84645-D to 84647-D. incl.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00369ddnj|369. Misbranding of Double Quick Liver Tablets, Compound Herb Tea, Blessed|Herb Tea, Herb Wash, and St. Bernard Compound Herb Tea. U. S. v.|Dr. Lyncha A. Johnson. Plea of guilty. Fine, $1,500. Sentenced to|6 months' imprisonment in a jail or a Federal prison camp. (F. D C.|No. 2112. Sample Nps. 84175-D to 84183-D, Incl., 84380-D, 84641-D, 84642-D,|84645-D to 84647-D. incl.)|These products were misbranded because of false and misleading representa-|tions in the labeling regarding their efficacy in the treatment of the ail-|ments for which they were recommended; false and misleading representations|regarding the efficacy of herbs in the treatment of a great number of ailments,|including the most serious disorders; and in some instances because of false|and misleading representations regarding their ingredients.|On October 8, 1940, the United States attorney for the Western District of|Tennessee filed an information against Dr. Lyncha A. Johnson, trading as Dr.|Lyncha A. Johnson, at Memphis, Tenn., alleging shipment within the period from|on or about January 4 to on or about January 16, 1940, from the State of|Tennessee into the States of Arkansas and Missouri of quantities of the above-|named proprietary herb remedies that were misbranded.|Analyses of samples of each of the four shipments of Double Quick Liver|Tablets showed the following facts: (1) tablets contained plant materials,|including ginger and emodin-bearing drugs such as senna, aloe, and podophyllum ;|(2) tablets contained plant material, including aloe, podophyllum, emodin-|bearing drugs such as senna and buckthorn, and calomel (slightly less than 1|grain per tablet) ; (3 and 4) tablets consisted essentially of plant material|(including ginger, podophyllum, and a laxative plant drug such as senna), and|unidentified cellular plant tissues.|The Double Quick Liver Tablets were alleged to be misbranded in that the|statement \"\"Active Ingredients: Buckthorn, Aloes, Mandrake, Senna,\"\" borne on|the box, was false and misleading since it represented that buckthorn, aloes,|mandrake, and senna were the sole active ingredients of the article, whereas|the article in three of the shipments contained a material proportion of ginger|as an active ingredient and in the fourth it contained a material proportion|of calomel as an active ingredient. It was alleged to be misbranded further|in that the statement \"\"Double Quick Liver Tablets * * * quick and strong|action upon the Liver,\"\" borne on the box label, was false and misleading since|it represented that the article was efficacious as a liver tablet and would exert|a quick and strong action upon the liver; whereas it would not be efficacious|for such purposes.|Analyses of samples of each of the five shipments of the Compound Herb|Tea showed the following facts: (1) The product consisted essentially of|plant material including rosemary and unidentified green leaves; (2) it con-|sisted essentially of plant material, containing sassafras bark and rosemary|leaves; (3) it consisted essentially of plant material including sassafras bark,|chicory, red clover flowers and stems, green leaves resembling Eupatorium,|senna leaves, and unidentified fine debris; (4) product consisted essentially of|plant material including rosemary leaves, unidentified starchy material, and|small pieces of root-like material; and (5) product consisted essentially of|small pieces of leaves, stems, and unidentified plant debris. The Compound|Herb tea was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement \"\"Whites, Gon-|orrhoea, and Leucorrhoea,\"\" borne on the label, was false and misleading since|they represented that the article was efficacious in the treatment of whites,|gonorrhoea, and leucorrhoea; whereas it was not efficacious for such purposes.|Analysis indicated that the Blessed Herb Tea consisted essentially of plant|material including couch grass, calamus, mistletoe, and unidentified plant debris.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements \"\"For Bright Disease\"\"|and \"\"for Bloody and Scalding Urine and Stricture,\"\" borne on the label, were|false and misleading since they represented that it was efficacious in the treat-|ment of Bright's disease and for bloody and scalding urine and stricture;|whereas it was not efficacious for such purposes.|Analysis of the Herb Wash indicated that it consisted essentially of ground|and powdered oak bark. It was alleged to be misbranded in that the state-|ments, \"\"For Female Disorder * * * It may be used freely, also for Gonor-|rhoea, or any Disorder of the Water Passage * * * in bad case of falling|of the Womb,\"\" borne on the label, were false and misleading since they rep-|resented that the article was efficacious in the treatment of female disorder,|gonorrhoea, any disorder of the water passage, and bad case of falling of the|womb; whereas it was not efficacious for such purposes.|Analysis of the St. Bernard Tea indicated that it consisted essentially of|plant material including sassafras bark, uva ursi, mallow flowers, buchu leaves,|and unidentified plant debris. It was alleged to be misbranded in that the|statements, \"\"Very soothing in inflammation and irritation of the Kidneys and|Bladder, Gravel, Backache and certain rheumatic affections * * * Tonic|* * * Antispasmodic,\"\" borne on the label, were false and misleading in that|they represented that it was soothing in inflammation and irritation of the kid-|neys and bladder, gravel, backache, and certain rheumatic affections, and that|it was a tonic and an antispasmodic; whereas it would not be efficacious for|such purposes.|All of the remedies were alleged to be misbranded further in that certain|statements contained in circulars entitled \"\"The Herbal Healer,\"\" \"\"Dr. Lyncha A.|Johnson Herbalist,\"\" and \"\"Dr. Lyncha A. Johnson Herbal Health Herald,\"\" one|or more of which accompanied each of the articles, were false and misleading|in that they represented that herbs would be effective in the cure, mitigation,|treatment, or prevention of the various ailments, diseases, and pathological|conditions listed in said circulars, which included diabetes, Bright's disease,|paralysis, fibri tumor, tuberculosis, cancer, epileptic fits, syphilitic diseases, and|numerous other serious ailments; whereas herbs would not be effective for such|purposes.|On November 20, 1940, a plea of guilty having been entered, the court im-|posed a fine of $1,500, and the defendant was sentenced to 6 months' imprison-|ment in a jail or Federal prison camp.|219. Misbranding of Vegetable Cancer Compound. U. S. v. Richard A. Mason. Plea of guilty. Fine, $525 of which $500 was suspended. Defendant placed on probation for 3 years.ddnj00219April, 1941Richard A. MasonVegetable Cancer CompoundJuly 1 and September 9, 1939New YorkNew YorkPennsylvania and OhioSouthern District of New York219F. D. C. No. 933. Sample Nos. 78418-D, 80901-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00219ddnj|219. Misbranding of \"\"Vegetable Cancer Compound. U. S. v. Richard A. -Mason.|Plea of guilty. Fine, $525 of which $500 was suspended. Defendant|placed on probation for 3 years. (F. D. C. No. 933. Sample Nos. 78418-D,|80901-D.)|The label of this product bore false and misleading representations regarding|its efficacy in treatment of the. conditions indicated below.|On August 20, 1940, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|New York filed an information in 2 counts charging Richard A. Mason, Chatham,|N. T., with shipment on or about July 1 and September 9, 1939, from the State|of New York into the States of Pennsylvania and Ohio, of quantities of Vege-|table Cancer Compound which was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of extracts of plant|drugs including a laxative drug, sugars, alcohol, and water.|Misbranding was alleged in that representations in the labeling that the|article was a vegetable cancer compound; was effective for cancer, tumor,|ulcer, and all blood diseases; and that by purifying the.blood, the drug would|assist nature to throw off impurities together with the design of a monogram|containing the letters \"\"VCC\"\" on the labels, were false and misleading in that|they represented that the article would produce beneficial results in persons|Suffering from cancer, tumor, ulcer, and all blood diseases by purifying the|blood and assisting nature to throw off impurities; whereas it was not effica-|cious for such purposes.|On August 28, 1940, a plea of guilty was entered by the defendant and the|court imposed a fine of $25 on the first count and $500 on the second count.|Payment of the fine on the second count was suspended and defendant was|placed on probation for 3 years.|220. Misbranding of Witsells Chocolate Quinine. U. S. v. 97 Bottles of Witsells Chocolate Quinine. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00220April, 1941Witsell Bros. Dean Lilly Co.Witsells Chocolate QuinineNovember 13, 1937Gadsden, Ala.Memphis, Tenn.Gadsden, Ala.Northern District of Alabama220F. D. C. No. 1631. Sample No. 5426-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00220ddnj|220. Misbranding of Witsells Chocolate Quinine. IT. S. v. 97 Bottles of Witsells|- Chocolate Quinine. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No, 1631. Sample No. 5426-D.)|The labeling of this product bore representations regarding Its efficacy in the|treatment of malaria, chills, and grippe; whereas it contained no ingredients of|value as a treatment for grippe and did not provide a sufficient amount of|quinine in the dosage recommended to constitute an adequate treatment for|malaria or chills.|On March 14, 1940, the United States attorney for. the Northern District of|Alabama filed a libel against 97 bottles of Witsells Chocolate Quinine at|Gadsden, Ala., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate com-|merce on or about November 13, 1937, by Witsell Bros.-Dean Lilly Co. from|Memphis, Tenn.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of quinine sulfate (1.8|grains per 100 cc.) water, sugar, chocolate flavoring, and alcohol (4 percent).|It was alleged to be misbranded in that its labeling bore representations that|it was efficacious as a treatment for symptoms of malaria, chills, and grippe|and that the dose was 1 to 2 teaspoonfuls followed by water, which were false|and misleading since it was not efficacious for the purposes recommended.|On July 9, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|221. Misbranding of Healo Salve. U. S. v. 118 Retail Packages of Healo Salve. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00221April, 1941Ericka Co.Healo SalveFebruary 8, 1940New York, N. Y.Springfield, Mass.New York, N. Y.Southern District of New York221F. D. C. No. 1799. Sample No. 10793-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00221ddnj|221. Misbranding of Healo Salve. U. S. v. 118 Retail Packages of Healo Salve.|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 1799. Sample|No. 10793-E.)|The labeling of this product hore false and misleading representations re-|garding its efficacy in conditions indicated hereinafter. The net weight also|was less than declared.|On April 12, 1940, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|New York filed a libel against 118 retail packages of Healo Salve at New|York, N. Y., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce|on or about February 8, 1940, from Springfield, Mass., by the Ericka Co.; and|charging that it was misbranded. It was labeled in part: \"\"The Magic Salve|Healo * * * Net Weight 1? oz. when packed.\"\"|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of petrolatum and|volatile pils including oil of peppermint, thymol, camphor, and eucalyptol.|Misbranding was alleged in that representations in the labeling of the article|regarding its efficacy in the treatment of headache, neuralgia, catarrh, toothache,|congested lungs, pneumonia, rheumatic pains, stiff joints, swellings, asthma,|hacking cough, sores, piles, hay fever, and eczema, were false and misleading|since the article was not efficacious for the purposes,so recommended. It was|alleged to be misbranded further in that the representation in the labeling that|the tins contained 1? ounces was false and misleading since it was incorrect,|and in that it did not bear an aecurate statement of the quantity of the|contents.|On May 2,1940, no claimant haying appeared, judgment of condemnation was?\\|entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.|222. Misbranding of Hannon's Rub. U. S. v. 5 Dozen 1-Ounce Packages and 2 1/2 Dozen 2-Ounce Packages of Hannon's Rub. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00222April, 1941Hannon's Medicines, Inc.Hannon's RubApril 29, 1940New Orleans, La.Brookhaven, Miss.New Orleans, La.Eastern District of Louisiana222F. D. C. No. 1989. Sample No. 9563-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00222ddnj|222. Misbranding of Hannon's Rub. IT. S. v. 5 Dozen 1-Onnce Packages and 2%|Dozen 2-Ounee Packages of Hannon's Rub. Default decree of condemna-|tion and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 1989. Sample No. 9563-E.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations re-|garding its efficacy in the treatment of the conditions indicated below. The|cartons were unnecessarily large, the 1-ounce bottle occupying approximately 32|percent, and the 2-ounce bottle occupying approximately 38 percent of the|capacity of the carton.|On May 21, 1940, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Louisiana filed a libel against the above-named quantities of Hannon's Rub at|New Orleans, La., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate|commerce on or about April 29, 1940, by Hannon's Medicines, Inc., from Brook-|haven, Miss.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article was a 2-layer liquid consisting essentially|of camphor, soap, chloroform, water, and alcohol.|Misbranding was alleged in ?hat the labeling bore representations that the|article was efficacious in the treatment of rheumatism, arthritis, neuritis, croup,|coughs, laryngitis, chest colds, paroxysms due to asthma, menstrual colic,|sciatica, bursitis, arthritis of all the joints, lumbago, and backache; that it|would relieve severe sprain, headache, neuralgia or rheumatism; that for|chest colds it should be rubbed on the chest covering the entire area from|throat to waist followed immediately with an application covering the entire|back from neck to waist; that it would be efficacious in the treatment of|stiff muscles and painful joints accompanying rheumatism, lumbago, and|neuralgia; and that applied by rubbing on the chest, throat, and upper part|of back it would be helpful in paroxysms due to asthma, which representa-|tions were false and misleading since the article was not efficacious for the|purposes so recommended.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that its containers were so|made, formed, or filled as to be misleading.|On June 20, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|223. Misbranding of Premek 33. U. S. v. 24 Small-Sized Packages and 24 Medium Sized Packages of Premek 33. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00223April, 1941H. K. Patch Co.Premek 33September 25 and November 13, 1939Portland, Oreg.Los Angeles, Calif.Portland, Oreg.District of Oregon223F. D. C. No. 1348. Sample Nos. 83455-D, 83456-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00223ddnj|223. Misbranding of Premek 33. XJ. S. v. 24 Small-Sized Packages and 24 Medium-|Sized Packages of Premek 33. Default decree of condemnation and de-|struction. (|P. D. C. No. 1348. Sample Nos. 83455-D, 83456-D.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations re-|garding its efficacy in the conditions indicated hereinafter. Moreover, both-|sized cartons were considerably larger than were required to hold the tube|and circular.|On January 13, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of Oregon|filed a libel against 48 packages of Premek 33 at Portland, Oreg., alleging that|the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about September 25|and November 13, 1939, by H. K. Patch Co. from Los Angeles, Calif.; and|charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of sulfur, magnesium|hydroxide, water, and a small quantity of a phenolic product. It had a pro-|nounced odor of sulfides.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that representations in the|labeling regarding its use for ringworm, barber's itch, impetigo, body skin|irritations, facial eruptions, pimples and enlarged pores, scalp irritation, soft|corns, and ingrown nails (when infected) ; and representations that it would|relieve promptly pruritis and \"\"itching caused by pruritis,\"\" would stop body|perspiration, would accomplish the destruction of parasites, organisms, and|fungus spores, which cause superficial skin irritations by releasing a vapor into?,--|the pores, of the skin, that this vapor was generated when the active ingredients?(|of the product combined with the oxygen of the air and that such combination?^-|is promoted by the body heat; that it was deadly to microscopic organisms, /|would relieve skin irritations, and was practically odorless, also appearing in?^|the labeling, were false and misleading. Further misbranding was alleged in|that it was a drug and its container was so made, formed, or filled as to be|misleading.|On March 5, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|224. Misbranding of Wemett's Salve. U. S. v. 66 Packages of Wemett's Salve. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00224April, 1941F. J. WemettWemett's SalveSeptember 21, 1939Seattle, Wash.Los Angeles, Calif.Seattle, Wash.Western District of Washington224F. D. C. No. 1127. Sample No. 39966-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00224ddnj|224. Misbranding of Wemett's Salve. IT. S. v. 66 Packages of Wemett's Salve.|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 1127.|Sample No. 39966-D.)|This product was labeled with false and misleading representations regarding|its efficacy in the conditions indicated below; and the tube containing it occu-|pied only approximately 20 percent of the capacity of the carton.|On December 4, 1939, the United States attorney for the Western District|of Washington filed a libel against 66 packages of Wemett's Salve at Seattle,|Wash., alleging that the article .had been shipped in interstate commerce on or|about September 21, 1939, by F. J. Wemett from Los Angeles, Calif.; and|charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that it consisted essentially of salicylic acid (30.1 percent),|incorporated in a petrolatum, base.|It was alleged to be misbranded In that representations in the labeling that|the first application would remove soreness; that it would reduce swelling,|and that it would reduce the swelling and take out the soreness and inflam-|mation of bunions were false and misleading since the article was not effica-|cious for the purposes so recommended. It was alleged, to be misbranded|further in that its containers were so made, formed, or filled as to be|misleading.|On March 25, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|DRUGS IN DECEPTIVE CONTAINERS OR MISLABELED AS TO|QUANTITY OF CONTENTS *|225. Misbranding of Deo Eucalyptus Ointment. U. S. v. 66 Packages of Deo Eucalyptus Ointment. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00225April, 1941Deo Eucalyptus LaboratoriesDeo Eucalyptus OintmentJuly 28 and November 6, 1939Portland, Oreg.Oakland, Calif.Portland, Oreg.District of Oregon225F..D. C. No. 1386. Sample No. 83477-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00225ddnj|225. Misbranding: of Deo Eucalyptus Ointment. U. S. v. 66 Packages of Deo|Eucalyptus Ointment. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(P..D. C. No. 1386. Sample No. 83477-D.)|The tubes containing this product occupied less than 20 percent of the space|in the cartons.|On January 16, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of Oregon|filed a libel against 66 packages of Deo Eucalyptus Ointment at Portland, Oreg.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|July 28 and November 6, 1939, by the Deo Eucalyptus Laboratories from Oak-|land, Calif.; and charging that it was misbranded in that its containers were|so made, formed, or filled as to be misleading.|On March 5, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.|226. Misbranding of Grove's Emulsified Nose Drops. U. S. v. 8 Dozen Packages of Grove's Emulsified Nose Drops. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00226April, 1941Grove Laboratories, Inc.Grove's Emulsified Nose DropsOctober 5, 1939Pittsburgh, Pa.St. Louis, Mo.Pittsburgh, Pa.Western District of Pennsylvania226F. D. C. No. 1454. Sample No. 78888-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00226ddnj|226. Misbranding of Grove's Emulsified Nose Drops. V. S. v. S Dozen Packages|of Grove's Emulsified Nose Drops. Default decree of condemnation and|destruction. (F. D. C. No. 1454. Sample No. 78888-D.)|The containers of this product were deceptive since the contents, which|consisted of a bottle, a dropper, and a circular, occupied not more than one-|fourth of the total capacity of the carton.|On February 6, 1940, the United States attorney for the Western District|of Pennsylvania filed a libel against 8 dozen packages of the above-named|product at Pittsburgh, Pa., alleging that the article had been shipped in inter-|state commerce on or about October 5, 1939, by Grove Laboratories, Inc., from|St. Louis, Mo.; and charging that it was misbranded in that the containers|were so made, formed, or filled as to be misleading.|On March 25, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.|228. Misbranding of Aztec Liniment, Pulmotol, Optosan Eye Drops, Nostrisol Nasal Drops, Stomavita, and Femovita. U. S. v. 10 Bottles of Aztec Liniment, et al. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00228April, 1941Hildago PharmacyAztec Liniment, Pulmotol, Optosan Eye Drops, Nostrisol Nasal Drops, Stomavita, and FemovitaNovember 3, 1939, to December 5, 1939Phoenix, Ariz.Los Angeles, Calif.Phoenix, Ariz.District of Arizona228F. D. C. No. 1352. Sample Nos. 71322-D to 71325-D, incl. , 71327-D, 71328-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00228ddnj|228. Misbranding of Aztec Liniment, Pulmotol, Optosan Eye Drops, Nostrisol|Nasal Drops, Stomavita, and Femovita. XT. S. v. 10 Bottles of Aztec Lini-|ment, et al. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C.|No. 1352. Sample Nos. 71322-D to 71325-D, incl., 71327-D, 71328-D.)|The Aztec Liniment, Pulmotol, Stomavita, and Femovita involved in this.|case were contained in bottles with unusually thick glass, which had a rather|heavy base, with the walls recessed or paneled and the neck unnecessarily long.|The bottles were contained in paper cartons. The Optosan Eye Drops and the|Nostrisol Nasal Drops were each packaged in cartons, the contents of the former|occupying less than half the capacity of the carton and the contents of the latter|occupying less than 30 percent of the capacity of the carton.|On January 16, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of Arizona|filed a libel against 10 bottles of Aztec Liniment, 282 bottles of Pulmotol, 12|packages of Optosan Eye Drops, 9 packages of Nostrisol Nasal Drops, 54 bottles|of Stomavita, and 3fr bottles of Femovita at Phoenix, Ariz., alleging that the|articles had been shipped in interstate commerce by the Hildago Pharmacy from|Los Angeles, Calif., 'within the period from on or about November 3, 1939, to on|or about December 5, 1939; and charging that they were misbranded in that|their containers were so made, formed, or filled as to be misleading.|On April 22, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and it was ordered that the products be destroyed.|229. Misbranding of Mexican Oil. U. S. v. 276 Packages of Mexican Oil Brand. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00229April, 1941Hausman Drug Co.Mexican OilOctober 17, 1939El Paso, Tex.Trinidad, Colo.El Paso, Tex.Western District of Texas229F. D, C. No. 1285. Sample No. 71163-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00229ddnj|229. Misbranding of Mexican OIL XT. S. v. 276 Packages of Mexican Oil Brand.|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D, C. No. 1285.|Sample No. 71163-D.)|The bottles containing this product were made of thick glass, were paneled,|and were enclosed in' ^oversized cardboard cartons.|On January 5, 1940, the United States attorney for the Western District of|Texas filed a libel against 276 bottles of Mexican Oil at El Paso, Tex., alleging,|that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about October 17,|1939, from Trinidad, Colo., by Hausman Drug Co.; and charging that it was|misbranded in that its containers,!, e., the bottles and packages, were so made,|formed, or filled as to be misleading. ???.,. . |On February 19, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|230. Misbranding of olive oil and tincture benzoin compound. U. S. v. The Ideal Laboratories, Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $150.ddnj00230April, 1941Ideal Laboratories, Inc., Denver, Colo.olive oil and tincture benzoin compoundAugust 17 and October 4, 1939ColoradoColoradoWyomingDistrict of Colorado230F. D. C. No. 936. Sample Nos. 70687-D, 70688-D, 70767-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00230ddnj|230. Misbranding of olive oil and tincture benzoin compound. U. S. v. The Ideal.|Laboratories, Inc. Plea ot guilty. Fine, $150. (F. D. C. No. 936. Sample|Nos. 70687-D, 70688-D, 70767-D.)|These products were short of the declared volume.|On March 20, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of Colorado|filed an information against the Ideal Laboratories, Inc., Denver, Colo.,.',|alleging shipment by said company on or about August 17 and October 4,|1939, from the State of Colorado into the State of Wyoming of quantities|of olive oil and tincture benzoin compound that were misbranded. The olive|oil was labeled in part: (Bottles) \"\"16 Oz.,\"\" \"\"8 Oz.,\"\" or \"\"4 Oz.\"\" The tincture|benzoin compound was labeled in part: \"\"2 Oz.\"\" or \"\"4 Oz.\"\"|The articles were alleged to be misbranded in that the statements on the|bottle labels, \"\"16 Oz.,\"\" \"\"8 Oz.,\"\" \"\"4 Oz.,\"\" and \"\"2 Oz.,\"\" were false and misleading|since the bottles contained less than the amounts declared. They were alleged to|be misbranded further in that they were in package form and the labels failed|to bear an accurate statement of the quantity of the contents.|On June 25, 1940, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant?\\|and the court imposed a fine of $150.|231. Misbranding of gauze bandage. U. S. v. 124 Retail Packages of Bandage. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00231April, 1941Stapure Productsgauze bandageFebruary 12 to March 6, 1940Manchester, N. H.Boston, Mass.Manchester, N. H.District of New Hampshire231F. D. C. No. 1608. Sample No. 87089-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00231ddnj|231. Misbranding: of gauze bandage. U. S. v. 124 Retail Packages of Bandage.|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 1608.|Sample No. 87089-D.)|The cartons in which this product was packed contained 3 envelopes of|first aid strips but they were large enough to hold approximately 9 envelopes.|On March 13, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of New|Hampshire filed a libel against 124 packages of bandage at Manchester, N. H.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce within|the period from on or about February 12 to on or about March 6, 1940, by|Stapure Products from Boston, Mass.; and charging that it was misbranded.|The article was labeled in part: \"\"Stapure * * * Instant-Bandage.\"\"|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that its container was so made,|formed, or filled as to be misleading.|. Oh April 30, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment.of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|NONSTERILE SURGICAL DRESSINGS AND TONGUE BLADES|378. Misbranding of Brown's Bron-Ki. U. S. v. 27 1-gallon Cans and 8 5-galIon Cans of Bron-Ki. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00378March 1942Brown's Bron-Ki Co. from Lancaster, Pa.Brown's Bron-KiMay 10 to May 17, 1940Dagsboro, Del.Lancaster, Pa.Dagsboro, Del.District of Delaware378F. D. C. No. 2364. Sample Nos. 14254-E, 14255-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00378ddnj|378. Misbranding: of Brown's Bron-Kl. TJ. S. v. 27 1-gallon Cans and 8 5-galIon|Cans of Bron-Kl. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F.|D. C. No. 2364. Sample Nos. 14254-E, 14255-E.)|The labeling of this veterinary product bore false and misleading representa-|tions regarding its efficacy in the conditions indicated hereinafter.|On July 16, 1910, the United States attorney for the District of Delaware filed|a libel against 27 gallon cans and 8 5-gallon cans of Brown's Bron-Ki at Dags-|boro, Del., alleging that the article had been shipped \"\"in interstate commerce|within the period from on or about May 10 to May 17, 1940, by Brown's Bron-Ki|Co. from Lancaster, Pa.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of kerosene with small|quantities of volatile oils such as oil of spruce, oil of eucalyptus, oil of tar, and|oil of citronella. Bacteriological examination showed that it was devoid of|antiseptic properties.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that its labeling contained repre-|sentations that it was efficacious in the treatment of colds, bronchitis and other|diseases of the respiratory tract in poultry, that it was efficacious as a preventive|and treatment for brooder pneumonia, that it contained healing and antiseptic|ingredients, and that if treatment was undertaken immediately, infection would|not develop; whereas the article would not be efficacious for such purposes.|On August 27, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|379. Misbranding of Colicramp Drops. U. S. v. 114 Packages of Colicramp Drops. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00379March 1942A. G. Groblewski & Co.Colicramp DropsSeptember 6, 1940New York, N. Y.Plymouth, Pa.New York, N. Y.Southern District of New York379F. D. C. No. 3577. Sample No. 46126-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00379ddnj|379. Misbranding; of Colicramp Drops. U. S. v. 114 Packages of Colicramp Drops.|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 3577.|Sample No. 46126-B.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regarding|its efficacy in the conditions indicated hereinafter. It was packed in a very|narrow, paneled bottle in a carton considerably larger than was necessary.|On December 27, 1940, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|New York filed a libel against 114 packages of Colicramp Drops at New York,|N. Y., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or|about September 6, 1940, by A. G. Groblewski & Co. from Plymouth, Pa.; and|charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of alcohol, ether, and|small amounts of peppermint, ammonia, ginger, and extracts of plant drugs.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements in the labeling|were false and misleading: \"\"Colicramp * * * For relief of Gas in Stomach,|Wind Pains in Stomach * * * Heavy or Bloated Feeling after Eating. Also|for Colicky-Like Gas Pains Peculiar to Women (similar statements in foreign|language),\"\" since the article was not efficacious for such purposes. It was|alleged to be misbranded further in that its container was so made, formed, or f|filled as to be misleading|On March 4, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation ,|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|232. Misbranding of absorbent cotton. U. S. v. 11 1/2 Dozen and 23 1/2 Dozen Packages of Absorbent Cotton. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00232April, 1941Acme Cotton Products Co.absorbent cottonSeptember 15 and October 31, 1939Miami, Fla.Dayville, Conn.Miami, Fla.Southern District of Florida232F. D. C. No. 1041. Sample No. 66081-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00232ddnj|232. Misbranding: of absorbent cotton. TJ. S. v. 11% Dozen and 23% Dozen|Packages of Absorbent Cotton. Default decrees of condemnation and|? destruction. (F. D. C. No. 1041. Sample No. 66081-D.)|. This product had been shipped in interstate commerce and was in|interstate commerce at thie time of examination, at which time it was found|to contain viable micro-organisms. The roll of cotton in the 1?-ounce pack-|ages occupied only two-thirds of the total length of the carton.|On November 22, 1939, the United States attorney for the Southern Dis-|trict of Florida filed a libel against 35 dozen packages of absorbent cotton|at Miami, Fla. On June 27, 1940, the libel was amended to include an addi-|tional 45? dozen packages. The libel as amended alleged that the article|had been shipped in interstate commerce on. or about September 15 and|October 31, 1939, by the Acme Cotton Products Co. from Dayville, Conn.,|and charged . that it was misbranded. It was labeled in part: \"\"Bonita|Absorbent Cotton.\"\"|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the representations in|the labeling that it had been sterilized after packaging and was for surgical|and sanitary uses, were false and misleading as applied to an article which|was not sterile, but was contaminated with viable micro-organisms. The|product in the 1?-oiince packages was alleged to be misbranded further in|that its containers were so made, formed, or filled as to be misleading.|On July 31, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed. ;|233. Misbranding of absorbent cotton. U. S. v. 600 Dozen Packages and 300 Dozen Packages of Absorbent Cotton. Consent decree of condemnation. Product released under bond conditioned that cotton be sterilized and packages destroyed.ddnj00233April, 1941Acme Cotton Products Co., Inc.absorbent cottonAugust 17, 1939New York, N. Y.Dayville, Conn.New York, N. Y.Southern District of New York233F. D. C. Nos. 588, 589. Sample Nos. 67868-D, 67869-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00233ddnj|233. Misbranding of absorbent cotton. TJ. S. v. 600 Dozen Packages and 300|Dozen Packages of Absorbent Cotton. Consent decree of condemnation.|Product released under bond conditioned tbat cotton be sterilized and|packages destroyed. (F. D. C. Nos. 588, 589. Sample Nos. 67868-D, 67869-D.)|This product had been shipped in interstate commerce and was in interstate|commerce at the time of examination, at which time it was found to contain|viable micro-organisms. The cartons were materially larger than necessary.|On September 14, 1939, the United States attorney for the Southern Dis-|trict of New York filed a libel against 900 packages of absorbent cotton at|New York, N. Y., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate|commerce on or about August 17, 1939, by Acme Cotton Products Co. from|Dayville, Conn.; and charging that it was misbranded. It was labeled in|part: \"\"Acme Sterilized High Grade Surgical Absorbent Cotton\"\"; or \"\"Merital|Cotton.\"\"|The Acme brand was alleged to be misbranded in that the representations|in the labeling that it was sterilized, high-grade surgical absorbent cotton,|that it was used extensively by practicing physicians, that for home use|it might be relied upon for first-aid, sickroom, and nursery purposes, and|that exceptional care had been used in its manufacture, were false and mis-|leading as applied to a product which was not sterile or high grade and|was not suitable for the purposes for which it was represented in said|statements.|The Merital brand was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements|on the label, \"\"Merital Cotton Contents Three Ounces\"\" and \"\"Made by the Acme|Cotton Products Co. Inc., New York, N. Q.,\"\" were false and misleading in that|they failed to reveal the fact that the contents of the packages were not sterile,|but were contaminated with viable micro-organisms, which fact was material|with respect to the consequences which might result from the use of the|article to which the labeling related under such conditions of use as are|customary or usual.|Both brands were alleged to be misbranded further in that their con-|tainers were so made, formed, or filled as to be misleading.|On April 19, 1940, the Acme Cotton Products Co., Inc., claimant, having|admitted the allegations of the libel, judgment of condemnation was entered|and the product was ordered released under bond on condition that the cartons|be destroyed and the cotton sterilized.|234. Adulteration and misbranding of sanitary cotton swab applicators. U. S. v. 45 Dozen Packages and 10 Dozen Packages of Sanitary Cotton Swab Applicators with Tongue Blades. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00234April, 1941Woltra Co., Inc.sanitary cotton swab applicatorsAugust 23 and September 28, 1939Bethlehem, Pa.New York, N. Y.Bethlehem, Pa.Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the Western District of Missouri234F. D. C. Nos. 1408, 1416. Sample Nos. 37509-D, 70160-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00234ddnj|234. Adulteration and misbranding: of sanitary cotton swab applicators. U. S. v.|45 Dozen Packages and 10 Dozen Packages of Sanitary Cotton Swab Ap-|plicators -with Tongue Blades. Default decrees of condemnation and|destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 1408, 1416. Sample Nos. 37509-D, 70160-D.)|This product had been shipped in interstate commerce and was in interstate|commerce at the time of examination, at which time it was found to contain|viable micro-organisms. It was labeled to indicate that it contained an appre-|ciable amount of boric acid; whereas it contained but a trace of boric acid.|On January 29 and 30, 1940, the United States attorneys for the Eastern|District of Pennsylvania and the Western District of Missouri filed libels against|10 dozen packages of the above-named product at Bethlehem, Pa., and 45 dozen.|packages of the product at Kansas City, Mo., alleging that it had been \"\"shipped|in interstate commerce on or about August 23 and September 28, 1939, by the|Woltra Co., Inc., from New York, N. Y.; and charging that it was adulterated|and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from|and its quality or purity fell below that which it purported or was represented|to possess since it was represented to have been made from sterilized absorbent|cotton and dipped in boric acid; whereas it was not sterile and it contained an|insignificant amount of boric acid.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the representations in the labeling|that it was made from sterilized absorbent cotton dipped in boric acid, that it|was a sanitary cotton swab applicator approved and recommended by doctors|and nurses, and that it was borated, were false and misleading as applied to|an article which was .not sterile but was contaminated with viable micro-|organisms and which contained an insignificant amount of boric acid.|On February 27 and March 8, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgments|of condemnation were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|235. Adulteration of cotton swab applicators. U. S. v. 45 Cartons of Sanitary Cotton Swab Applicators with Tongue Blade. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00235April, 1941Woltra Co., Inc.cotton swab applicatorsAugust 2 and October 11, 1939Seattle, Wash.New York, N. Y.Seattle, Wash.Western District of Washington235F. D. C. No. 1143. Sample No. 83879-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00235ddnj|235. Adulteration of cotton swab applicators. U. S. v. 45 Cartons of Sanitary|Cotton Swab Applicators with Tongue Blade. Default decree of con-|demnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 1143. Sample No. 83879-D.)|This product had been shipped in interstate commerce, was in interstate|commerce at the time of examination, and was found to be contaminated with|viable micro-organisms at that time. It was also labeled to indicate that|it contained an appreciable amount of boric acid; whereas it contained but|a trace of boric acid.|On December 5, 1939, the United States attorney for the Western District|of Washington filed a libel against 45 cartons of cotton swab applicators at|Seattle, Wash., alleging that the article had been shipped on or about August|2 and October 11, 1939, by the Woltra Co., Inc., from New York, N. Y.; and|charging that it was adulterated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from|and its purity or quality fell below that which it purported or was represented to|possess in that its labeling|\"\" contained representations that it had been made from|sterilized absorbent cotton and dipped in boric acid; whereas it was not|sterile and it contained an insignificant amount of boric acid.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the representations in the labeling|that it had been made from sterilized absorbent cotton and dipped in boric|acid, that it was approved and recommended by doctors and nurses, and|that it was borated, were false and misleading as applied to an article that|was not sterile, and that contained an insignificant amount of boric acid.|On March 25, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.|236. Adulteration and misbranding of gauze bandage. U. S. v. 16 3/4 Gross, 786 Packages, and 65 Dozen Packages of Bandage. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00236April, 1941Deane Sales Co.gauze bandageMarch 23, 1939, to March 13, 1940New Orleans, La.; Le Center, Minn.; Los Angeles, Calif.New York, N. Y.New Orleans, La.; Le Center, Minn.; Los Angeles, Calif.Eastern District of Louisiana, District of Minnesota, and the Southern District of California236F. D. C. Nos. 1508, 1868, 1930. Sample Nos. 61682-D, 61683-D, 8078-E, 7336-E, 7337-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00236ddnj|236. Adulteration and misbranding of gauze bandage. IT. S. v. 16% Gross, 7S6|Packages, and 65 Dozen Packages of Bandage. Default decrees of con-|demnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 1508, 1868, 1930. Sample Nos.|61682-D, 61683-D, 8078-E, 7336-E, 7337-E.)|This product had been shipped in interstate commerce and was in interstate|commerce at the time of examination, at which time it was found to contain|viable micro-organisms.|On February 21, April 25, and May 7, 1940, the United States attorneys for|the Eastern District of Louisiana, District of Minnesota, and the Southern|District of California filed libels against 16? gross of gauze bandage at New|Orleans, La.; 756 retail packages of bandage at Le Center, Minn.; and 65 dozen|retail packages of bandage at Los Angeles, Calif., alleging that the article had|been shipped in interstate commerce within the period from on or about March|23, 1939, to on or about March 13, 1940, from New York, N. Y., by the Deane|Sales Co.; and charging adulteration and misbranding. Certain lots were|labeled in part: \"\"RX 110 [or \"\"111\"\" or \"\"112\"\"] Gauze Bandage * * * RX|Products Co. Chicago.\"\" The remaining lot was labeled in part: \"\"Deane's Gauze|Bandage.\"\"|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its quality fell below that|which it purported or was represented to possess.|Misbranding was alleged in that the representations in the labeling of the|Deane gauze bandage .that it was a first aid and was sterilized, and those in|the labeling of the RX bandage that it had been scientifically prepared, was|designed to meet perfectly first-aid requirements, had been sterilized after|packaging, and was pure, were false and misleading since the article was not|sterile but was contaminated with viable micro-organisms.|On March 27, June 2, and June 5, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judg-|ments of condemnation were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|237. Misbranding of bandages. U. S. v. 44 Packages each containing 10 First Aid Bandages, and 22 Packages each containing 25 First Aid Bandages. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00237April, 1941Co-Dent Co., Inc.bandagesJuly 16, 1940Baltimore, Md.Philadelphia, Pa.Baltimore, Md.District of Maryland237F. D. C. No. 2479. Sample No. 28432-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00237ddnj|237. Misbranding of bandages. TJ. S. v. 44 Packages each containing 10 First|Aid Bandages, and 22 Packages each containing 25 First Aid Bandages.|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 2479. Sam-|ple No. 28432-E.)|' This product had been shipped in interstate commerce and was in interstate|commerce at the time of examination, at which time the product in the 25-band-|age size was found to be contaminated with micro-organisms. The cartons con-|taining the 10 bandages were the same size as those containing the 25 bandages.|On August 2, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of Maryland|filed a libel against 66 packages of bandages at Baltimore, Md., alleging that the|article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about July 16, 1940, by|the Co-Dent Co., Inc., from Philadelphia, Pa.; and charging it was misbranded.|The article was labeled in part: \"\"Approved Products Incorporated Philadelphia.\"\"|The portion of the bandages that were labeled in part \"\"25 First Aid Bandages\"\"|was alleged to be misbranded in that the representations in the labeling that|the article was a first-aid bandage, an emergency dressing for minor injuries,|and a sterile adhesive dressing to be placed over wounds, were false and mis-|leading as applied to an article which was not sterile but was contaminated with|viable micro-organisms. The portion labeled \"\"10 First Aid Bandages\"\" was|alleged to be misbranded in that the container was so made, formed, or filled|as to be misleading.|On September 11,1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|and destruction was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|442. Misbranding of Germania Herb Tea. U. S. v. 1,250 Packages of No. 14 Germania Herb Tea. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00442September 1942Germania Tea Co.Germania Herb TeaJanuary 15 and 22, 1941Philadelphia, Pa.Minneapolis, Minn.Philadelphia, Pa.Eastern District of Pennsylvania442F. D. C. Nos. 3816, 3817. Sample Nos. 40253-E, 40254-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00442ddnj|442. Misbranding of Germania Herb Tea. U. S. v. 1,250 Packages of No. 14|Germania Herb Tea. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. Nos. 3816, 3S17. Sample Nos. 40253-E, 40254-E.)|The label of this product not only failed to bear adequate directions for use;|but it contained false and misleading statements regarding its efficacy as an|aid in weight reduction and in the treatment of various diseases, and it failed|to bear the common or usual name of each of the active ingredients.|On February 14, 1941, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Pennsylvania filed a libel against 600 sample packages and 650 retail packages|of Germania Herb Tea at Philadelphia. Pn., alleging that it hnd been shipped by|the Germania Tea Co. from Minneapolis, Minn., and by Consolidated Drug Trade|Products, Inc., from Chicago, 111., on or about January 15 and 22,1941; and charg-|ing that it was misbranded.|Examination of a sample of the article showed that it consisted of senna leaves?\\|(approximately 40 percent) with smaller proportions of other leaves, buds, seeds,|stems and flowers including arnica flowers, uva ursi leaves, aniseed, and Cyanus?,-|flowers.|The article was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that its labeling failed to|bear adequate directions for use, since directions contained in an accompanying|booklet entitled \"\"Food,\"\" that users drink Germania Herb Tea with meals as|needed for a few weeks, were not appropriate for an article of its composition|and therefore were not adequate. (2) In that statements in the aforesaid book-|let and in a leaflet entitled \"\"Insist on Genuine No. 14 Germania Herb Tea,\"\" rep-|resenting that its use would give the consumer a normal, healthy, and beautiful|figure; that it would be effective for the relief of many body aches and pains ; that|it would give regular elimination for a healthy stomach; that it would \"\"be effica-|cious in the treatment of stomach-heartburns, sour stomach, belching, vomiting,|biliousness, dizzy spells, gas in the stomach and bowels, loss of appetite and restless|nights; that by its use one could avoid constipation; that it would be efficacious|in the treatment of rheumatic aches and pains; that its use would give the|consumer a clear complexion, would stimulate functional kidney action, would|aid in weight reduction, and would help promote elimination of wastes through|the kidneys and gastro-intestinal organs, were false and misleading since it|would not be efficacious for such purposes. (3) In that its label failed to bear|the common or usual name of each active ingredient, since the statement on the|label, \"\"No. 14 Germania Herb Tea is Composed of T. V. Senna Leaves, Black|Tea, Acacia Flowers, Cyani Flowers, Pansy Herb, Uva Ursi Leaves, Arnica|Flowers, Blackberry Leaves, Raspberry Leaves, Sweet Violet Leaves, Horse Tail,|Elder Flowers, Woodruff Herb, Fennel Seed, Aniseeds and Camomile Flowers,\"\"|did not indicate which of the plant materials mentioned are physiologically or|therapeutically active.|On March 8, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed..|238. Adulteration and misbranding of gauze bandage. U. S. v. 9 5/8 Gross Retail Packages of Gauze Bandage. Default decree of condemnation and order of destruction.ddnj00238April, 1941Hanover Sales Co.gauze bandageMay 20, 1940Providence, R. I.Boston, Mass.Providence, R. I.District of Rhode Island238F. D. C. 2193. Sample No. 2766-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00238ddnj|238. Adulteration and misbranding of gauze bandage. TJ. S. v. 9% Gross Retail|Packages of Gauze Bandage. Default decree of condemnation and order|of destruction. (F. D. C. 2193. Sample No. 2766-E.)|This product had been shipped in interstate commerce and was in interstate|commerce at the time of examination, at which time it was found to contain|viable micro-organisms.|One June 12, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of Rhode|Island filed a libel against 9? gross of gauze bandage at Providence, R. I.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|May 20, 1940, by the Hanover Sales Co. from Boston, Mass.; and charging|that it was adulterated and misbranded. The article was labeled in part:|\"\"Fabco Self^Adhering Gauze Bandage * * ? * First Aid Bandage Co.,|Leominster, Mass.'.'|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its purity or quality fell|below that which it purported, or was represented to possess, namely, \"\"ster-|ilized.\"\" It was alleged to be misbranded in that the representations in the|labeling that it had been sterilized after packing; that after packaging \"\"it|had been subjected to a sterilization process whereby the effectively sealed?,|packages had been subjected to the action of steam heat sufficient to?(|raise the interior of the package to a temperature of 240? F.: and that such|temperature had been steadily maintained as a minimum for a period of 30'|minutes, were false and misleading as applied to an article which was not;|sterile but was contaminated with viable micro-organisms.|On August 27, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation'|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|239. Adulteration and misbranding of self-adhering gauze. U. S. v. 36 Dozen Retail Packages of Fabco Self-Adhering Gauze. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00239April, 1941Hanover Sales Co., Inc.self-adhering gauzeFebruary 12, 1940Providence, R. I.Boston, Mass.Providence, R. I.District of Rhode Island239F. D. C. No. 1624. Sample No. 87063-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00239ddnj|239. Adulteration and misbranding of self-adhering gauze. U. S. v. 36 Dozen|Retail Packages of Fabco Self-Adhering Gauze. Default' decree of con-|demnation: and destruction. (F. D.'C. No. 1624. Sample No. 87063-D.)|This product had heen shipped In interstate commerce and was in interstate|commerce at .the time of examination, at which time it was found to be con-|taminated with viable micro-organisms.|\"\" ,|On March 13, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of Rhode|Island filed a libel against 36 dozen retail packages of the above-named|product at Providence, R. I., alleging that the article had been shipped in|interstate commerce on or about February 12, 1940, by Hanover Sales Co.,|Inc., from Boston, Mass.; and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its purity or quality fell|below that which it purported or was represented to possess, since it was|represented as having been sterilized after packing; whereas it was not sterile|but was contaminated with viable micro-organisms.|It was. alleged to be misbranded in that the representation in the labeling,|that it had been sterilized after packing was false and misleading as applied|to a product which was contaminated with viable micro-organisms.|On April 11, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|240. Adulteration and misbranding of gauze bandage. U. S. v. 9 11/12 Gross Packages of Gauze Bandage. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00240April, 1941Meditex Supply Co.gauze bandageJuly 16, 1940Boston, Mass.New York, N. Y.Boston, Mass.District of Massachusetts240F. D. C. No. 2610. Sample No. 2725-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00240ddnj|240. Adulteration and misbranding of gauze bandage. U. S. -v. 911^2 Gross Pack--|ages of Gauze Bandage. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 2610. Sample No. 2725-E.)|This product had been shipped in interstate commerce and was in interstate|commerce at the-time Of examination, at which time it was found\"\" to contain|viable micro-organisms. The bandages becupied approximately 44 percent of|the space in the carton.1^-?;?' ;v|On August 19, 1940, tlfe United States-attorney for the District of Massachu-|setts filed a libel against 9*?2 gross packages of gauze bandages at Boston,|Mass., alleging that the article had been shipped in- interstate commerce on or|about July 16, 1940, by the Meditex Supply Co, from New York, N. Y.; and|charging that it was adulterated and misbranded. The article was labeled in|part: \"\"Gauze Bandage Sterilized After Packing Meditex.\"\"|It was alleged to be adulterated in that its purity or quality fell below that|which it purported or was represented to possess, namely, \"\"Sterilized,\"\" since|it was| not sterile, but was contaminated with viable micro-organisms.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the representation on the carton-that|it had been sterilized after packing was false and misleading as applied to an|article which was not sterile. It was alleged to be misbranded further in|that its container was so made, formed, or filled as to be misleading.|On September 16, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condem-|nation was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|241. Misbranding of surgical dressings. U. S. v. 11 Gross Packages of Medi Band All Purpose Bandage; and 6 Gross of Medi-Gauze. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00241April, 1941Medi Brand Products Manufacturing Co.surgical dressingsJanuary 17 to January 29, 1940Chicago, Ill.Detroit, Mich.Chicago, Ill.Northern District of Illinois241F. D. C. Nos. 1589, 1658. Sample Nos. 46944-D to 46947-D, incl.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00241ddnj|241. Misbranding of surgical dressings. TT. S. v. 11 Gross Packages of Medi|Band All Purpose Bandage; and 6 Gross of Medi-Gauze. Default decrees|of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 1589. 1658. Samnle Noa|46944-D to 46947-D, incl.) |o?u*ip?s noa.|These products had been shipped in interstate commerce and were in inter-|state commerce at the time they were examined, at which time they were found?/|to be contaminated with viable micro-organisms. A portion of the \"\"Medi-Gauze\"\" (|was packed in cartons about twice as large as necessary.|On March 8 and 20, 1940, the United States attorney for the Northern Dis-?(trict of Illinois filed libels against 11 gross packages of bandage and 6 gross?v-|packages of gauze at Chicago, 111., alleging that the articles had been shipped|in interstate commerce within the period from on or about January 17 to on|or about January 29, 1940, by Medi Brand Products Manufacturing Co. from|Detroit, Mich.; and charging that they were misbranded.|Misbranding was alleged in that representations in the labeling of the All|Purpose Bandage that it would guard against infection, was an all-purpose|bandage, was sanitary, an excellent first-aid bandage, and a necessary first|aid; and those in the labeling of the Medi-Gauze that it was medicated with|mercuric chloride, and could be used in place of ordinary gauze or adhesive|tape, were false and misleading. A portion of the Medi-Gauze was alleged to|be misbranded further in that its containers were so made, formed, and filled as to|be misleading.|On April 8 and May 7, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgments of|condemnation were entered and the products were ordered destroyed.|443. Misbranding of Gid. U. S. v. 105 Packages and 2,900 Envelopes (free samples) of Gid Granules No. 1 and 169 Packages of Gid Granules No. 2. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00443September 1942Eberly-Williams Manufacturing Co.GidApril 9 and 17, 1941Boston, Mass.Chicago, Ill.Boston, Mass.District of Massachusetts443F. D. C. No. 4854. Sample Nos. 36782-E, 36783-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00443ddnj|443. Misbranding of Gid. TJ. S. v. 105 Packages and 2,900 Envelopes (free|samples) of Gid Granules No. 1 and 169 Packages of Gid Granules No. 2.|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 4854. Sample|Nos. 36782-E, 36783-E.)|The labeling of the free samples of this product failed to bear adequate direc-|tions for use, the common or usual name of each of the active ingredients, the|name and place of business of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor, and a|statement of the quantity of contents. The labeling of the regular packages bore|false and misleading statements regarding its ingredients and its therapeutic|properties.|On June 2, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Massachusetts|filed a libel against the above-named products at Boston, Mass., alleging that|ihey had been shipped by Eberly-Williams Manufacturing Co. from Chicago,|111., on or about April 9 and 17, 1941; and charging that they were misbranded.|Analyses of samples of the articles showed that Gid Grannies No. 1 consisted|essentially of the mucilaginous part of psyllium seed, karaya gum, sodium bi-|carbonate in proportions varying from 1.2 percent to 8.2 percent, calcium car-|bonate in proportions varying from 0.79 percent to 9.2 percent, a phosphate, a|sulfate, and sugar; and that Gid Granules No. 2 consisted essentially of the|mucilaginous part of psyllium seed, karaya gum, yeast, and sugar.|The free samples of Gid Granules No. 1 were alleged to be misbranded for|the reasons stated above. Gid Granules No. 1 were alleged to be misbranded in|that the statement, (carton) \"\"Calcium Carbonate . . . 9? Sodium Bicarbonate|. . . 9?,\"\" was false and misleading since it did not contain the declared pro-|portions of calcium carbonate and sodium bicarbonate; and in that the state-|ment, (carton) \"\"are scientifically prepared to be of effective value in the|treatment of minor irritations and inflammations of the stomach and upper|intestines, a protective demulcent * * * Dosage four grams (one teaspoonful)?/|three or four times daily,\"\" was false and misleading since the article was not|an appropriate and effective medicament for the conditions mentioned and it|did not possess the properties claimed when used as stated. Gid Granules No.?,|2 were alleged to be misbranded in that the statement, (carton) \"\"are scientifi-?^|cally prepared to be of effective value in the treatment of minor irritations|and inflammations of the lower intestine and colon, and in spastic * * *|constipation,\"\" were false and misleading since the article did not constitute|an adequate treatment for the conditions mentioned. Both articles were alleged|to be misbranded in that statements in an accompanying circular entitled \"\"A|Message of Hope,\"\" representing that it would be efficacious for relief, from the|distressing symptoms in many cases of stomach troubles, indigestion, sore|stomach, had breath, gnawing pains, gas pains, dyspepsia, intestinal disorders,|biliousness, headache, sleeplessness, intestinal stasis, auto-intoxication, colitis,|colonic irritation, liver and gall deficiencies not due to infection; that Gid|means gastro-intestinal demulcence; that it would be efficacious as an aid for|gastro-intestinal lacerations, ulcers, lesions, stasis, constipation, and toxemia;|that Gid would coat offensive particles of the intestinal contents and every|square inch of stomach-intestinal wall with its protective demulcence; that|it would tend to correct diarrhea, tuberculosis, and cancer of the gastric tract;|that Gid No. 1 was especially adapted to neutralize the excess acidity of the|jejunum and upper intestine; and that Gid No. 2 was particularly fitted for|use in troubles located in the lower intestines, cecum, ascending and transverse|colon, sigmoid, and rectum, were false and misleading since it would not be|efficacious for such purposes.|Oh July 8, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|242. Adulteration and misbranding of gauze bandages. U. S. v. 30 Gross and 74 Dozen Gauze Bandages. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00242April, 1941Meditex Supply Co.gauze bandagesJune 19 and July 31, 1940Providence, R. I.New York, N. Y.Providence, R. I.District of Rhode Island242F. D. C. No. 696. Sample Nos. 36030-E to 36033-E, incl.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00242ddnj|242. Adulteration and misbranding of gauze bandages. IT. S. v. 30 Gross and|74 Dozen Gauze Bandages. Default decree of condemnation and destruc-|tion. (F. D. C. No. 696. Sample Nos. 36030-E to 36033-E, incl.)|This product had been shipped in interstate commerce and was in interstate|commerce when examined, at which time it was found to be contaminated with|viable micro-organisms. The bandages were short of the declared 10 yards in|length, were not composed of continuous strips but consisted of 2 or more|pieces sewed together, and the cartons were larger than necessary.|On August 30, 1940, the United States. attorney for the District of Rhode|'Island filed a libel against 30 gross and 74 dozen gauze bandages at Providence,|R. I., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or|about June 19 and July 31, 1940, by the Meditex Supply Co. from New York,|N. Y.; and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded. The article was|labeled in part: \"\"Gauze Bandage Meditex.\"\"|It was alleged to be adulterated in that its purity and quality fell below that|which it purported or was represented to possess, namely, gauze bandage which|had been sterilized after packing, since it did not consist of continuous strips but|of pieces sewed together and it was not sterile.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the representations on the carton that|it was gauze bandage, had been sterilized after packing, and was 10 yards in|length, were false and misleading as applied to an article which did not consist|of continuous strips of gauze, which was not sterile, and was not 10 yards long,|and the label of which did not reveal the fact, material in the light of the|representation that it was a gauze bandage 10 yards long, that it was not a|continuous strip. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the packages|failed to bear on their labels an accurate statement of the quantity of the con-|tents in terms of measure. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that|the containers were so made, formed, or filled as to be misleading.|On September 16, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnar|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|243. Misbranding of gauze bandage. U. S. v. 1 1/2 Gross Retail Packages of Gauze Bandage. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00243April, 1941Modern Necessitiesgauze bandageMarch 12, 1940Cincinnati, OhioChicago, Ill.Cincinnati, OhioSouthern District of Ohio243F. D. C. No. 1846. Sample Nos. 5817-E, 5818-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00243ddnj|243. Misbranding of gauze bandage. V. S. v. 1% Gross Retail Packages of|Gauze Bandage. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 1846. Sample Nos. 5817-E, 5818-E.)|This product had been shipped in interstate commerce and was in interstate|commerce at the time of examination, at which time it was found to be con-|taminated with viable micro-organisms. The bandages were not antiseptic as|implied by the labeling; and the 1 inch x 15 yard-sized rolls occupied only 48|percent of the volume of the carton, and the 1-inch x 7? yard-sized rolls occupied|only 40.22 percent of the volume of the carton.|On April 23, 1940, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|Ohio filed a libel against 1? gross packages of gauze bandages at Cin-|cinnati, Ohio, alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce|on or about March 12, 1940, by Modern Necessities from Chicago, 111.; and|charging that it was misbranded. The article was labeled in part: \"\"Nu-Tape|Adhering Gauze Bandage.\"\"|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the representations on the carton that|it was medicated with antiseptic mercuric chloride, and that it should be used|for wounds and burns as ordinary gauze bandage for all forms of bandaging,|were false and misleading as applied to an article that was not sterile and did|not possess antiseptic properties, but was contaminated with viable micro-|organisms. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that its containers were|so made, formed, or filled as to be misleading.|On May 25, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|244. Adulteration and misbranding of gauze bandage. U. S. v. 9 Dozen Packages and 17 Dozen Packages of Gauze Bandage. Default decree of condemnatlon and destruction.ddnj00244April, 1941Process Corporationgauze bandageNovember 1, 1938Billings, Mont.Chicago, Ill.Billings, Mont.District of Montana244F. D. C. No. 661. Sample No. 70879-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00244ddnj|244. Adulteration and misbranding of gauze bandage. U. S. v. 9 Dozen Packages|and 17 Dozen Packages of Gauze Bandage. Default decree of condemns- ,|tlon and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 661. Sample No. 70879-D.) |This product had been shipped in interstate commerce, was in interstate|commerce at the time of examination, and was found to be contaminated with?^|viable micro-organisms at that time.|On September 30,1939, the United States attorney for the District of Montana?x|filed a libel against 26 dozen packages of gauze bandage at Billings, Mont.,|alleging that the article had been shipped on or about November 1, 1938, by the|Process Corporation from Chicago, 111.; and charging that it was adulterated|and misbranded. It was labeled in part: \"\"Pro-Co-Pax Gauze Bandage.\"\"|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its purity fell below the|professed standard and quality under which it was sold since it was not sterile|but was contaminated with aerobic and anaerobic, or facultative anaerobic,|spore-forming micro-organisms.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the representations in the labeling|that it consisted of a nonravel bandage which had been scientifically prepared|for surgical use under sanitary manufacturing conditions, was false and mis-|leading since it was not sterile.|On December 15, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.|245. Adulteration and misbranding of bandages. U. S. v. 4 Dozen Retail Packages of Bandages. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00245April, 1941Sealtex Co.bandagesNovember 28, 1939Kansas City, Mo.Chicago, Ill.Kansas City, Mo.Western District of Missouri245F. D. C. No. 1413. Sample No. 67121-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00245ddnj|245. Adulteration and misbranding of bandages. TJ. S. v. 4 Dozen Retail Pack|ages of Bandages. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 1413. Sample No. 67121-D.)|This product had been shipped in interstate commerce and was in interstate|commerce at the time of examination, at which time it was found to be|contaminated with viable micro-organisms.|On January 27, 1940, the United States attorney for the Western District|of Missouri filed a libel against 4 dozen packages of bandages at Kansas City,|Mo., alleging that on or about November 28, 1939, the article had been shipped|by the Sealtex Co. from Chicago, 111.; and charging that it was adulterated|and misbranded. The article was labeled in part: \"\"Sealtex The Modern|Bandage.\"\"|It was alleged to be adulterated in that its purity or quality fell below that|which it purported or was represented to possess, in that it was represented|as having been sterilized; whereas it was not sterile but was contaminated|with viable micro-organisms.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the labeling bore representa-|tions that it had been sterilized after packaging with pressure steam heat as a|doctor would sterilize bandages, and that it could be used with the knowledge|that it was safe, which representations were false and misleading as applied to|an article which was not sterile but was contaminated with viable micro-|organisms.|On June 18, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|246. Adulteration and misbranding of gauze bandage. U. S. v. 221 Dozen Retail Packages of Gauze Bandage (and 4 other seizures of gauze bandage). Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00246April, 1941Supreme First Aid Co., Inc.gauze bandageDecember 8, 1939, to on or about February 27, 1940Charlotte, N. C.; Lumberton, N. C.; Pittsburgh, Pa.; Los Angeles, Calif.; Chicago, Ill.New York, N. Y.Charlotte, N. C.; Lumberton, N. C.; Pittsburgh, Pa.; Los Angeles, Calif.; Chicago, Ill.Western District of North Carolina, Eastern District of North Carolina, Western District of Pennsylvania, Southern District of California, and Northern District of Illinois246F. D. C. Nos. 1420 1595, 1731, 1873, 1890. Sample Nos. 66244-D, 78777-D, 7303-E, 7304-E, 4435-E 20508-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00246ddnj|246. Adulteration and misbranding of gauze bandage. U. S. v. 221 Dozen Retail|Packages of Gauze Bandage (and 4 other seizures of gauze bandage).|Default decrees of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 1420|1595, 1731, 1873, 1890. Sample Nos. 66244-D, 78777-D, 7303-E, 7304-E, 4435-E|20508-E.)|This product had been shipped in interstate commerce and was in interstate|status at the time of examination, at which time it was found to be contaminated|with viable micro-organisms.|Within the period from on or about January 31 to on or about May 8, 1940,|the United States attorneys for the Western District of North Carolina, Eastern|District of North Carolina, Western District of Pennsylvania, Southern District|of California, and Northern District of Illinois filed libels against 221 dozen|retail packages of gauze bandage at Charlotte, N. C.; 4 gross packages at Lum-|berton, N. C.; 39 dozen packages at Pittsburgh, Pa.; 105 dozen packages at|Los Angeles, Calif.; and 54 dozen packages at Chicago, 111., alleging that the|article had been shipped in interstate commerce within the period from on or|about December 8, 1939, to on or about February 27, 1940, by Supreme First|Aid Co., Inc., from New York, N. Y.; and charging that it was adulterated and|misbranded. The article was labeled in part: \"\"Supreme Gauze Bandage.\"\"|The product was alleged to be adulterated in that its purity or quality fell (?below that which it was purported or represented as possessing since it was?-|not sterile, but was contaminated with viable micro-organisms.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the representation that it had been|sterilized after packaging, was false and misleading as applied to a product which|was contaminated with viable micro-organisms. A portion was alleged to be|misbranded further in that the representation in the labeling that it was a|first-aid dressing for emergencies was. false and misleading as applied to an|article that was not fit for use as a first-aid dressing for emergencies.|Within the period from on or about February 29 to on or about June 24,|1940, no claimant having appeared, judgments of condemnation were entered|and the product was ordered destroyed.|247. Misbranding of gauze pads. U. S. v. 375 Boxes of Redi Dressing. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00247April, 1941Handy Pad Supply Co.gauze padsJanuary 25, 1940Buffalo, N. Y.Worcester, Mass.Buffalo, N. Y.Western District of New York247F. D. C. No. 1581. Sample No. 81346-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00247ddnj|247. Misbranding of gauze pads. U. S. v. 375 Boxes of Redi Dressing:. Default|decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 1581. Sample No.|81346-D.)|This product had been shipped in interstate commerce, was in interstate|commerce at the time of examination, and was found to be contaminated witn|viable micro-organisms at that time.|On March 6, 1940, the United States attorney for the Western District of|New York filed a libel against 375 boxes of Eedi-Dressing at Buffalo, N. Y.,|alleging that the article had been shipped by the Handy Pad Supply Co. from|Worcester, Mass., on or about January 25, 1940; and charging that it was|misbranded.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the representation in the|labeling that it was a protective dressing for minor injuries was false and|misleading, since it was not a protective dressing for minor injuries in that|it was not sterile but was contaminated with viable micro-organisms.|On March 25, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.|248. Misbranding of first aid kits. U. S. v. 29 Dozen First Aid Kits. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00248April, 1941American White Cross Laboratoriesfirst aid kitsMarch 30, 1940Butte, Mont.New Rochelle, N. Y.Butte, Mont.District of Montana248F. D. C. No. 1917. Sample No 6363-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00248ddnj|248. Misbranding of first aid kits. IT. S. v. 29 Dozen First Aid Kits. Default|decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 1917. Sample No|6363-E.)|This product had been shipped in interstate commerce and was in interstate|commerce at the time of examination, at which time the gauze bandages and|absorbent cotton in the kits were found to contain viable micro-organisms.|The containers of the various products making up the kits were, with the|exception of that of the absorbent cotton, unnecessarily large.|On May 24, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of Montana|filed a libel against 29 dozen packages of first aid kits at Butte, Mont., alleging|that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about March 30,|1940, by the American White Cross Laboratories from New Rochelle, N. Y.;|and charging that it was misbranded. The article was labeled in part:|\"\"White Cross Emergency First Aid Kits.\"\"|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement on the packages \"\"The|White Cross of Perfection is Your Protection\"\"; and the representations in|the labeling that it was an Emergency First Aid Kit; that it contained|sterilized surgical dressings for emergency first aid were false and misleading|since it was contaminated with viable micro-organisms. It was alleged to|be misbranded further in that its containers were so made, formed, or filled|as to be misleading since the cartons containing the individual products with|the exception of the absorbent cotton, were in all cases larger than was|required, the gauze bandage occupying approximately 29 percent, the adhesive|tape approximately 50 percent, and the adhesive strip bandage approximately|25 percent of the available space of their respective containers. The bottles|containing the mercurochrome were of extremely thick glass.|On July 30,1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|249. Adulteration and misbranding of first aid kits and bandage. U. S. v. 21 First Aid Kits and 28 Packages of First Aid Bandages. Decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00249April, 1941Co-Dent Co., Inc.first aid kits and bandageJune 17, 1940Buffalo, N. Y.Philadelphia, Pa.Buffalo, N. Y.Western District of New York249F. D. C. Nos. 2410, 2411. Sample Nos. 3852-E, 3853-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00249ddnj|249. Adulteration and misbranding of first aid kits and bandage. IT. S. v. 21|First Aid Kits and 28 Packages of First Aid Bandages. Decrees of con-|demnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 2410, 2411. Sample Nos. 3852-B,|3853-E.)|The first aid kits had been shipped in interstate commerce and were in|interstate commerce at the time of examination, at which time the absorbent|cotton, the gauze bandages, and the gauze pads in the kits were found to|be contaminated with viable micro-organisms. They were also misbranded|because of failure to meet certain requirements of the law with respect to|labeling, and the cartons containing the .individual items were, in most in-|stances, unnecessarily large. The first aid bandages contained mercurochrome|which was not declared on the label and their containers could easily have|held twice the number of bandages.|On July 25, 1940, the United States attorney for the Western District of|New York filed a libel against 21 first aid kits and 28 packages of first aid|bandages at Buffalo, N. T., alleging that the articles had been shipped in|interstate commerce on or about June 17, 1940, by Co-Dent Co., Inc., from|Philadelphia, Pa.; and charging that the first aid kits were adulterated and|misbranded and that the first aid bandages were misbranded. The articles|were labeled in part: \"\"First Aid Kit [or \"\"First Aid Bandages\"\"] Approved|Products Incorporated Philadelphia.\"\"|The first aid kits were alleged to be adulterated in that their purity or|quality fell below that which they purported or were represented to possess|in that they purported to be sterile; whereas they were not sterile but were|contaminated with viable micro-organisms. The first aid kits were alleged|to be misbranded in that the representations appearing variously on the cartons|containing the absorbent cotton, gauze bandages, and gauze pad that they were|for first aid, had been sterilized after packaging, were designed to fill|the daily requirements of an entire household, and were guaranteed to be|as represented, were false and misleading as applied to the articles in the|package which were not sterile. The kits were alleged to be misbranded|further in that they were in package form and failed to bear a label contain-|ing an accurate statement of the quantity of the contents and the common|or usual name of the items of which they were composed since the metal|container and outer carton did not carry the required information and the|cartons containing the adhesive plaster and bandages did not carry a state-|ment of the quantity of these items contained in the packages. They were|alleged to be misbranded further in that their container was so made, formed,|or filled as to be misleading.|The first aid bandages were alleged to be misbranded in that the label|failed to bear the name and the quantity or proportion of dibromo-hydroxy-|mercuri-fluorescein (mercurochrome), a derivative of mercury, contained in|the articles. They were alleged to be misbranded further in that their con-|tainers were so made, formed, or filled as to be misleading.|On September 13, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgments of con-|demnation were entered and the products were ordered destroyed.|250. Misbranding of gauze bandage and first aid kits. U. S. v. 17 Dozen Packages of Gauze Bandage; 2 Gross Packages of First Aid Kits. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00250April, 1941Hampton Manufacturing Co., Inc.gauze bandage and first aid kitsJuly 6 to October 31, 1939Harrisburg, Pa.Carlstadt, N. J.Harrisburg, Pa.Middle District of Pennsylvania and the Southern District of Ohio250F. D. C. Nos. 1489, 1748. Sample Nos. 70177-D, 5202-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00250ddnj|250. Misbranding of gauze bandage and first aid kits. TJ. S. v. 17 Dozen Pack-|ages of Gauze Bandage; 2 Gross Packages of First Aid Kits. Default|decrees of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 1489, 1748. Sam-|ple Nos. 70177-D, 5202-E.)|These products had been shipped in interstate commerce and were in inter-|state commerce at the time of examination, at which time the bandages in|the separate packages and the bandages and the cotton in the kits were found|to be contaminated with viable micro-organisms.|On or about February 14 and April 4, 1940, the United States attorneys|for the Middle District of Pennsylvania and the Southern District of Ohio|filed libels against 17 dozen packages of gauze bandage at Harrisburg, Pa.,|and 2 gross packages of First Aid Kits at Cincinnati, Ohio, alleging that the|articles had been shipped in interstate commerce by the Hampton Manu-|facturing Co., Inc., from Carlstadt, N. J., within the period from on or about|July 6 to on or about October 31, 1939; and charging that they were mis-|branded. They were labeled in part: \"\"Blue Cross Gauze Bandage\"\" or \"\"Blue|Cross First Aid Kit.\"\"|The gauze bandage was alleged to be misbranded in that the representation|in the labeling that it was a nonravel bandage scientifically prepared for|surgical use under sanitary manufacturing conditions, was false and misleading,|as applied to a product that was not sterile but was contaminated with viable|micro-organisms.|The first aid kits were alleged to be misbranded in that the representation|that they were first aid kits was false and misleading when applied to a|product which contained gauze and cotton that were not sterile but were|contaminated with viable micro-organisms.|On April 8 and May 1, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgments of|condemnation were entered and the products were ordered destroyed.|251. Adulteration and alleged misbranding of catgut sutures. U. S. v. 7 Boxes of Catgut Sutures. Product adjudged adulterated and ordered destroyed.ddnj00251April, 1941Laboratory of the Ramsey County Medical Societycatgut suturesFebruary 9, 1940Kansas City, Mo.St. Paul, Minn.Kansas City, Mo.Western District of Missouri251F. D. C. No. 1635. Sample No. 67158-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00251ddnj|251. Adulteration and alleged misbranding- of catgut sutures. U. S. v. 7 Boxes|of Catgut Sutures. Product adjudged adulterated and ordered destroyed.|(F. D. C. No. 1635. Sample No. 67158-D.)|This product had been shipped in interstate commerce and was in interstate|commerce at the time of examination, at which time it was found to contain|viable micro-organisms.|On or about March 15, 1940, the United States attorney for the Western|District of Missouri filed a libel against seven boxes of catgut sutures at|Kansas City, Mo., alleging that the article had been shipped on or about February|9, 1940, by the Laboratory of the Ramsey County Medical Society from St.|Paul, Minn.; and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded. The|article was labeled in part: \"\"Formalized Pyoktanin Catgut\"\"|It was alleged to be adulterated in that its purity fell below that which it|purported or was represented to possess, since the statement in the labeling,|\"\"Formalized Pyoktanin Catgut,\"\" and the directions for use, \"\"Tear the envelope|and drop the contents into a sterile solution; soak the strand before applica-|tion to make it pliable and prevent breaking of the knot,\"\" implied sterility of|the article.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the representations in the labeling|above referred to were false and misleading since they created the impression|that- the article was sterile catgut suitable for surgical use; whereas it was|not sterile catgut and was not suitable for surgical use.|On June 25, 1940, no claimant having appeared, the product was adjudged|adulterated and ordered destroyed.|5800. Kelpettes (sea kelp).ddnj05800April 1960Nelson's Health Foods, Hobart, Ind.Kelp-ettes (sea kelp)12-6-57Hobart, Ind.San Pedro, Calif.Hobart, Ind.N. Dist. Ind.5800F. D. C. No. 41911. , S. No. 11-326 P.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj05800ddnj|5800. Kelp-ettes (sea kelp). (F.D.C. No. 41911. ,S. No. 11-326 P.)|QUANTITY : 105 100-lb. drums of sea kelp, and 756 500-tablet unlabeled btls.,|and 142 500-tablet btls., 21 1,000-tablet btls., and 17 2,000-tablet btls., la-|beled as described below, at Hobart, Ind., in possession of Nelson's Natural|Foods.|SHIPPED : 12-6-57, from San Pedro, Calif.|LABEL TN PART: (Btl.) \"\"Nelson's * * * 5 Grain Tablets KELP-ETTES * * *|A Pure Vegetable Sea Food containing an abundance of SAFE NATURAL|IODINE Plus other Minerals, trace elements, organic compounds and vitamins|pressed from pure Ocean Kelp. No other substance added in making the tab-|lets * * * Packed and Distributed by Nelson's Natural Foods * * * Battle|Creek, Michigan * * * Hobart, Indiana.\"\"|ACCOMPANYING LABELING: Leaflets entitled \"\"Hunger in the Midst of Plenty.\"\"|EESULTS OF INVESTIGATION : The tablets in the bottles were repackaged by the|dealer from bulk stock which had been shipped as described above.|The above-mentioned leaflets were printed locally for the dealer.|LIBELED : 7-7-58, N. Dist. Ind.|CHARGE: 502(a)-the labeling accompanying the article in bulk and as re-|packaged, while held for sale, contained false and misleading representations|that the article was effective to prevent and treat falling hair, stomach trouble,|kidney disfunction, gland trouble, premature old age, tiredness, cold hands|and feet, slowing thinking, premature grey hair, ulceration, tuberculosis,|rickets, acidosis, excessive weight, constipation, concretions in the body, arthri-|tis, hardening of the arteries, cataract, sinus and catarrhal conditions, impuri-|ties of the blood; and was effective to promote proper heart action, vitality|and longer life, stamina and endurance, sound bones and teeth, digestion,|mental ability, hormone function, supple joints, liver and gall bladder func-|tions, nerve relaxation, enzyme production, beauty and good disposition,|healthy nerves, and tissue respiration.|DISPOSITION: 11-5-58. Consent-claimed by Nelson's Health Foods, Hobart,|Ind., and relabeled.|252. Adulteration of tongue blades. U. S. v. 77 Packages of Tongue Blades. Decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00252April, 1941John H. Mulholland Co.tongue bladesApril 17, 1940New York, N. Y.Milford, Del.New York, N. Y.Southern District of New Tork252F. D. C. No. 2181. Sample No. 10881-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00252ddnj|252. Adulteration of tongue blades. V. S. v. 77 Packages of Tongue Blades.|Decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 2181. Sample No.|10881-E.)|This product had been shipped in interstate commerce and was in interstate|status at the time of examination, at which time it was found to be contami-|nated with viable micro-organisms.|On June 10, 1940, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|New Tork filed a libel against 77 packages of tongue blades at New York, N. Y.,|alleging that on or about April 17, 1940, the article had been shipped in inter-|state commerce by the John H. Mulholland Co. from Milford, Del.; and charg-|ing that it was adulterated. The article was labeled in part: \"\"250 Single-Pak|Tongue Blades.\"\"|It was alleged to be adulterated in that its purity fell below that which it|purported or was represented to possess, namely, \"\"Sterilized.\"\"|On July 1, 1940, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation|was entered and the articles were ordered destroyed.|PROPHYLACTICS|Nos. 253 to 275 report the seizure and disposition of prophylactics which|were defective because of the presence of holes.|253. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 49 Gross of Prophylactics (and 3 other seizure actions against prophylactics). Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00253April, 1941Akron Drug & Sundries Co.prophylacticsJanuary 16 to February 27, 1940Los Angeles, Calif.Akron, Ohio.Los Angeles, Calif.Southern District of California and the Southern District of Texas253F. D. C. Nos. 1437, 1580, 1583, 1804. Sample Nos. 61261-D, 61608-D, 71266-D, 7522-E, 7523-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00253ddnj|253. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. V. S. v. 49 Gross of|Prophylactics (and 3 other seizure actions against prophylactics). De-|fault decrees of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 1437, 1580,|1583, 1804. Sample Nos. 61261-D, 61608-D, 71266-D, 7522-E, 7523-E.)|On or about February 6, March 5 and 8, and April 10, 1940, the United|States attorneys for the Southern District of California and the Southern Dis-|trict of Texas filed libels against 64? gross of prophylactics at Los Angeles,|Calif., and 84 gross of prophylactics at Houston, Tex., alleging that the article|had been shipped in interstate commerce within the period from on or about|January 16 to on or about February 27, 1940, by Akron Drug & Sundries Co.|from Akron, Ohio.; and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded. The|article was labeled in part: \"\"Coronet,\"\" \"\"Derbies,\"\" \"\"Genuine Liquid Latex,\"\" or|\"\"Koin-Pack.\"\"|It was alleged to be adulterated in that its quality fell below that which|It purported or was represented to possess.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the representations in the|labeling of the Coronet brand that it was a 100-percent blown-tested pro-|phylactic, and would be effective for the prevention of disease; those in|the labeling of the Derbies brand that it would be effective for the prevention|of disease; those in the labeling of the Liquid Latex brand that it would be|effective for the prevention of disease and was guaranteed for 5 years; and|those in tlte labeling of the Koin-Pak brand that it was a prophylactic, were|false and misleading.|On March 8, April 8 and 16, and May 9, 1940, no claimant having appeared,|judgments of condemnation were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|254. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 9 1/6 Gross, 6 11/12 Gross, and 7 Gross of Prophylactics. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00254April, 1941Dean & AdelspergerprophylacticsSeptember 27, 1939, to January 25, 1940Atchison, Kans.Kansas City, Mo.Atchison, Kans.District of Kansas254F. D. C. No. 1674. Sample Nos. 16793-E to 16707-E, incl.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00254ddnj|254. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. IT. S. v. 9% Gross, 61142|Gross, and 7 Gross of Prophylactics. Default decree of condemnation|and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 1674. Sample Nos. 16793-E to 16707-E, incl.).|On March 28, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of Kansas filed|a libel against 23?2 gross of prophylactics at Atchison, Kans., alleging that the|article had been shipped in interstate commerce within the period from on or|about September 27,1939, to on or about January 25, 1940, by Dean & Adelsperger|from Kansas City, Mo.; and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded.|The article was labeled in part: \"\"Peacocks\"\" or \"\"Snowtex.\"\"|It was alleged to be adulterated and misbranded in that the labeling of the|Peacocks brand bore representations that it was air-blown-teste\"\"d, was of finest|quality, would afford protection, would aid in preventing venereal disease, was|guaranteed for 2 years against deterioration, was an efficient prophylactic,|that all defects were discarded and selects only packed, that all seconds were|rejected, and that it was of exceptional quality; and the labeling of the Snowtex|brand bore representations that it was guaranteed for 10 years against deteriora-|tion, was blown-tested, and was an efficient prophylactic; whereas its quality fell|below that which its labeling purported or represented it to possess.|On May 2, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|255. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 5 3/12 Gross of Prophylactics (and 30 other seizure actions involving prophylactics). Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00255April, 1941Dean Rubber Manufacturing Co.prophylacticsNovember 8, 1938, to on or about May 10, 1940New York, N. Y.; New Orleans, La.; Mobile, Ala.; Miami, Fla.; Jacksonville, Fla.; Houston, Tex.; Corpus Christi, Tex.; Des Moines, Iowa,; Dallas, Tex.; Minneapolis, Minn.; St. Paul, Minn.; Tyler, Tex,; Omaha, Nebr.; Pittsburgh, Pa.; Baltimore, Md.; Philadelphia, Pa.; San Francisco, Calif.Kansas City and North Kansas City, Mo.New York, N. Y.; New Orleans, La.; Mobile, Ala.; Miami, Fla.; Jacksonville, Fla.; Houston, Tex.; Corpus Christi, Tex.; Des Moines, Iowa,; Dallas, Tex.; Minneapolis, Minn.; St. Paul, Minn.; Tyler, Tex,; Omaha, Nebr.; Pittsburgh, Pa.; Baltimore, Md.; Philadelphia, Pa.; San Francisco, Calif.Southern District of New York, Eastern District of Louisiana, Southern District of Alabama, Southern District of Florida, Southern District of Texas, Southern District of Iowa, Northern District of Texas, District of Minnesota, Eastern District of Texas, District of Nebraska, Western District of Pennsylvania, District of Maryland, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and the Northern District of California255F. D. C. Nos. 249, 1277, 1370, 1425, 1436, 1449, 1450, 1453, 1462, 1472, 1473. 1483, 1306, 1509, 1510, 1511, 1512, 1520. 1541, 1545, 1551, 1556, 1568, 1603, 1703, 1742, 2021. Sample Nos. 3885-D, 43836-D to 43839-D, incl. , 60172-D, 61243-D, 61514-D, 61515-D, 61562-D, 61607-D, 61610-D, 65819-D, 65820-D, 66400-D, 72461-D to 72464-D Incl. , 72479-D to 72482-D, Incl. , 72484-D, 72485-D, 72492-D, 72496-D, 74445-D to 74449-D, incl. , 75144-D, 75145-D, 77422-D, 77753-D, 77754-D, 81415-D, 81416-D, 84037-D to 84040-D, incl. , 85938-D, 87803-D, 87806-D, 8027-E, 9164-E, 9165-E, 10786-E to 10792-E, incl.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00255ddnj|255. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. TJ. S. v. 5%2 Gross of|Prophylactics (and 30 other seizure actions involving prophylactics).|Default decrees of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 249, 1277,|1370, 1425, 1436, 1449, 1450, 1453, 1462, 1472, 1473. 1483, 1306, 1509, 1510,|1511, 1512, 1520. 1541, 1545, 1551, 1556, 1568, 1603, 1703, 1742, 2021. Sample|Nos. 3885-D, 43836-D to 43839-D, incl., 60172-D, 61243-D, 61514-D, 61515-D,|61562-D, 61607-D, 61610-D, 65819-D, 65820-D, 66400-D, 72461-D to 72464-D|Incl., 72479-D to 72482-D, Incl., 72484-D, 72485-D, 72492-D, 72496-D, 74445-D|to 74449-D, incl., 75144-D, 75145-D, 77422-D, 77753-D, 77754-D, 81415-D,|81416-D, 84037-D to 84040-D, incl., 85938-D, 87803-D, 87806-D, 8027-E,|9164-E, 9165-E, 10786-E to 10792-E, incl.)|Between July 6, 1939, and May 27, 1940, the United States attorneys for the|Southern District of New York, Eastern District of Louisiana, Southern District|of Alabama, Southern District of Florida, Southern District of Texas, Southern|District of Iowa, Northern District of Texas, District of Minnesota, Eastern|District of Texas, District of Nebraska, Western District of Pennsylvania, Dis-|trict of Maryland, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and the Northern District|of California filed libels against S26?2 gross of prophylactics at New York,|N. Y.; 13 gross of the product at New Orleans, La.; 19 gross at Mobile, Ala.; 37|gross at Miami, Fla.; 12!?6 gross at Jacksonville, Fla.; 26?2 gross at Houston,|Tex.; 40 gross at Corpus Christi, Tex.; 95 gross at Des Moines, Iowa,; 143|gross at Dallas, Tex.; 372? gross at Minneapolis, Minn.; 12 gross at St. Paul,|Minn.; 89 gross at Tyler, Tex,; 117 gross at Omaha, Nebr.; 8?2 gross at Pitts-|burgh, Pa.; 40 gross at Baltimore, Md.; 39? gross at Philadelphia, Pa.; and|110? gross at San Francisco, Calif. It was alleged in the libels that the|article had been shipped in interstate commerce within the period from on or|about November 8, 1938, to on or about May 10, 1940, by the Dean \"\"Rubber|Manufacturing Co. from Kansas City and North Kansas City, Mo.; and that it|was adulterated and misbranded. The article was labeled in part, variously:|\"\"Trico,\"\" \"\"Genuine Peacocks,\"\" \"\"Security,\"\" \"\"Peacock Dry Skins,\"\" \"\"Ultrex Platinum,\"\"|\"\"Ultrex,\"\" \"\"Safe-way,\"\" \"\"Hermes,\"\" \"\"Sentinel,\"\" \"\"Royal Satin Crown,\"\" \"\"Mayzel,\"\"|\"\"Liquid Latex,' \"\"Featherwate,' or \"\"Luna-Tex.\"\"|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its quality fell below that|which it purported or was represented to possess.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that representations in the labeling of|the Trico brand that it consisted of selected skins and was for the prevention|of disease; representations appearing variously in the labeling of the Peacock|brand that it was air-blown-tested on new modern equipment, was guaranteed|against deterioration for 2 years (or 5 years) would afford protection, was|the best that money could buy, was No. 1 grade, that all defects were discarded|and selects only packed, that all seconds were rejected, that it was of excep-?,|tional quality, would aid in preventing venereal disease, was an efficient pro-?(^|phylactic, and was especially selected and air-tested to guard against bubbles,|pin holes, blisters, etc.; those in the labeling of the Sekurity brand that it was|an aid in preventing venereal diseases, was air-blown-tested, was guaranteed 2|years against deterioration, would afford security, would protect against social|disease, and would insure prophylaxis; those in the labeling of the Ultrex,|Platinum, and Hermes brands that it was air-blown-tested; those in the label-|ing of the Safe-way brand that it was a safe prophylactic, was guaranteed|to be air-tested, was carefully selected and inspected, would insure maximum|protection, was unconditionally guaranteed, was for medical purposes, was the|est, and would be effective for the prevention of disease; those in the labeling|of the Sentinel brand that it was air-blown-tested under a new testing process,|was the finest quality prophylactic, would protect against social disease, was|carefully selected and inspected, was individually tested and would insure|maximum protection, was unconditionally guaranteed, was the best and would|be effective for the prevention of disease, would aid in preventing venereal|disease; those in the labeling of the Royal Satin Crown brand that it was|air-tested and carefully inspected for the protection of the user and was for|the prevention of disease only; those in the labeling of the Mayzel brand that|everyone was blown-tested and guaranteed 100 percent perfect, that it would|prevent infection from contagious disease, was manufactured by the most|scientific methods, was sold for the prevention of disease only and was guar-|anteed until 1940; and those in the labeling of the Liquid Latex, Featherwate,|and Luna-Tex brands that it was for the prevention of disease, were false|and misleading.|Between August 1, 1939, and July 10, 1940, no claimant having appeared,|judgments of condemnation were entered and the product was ordered|destroyed.|444. Misbranding of Gly-Cas. U. S. v. 258 Cartons of Gly-Cas. Default decree of condemnation. Product destroyed.ddnj00444September 1942Gly-Cas Medicine Co.Gly-CasNovember 25, 1940Sioux Falls, S. Dak.Muncie, Ind.Sioux Falls, S. Dak.District of South Dakota444F. D. C. No. 3647. Sample No. 8978-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00444ddnj|444. Misbranding of Gly-Cas. V. S. v. 258 Cartons of Gly-Cas. Default decree of|condemnation. Product destroyed. (F. D. C. No. 3647. Sample No. 8978-E.)|The labeling of this product, in addition to failure to bear the warning state-|ment required in the labeling of laxative preparations, also bore false and|misleading therapeutic and other claims, and it failed to indicate which of|the ingredients was the active ingredient.|On January 17, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of South|Dakota filed a libel against 258 cartons of Gly-Cas at Sioux Falls, S. Dak.,|alleging that the article had been shipped on or about November 25, 1940, by|the Gly-Cas Medicine Co. from Muncie, Ind.; and charging that it was mis-|branded.|Analysis of a sample of the article, which was in capsule form, showed that|each capsule contained approximately 4.3 grains of drugs from plant sources|including aloe and a small proportion of glycerin.|The article was alleged to be misbranded ifi that the labeling failed to bear|such adequate warnings against unsafe dosage or methods or duration of ad-|ministration in such manner and form as are necessary for the protection of|users in that it did not inform the purchaser that continual or frequent use|of the article might result in dependence upon laxatives to move the bowels.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that representations in the labeling|that its use would put one \"\"in Step with Health\"\"; that it would be efficacious|in the treatment of those who suffer with muscular aches and pains, poor|digestion, soured, gassy feeling after eating, bloated stomach; night risings,|backaches; dizzy spells, headaches, nervousness or poor sle\"\"ep kindred to faulty|bowel elimination, frequent bladder action, loss of pep and energy, inability|to work, and restlessness; and that it had proved effective in many cases where|other medicines tried before had failed to give satisfactory results, were false|and misleading since it would not be efficacious for such purposes. It was|alleged to be misbranded further in that the statement in the circular \"\"Contains|No * * * Harmful Drugs,\"\" was false and misleading since the article|was capable of causing harm; in that the statement that the article was a|product of over 25 years of practical experience of a well-known pharmacist|was false a*nd misleading since it was essentially a preparation of aloe, a drug|whose properties had been known for centuries; and in that its label failed|to bear the common or usual name of the active ingredient in that the statement|on the carton, \"\"Compound of Cinnamon, Aloe, Glycerin and Licorice,\"\" did not|indicate what was really its active ingredient.|On February 17, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered; and on February 25, 1941, the product was destroyed.|256. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 82 Gross of Prophylactics. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00256April, 1941Elliott Sales Co., of Rome, Ga.prophylacticsApril 15, 1940Rome, Ga.New York, N. Y.Rome, Ga.Northern District of Georgia256F. D. C. No. 1883. Sample No. 892-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00256ddnj|256, Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 82 Gross of|Prophylactics. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C.|No. 1883. Sample No. 892-E.)|On April 29, 1940, >?he United States attorney for the Northern District of|Georgia filed a libel against 82 gross of prophylactics at Rome, Ga., alleging|that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about April 15,|1940, by Elliott Sales Co., of Rome, Ga., from New York, N. Y.; and charging|that it was adulterated and misbranded. The article was labeled in part|\"\"Enterprise Champions.\"\"|It was alleged to be adulterated in that its quality fell below that which it|was purported or was represented as possessing.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the representations in the labeling|that it was of superb quality, was a most perfect product, was guaranteed|against deterioration for 2 years, and was efficacious for the prevention of|contagious diseases, were false and misleading.|On May 27, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the article was ordered destroyed.|257. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 22 Gross of Prophy lactics (and 3 other seizure actions against prophylactics). Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00257April, 1941Goodwear Rubber Co., Inc.prophylacticsApril 5, 1939, to April 17, 1940Houston, Tex.; Galveston, Tex.; Miami, Fla.; Gaffney, S. C.New York, N. Y.Houston, Tex.; Galveston, Tex.; Miami, Fla.; Gaffney, S. C.Southern District of Texas, the Southern District of Florida, and the Western District of South Carolina257F. D. C. Nos. 1260, 1445, 1756, 2226. Sample Nos. 61283-D, 94913-D, 334-E, 336-E, 11020-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00257ddnj|257. Adulteration and misbranding: of prophylactics. TJ. S. v. 22 Gross of Prophy|lactics (and 3 other seizure actions against prophylactics). Default de-|crees of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 1260, 1445, 1756,|2226. Sample Nos. 61283-D, 94913-D, 334-B, 336-E, 11020-E.)|On December 29, 1939, and February 9, April 5, and June 18, 1940, the United|States attorneys for the Southern District of Texas, the Southern District of|Florida, and the Western District of South Carolina filed libels against 22|gross of prophylactics at Houston, Tex.; 43 gross at Galveston, Tex.; 21 gross|at Miami, Fla.; and 4?2 gross at Gaffney, S. C, alleging that the article had|been shipped in interstate commerce within the period from on or about April|5, 1939, to on or about April 17, 1940, by Goodwear Rubber Co., Inc., from New|York, N. Y.; and charging that it was adulterated and that all lots but one|were misbranded. Three of the shipments were labeled in part: \"\"Three Dukes,\"\"|\"\"Silver-Tex,\"\" or \"\"Midgets.\"\" The remaining lot bore no brand name.|The article in all shipments was alleged to be adulterated in that its quality|fell below that which it purported or was represented to possess.|All lots, with the exception of the lot labeled \"\"Midgets,\"\" were alleged to be|misbranded in that representations appearing in the labeling of the Three|Dukes brand that it was a fine prophylactic, was for the prevention of disease,|was tested, would afford protection, would stand any reasonable test demanded|by the Government in accordance with the law, and was guaranteed to be as|good and safe as any brand; those in the labeling of the Silver-Tex brand that|it was a prophylactic; and those in the labeling of the lot that bore no brand|name that it was a rubber prophylactic, was of excellent quality, was guaran-|teed for 5 years, and was air-tested, were false and misleading.|On February 8, April 19, June 5, and August 17, 1940, no claimant having|appeared, judgments of condemnation were entered and the product was ordered|destroyed.|258. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 100 Gross of Prophylactics (and 5 other seizure actions against prophylactics). Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00258April, 1941Gotham Rubber Co.prophylacticsJuly 20, 1939, to February 27, 1940Chicago, Ill.; Baltimore, Md.; New Orleans, La.; Harrisburg, Pa.; Birmingham, Ala.; Memphis, Tenn.New York, N. Y.Chicago, Ill.; Baltimore, Md.; New Orleans, La.; Harrisburg, Pa.; Birmingham, Ala.; Memphis, Tenn.Northern District of Illinois, District of Maryland, Eastern District of Louisiana, Middle District of Pennsylvania, Northern District of Alabama, and the Western District of Tennessee258F. D. C. Nos. 717, 753, 1336, 1337, 1397, 1398, 1427, 1655. Sample Nos. 61248-D, 61249-D, 61363-D, 70172-D, 70173-D, 76846-D, 76847-D, 76848-D, 79501-D, 15421-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00258ddnj|258. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 100 Gross of|Prophylactics (and 5 other seizure actions against prophylactics). De-|fault decrees of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 717, 753, 1336,|1337, 1397, 1398, 1427, 1655. Sample Nos. 61248-D, 61249-D, 61363-D, 70172-D,|70173-D, 76846-D, 76847-D, 76848-D, 79501-D, 15421-E.)|Between October 13, 1939, and March 19, 1940, the United States attorneys for|the Northern District of Illinois, District of Maryland, Eastern District of|Louisiana, Middle District of Pennsylvania, Northern District of Alabama, and|the Western District of Tennessee filed libels against 100 gross of prophylactics|at Chicago, 111.; 149 gross at Baltimore, Md.; 74 gross at New Orleans, La.; 22|gross at Harrisburg, Pa.; 21 gross at Birmingham, Ala.; and 104 gross at|Memphis, Tenn., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate com-|merce within the period from on or about July 20, 1939, to on or about Feb-|ruary 27, 1940, by Gotham Sales Co. from New York, N. Y.; and charging that|it was adulterated and that certain shipments were also misbranded. One|lot was labeled in part: \"\"Made from Liquid Latex Distributed by Gotham|Rubber Co. Chicago, 111.\"\" The remaining lots bore the following brands:|\"\"Rx 95,\"\" \"\"Rx 96,\"\" \"\"Rx 97,\"\" \"\"Liquitex,\"\" \"\"Saf-T-Way,\"\" \"\"Saf-T-Skin,\"\" \"\"Tally-Ho,\"\"|or \"\"Crescent.\"\"|The article in all shipments was alleged to be adulterated in that its quality|fell below that which it purported or was represented to possess.|Misbranding of certain shipments was alleged in that representations in the|labeling of the Rx 96 and Rx 97 that it was a reliable prophylactic, was|guaranteed for 5 years, was air-tested, and would prevent disease; those in the|labeling of the Saf-T-Way that it was a safe prophylactic and was air-tested,|and those in the labeling of the Saf-T-Skin that it was a modern, dependable|prophylactic, that it would prevent disease, and was manufactured of finest|quality latex rubber, were false and misleading. On November 8 and 29, 1939,|and February 17, March 9, April 12, and May 1, 1940, no claimant having|appeared, judgments of condemnation were entered and the product was ordered|destroyed.|259. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 89 Gross and 18 1/2 Gross of Prophylactics. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00259April, 1941Joseph JacobsprophylacticsFebruary 29 to March 6, 1940Newark, N. J.New York, N. Y.Newark, N. J.District of New Jersey259F. D. C. Nos. 1875, 1927. Sample Nos. 10198-E, 10200-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00259ddnj|259. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. IT. S. v. 89 Gross and|18% Gross of Prophylactics. Default decrees of condemnation and de-|struction. (F. D. C. Nos. 1875, 1927. Sample Nos. 10198-B, 10200-B.)|On April 25 and May 7, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of|New Jersey filed libels against 107? gross of prophylactics at Newark, N. J.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce within the|period from on or about February 29 to on or about March 6, 1940, by Joseph|Jacobs from New York, N. Y.; and charging that it was adulterated and mis-|branded. The article was labeled in part \"\"Pure Tex.\"\"|It was alleged to be adulterated in that its quality fell below that which|it was purported or was represented as possessing.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the representations in the labeling|that it was a prophylactic, was for use in the prevention of disease, and was|of an excellent quality, were false and misleading.|On June 19, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgments of condemnation|were entered and the article was ordered destroyed.|260. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 612 Gross of Prophylactics (and 7 other seizure actions against prophylactics). Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00260April, 1941Killashun Sales Division; Olympia LabprophylacticsMarch 11, 1939, to or about April 2, 1940Dallas, Tex.; Philadelphia, Pa.; San Antonio, Tex.; Minneapolis, Minn.; Pittsburgh, Pa.Akron and Dayton, OhioDallas, Tex.; Philadelphia, Pa.; San Antonio, Tex.; Minneapolis, Minn.; Pittsburgh, Pa.Northern and Western Districts of Texas, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the District of Minnesota, and the Western District of Pennsylvania260F. D. C. Nos. 1341, 1562, 1584, 1614, 1689, 1717, 1728, 1853. Sample Nos. 61357-D, 61701-D, 61702-D 77746-D, 81423-D, 3112-E, 3114-E, 3138-E, 8072-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00260ddnj|260. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 612 Gross of|Prophylactics (and 7 other seizure actions against prophylactics). De-|fault decrees of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 1341, 1562,|1584. 1614, 1689, 1717, 1728, 1853. Sample Nos. 61357-D, 61701-D, 61702-D|77746-D, 81423-D, 3112-E, 3114-B, 3138-E, 8072-B.)|Between January 15 and April 22, 1940, the United States attorneys for|the Northern and Western Districts of Texas, the Eastern District of Pennsyl-|vania, the District of Minnesota, and the Western District of Pennsylvania /--|filed libels against 612 gross of prophylactics at Dallas, Tex.; 50, gross at (|Philadelphia, Pa.; 71 gross at San Antonio, Tex.; 96 gross at Minneapolis, ^-|Minn.; and 155 gross at Pittsburgh, Pa., alleging that the article had been|shipped in interstate commerce within the period from on or .about March|11, 1939, to on or about April 2, 1940, by Killashun Sales Division .from|Akron and Dayton, Ohio; and charging that it was adulterated and that|certain lots were also misbranded. Certain shipments were variously labeled|in part: \"\"Liquid Latex,\"\" or \"\"Silver-Tex,\"\" or \"\"Genuine Les Liquid Latex.\"\"|One shipment was labeled in part: \"\"Pickaniny Brand Supreme Goldbeaters|* * * Manufactured by Olympia Lab. Atlanta, Ga.\"\" One shipment was|stamped: \"\"Killian Mfg. Co. Akron, Ohio.\"\"|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its quality fell below that|which it purported or was represented to possess.|Misbranding was alleged with respect to certain lots in that the repre-|sentations in the labeling of the Liquid Latex brand that it was a prophylactic,|was guaranteed for 5 years, and was effective for the prevention of disease;|those in the labeling of the \"\"Genuine Les Liquid Latex\"\" brand that it was|effective for the prevention of disease and was guaranteed for 5 years;|those in the labeling of the Pickaniny brand that it was made from choice|materials, represented a high quality, and would be effective for the pre-|vention of disease; and those in the labeling of one shipment of the Silver-|Tex brand that it was a disease preventative and was guaranteed for 5|years against deterioration under normal conditions, were false and misleading.|On February 23 and 24, March 25, April 22, and May 7, 13, and 14, 1940, no|claimant having appeared, judgments of condemnation were entered and the|product was ordered destroyed.|261. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 24 Gross of Prophylactics. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00261April, 1941International DistributorsprophylacticsJanuary 5, 1940Houston, Tex.Memphis, Tenn.Houston, Tex.Southern District of Texas261F. D. C. No. 1493. Sample No. 61619-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00261ddnj|261. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. V. S. v. 24 Gross of Prophy|lactics. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No.|1493. Sample No. 61619-D.)|On or about February 17, 1940, the United States attorney for the Southern|District of Texas filed a libel against 24 gross of prophylactics at Houston,|Tex., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or|about January 5, 1940, by International Distributors from Memphis, Tenn.;|and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded. The article was labeled|in part: \"\"Siver-Tex * * * Manufactured by the Killian Mfg. Co., Akron,|Ohio.\"\"|It was alleged to be adulterated in that its quality fell below that which|it purported or was represented to possess.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the representations in|the labeling that it was a disease preventative and would be efficacious for|prevention of disease, were false and misleading.|On March 19, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|262. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 14 Gross of Prophylactics. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00262April, 1941J. KellerprophylacticsMarch 16, 1940Waterbury, Conn.Springfield, Mass.Waterbury, Conn.District of Connecticut262F. D. C. No. 1918. Sample No. 10621-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00262ddnj|262. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 14 Gross of|Prophylactics. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F D C.|No. 1918. Sample No. 10621-E.)|On May 6, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of Connecticut|filed a libel against 14 gross of prophylactics at Waterbury, Conn., alleging|that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about March|16, 1940, by J. Keller from Springfield, Mass.; and charging that it was adul-|terated and misbranded. The article was labeled in part: \"\"Liquid Latex|Triple Tested Protectors.\"\"|It was alleged to be adulterated in that its quality fell below that which it|purported or was represented to possess.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that its labeling bore representations|that it was a most perfect product, was guaranteed against deterioration for|5 years, would be effective for the prevention of contagious disease, was|a protector, and was triple-tested, which were false and misleading.|On September 20, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of con-|demnation was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|263. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics (shorts). U. S. v. 15 Gross of Prophylactics. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00263April, 1941Lorica Laboratories, Inc.prophylactics (shorts)September 8, 1939Providence, R. I.Jersey City, N. J.Providence, R. I.District of Rhode Island263F. D. C. No. 657. Sample No. 74021-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00263ddnj|263. Adulteration and misbranding: of prophylactics (shorts). U. S. v. 15 Gross|of Prophylactics. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 657. Sample No. 74021-D.)|On October 4, 1939, the United States attorney for the District of Rhode|Island filed a libel against 15 gross of prophylactics at Providence, R. I.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|September 8, 1939, by Lorica Laboratories, Inc., from Jersey City, N. J.; and|charging that it was adulterated and misbranded. The article was labeled|in part: \"\"Lorica Transparent Shorts.\"\"|It was alleged to be adulterated in that its quality fell below that which it|purported or was represented to possess.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the representation in the|labeling that it would be effective for the prevention of disease, was false|and misleading. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that it was|dangerous to health when used as recommended in the labeling.|On October 27, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|264. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 20 Gross and 43 Gross of Prophylactics. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00264April, 1941Magnet Merchandise Co.prophylacticsSeptember 1, 1939, and April 11, 1910Mobile, Ala.; Richmond, Va.New York, N. Y.Mobile, Ala.; Richmond, Va.Southern District of Alabama and the Eastern District of Virginia264F. D. C. Nos. 1339, 1999. Sample Nos. 61140-D, 1967-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00264ddnj|264. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. IT. S. v. 20 Gross and 43|Gross of Prophylactics. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. Nos. 1339, 1999. Sample Nos. 61140-D, 1967-E.)|On January 11 and May 22, 1940, the United States attorneys for the|Southern District of Alabama and the Eastern District of Virginia filed libels|against 20 gross of prophylactics at Mobile, Ala., and 43 gross of prophylactics|at Richmond, Va., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate com-|merce on or about September 1, 1939, and April 11, 1910, by the Magnet|Merchandise Co. from New York, N. T.; and charging that it was misbranded|and that one lot was also adulterated. The article was labeled in part: \"\"Silver|Skin\"\" or \"\"Pan.\"\"|The Pan brand was alleged to be adulterated in that its quality fell below|that which it purported or was represented to possess. It was alleged to be|misbranded in that representations in the labeling that it was a carefully tested|prophylactic of fine quality were false and misleading.|The Silver Skin brand was alleged to be misbranded in that the representa-|tion in the labeling that it was guaranteed for 5 years, which indicated that it|would remain in good condition and be of good quality for 5 years, was false|and misleading, since it was defective because of the presence of holes.|On June 28 and July 10, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgments of|condemnation were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|265. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 1 Gross and 2 Gross of Prophylactics. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00265April, 1941Olympia LaboratoryprophylacticsMay 17, 1940Washington, D. C.Atlanta, Ga.Washington, D. C.District of Columbia265F. D. C. No. 2221. Sample Nos. 1657-E, 1658-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00265ddnj|265. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. If. S. v. 1 Gross and 2|Gross of Prophylactics. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 2221. Sample Nos. 1657-B, 1G58-B.)|On June 17, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of Columbia|filed a libel against 3 gross of prophylactics at Washington, D. C, alleging that|the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about May 17, 1940,|by the Olympia Laboratory from Atlanta, Ga.; and charging that it was adul-|terated and misbranded. One lot was labeled in part: \"\"Black and Gold.\"\" The|remaining lot bore no brand name.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its quality fell below that|which it purported or was represented to possess.|Misbranding was alleged in that representations in the labeling of the Black|and Gold brand that it was perfect, was efficacious for the prevention of|disease, was made of selected material with all the care and skill which long|experience in manufacturing can give; and those in the labeling of the lot that|bore no brand name that it was made of selected material with all the care|and skill which long experience in manufacturing can give, were false and|misleading.|On July 11, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|445. misbranding of Grover Graham Remedy (and Graham's Pills). U. S. v. 33 12-Fluid-Ounce Packages and 42 6-Fluid-Ounce Packages of Grover Graham Remedy. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00445September 1942Kells Co.Grover Graham Remedy (and Graham's Pills)November 29, 1940, and January 9 and 25, 1941Newark, N. J.Newburgh, N. Y.Newark, N. J.District of New Jersey445F. D. C. No. 3915. Sample No. 34897-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00445ddnj|445. misbranding of Grover Graham Remedy (and Graham's Pills). U. S. v. 33|12-Fluid-Ounce Packages and 42 6-Fluid-Ounce Packages of Grover Gra-|ham Remedy. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C.|No. 3915. Sample No. 34897-E.)|Each package of this product contained an envelope labeled \"\"Graham's Pills.\"\"|The labeling of Grover Graham Remedy and Graham's Pills failed to bear|adequate directions for use-in the former case because no limitation was put|on the amount of bromide that might be administered daily, and in the latter?/-|case because the directions provided for excessive dosage. The labeling of?\\|both products also failed to bear adequate warning statements, but did bear|false and misleading therapeutic claims.|On March 4, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of New Jersey?('|filed a libel against the above-named products at Newark, N. J., alleging that|the articles had been shipped by Kells Co. from Newburgh, N. Y., on or about|November 29, 1940, and January 9 and 25, 1941; and charging that they were|misbranded.|Analyses of samples of the articles showed that Grover Graham Remedy|consisted essentially of magnesia, sodium bicarbonate, sodium bromide, alcohol,|water, and small amounts of chloroform, ginger, and peppermint oil; and that|Graham's Pills consisted essentially of laxative plant drugs.|Both products were alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that they failed to|bear adequate directions for use as stated above. (2) In that the labeling|failed to bear such adequate warnings against use in those pathological condi-|tions where their use might be dangerous to health, or against unsafe dosage|or methods or duration of administration in such manner and form as are|necessary for the protection of users. (8) In that statements in the labeling|which| represented that Grover Graham Remedy would give instant relief for|severe attacks of indigestion and all stomach ills, and that it would be efficacious|as a dyspepsia remedy and for gastritis and bloating; and that Graham's Pills|were efficacious in the treatment of biliousness, were false and misleading|since they would not be efficacious for such purposes. Graham's Pills were|alleged to be misbranded further in that the label did not bear an accurate state-|ment of the quantity of contents.|On April 18, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the products were ordered destroyed.|266. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 14 Gross, 24 Gross, 19 Gross, and 9 Gross of Prophylactics. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00266April, 1941Penn-Jersey Drug Co., Inc.prophylacticsNovember 9 and December 13, 1939Scranton, Pa.Newark, N. J.Scranton, Pa.Middle District of Pennsylvania266F. D. C. Nos. 1226, 1237. Sample Nos. 85681-D. 85682-D, 85686-D, 85687-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00266ddnj|266. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. V. S. v. 14 Gross, 24|Gross, 19 Gross, and 9 Gross of Prophylactics. Default decrees of con-|demnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 1226, 1237. Sample Nos. 85681-D.|85682-D, 85686-D, 85687-D.)|On December 21 and 22, 1939, the United States attorney for the Middle Dis-|trict of Pennsylvania filed libels against 66 gross of prophylactics at Scranton,|Pa., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on No-|vember 9 and December 13, 1939, by Penn-Jersey Drug Co., Inc., from Newark,|N. J.; and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded. The article was|labeled in part: \"\"Tuxedo,\"\" \"\"Pro-Tek,\"\" \"\"Hobby-Tex,\"\" or \"\"Tally-Ho.\"\"|It was alleged to be adulterated in that its quality fell below that which it|purported or was represented to possess.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the representations appear-|ing variously in the labeling that it was an improved disease preventative,|was a health protector, was guaranteed against deterioration, that it was for|medicinal purposes, and was guaranteed for 5 years, were false and misleading.?,-|On February 8, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgments of condemna-?\\^|tion were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|267. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 12 Gross of Prophylactics. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00267April, 1941Perfection Rubber Co.prophylacticsSeptember 27, 1939Terre Haute, Ind.Akron, OhioTerre Haute, Ind.Southern District of Indiana267F. D. C. No. 1654. Sample No. 5805-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00267ddnj|267. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. TT. S. v. 12 *? Gross of|Prophylactics. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C.|No. 1654. Sample No. 5805-E.)|On March 18, 1940, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|Indiana filed a libel against 12? gross of prophylactics at Terre Haute, Ind.f|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|September 27, 1939, from Akron, Ohio, by the Perfection Rubber Co.; and|charging that it was adulterated and misbranded. The article was labeled|in part; \"\"Perfection Latex Gold Band.\"\"|It was alleged to be adulterated in that its quality fell below that which|it was purported or was represented to possess.|It was alleged to be misbranded' in that the representations that it was a|prophylactic, was the best made, was perfection, and was of supreme quality,|appearing in the labeling, were false and misleading.|On June 11, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the article was ordered destroyed.|268. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 147 Gross and 62 Gross of Prophylactics. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00268April, 1941Philray Merchandise CorporationprophylacticsOctober 12, 1939Houston, Tex.New York, N. Y.Houston, Tex.Southern District of Texas268F. D. C. No. 1180. Sample Nos. 62608-D, 62609-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00268ddnj|268. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. TT. S. v. 147 Gross and 62|Gross of Prophylactics. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 1180. Sample Nos. 62608-D, 62609-D.)|On or about December 13, 1939, the United States attorney for the Southern|District of Texas filed a libel against 209 gross of prophylactics at Houston,|Tex., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or|about October 12, 1939, by Philray Merchandise Corporation from New York,|N. Y.; and charging that it was adulterated and that one lot was also mis-|branded. The article was labeled in part: \"\"De Luxe Silver Ray\"\"; or \"\"Silver|Bond.\"\"|It was alleged to be adulterated in that its quality fell below that which|it purported or was represented to possess.|The De Luxe Silver Ray brand was alleged to be misbranded in that the|representations in the labeling that the article was guaranteed for 5 years,'|was a disease preventative, and was for medical purposes only, were false|and misleading.|On January 11, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|269. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 79 Gross and 102 Gross of Prophylactics (and 4 other seizure actions against prophylactics). Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00269April, 1941W. H. Reed & Co., Inc.prophylacticsJanuary 21, 1939, to on or about March 12, 1940Dallas, Tex.; New York, N. Y.; Minneapolis, Minn.; Houston, Tex.; Oklahoma City, Okla.Atlanta Ga.Dallas, Tex.; New York, N. Y.; Minneapolis, Minn.; Houston, Tex.; Oklahoma City, Okla.Northern District of Texas, Southern District of New York, District of Minnesota, Southern District of Texas, and Western District of Oklahoma269F. D. C. Nos. 1344, 1426, 1452, 1537, 1758. Sample Nos. 61704-D, 61706-D, 63193-D, 63194-D, 74457-D, 86362-D, 16031-E, 16033-E, 16036-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00269ddnj|269. Adulteration and misbranding' of prophylactics. IT. S. v. 79 Gross and 102,|Gross of Prophylactics (and 4 other seizure actions against prophylac-|tics). Default decrees of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos.|1344, 1426, 1452, 1537, 1758. Sample Nos. 61704-D, 61706-D, 63193-D, 63194-D,|74457-D, 86362-D, 16031-E, 16033-E, 16036-E.)|On or about January 15, February 2, 8, and 28, and April 8, 1940, the United|States attorneys for the Northern District of Texas, Southern District of New|York, District of Minnesota, Southern District of Texas, and Western District of|Oklahoma filed libels against 181 gross of prophylactics at Dallas, Tex.; 9-|gross at New York, N. Y.; 49 gross at Minneapolis, Minn.; 124 gross at Houston,|Tex.; and 524? gross at Oklahoma City, Okla. On February 6, 1940, the libel|filed in the Northern District of Texas was amended to cover an additional 163|gross of the product. It was alleged in the libels that the article had been|shipped in interstate commerce within the period from on or about January 21,|1939, to on or about March 12, 1940, by W. H. Reed & Co., Inc., from Atlanta Ga.;|and that it was adulterated and that certain shipments were also misbranded.|Four of the shipments were labeled an|\"\" part respectively: \"\"Surety,\"\" \"\"Red-Pak,\"\"|\"\"Golden Pheasant,\"\" or \"\"Pan.\"\" The remaining shipment bore no brand name.|The article in all shipments was alleged to be adulterated in that its quality|fell below that which it purported or was represented to possess.|Misbranding was alleged with respect to certain shipments in that representa-|tions in the labeling of the Red-Pak brand that it was effective for the preven-|tion of disease and was guaranteed for 5 years; those in the labeling of a|portion of the Golden Pheasant brand that it was a prophylactic; those in the|labeling of the Pan brand that it was carefully tested and was a fine-quality|guaranteed prophylactic; and those in the labeling of the lot that bore no|brand that it was made of selected, choice grade materials, that it had been|made with all the care and skill which long experience in manufacturing can|give, and was effective for the prevention of disease, were false and misleading.|On February 23, March 12 and 19, April 16, and May 7, 1940, no claimant|having appeared, judgments of condemnation were entered and the product|was ordered destroyed.|270. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 18 Gross of Prophylactics. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00270April, 1941Rogers Packing Car Co.prophylacticsJanuary 20, 1940Tucson, Ariz.El Paso, Tex.Tucson, Ariz.District of Arizona270F. D. C. No. 1573. Sample No. 71366-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00270ddnj|270. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. V. S. -v. IS Gross of|Prophylactics. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C.|No. 1573. Sample No. 71366-D.)|On March 7, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of Arizona|filed a libel against 18 gross of prophylactics at Tucson, Ariz., alleging that|the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about January 20,|1940, by the Rogers Packing Car Co. from El Paso, Tex.; and charging that it|was adulterated and misbranded. It was labeled in part \"\"Protect-Us.\"\"|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its quality fell below that|which it purported or was represented to possess.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that representations in the labeling that|it would afford protection, was 100 percent perfect, was a disease preventative,|and was guaranteed for 5 years, were false and misleading.|On April 30,. 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.|271. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 33 Gross and 48 Gross of Prophylactics. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00271April, 1941Specialty Sales Co.prophylacticsNovember 17 and December 28, 1939New Orleans, La.Atlanta, Ga.New Orleans, La.Eastern District of Louisiana271F. D. C. Nos. 1340, 1351. Sample Nos. 61460-D, 61621-D, 61625-D, 61626-D, 61627-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00271ddnj|271. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. IT. S. v. S3 Gross and 48|Gross of Prophylactics. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. Nos. 1340, 1351. Sample Nos. 61460-D, 61621-D, 61625-D, 61626-D,|61627-D.)|On January 12 and 15, 1940, the United States attorney for the Eastern|District of Louisiana filed libels against 81 gross of prophylactics at New Or-|leans, La., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce|on or about November 17 and December 28, 1939, by the Specialty Sales Co.|from Atlanta, Ga.; and charging adulteration and misbranding. The article|was labeled in part: \"\"Tray-Ban,\"\" \"\"Dred-Not,\"\" or \"\"Venice.\"\"|It was alleged to be adulterated in that its quality fell below that which it|purported or was represented to possess.|Misbranding was alleged in that representations in the labeling of the|Tray-Ban brand that it was superior, was guaranteed for 5 years, would be|effective for the prevention of disease, and was a soldier of health; those in|the labeling of the Dred-Not brand that it was a prophylactic; and those in|the labeling of the Venice brand that it was effective for the prevention of|disease, were false and misleading.|On March 9, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgments of condemnation|were entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.|272. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 64 2/3 Gross of Prophylactics (and 3 other seizure actions involving prophylactics). Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00272April, 1941Tecla Chemical CorporationprophylacticsSeptember 9 and 26, 1939Houston, Tex.New York, N. Y.Houston, Tex.Southern District of Texas and the District of Minnesota272F. D. C. Nos. 760, 1448. Samples Nos. 60949-D, 74451-D, 74452-D, 74453-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00272ddnj|272. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. TJ. S. v. 64% Gross of|Prophylactics (and 3 other seizure actions involving prophylactics). De-|fault decrees of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 760, 1448.|Samples Nos. 60949-D, 74451-D, 74452-D, 74453-D.)|On or about October 20, 1939, and February 7, 1940, the United States|attorneys for the Southern District of Texas and the District of Minnesota|filed libels against 64? gross of prophylactics at Houston, Tex., and 41? gross|of prophylactics at Minneapolis, Minh.y alleging that the article had been|shipped in interstate commerce on or about September 9 and 26, 1939, by Tecla|Chemical Corporation from New York, N. T.; and charging that it was adul-|terated and misbranded. The article was labeled in part: \"\"Saf-T-Way\"\"; or|\"\"Rx 96 Genuine Liquid Latex.\"\"|It was alleged to be adulterated in that its quality fell below that which|it purported or was represented to possess.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the representations in the|labeling of the Saf-T-Way brand that it was an air-blown-tested and safe|prophylactic; and those in the labeling of the Rx 96 brand that it was a|reliable, selected prophylactic, would prevent disease, and was guaranteed|for 5 years were false and misleading.|On October 20, 1939, and March 19, 1940, no claimant having appeared,|judgments of condemnation were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|273. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 22 Gross of Prophylactics (and 4 other seizure actions against prophylactics). Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00273April, 1941Universal Merchandise Co.prophylacticsAugust 24 to September 21, 1939Scranton, Pa.; New Orleans, La.; Lubbock, Tex.; Dallas, Tex.New York, N. Y.; Chicago, Ill.; New Orleans, La.Scranton, Pa.; New Orleans, La.; Lubbock, Tex.; Dallas, Tex.Middle District of Pennsylvania, Eastern District of Louisiana, and Northern District of Texas273F. D. C. Nos. 1224. 1250, 1297, 1475. Sample Nos. 61242-D, 61516-D, 71179-D, 71180-D, 85683-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00273ddnj|273. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. TJ. S. v. 22 Gross of Prophy|lactics (and 4 other seizure actions against prophylactics). Default de-|crees of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 1224. 1250, 1297,|1475. Sample Nos. 61242-D, 61516-D, 71179-D, 71180-D, 85683-D.)|Between December 20, 1939, and February 9, 1940, the United States attorneys|for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Eastern District of Louisiana, and|Northern District of Texas filed libels against 22 gross of prophylactics at|Scranton, Pa.; 6? gross at New Orleans, La.; 49 gross at Lubbock, Tex.; and|39 gross at Dallas, Tex., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate r|commerce, within the period from on or about August 24 to on or about Sep- V,|tember 21, 1939, by the Universal Merchandise Co. in various shipments from|New York, N. Y.; Chicago, 111.; and New Orleans, La.; and charging that it was|adulterated and that portions were also misbranded. Certain lots were labeled|in part: \"\"Saf-T-Way\"\" or \"\"Zephyr.\"\" One lot bore no brand name.|All lots were alleged to be adulterated in that their quality fell below that|which they purported or were represented to possess.|The Saf-T-Way brand was alleged to be misbranded in that representations|in the labeling that it was a safe prophylactic and was air-blown-tested, were|false and misleading.|On February 8, March 8 and 21, and May 27, 1940, no claimant having|appeared, judgments of condemnation were entered and the product was ordered|destroyed.|274. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 36 Gross of Prophylactics. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00274April, 1941World Merchandise Co.prophylacticsMarch 10, 1939El Paso, Tex.New York, N. Y.El Paso, Tex.Western District of Texas274F. D. C. No. 1629. Sample No. 99-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00274ddnj|274. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. IT. S. v. 36 Gross of Prophy|lactics. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No.|1629. Sample No. 99-D.)|On March 14, 1940, the United States attorney for the Western District of|Texas filed a libel against 36 gross of prophylactics at El Paso, Tex., alleging|that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about March|10, 1939, by the World Merchandise Co. from New York, N. Y.; and charging|that it was adulterated and that a portion was also misbranded. The article|was variously labeled in part: \"\"Royal Crown,\"\" \"\"Gold Town,\"\" \"\"Silver Town,\"\"|or \"\"Pro-Tek.\"\"|It was alleged to be adulterated in that its quality fell below that which|it purported or was represented to possess.|The product labeled \"\"Silver-Town\"\" also was alleged to be misbranded in|that the representation in the labeling that it was a disease preventative was|false and misleading.|On April 16, 1940,-no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|275. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 22 1/4 Gross and 19 Gross of Prophylactics. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00275April, 1941World Merchandise ExchangeprophylacticsJanuary 22 and March 20, 1940Kansas City, Mo.; Richmond, Va.New York, N. Y.Kansas City, Mo.; Richmond, Va.Western District of Missouri and the Eastern District of Virginia275F. D. C. Nos. 1574, 2000. Sample Nos. 66554-D, 1968-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00275ddnj|275. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 22% Gross and 19|Gross of Prophylactics. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. Nos. 1574, 2000. Sample Nos. 66554-D, 1968-E.)|On or about March 7 and May 22, 1940, the United States attorneys for the|Western District of Missouri and the Eastern District of Virginia filed libels|against 22? gross of prophylactics at Kansas City, Mo., and 19 gross of prophy-|lactics at Richmond, Va., alleging that the article had been shipped in inter-|state commerce on or about January 22 and March 20, 1940, by the World|Merchandise Exchange from New York, N. Y.; and charging that it was|adulterated and that one lot was also misbranded. One lot was labeled in|part: \"\"Nutex Skins * * * Nutex Co., Philadelphia, Pa.\"\" The other lot was|labeled \"\"Silver Bond.\"\"|Adulteration of both lots was alleged in that the quality of the article fell|below that which it was purported or was represented as possessing.|The lot designated \"\"Nutex\"\" was alleged to be misbranded in that its labeling|bore representations that it was absolutely perfect, would afford protection,|and would be efficacious for the prevention of disease, which were false and|misleading.|On June 25 and 28, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgments of con-|demnation were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|446. Adulteration and misbranding of Heads-Up Headache Powders and misbranding of Digesto-Pep and Coldlax. U. S. v. 126 Packages of Heads-Up, 70 Packages of Digesto-Pep, and 81 Bottles of Coldlax. Default decree of condemnation and destructionddnj00446September 1942Smith Bros. Drug Co.Heads-Up Headache Powders; Digesto-Pep and ColdlaxDecember 10, 1940Atlanta, Ga.Greensboro, N. C.Atlanta, Ga.Northern District of Georgia446F. D. C. No. 4026. Sample Nos. 20666-E, 20867-E, 20668-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00446ddnj|446. Adulteration and misbranding- of Heads-Up Headache Powders and misbrand-|ing of Digesto-Pep and Coldlax. U. S. v. 126 Packages of Heads-Up, 70|Packages of Digesto-Pep, and SI Bottles of Coldlax. Default decree of|condemnation and destruction, (F. D. C. No. 4026. Sample Nos. 20666-E,|20867-E, 20668-E.)|The labeling of the headache powders and the Coldlax failed to bear such ade-|quate warnings as are necessary for the protection of users and failed to bear|adequate directions and the common or usual names of the active ingredients.|The \"\"Heads-Up\"\" contained acetylsalicylic acid, sodium bromide, and phenolph-|thalein in excess of the amount declared. The labels of all products bore false|and misleading representations regarding their curative and therapeutic efficacy.|On March 25, 1941, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Georgia filed a libel against the above-described drugs at Atlanta, Ga., alleging|that the articles had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about December|10, 1940, by Smith Bros. Drug Co. from Greensboro, N. C.; and charging that|they were misbranded and that the Heads-Up Headache Powders were also|adulterated.|Analyses showed that the average Heads-Up headache powder contained 4.68|grains of aspirin, 6.62 grains of sodium bromide, and 0.57 grain of phenolphtha-|lein; that the Digesto-Pep contained alkaline compounds, including a bismuth|compound and diastase; and that the Coldlax consisted essentially of water,|alcohol, sodium salicylate, a laxative plant drug, menthol, camphor, and traces|of alkaloids,|The Headache Powders were alleged to be adulterated in that their strength|differed from that which they purported or were represented to possess, since|each powder contained materially more acetylsalicylic acid, sodium bromide,|and phenolphthalein than the amounts stated on the label. They were alleged|to be misbranded in that the statement on the label, \"\"Bach Powder Contains:|Acidum Acetylsalicylic * * * 4 Gr. * * * Sodium Bromide * * * 6 Gr.|Phenolphthalein * ? * * ? Gr.,\"\" was false and misleading since it was incor-|rect. They were alleged to be misbranded further in that the statements on the|label, \"\"Brace Up ! with Heads-Up,\"\" \"\"With Heads-Up You'll Brace Up!,\"\" and \"\" 'Go?/|Smiling Thru' As Thousands Do,\"\" were false and misleading as the article could|not be depended upon to brace one up or to enable one to \"\"go smiling through\"\"|when suffering from the various disease conditions mentioned on the label.?fThey were alleged to be misbranded further in that the statements, \"\"Take With?I,|Confidence,\"\" \"\"Heads-Up is different * * * safe * * * faster,\"\" and|\"\"Heads-Up contains no acetanilid, harmful or habit forming drugs,\"\" were false and|misleading, since they might cause potentially harmful effects, they were not|essentially different from or safer than various other preparations on the market,|were not safe under all conditions, and contained potentially harmful and habit-|forming drugs. They were alleged to be misbranded further in that the label|failed to bear the common or usual name of each of the active ingredients since|acidum acetyl salicylic is not the common name for aspirin. They were alleged|to be misbranded further in that the labeling failed to bear adequate directions|for use, since the direction \"\"Take one powder every two or three hours as needed\"\"|was not adequate for an article of the composition of Heads-Up Headache|Powders.|The Digesto-Pep was alleged to be misbranded in that the designations|\"\"Digesto-Pep,\"\" \"\"Aids Digestion,\"\" and \"\"Intended for use in correcting conditions|associated with * * * sluggish digestion,\"\" appearing on the label, were false|and misleading, since it was not a digestant of the various constituents of|food, could not be depended upon to produce \"\"pep\"\" and aid digestion and correct|sluggish digestion. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the state-|ments on the label \"\" 'Keep in step with Digesto-Pep'\"\" and \"\" 'Go smiling thru' as|thousands do\"\" were false and misleading, since the article could not be depended|upon to fulfill the promises of benefit expressed and implied by this language.|The Coldlax was alleged to be misbranded in that the designation \"\"Coldlax\"\"|and the statement \"\"For the relief of colds,\"\" appearing on the carton and bottle|label, and the statement \"\"For Colds,\"\" appearing in the directions, were false|and misleading, since it did not constitute an adequate treatment for colds;|and in that the unmodified statement \"\"For Coughs\"\" in the directions was false|and misleading, since the article did not constitute an adequate treatment for|coughs from all causes. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the|statement in the directions, \"\"Coldlax contains no habit forming drugs\"\" was|false and misleading, since it contained aromatic fluidextract of cascara sagrada|by reason of which frequent or continued use of the article might cause de-|pendence upon laxatives to move the bowels; in that the label failed to bear|the common or usual name of each active ingredient, since \"\"Alkaloids\"\" is not|the common or usual name of any constituent of the preparation, and the names|of other constituents were given in abbreviated form; and in that its labeling|failed to bear adequate directions for use, since the directions given did not|limit the period of time over which the article might appropriately be consumed.|The Heads-Up and Coldlax were alleged to be misbranded further in that|their labeling failed to bear adequate warnings against use in those pathological|conditions and by children where use might be dangerous to health and against|unsafe dosage and duration of administration in such manner and form as are|necessary for the protection of users since the labeling failed to bear a warning|that the articles should not be used in cases of nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain,|and other symptoms of appendicitis and did not warn that frequent or continued|use of the articles might result in dependence upon laxatives to move the bowels.|On April 21, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the products were ordered destroyed.|NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 2, FOOD AND DRUGS ACT. MISBRANDING OF MOLASSESfdnj00002June 24, 1908Penick & FordMOLASSESApril 7, 1908TennesseeTennesseeTennesseeWestern Division of the Western District of Tennessee2\NThe National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainfdnj00002fdnj|NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 2, FOOD AND DRUGS ACT.|MISBRANDING OF MOLASSES.|In 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 that on the 23d day of |April, 1908, in the District Court of the United States for the Western |Division of the Western District of Tennessee, in a proceeding of libel |for condemnation of eighteen barrels of molasses, labeled and branded |\"\"Re-boiled Open Kettle Molasses,\"\" wherein the United States was |libellant, and Penick & Ford, a corporation, was claimant, the said |claimant having admitted the allegations of the libel, a decree of for- |feiture and confiscation was rendered, in substance and in form as |follows:|In the District Court of the United States for the Western Division of the|Western District of Tennessee.|UNITED STATES OF AMERICA VS. TWENTY-SIX BARRELS OF MOLASSES.|In this cause it appearing to the court, the United States, by George Randolph, |United States Attorney, and Penick and Ford, the claimants and owners of the |property seized herein, by their attorney, John D. Martin, consenting thereto, |that under the process issued in this cause eighteen barrels of molasses branded |\"\"Reboiled Open Kettle Molasses, Penick & Ford, New Orleans, La.,\"\" were |seized by the United States Marshal in the John H. Poston Warehouse in the |city of Memphis, Shelby County, Tennessee, and that the same were subject to |seizure and confiscation by the United States for the causes set forth in the libel |herein, that is to say, for the reason that said eighteen barrels contained a large |per cent of glucose which had been substituted in part for the said molasses and |the said brands on the said barrels were misleading and calculated to deceive |purchasers.|And it further appearing by like consent that the said Penick & Ford have |agreed that an order may be entered at once condemning and confiscating the |property to the United States.|It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the said eighteen barrels |of molasses above described now in the possession of the marshal of the court |be and the same are hereby declared to be forfeited and confiscated to the |United States.|It is further ordered, however, that upon payment by the said Penick & Ford |of the costs of this proceeding and the execution and delivery of a good and |sufficient bond to be filed with the clerk in this cause, conditioned that said|eighteen barrels of molasses shall not be sold or otherwise disposed of contrary |to the provisions of the act, Chapter 3915, of the Fifty-ninth Congress, commonly |known as the Pure Food and Drugs Act, or contrary to the laws of the State of |Tennessee, then the marshal of this court is hereby directed to deliver said |eighteen barrels of molasses to the said Penick & Ford, or their representatives. |But in the event the said Penick & Ford shall fail to pay the costs of this pro- |ceeding, or fail to give bond as above provided within fifteen days from date of |the entry of this order, then the Marshal of this court is hereby directed, after |first properly branding said eighteen barrels of molasses, to advertise the same |for sale in some newspaper published in the City of Memphis, for a period of |fifteen days and sell the same on the premises of the John H. Poston warehouse |for cash to the highest bidder.|GEORGE RANDOLPH,|U. S. Attorney. |JOHN D. MARTIN, |Attorney for Penick & Ford. |Enter this.|MCCALL, Judge.|The following is a statement of the facts upon which the case is |based:|On April 7, 1908, an inspector of the Department of Agriculture |located on the premises of the John H. Poston Warehouse, Memphis, |Tenn., a consignment of goods and purchased a sample thereof, which |was labeled as follows: \"\" Penick & Ford Re-Boiled Open Kettle Molas- |ses, New Orleans, La.\"\"|The sample purchased was one of a consignment of about 26 barrels |of molasses shipped from New Orleans to Penick & Ford, Memphis, |Tenn., and held by the said John H. Poston Warehouse subject to the |order of Penick & Ford. An analysis of the sample was duly made by |the Bureau of Chemistry, Department of Agriculture, and the following |results obtained and stated:|Polarization, direct at 28° C |°V__ +102.3|Polarization, invert at 28° C |do + 75.0|Polarization, invert at 87° C |do + 81.2|Sucrose (by 142.66) |per cent._ 21.22|Glucose (average polarization 175? V.) |do 49.82|Ash |do 3.055|The analysis showed that the product was adulterated within the |meaning of section 7 of the act, in that glucose had been substituted |in part for the molasses, thereby reducing its quality and strength ; and |that it was misbranded under section 8, in that the label declared the |article to be molasses, when it was in fact a mixture of molasses and |glucose.|On April 19, 1908, the facts were reported by the Secretary of Agri- |culture to the district attorney at Memphis, Tenn. Libel for seizure |and condemnation of 18 of the barrels of molasses was duly filed in the |district court of the United States for the western division of the western |district of Tennessee, under section 10 of the act, upon which seizure|was forthwith made, but before publication of the monition, the claim- |ant, Penick & Ford, appeared, waived the formality, and agreed that |the consignment of molasses seized was subject to seizure and confis- |cation by the United States for the causes stated in the libel. Where- |upon the court adjudged the molasses misbranded, and upon the filing |of a good and sufficient bond in accordance with section 10 of the act, |and under the provisions of the decree-hereinbefore set forth, the goods |were duly surrendered to the claimant.|H. W. WILEY, |F. L. DUNLAP, |GEO. P. MCCABE, |Board of Food and Drug Inspection. |Approved:|W. M. HAYS,|Acting Secretary of Agriculture.|WASHINGTON, D. C, May 28, We.|O|276. Misbranding of Arbolone Tablets. U. S. v. 141 Packages of Arbolone Tablets. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00276Nov. 4, 1941Arbolone Co.Arbolone TabletsMay 6, 1940Chicago, Ill.Dayton, OhioChicago, Ill.Northern District of Illinois276F. D. C. No. 2355. Sample No. 4516-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00276ddnj|2T6. Misbranding: of Arbolone Tablets. U. S. v. 141 Packages of Arbolone Tablets.|Default - decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D, C. No. 2355.|Sample No. 4516-E.)|This product consisted of thyroid and extracts of plant drugs. It would be|dangerous to health when used in the dosage or with the frequency or duration|prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling, which recommended a|dosage for adults of one tablet after each meal and at bedtime. Its labeling|412675?-11 1 |127|also contained representations that it was efficacious in the treatment lot. simple|obesity or ordinary overnutrition where the excessive weight was due tjb/over-|eating or overdrinking, or both; and that in indicated cases, it should be of bene-|fit providing reasonable diet habits were observed, which representations were|false and misleading since it would not constitute an adequate, appropriate, or|safe treatment for simple obesity or ordinary overnutrition where the excessive|weight was due to overeating or overdrinking, or both.|On July 16, 1940, the United States attorney for the Northern District of Il-|linois filed a libel against 141 packages of Arbolone Tablets at Chicago, 111., al-|leging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about May|6, 1940, by the Arbolone Co. from Dayton, Ohio; and charging that it was|misbranded.|On October 22, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|278. Misbranding of Eczematone. U. S. v. 72, 33, and 10 Packages of Eczematone. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00278Nov. 4, 1941Barlow Chemical AssociationEczematoneApril 11, 1940Kansas City, Mo.Oklahoma City, Okla.Kansas City, Mo.Western District of Missouri278F. D. C. No. 2180. Sample No. 16232-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00278ddnj|278. Misbranding: of Eczematone. 17. S. v. 72, 33, and 10 Packages of Eczematone.|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 2180.|Sample No. 16232-E.)|This product would be dangerous to health when used as directed in the|labeling, which bore false and misleading representations regarding its efficacy|in the conditions indicated below.|On June 7, 1940, the United States attorney for the Western District of Mis-|souri filed a libel against 115 various-sized packages of Eczematone at Kansas|City, Mo., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on|or about April 11, 1940, by the Barlow Chemical Association from Oklahoma|City, Okla.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of alcohol (85 percent),|mercuric chloride (0.37 percent), and water.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that representations in the label-|ing that it would aid nature and promote healing; that it was an invigorating,|stimulating treatment; and that it was efficacious in the treatment of minor|irritating skin and scalp disorders, sprains, minor aches and pains that could|be reached by external application, and of burning, itching and loose, scaly,|dandruff were false and misleading since it was not efficacious for the purposes|recommended.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that it was dangerous to health|when used in the dosage or with the frequency or duration prescribed, recom-|mended, or suggested in the labeling, namely: \"\"Directions apply freely to parts|affected two or three times a day * * * Directions apply freely to roots of|the hair, massage in well every other day for a week. Shampoo the hair|thoroughly, and when dry apply another application of Eczematone immediately.|Repeat the following week if necessary. After that, apply freely once a week|for continued results.\"\"|On September 16, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|279. Misbranding of pessaries. U. S. v. 1 11/12 Dozen, 2 Dozen, and 22 Pessaries. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00279Nov. 4, 1941H. Carstens Manufacturing Co.pessariesSeptember 26, 1939, to July 26, 1940St. Louis, Mo.Chicago, Ill.St. Louis, Mo.Eastern District of Missouri279F. D. C. No. 2543. Sample Nos. 15593-E, 15594-E, 15595-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00279ddnj|279. Misbranding of pessaries. V. S. v. 1 11/12 Dozen, 2 Dozen, and 22 Pes|saries. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No.|2543. Sample Nos. 15593-E, 15594-E, 15595-E.)|This device, which consisted of a metallic mushroom-shaped disk with a|cylindrical stem bearing on its end two springy wires, was potentially dangerous|to health.|On August 13, 1940, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Missouri filed a libel against 69 pessaries at St. Louis, Mo., alleging that the|article had been shipped in interstate commerce within the period from on or|about September 26, 1939, to on or about July 26, 1940, by the H. Carstens|Manufacturing Co. from Chicago, 111.; and charging that it was misbranded|in that it was dangerous to health when used with the frequency or duration|prescribed. The article was labeled in part: \"\"Hood Improved Pessary.\"\"|On September 11, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|280. Misbranding of tablets. U. S. v. 45 Boxes of Rock-A-Way Tablets. De fault decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00280Nov. 4, 1941Gates Medicine Co.tabletsNovember 28, 1940Norfolk, Va.Charleston, W. Va.Norfolk, Va.Eastern District of Virginia280F. D. C. No. S937. Sample No. 50705-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00280ddnj|280. Misbranding: of tablets. U. S. v. 45 Boxes of Rock-A-Way Tablets. De|fault decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. S937. Sample|No. 50705-E.)|This product consisted of tablets containing approximately 6 grains each of|boric acid, together with sodium bicarbonate and citric acid. It would be|dangerous to health when used in the dosage and with the frequency and|duration prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling, which directed|that 2 tablets be taken before each meal.|On March 7, 1941, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Virginia filed a libel against 45 boxes of Rock-A-Way Tablets at Norfolk, Va.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|November 28, 1940, by the Gates Medicine Co. from Charleston, W. Va.; and|charging that it was misbranded for the reason shown above.|On April 11, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|mas entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|Nos. 281 and 282 report seizure and disposition of drug products whose|labeling failed to bear adequate warnings against use in those pathological con-|ditions where its use might be dangerous to health or against unsafe dosage,|methods, or duration of administration.|281. Adulteration and misbranding of Bromo-Thein. U. S. v. 58 Bottles of Bromo-Thein. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00281Nov. 4, 1941Lockwood LaboratoriesBromo-TheinAugust 28, 1940Detroit, Mich.Hammond, Ill.Detroit, Mich.Eastern District of Michigan281F. D. C. No. 3096. Sample No. 4075-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00281ddnj|281. Adulteration and misbranding: of Bromo-Thein. IT. S. v. 58 Bottles of Bromo-|Tbein. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No.|3096. Sample No. 4075-E.)|The label of this product, in addition to failure to bear adequate warnings,|also failed to bear adequate directions for use. Moreover, examination showed|that the product contained smaller proportions of acetanilid and sodium and|potassium bromides than those stated on the label.|On or about September 26, 1940, the United States attorney for the Eastern|District of Michigan filed a libel against 58 bottles of Bromo-Thein at Detroit,|Mich., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or|about August 28, 1940, by Lockwood Laboratories from Hammond, 111.; and|charging that it was adulterated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from|that which it purported or was represented to possess.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement on the label, \"\"Each|heaping teaspoonful contains 2? grains Acetanilid, 2? grains Sodium Bromide,|2? grains Potassium Bromide,\"\" was false and misleading since it was not cor-|rect. The article was alleged to be misbranded further in that its labeling|failed to bear adequate directions; and in that the labeling failed to bear adequate|warnings against use in those pathological conditions where its use might be|dangerous to health, or against unsafe dosage, methods, or duration of adminis-|tration or application in such manner and form as are necessary for the pro-|tection of users because frequent or continued use of the article might be dan-|gerous, causing serious blood disturbances, mental derangement, and other serious|effects.|On November 7,1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|285. Adulteration and misbranding of Nuval-Ald. U. S. v. 5 Dozen Bottles of Nuval-Aid. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00285Nov. 4, 1941V. M. ProductsNuval-AidSeptember 18, 1940Washington, D. C.Chicago, Ill.Washington, D. C.District of Columbia285F. D. C. No. 3658. Sample No. 50037-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00285ddnj|285. Adulteration and misbranding of Nuval-Ald. U. S. v. 5 Dozen Bottles of|Nuval-Aid. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (P. D. C.|No. 3658. Sample No. 50037-E.)|This product consisted essentially of sugar-coated yeast tablets. It contained|not more than 36 U. S. P. units (International Units) of vitamin Bi per tablet|which was only three-fourths of the amount declared on the label.|On January 11, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Columbia|filed a libel against 5 dozen bottles of Nuval-Aid at Washington, D. C, alleging|that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about September|18, 1940, by V. M. Products from Chicago, HI.; and charging that it was adul-|terated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that a valuable constituent, vitamin|Bi, had been in whole or in part omitted or extracted therefrom; and in that its|strength differed from and its quality fell below that which it was represented to|possess.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement, \"\"Each Tablet Contains|not less than 48 International Units Vitamin Bi\"\, was false and misleading since|it was incorrect.|On February 26, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|286. Adulteration and misbranding of Codroll. U. S. v. Pho-So-Ash Products Corporation. Plea of guilty. Fine, $50 and costs.ddnj00286Nov. 4, 1941Pho-So-Ash Products Corporation, Kendallville, Ind.CodrollSeptember 8 and 29, 1939IndianaIndianaMichigan and OhioNorthern District of Indiana286F. D. C. No. 963. Sample Nos. 55958-D, 75454-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00286ddnj|286. Adulteration and misbranding: of Codroll. U. S. v. Pho-So-Ash Products|Corporation. Plea of guilty. Fine, $50 and costs. (F. D. C. No. 963.|Sample Nos. 55958-D, 75454-D.)|This veterinary product contained less than one-half the amount of vitamin D|and less than one-third the amount of vitamin A declared on the label.|On June 10, 1940, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Indiana filed an information against the Fho-So-Ash . Products Corporation,|Kendallville, Ind., alleging shipment on or about September 8 and 29, 1939, from|the State of Indiana into the States of Michigan and Ohio of quantities of Codroil|which was adulterated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from and|its quality or purity fell below that which it purported or was represented to|possess in that each pound of the article was represented to contain 40,000 units|of vitamin D and 77,600 units of vitamin A; whereas each pound of the article|contained not more than approximately 18,144 units of vitamin D and not more|than approximately 22,680 units of vitamin A.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements \"\"40,000 Units Vitamine|D and 77,600 Units Vitamine A per pound. Codroil is fully guaranteed as to|Vitamine content,\"\" borne on the drum label, were false and misleading in that|they represented that each pound of the article contained 40,000 units of vitamin|D and 77.600 units of vitamin A; whereas each pound of the article contained less|than 40,000 units of vitamin D and less than 77,600 units of vitamin A. It was|alleged to be misbranded further in that the statements \"\"Cod Liver Oil Concen-|trate 4? (5,750 Units Vitamin A.per gram, 3,850 units Vitamin D per gram),\"\"|borne on the tag affixed to the drum, were false and misleading in that they|represented that the article contained 4 percent of cod-liver-oil concentrate and|that the cod-liver-oil concentrate so present contained 5,750 units of vitamin A|per gram and 3,850 units of vitamin D per gram, that is to say, that the article|contained in each gram not less than 230 units of vitamin A and not less than|150 units of vitamin D; whereas it contained not more than 50 units of vitamin A|and not more than 40 units of vitamin D per gram.|On January 27, 1941, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant|and the court imposed a fine of $50 and costs.|DIGITALIS|287. Adulteration and misbranding of digitalis leaves. U. S. v. 7 Bags of Digitalis Leaves. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00287Nov. 4, 1941Oregon Forest Productsdigitalis leavesApril 24, 1940New York, N. Y.Salem, Oreg.New York, N. Y.Southern District of New York287F. D. C. No. 2488. Sample No. 10799-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00287ddnj|287. Adulteration and misbranding: of digitalis leaves. U. S. v. T Bags of Digi|talis Leaves. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C.|No. 2488. Sample No. 10799-E.)|This product possessed a potency of about 71 percent of the pharmacopoeial|standard for digitalis leaves. Furthermore, it was contained in paper sacks|inclosed in burlap bags and not in waterproof and airtight containers as pre-|scribed in the pharmacopoeia.|On August 5, 1940, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|New York filed a libel against 7 bags of digitalis leaves at New York, N. Y.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|April 24, 1940, by the Oregon Forest Products from Salem, Oreg.; and charging|that it was adulterated and misbranded. The article was labeled in part: \"\"2nd|Grade Digitalis. U. S. P. not Guaranteed.\"\"|It was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to be and was represented|as a drug the name of which is recognized in the United States Pharmacopoeia|but its strength differed from the standard set forth in such compendium.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that it was not packaged as prescribed in|the United States Pharmacopoeia, since it was not contained in waterproof|and airtight containers.|.On September 10, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|288. Adulteration and misbranding of digitalis leaves. U. S. v. 120 Packages of Digitalis Leaves. Consent decree of condemnation. Product released under bond for reconditioning and relabeling.ddnj00288Nov. 4, 1941Western Trading Co., Inc.digitalis leavesFebruary 20 and 26, 1940Brooklyn, N. Y.Portland, Oreg.Brooklyn, N. Y.Eastern District of New York288F. D. C. No. 2217. Sample Noa. 10955-E, 10956-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00288ddnj|288. Adulteration and misbranding of digitalis leaves. TJ. S. v. 120 Packages of|Digitalis Leaves. Consent decree of condemnation. Product released|under bond for reconditioning and relabeling. (F. D. C. No. 2217. Sample|Noa. 10955-E, 10956-B.)|This product contained from 9.5 percent to 10 percent of moisture; whereas|the United States Pharmacopoeia prescribes a maximum of 8 percent of moisture|for digitalis leaves. Furthermore, it was not packaged in accordance with the|specifications of the pharmacopoeia.|On June 17, 1940, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of New|York filed a libel against 120 packages of digitalis leaves at Brooklyn, N. Y.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|February 20 and 26, 1940, by the Western Trading Co., Inc., from Portland,|Oreg.; and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to be and was|represented as digitalis, a drug the name of which is recognized in the United|States Pharmacopoeia, and its strength differed from and its quality and purity|fell below the standard set forth therein.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that it was not packaged in waterproof,|airtight containers as prescribed in the pharmacopoeia.|On January 4, 1941, the Western Trading Co., Inc., claimant, having admitted|the allegations of the libel, judgment of condemnation was entered and the|product was ordered released under bond conditioned that it be made to comply|with the pharmacopoeial specifications with respect to packaging, moisture con-|tent, and labeling.|447. misbranding of Laxrid. U. S. v. 72 10-Ounce Packages and 33 4-Ounce Packages of Lawrence Mack's Laxrid. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00447September 1942Lawrence Mack, Inc.LaxridJanuary 6, 1941Portland, Oreg.Detroit, Mich.Portland, Oreg.District of Oregon447F. D. C. No. 3825. Sample No. 52201-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00447ddnj|447. misbranding of Laxrid. V. S. v. 72 10-Otmce Packages and 33 4-Ounce Pack-|ages of Lawrence Mack's Laxrid. Default decree of condemnation and|destruction. (F. D. C. No. 3825. Sample No. 52201-E.)|The labeling of this product failed to bear adequate directions for use, and|it also contained false statements regarding its ingredients, its efficacy as a|weight reducer, and its therapeutic qualities.|On February 20, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Oregon|filed a libel against the above-named product at Portland, Oreg., alleging that|it had been shipped by Lawrence Mack, Inc., from Detroit, Mich., on or about|January 6, 1941; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of|Epsom salt, Glauber's salt, sodium bicarbonate, tartaric acid, citric acid, and|small quantities of sodium phosphate, potassium and sodium chlorides, saccharin,|and peppermint oil.|The article was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that its label failed to bear|adequate directions for use since those given were not suitable for a laxative.|(2) In that the following statements in the label (carton and circular) \"\"Report|of Laboratory Test of Lawrence Mack's Laxrid. 'We have tested a sample of|Lawrence Mack's Laxrid and find that it is entirely free from any of the poisonous|467449?-42 3|nolic Substances-None AleoihQlSL,.None. Veronal, Barbital, and similar com-|pouuds?.None Metallic Poisons^Nooe (Salts of lead, arsenic, antimony, mer-|cury, tin, bismuth and barium) Di-nitrophe!ioL.JN?ne Plant Tissues-None|(Pokeweed, bladder wrack, etc) Thyroid Extract. JSfone,' \"\" were false and mis-|leading sinee they gave the impression that the article contained no deleterious|substances. (3) In that statements in the booklet entitled \"\"'How I Reduced,\"\"|representing that its use would \"\"Do Away With Excess Weight,\"\" relieve constipa-|tion, that reduction of weight gained by its use usually was permanent; that it|would remove heaviness in body, take away that bloated, sluggish feeling; would|enable the user to get up full of vim, vigor, and vitality; and that it would|relieve gas and acids, were false and misleading since it would not be efficacious|for such purposes.|On April 17, 1941, no claimant haying appeared, Judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|289. Adulteration and misbranding of powdered digitalis. U. S. v. 25 Pounds of Digitalis Powder. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00289Nov. 4, 1941S. B. Penick & Co.powdered digitalisApril 4, 1939Columbus, OhioNew York, N. Y.Columbus, OhioSouthern District of Ohio289F. D. C. No. 1457. Sample No. 75628-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00289ddnj|289. Adulteration and misbranding of powdered digitalis. U. S. v. 25 Pounds of|Digitalis Powder. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 1457. Sample No. 75628-D.)|This product possessed a potency of not more than 72 percent of the pharma-|copoeial requirement for powdered digitalis.|On February 8, 1940, the United States attorney for the Southern District|of Ohio filed a libel (amended March 19, 1940) against 25 pounds of powdered|digitalis at Columbus, Ohio, alleging that the article had been shipped in inter-|state commerce on or about April 4, 1939, by S. B. Penick & Co. from New York,|N. Y.; and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to be and was|represented as a drug the. name of which is recognized in an official compendium,|and its strength differed from the standard set forth in such compendium.|Misbranding was alleged in that the statements on the label, \"\"Digitalis|*?* * (Tested) * * * Powdered Our Assay 100? U. S. P. Potency,\"\"|were false and misleading as applied to a drug which possessed a potency of|less than three-fourths of that required by the United States Pharmacopoeia.|On October 30, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|MISCELLANEOUS|290. Adulteration and misbranding of Elixir Saligen. U. S. v. G. D. Searle & Co. Plea of guilty. Fine, $50.ddnj00290Nov. 4, 1941G. D. Searle & Co., a corporation, Chicago, Ill.Elixir SaligenJuly 29, 1939IllinoisIllinoisIndianaNorthern District of Illinois290F. D. C. No. 932. Sample No. 55058-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00290ddnj|290. Adulteration and misbranding of Elixir Saligen. IT. S. v. G. D. Searle & Co.|Plea of guilty. Fine, 850. (F. D. C. No. 932. Sample No. 55058-D.)|This product was represented to contain 4 grains of potassium iodide per|fluid ounce; whereas a portion was found to contain more than 4 grains of|potassium iodide per fluid ounce and the remainder contained no potassium iodide|at all.|On January 20, 1940, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Illinois filed an information against G. D. Searle & Co., a corporation, Chicago,|111., alleging shipment on or about July 29, 1939, from the State of Illinois into|the State of Indiana of a quantity of Elixir Saligen which was adulterated and|misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from|that which it purported or was represented to possess in that each fluid ounce|was represented to contain 4 grains of potassium iodide; whereas one portion,|distinguished by a certain code number, contained more than was represented,|namely, not less than 7.60 grains of potassium iodide per fluid ounce and a|portion distinguished by a different code number contained no potassium iodide.|Misbranding was alleged in that the statement \"\"Each Fluid Ounce Represents|*?* * Potassium Iodide 4 grs,\"\" borne on the label, was false and misleading.|On January 8, 1941, a plea of guilty having been entered on behalf of the|defendant, the court imposed a fine of $50.|291. Misbranding of mineral oil. U. S. v. 4 Gross Bottles of Mineral Oil. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00291Nov. 4, 1941Certified Pharmacal Co.mineral oilOctober 3, 1940Boston, Mass.New York, N. Y.Boston, Mass.District of Massachusetts291F. D. C. No. 3345. Sample No. 36240-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00291ddnj|201. Misbranding: of mineral oil. V. S. v. 4 Gross Bottles of Mineral Oil. De-|fault decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 3345. Sample|No. 36240-E.)|This product was light mineral oil. It was represented to be Russian mineral|oil, which is heavy mineral oil.|On November 6, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of Massa-|chusetts filed a libel against 4 gross bottles of mineral oil at Boston, Mass.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|October 3, 1040, by the Certified Pharmacal Co. from New York, N. Y.; and|charging that it was misbranded. It was labeled in part: \"\"Genuine Russian|Mineral Oil U. S. P.-Light.\"\"|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement \"\"Genuine|Russian Mineral Oil\"\" and the Russian emblem appearing on the label were|false and misleading since it was not Russian mineral oil, which is heavy,|not light, mineral oil.|On December 30, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|292. Adulteration and misbranding of ether. U. S. v. 15 Packages of Ether. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00292Nov. 4, 1941Mallinckrodt Chemical WorksetherFebruary 16, 1940El Paso, Tex.St. Louis, Mo.El Paso, Tex.Western District of Texas292F. D. C. No. 3760. Sample No. 65346-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00292ddnj|292. Adulteration and misbranding of ether. U. S. v. 15 Packages of Ether.|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 3760.|Sample No. 65346-E.)|This product had been shipped in interstate commerce and was in interstate|commerce at the time of examination, at which time 2 of the 10 cans examined|were found to contain peroxide.|On February 3, 1941, the United States attorney for the Western District of|Texas filed a libel against 15 packages of ether at El Paso, Tex., alleging that|the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about February 16,|1940, by the Mallinckrodt Chemical Works from St. Louis, Mo.; and charging|that it was adulterated and misbranded. It was labeled in part: \"\"Ether for|Anesthesia.\"\"|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to be or was|represented as a drug the name of which is recognized in the United States|Pharmacopoeia, and its quality or purity fell below the standard set forth|therein.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements on the label, \"\"Fully|conforms to all Requirements of U. S. P. XI\"\" and \"\"Is free from Peroxide,\"\" were|false and misleading since they were incorrect.|On March 28, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|458. Adulteration of ampuls of triple distilled water. U. S. v. 4 Boxes of Ampuls of Triple Distilled Water. Default deeree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00458September 1942Zeigler Pharmacal Co.ampuls of triple distilled waterMarch 6, 1941Kirkwood, Mo.Buffalo, N. Y.Kirkwood, Mo.Eastern District of Missouri458F. D. C. No. 4399. Sample No. 57061-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00458ddnj|458. Adulteration of ampuls of triple distilled water. U. S. v. 4 Boxes of Ampuls|of Triple Distilled Water. Default deeree of condemnation and destruc-|tion. (F. D. C. No. 4399. Sample No. 57061-E.)|Samples of this triple distilled water were found to contain viable mold.|On April 18, 1941, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Missouri filed a libel against 4 boxes, each containing 25 ampuls of triple dis-|tilled water at Kirkwood, Mo., alleging that the article had been shipped in|interstate commerce on or about March 6, 1941, by the Zeigler Pharmacal Co.|from Buffalo, N. Y.; and charging that it was adulterated.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it consisted in part of a|filthy substance, namely, mold. It was alleged to be adulterated further in|that it purported to be a drug the name of which is recognized in an official|compendium, the National Formulary, and its quality and purity- fell below|the standard set forth in such compendium since it contained micro-organisms;|whereas the National Formulary requires that triple distilled water shall be|free from micro-organisms.|On May 17, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|Nos. 459 and 460 report the seizure and disposition of Hart's Asthma Medi-|cine which was contaminated with mold growth; and the labeling of which|failed to bear adequate warning statements and did bear false and misleading|therapeutic claims.|293. Adulteration and misbranding of ether. U. S. v. 82 Cans of Either. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00293Nov. 4, 1941E. R. Squibb & SonsetherJuly 3, 1940Detroit, Mich.Cleveland, OhioDetroit, Mich.Eastern District of Michigan293F. D. C. No. 2601. Sample Nos. 4059-E, 4061-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00293ddnj|293. Adulteration and misbranding of ether. U. S. v. 82 Cans of Either. De|fault decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 2601. Sample|Nos. 4059-E, 4061-E.)|This product had been shipped in interstate commerce and was in interstate|commerce at the time of examination, at which time peroxide was found in 5|of the 40 cans examined and aldehyde also was found in 1 of the 5 cans.|On or about August 19, 1940, the United States attorney for the Eastern Dis-|trict of Michigan filed a libel against 82 cans of ether at Detroit, Mich., alleging|that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about July 3, 1940,|by E. R. Squibb & Sons from Cleveland, Ohio; and charging that it was adul-|terated and misbranded. It was labeled in part \"\"Ether for Anesthesia.\"\"|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to be or was rep-|resented as a drug the name of which is recognized in the United States Pharma-|copoeia, and its strength differed from and its quality and purity fell below the|standard set forth therein.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement on the label, \"\"Ether|U. S. P.,\"\" was false and misleading as applied to an article which contained|peroxide and aldehyde.|On November 7, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|294. Adulteration and misbranding of Endiphrin Inhalant. U. S. v. 24 Bottles of Endiphrin Inhalant. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00294Nov. 4, 1941Harrower Laboratories, Inc.Endiphrin InhalantMay 23, 1940Chicago, Ill.Glendale, Calif.Chicago, Ill.Northern District of Illinois294F. D. C. No. 2330. Sample No. 4639-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00294ddnj|294. Adulteration and misbranding of Endiphrin Inhalant. U. S. v. 24 Bottles|of Endiphrin Inhalant. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 2330. Sample No. 4639-E.)|This product contained only two-thirds of the amount of epinephrine hydro-|chloride declared on the label.|On July 12, 1940, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Illinois filed a libel against 24 bottles of Endiphrin Inhalant at Chicago, 111.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|May 23, 1940, by the Harrower Laboratories, Inc., from Glendale, Calif.; and|charging that it was adulterated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from|that which it purported or was represented to possess, namely: (Carton) \"\"A|1 per cent solution of epinephrine hydrochloride\"\"; (bottle) \"\"Epinephrine Solution|1:100.\"\"|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the above-quoted statements were|false and misleading as applied to an article which contained only 0.67 percent|(1/150) of epinephrine hydrochloride.|On October 21, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|295. Adulteration and misbranding of solution of hydrogen peroxide. U. S. v. 23 Dozen Bottles of Hydrogen Peroxide. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00295Nov. 4, 1941Southwest Products Co.solution of hydrogen peroxideNovember 22, 1940Albuquerque, N. Mex.Lubbock, Tex.Albuquerque, N. Mex.District of New Mexico295F. D. C. No. 3535. Sample No. 6988-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00295ddnj|295. Adulteration and misbranding of solution of hydrogen peroxide. U. S. v.|23 Dozen Bottles of Hydrogen Peroxide. Default decree of condemna-|tion and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 3535. Sample No. 6988-E.)|This product was labeled as a 3 percent solution of peroxide of hydrogen, but|it contained only 1.9 grams, or less, of peroxide of hydrogen per 100 cc. The|United States Pharmacopoeia requires that solution of peroxide of hydrogen|shall contain at least 2.5 grams of peroxide of hydrogen per 100 cc.|On December 19, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of New|Mexico filed a libel against 23 dozen bottles of solution of hydrogen peroxide|at Albuquerque, N. Mex., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate|commerce on or about November 22, 1940, by the Southwest Products Co. from|Lubbock, Tex.; and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to be or was|represented as a drug the name of which is recognized, in the United States|Pharmacopoeia but its strength differed from and its quality and purity fell|below the standard set forth therein.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements on the label, \"\"Hydrogen|Peroxide U. S. P. * * * 3? * * * Active ingredients H202 3?,\"\" were|false and misleading since it did not meet the specifications of the United States|Pharmacopoeia for hydrogen peroxide and did not contain 3 percent hydrogen|peroxide.|On January 21, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|DRUGS AND DEVICES ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF FALSE AND|MISLEADING THERAPEUTIC CLAIMS2|SCALP REMEDIES|296. Misbranding of L. B. Hair Oil. U. S. v. 14 2/3 Dozen Packages of L. B. Hair Oil. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00296Nov. 4, 1941L. B. Laboratories, Inc.L. B. Hair OilSeptember 18, 1939Ogden, UtahHollywood, Calif.; Los Angeles, Calif.Ogden, UtahDistrict of Utah296F. D. C. No. 1043. Sample No. 70952-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00296ddnj|296. Misbranding of L. B. Hair Oil. IT. S. v. 14% Dozen Packages of L,. B. Hair|Oil. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 1043.|Sample No. 70952-D.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regarding|its efficacy in the conditions indicated below. Furthermore, its package was de-|ceptive since the bottles were pinched down to approximately one-half size in the|center, and therefore contained a much smaller volume of material than would be|expected from the size of the carton.|On November 22, 1939, the United States attorney for the District of Utah filed|a libel against 14? dozen packages of L. B. Hair Oil at Ogden, Utah, alleging|that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce in part on or about|September 18,1939, by the L. B. Laboratories, Inc., from Hollywood, Calif., and in|part by McKesson & Bobbins, Inc., from Los Angeles, Calif, (the latter shipment|made on or about August 21, 1939) ; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of mineral oil with small|proportions of saponifiable oil and perfume.|It was alleged in the libel that the article was misbranded in that its labeling|bore representations that it was a scalp conditioner, that it contained a balanced|blend of rich animal oils and toning ingredients which would give life to the hair|almost instantly; that it would aid in overcoming baldness, thin, and falling hair;|that it contained animal oils of a very penetrating nature; that it was an \"\"oil of'|life\"\" for the hair; that it had cured baldness in its originator; that it was a blend|of animal oils which would provide the vitalizing, nourishing, and restorative ele-|ments needed by the scalp to clear out clogging waste matter and dead tissue, and|* See also Nos. 278, 282, 283.|412675?-41 2|to restore normal functions and growth and produce beautiful healthy hair again|in a short time, regardless of the present condition; that many bald for 18 or 20 ,.|years testified to a regrowth in approximately 2 years, and that those bald for a (|shorter time claimed even quicker results; that it was effective for infant scalp|trouble; that it would be effective to eliminate granulated eye lids and stimulate|new growth of lashes; that it was effective for sun or other burns and would|prevent the formation of scar tissue and that its labeling also bore directions|that in the treatment of baldness the scalp be steamed with hot towels, that as|much of the product as the scalp would absorb be applied and patted in, that the|scalp itself be moved with the fingers but that vigorous rubbing should be avoided,|that the application should be repeated every night until results were obtained,|and further directions that in the treatment for thin and falling hair, the hair|should be parted and the product applied directly to the scalp, patting it in with|the palm of the hand, that vigorous rubbing should be avoided; that if the hair|continued to fall, less should be used since over application would tend to further|loosen the hair, which representations and directions were false and misleading|as applied to an article consisting essentially of mineral oil and saponifiable oils.|The article was also alleged to be misbranded under the provisions of the law|applicable to cosmetics reported in C. N. J. No. 34.|On January 18,1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|297. Misbranding of Odell's Quinine for the Hair. U. S. v. 140 Bottles Of Odell's Quinine for the Hair. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00297Nov. 4, 1941Odell CompanyOdell's Quinine for the HairNovember 19, 1940Philadelphia, Pa.Newark, N. J.Philadelphia, Pa.Eastern District of Pennsylvania297F. D. C. No. 3609. Sample No. 24831-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00297ddnj|297. Misbranding' of Odell's Quinine for the Hair. U. S. v. 140 Bottles Of Odell's|Quinine for the Hair. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 3609. Sample No. 24831-E.)|This product was represented to be a quinine preparation; whereas it con-|tained no quinine. Its labeling also bore false and misleading representations|regarding its efficacy as indicated below, and failed to bear the common and|usual names of the active ingredients and a statement of the quantity or propor-|tion of alcohol contained in the article.|On December 30, 1940, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Pennsylvania filed a libel against 140 bottles of Odell's Quinine for the Hair at|Philadelphia, Pa., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate com-|merce on or about November 19, 1940, by the Odell Company from Newark, N. J.;|and charging that it was misbranded.|It was alleged to be' misbranded in that the statements \"\"Quinine * * *|Stimulating * * * Essential to healthy hair\"\" were false and misleading|because they were incorrect. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that|the label did not bear the common or usual names of the active ingredients and a|statement of the quantity or proportion of alcohol that it contained.|The article was also alleged to be misbranded under the provisions of the law|applicable to cosmetics, as reported in notices of judgment on cosmetics.|On January 22, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|298. Misbranding of Miracle Lotion. U. S. v. 81 Bottles of Miracle Lotion. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00298Nov. 4, 1941Martinsville Laboratories, Inc.Miracle LotionJuly 1, 1940Jacksonville, Fla.Martinsville, Va.Jacksonville, Fla.Southern District of Florida298F. D. C. No. 3148. Sample No. 20860-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00298ddnj|298. Misbranding of Miracle Lotion. 17. S. v. 81 Bottles of Miracle Lotion. De|fault decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 3148. Sample|No. 20860-E.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations re-|garding its efficacy in the conditions indicated below, and it also failed to bear|statements of the' quantity of the contents and the common or usual name of|the active ingredients.|On or about October 12, 1940, the United States attorney for the Southern|District of Florida filed a libel against 81 bottles of Miracle Lotion at Jackson-|ville, Fla., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on|or about July 1, 1940, by Martinsville Laboratories, Inc., from Martinsville, Va.,|and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of isopropyl alcohol|(60 percent by volume), salicylic acid, benzoic acid, water, perfume, and a|green coloring material.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements|appearing on the label were false and misleading since they represented that|it was efficacious for the purposes recommended; whereas it was not efficacious|for such purposes: \"\"For Scalp Diseases, Dandruff, Pimples, on the Scalp,|*?* * Falling Hair. * * * Skin diseases of the body, such as Itch,|*?* * Ring Worm, * * * Acid or Heat Pimples, * * * Sore Aching|Joints or Muscles, etc.\"\"|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the label failed to bear an|accurate statement of the quantity of the contents; and to bear the common|or usual name of the active ingredients, including the quantity, kind, and|proportion of alcohol.|On November 26, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|THERAPEUTIC LAMPS|299. Misbranding of Infra-red lamps. U. S. v. 7 Infra-Red Lamps. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00299Nov. 4, 1941Lenmar Co.Infra-red lampsJuly 26, 1939Seattle, Wash.Los Angeles, Calif.Seattle, Wash.Western District of Washington299F. D. C. No. 1523. Sample No. 90939-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00299ddnj|299. Misbranding: of Infra-red lamps. TJ. S. v. 7 Infra-Red Lamps. Default|decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 1523. Sample No.|90939-D.)|The labeling of this device contained false and misleading representations|regarding its efficacy in the conditions indicated below.|On February 27, 1940, the United States attorney for the Western District|of Washington filed a libel against 7 infra-red lamps at Seattle, Wash., alleging|that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about July 26,|1939, from Los Angeles, Calif., by the Lenmar Co.; and charging that it was|misbranded.|Examination showed that the article consisted of a heating element screwed|into a table-type lamp base.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements appearing|in the labeling were false and misleading since they represented that it was|efficacious for the purposes recommended; whereas it was not efficacious for|such purposes: \"\"Healing rays from the sun * * * they penetrate deep into|the flesh, stimulating the nerves and causing greatly increased circulatory|action, which destroys infections, rebuilds diseased tissues and promotes bodily|health and vitality. * * * Direct application of the lamp's rays on the area|of pain will relieve suffering from asthma, neuritis, stiff swollen joints, sinus|trouble, and rheumatism. Infra-red radiation, because of its soothing effect,|has no equal for deep cellular massage. By its action through direct contact|it breaks up congestion indicated by acute pain and poor circulation * * *|Heat rays penetrate down into the tissues, muscles, and even to the vital organs|bringing comfort and relief. * * * Women experiencing trouble at men-|struation will find comforting relief by using this Infra-Red lamp's * * *|anemia * * * asthma * * * bronchitis * * * backache * * *|bruises * * * catarrh * * * relieves hayfever discomforts * * *|cold * * * cramps * * * earache * * * insomnia * * * infec-|tion * * * kidney diseases * * * lumbago * * * menstrual pain|* * * muscle diseases * * * rheumatism, neuralgia, neuritis, sciatica,|neuritis * * * sinus trouble * * * laryngitis * * * toothache * ?* *|stiff neck * * * Infra-Red rays are also very beneficial in the treatment|of inflammation of the gall bladder, hysteria, nervous diseases, inflammation of|veins, bones, membranes, and inflammation of joints.\"\"|On May 29, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|300. Misbranding of Samson Therapeutic Lamps. U. S. v. 55 Samson Therapeutic Lamps. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00300Nov. 4, 1941Samson United CorporationSamson Therapeutic LampsNovember 25, 1939, to January 2, 1940St. Paul, Minn.Rochester, N. Y.St. Paul, Minn.District of Minnesota300F. D. C. No. 1345. Sample No. 75114-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00300ddnj|300. Misbranding: of Samson Therapeutic Lamps. IT. S. v. 55 Samson Thera|peutic Lamps. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C.|No. 1345. Sample No. 75114-D.)|The labeling of this device contained false and misleading representations|regarding its efficacy in the conditions indicated below.|On January 20, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of Minnesota|filed libels against 55 of the above-named devices at St. Paul, Minn., alleging|that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce within the period|from on or about November 25, 1939, to on or about January 2, 1940, by the|Samson United Corporation from Rochester, N. Y.; and charging that it was|misbranded.|Examination showed that the product was a table-type lamp fitted with a|heating element.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements|appearing in the accompanying circular were false and misleading: \"\"Excellent|for relief of arthritis, lumbago, cramps, colds, sprains, etc. The heat rays of|the sun are unequaled in health preserving qualities. People whose work|confines them inside, where they are uhabie to enjoy the heat of the sun's rays,|suffer from many annoying ailments. Modern science has proved that sun-|shine is necessary to sound health. As a result, concentrated electric sun-|shine has been developed to bring the heat of the sun's rays inside when-|ever you want it. Designed by prominent engineers and approved by outstanding|health authorities, this therapeutic lamp, used a few minutes daily, brings|you health, beauty and vitality. Care of hair. General application of thera-|peutic rays every night will keep scalp healthy and improve blood circulation|*?* *. Colds. Apply rays to back of neck and downward along spine to|relieve congestion. Cramps * * * rheumatism * * * menstrual pains|*?* * insomnia * * * backache * * * skin ailments. Therapeutic|rays stimulate pores, eliminate all impurities and strengthen tissues. Invaluable|in treatment of acne, crow's-feet, dry skin, oily skin, wrinkles, blemishes, etc.\"\"|On May 1, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgments of condemnation|were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|VETERINARY REMEDIES|301. Misbranding of Avirem Poultry Remedy. U. S. v. 6 Gallon Bottles and 42 Quart Bottles of Avirem The Food Value Poultry Remedy. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00301Nov. 4, 1941Livestock Products Distributors, Kewanee, Ill.Avirem Poultry RemedyJanuary 6, 1940Wilton Junction, IowaKewanee, Ill.Wilton Junction, IowaSouthern District of Iowa301F. D. C. No. 1926. Sample No. 15575-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00301ddnj|SOI. Misbranding of Avirem Poultry Remedy. V. S. v. 6 Gallon Bottles and 42|Quart Bottles of Avirem The Food Value Poultry Remedy. Default de-|cree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 1926. Sample No.|15575-E.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations re-|garding its efficacy in the conditions indicated below and failed to declare|the quantity or proportion of alcohol contained in the article.|On May 8, 1940, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|Iowa filed a libel against 6 gallon bottles and 42 quart bottles of the above-|named product at Wilton Junction, Iowa, alleging that the article had been|shipped on or about January 6, 1940, by the Livestock Products Distributors,|Kewanee, 111.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of dextrose, small|proportions of magnesium sulfate, sodium hydroxide, sodium chloride, extracts|of plant drugs including emodin-bearing drugs such as cascara sagrada, nux|vomica, alcohol (3.9 percent by volume), and water.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements|appearing in the labeling were false and misleading, since they represented that|the article was efficacious for the purposes recommended; whereas it was not|efficacious for such purposes: \"\"Rich in Dextrose * * * The Food Value|Poultry Remedy * * * Indicated in the treatment of Coccidiosis, Cholera,|Typhoid and other Intestinal Infections * * * Daily use in water will|help to prevent disease and keep poultry healthy. * * * for preventive pur-|poses and to build resistance. Should intestinal disturbance occur the pro-|portions should be increased to two tablespoonfuls to the gallon, reducing the|proportions when conditions are again favorable; Coccidiosis and Other In-|testinal Disorders * * * In severe cases * * * After conditions have|returned to normal it is recommended to use one tablespoonful of Avirem to the|gallon of drinking water daily for preventative purposes; Worms-To build re-|sistance and minimize worm infestation use Avirem in the drinking water con-|stantly. * * *; Respiratory Diseases * * * In severe cases * * *|Avirem should be used regularly, one tablespoonful to the gallon of drinking|water during the fall and winter as a preventative treatment; Blackhead-|Noticeably sick birds * * * continuous use of Avirem in the drinking water|the sick birds * * * It is still worth remembering that an ounce of pre-|vention is worth a pound of cure. When droopiness or loss of color or appetite|are noticed in poultry of any age it is a danger sign. Separate unthrifty|birds from the flock for special treatment, and also feed Avirem to those re-|maining to prevent trouble. Avirem is a proven remedy with a food value|induced by the dextrose content, insuring a quick pick-up and sustained|resistance by its daily use in the drinking water. Avirem will help your|laying program. Increased production has been noticed by users everywhere.\"\"|On November 20, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of con-|demnation was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|302. Misbranding of \"\"A Remedy Erroneously Sometimes Called Dry Dip.\"\" U. S. v. Verney H. Heumes (German Laboratories). Plea of guilty. Fine, $25 and costs.ddnj00302Nov. 4, 1941Verney H. Heumes, trading as the German Laboratories, Cedar Rapids, Iowa\"\"A Remedy Erroneously Sometimes Called Dry Dip\"\"August 18 and November 1, 1939IowaIowaIllinoisNorthern District of Iowa302F. D. C. No. 941. Sample Nos. 55888-D, 55889-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00302ddnj|302. Misbranding: of \"\"A Remedy Erroneously Sometimes Called Dry Dip.\"\" U. S.|?v. Verney H. Heumes (German Laboratories). Plea of guilty. Fine, $25|and costs. (F. D. C. No. 941. Sample Nos. 55888-D, 55889-D.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-|ing its effectiveness in the conditions indicated below.|On December 2, 1940, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Iowa filed an information against Verney H. Heumes, trading as the German (|Laboratories, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, alleging shipment on or about August 18 and|November 1,1939, from the State of Iowa into the State of Illinois, of quantities|of the above-named product which was misbranded. The label bore the words|\"\"Dry Dip\"\" in large conspicuous type which were immediately preceded by the|words \"\"A Remedy Erroneously, Sometimes Called\"\" in smaller type.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of calcium carbonate|and iron compounds, containing creosote oil, phenols, and small amounts of nico-|tine, naphthalene, and siliceous material.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements, \"\"A|Remedy * * * for combating Flu Germs in live stock. How a hog gets the|Flu. When the hog rakes his bedding together they pile up-then the inner hog|gets too warm and goes outside to eat and catches cold. Then the Flu Develops.|If you will sprinkle plenty of this remedy in the hogs bedding they will not pile|up. When a hog catches cold or the flu, they loose weight. * * * Used for|Combatting Flu Germs * * * Tou owe it to yourself and to your animals|to give this product a trial and satisfy yourself. It will save you money. For|Hogs * * Flu Remedy * * * For Horses and Cattle * * * Flu Rem-|edy * * * For Poultry * * * Flu Remedy,\"\" borne on the label, were|false and misleading since they represented that the article was efficacious in the|diseases and conditions for which it was recommended; whereas it was not|efficacious in such diseases and conditions.|On December 2, 1940, a plea of guilty was entered by the defendant and the|court imposed a fine of $25 and costs.|303. Misbranding of Moorman's Hog Block Minerals. U. S. v. 47 Blocks of Moorman's Hog Block Minerals. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00303Nov. 4, 1941Moorman Manufacturing Co.Moorman's Hog Block MineralsNovember 9, 1939Oklahoma City, Okla.Quincy, Ill.Oklahoma City, Okla.Western District of Oklahoma303F. D. C. No. 1844. Sample No. 16012-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00303ddnj|303. Misbranding of Moorman's Hog Block Minerals. U. S. v. 47 Blocks of|Moorman's Hog Block Minerals. Default decree of condemnation and|destruction. (F. D. C. No. 1844. Sample No. 16012-E.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-|ing its efficacy in the treatment of the conditions indicated below.|On April 23, 1940, the United States attorney for the Western District of|Oklahoma filed a libel against 47 blocks of Moorman's Hog Block Minerals at|Oklahoma City, Okla., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate|commerce on or about November 9, 1939, by the Moorman Manufacturing Co.|from Quincy, 111.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of calcium carbonate,|calcium phosphate, sodium chloride, sodium carbonate, small proportions of|compounds of iron, manganese, magnesium and copper, sulfur, chareoal, and a|very small proportion of an iodine compound.|Misbranding was alleged in that the labeling of the article bore representations|that it would insure the best and most profitable gains at decreased feeding|costs; that it would build stronger bones and healthier blood; that it wotfld be|efficacious in anemia and other mineral deficiency diseases and that it contained|ingredients which aid in a general way in preventing other diseases; that when|fed to brood sows it would increase the number of pigs born alive as well as the|size and vigor of the pigs and would also keep the sowg iri better condition;|that it would prevent mineral deficiency diseases in growing pigs; that the prod-|uct should be given to pigs just as early as they would eat anything and that|about 2 weeks after weaning Moorman's E-Z-Ex Treatment should be adminis-|tered to remove worms; that it would keep the bowels in good condition and|furnish the body with the proper kind and quantity of minerals; that it would|be efficacious in the treatment of indigestion, worms, and constipation, the most|frequent causes of thumps; and that it was efficacious in black scours in pigs, in|frame or back weakness, and in necro or necrotic enteritis, which representations|were false and misleading since the article was not efficacious for the purposes|so recommended.|On June 25,1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|MISCELLANEOUS|304. Misbranding of Anti-Poison. U. S. v. 27 Packages of Anti-Poison. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00304Nov. 4, 1941Anti-Poison Medicine Co.Anti-PoisonOctober 11, 1939Buffalo, Okla.Springfield, Mo.Buffalo, Okla.Western District of Oklahoma304F. D. C. No. 1490. Sample No. 67136-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00304ddnj|304. Misbranding: of Anti-Poison. V. S. v. 27 Packages of Anti-Poison. Default|decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 1490. Sample iSo.|67136-D.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations re-|garding its efficacy in the conditions indicated below.|On or about February 28, 1940, the United States attorney for the Western|District of Oklahoma filed a libel against 27 packages of Anti-Poison at|Buffalo, Okla., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce|on or about October 11, 1939, by the Anti-Poison Medicine Co. from Springfield,|Mo.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of extracts of plant|drugs including an astringent drug, a trace of an ammonium compound,|alcohol (12.1 percent by volume), and water.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that its labeling contained repre- v|sentations that it was efficacious in the treatment and cure of chills, malaria,|eczema, scrofula, cholera morbus, snake and spider bites, reptile and insect|bites, rheumatism, hemorrhage of the lungs, asthma, female troubles, la grippe,|erysipelas, blood poison of every description, poor health, tumerous cancer,|weakness, proud flesh, swelling and Inflammation, inflammatory rheumatism,|sore leg, ivy poison, chills, colic, nervousness, constipation, headache, womb|trouble, greenish veins, coughs, lung trouble, biliousness and summer complaint,|blood and malarial poison, diseases of the stomach and bladder, all pains,|diseases arising from impurities of the blood, skin eruptions, loss of appetite,|which representations were false and misleading since the article was not|efficacious for the said purposes.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the labeling contained repre-|sentations that it was an anti-poison, was one of the best blood tonics, was|the best blood medicine on the market, was an antiseptic, that it contained 20|percent of alcohol and that it was guaranteed to conform to the requirements|of the law which were false and misleading.|On March 21, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|305. Misbranding of boric acid. U. S. v. 498 Packages of Boric Acid. Default decree of condemnation. Product ordered delivered to a charitable Institution.ddnj00305Nov. 4, 1941Gero Products, Inc.boric acidApril 11 and April 22, 1940New York, N. Y.South Boston, Mass.New York, N. Y.Southern District of New York305F. D. C. No. 2211. Sample No. 33201-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00305ddnj|305. Misbranding of boric meld. U. S. v. 498 Packages of Boric Add. Default|decree of condemnation. Product ordered delivered to a charitable Insti-|tution. (F. D. C. No. 2211. Sample No. 33201-E.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations re-|garding its antiseptic properties when used as an eyewash; and it was also short|weight.|On June 17, 1940, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|New York filed a libel against 498 packages of boric acid at New York, N. Y-|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|April 11 and April 22, 1940, by Gero Products, Inc., from South Boston, Mass.;|and charging that it was misbranded. It was labeled in part: \"\"Antiseptic for|eye washes, net weight 8 oz. * * * It is guaranteed * * * to fully|conform with the pure drug Laws.\"\"|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements appearing|on the label were false and misleading since boric acid is not an antiseptic|when used as an eye wash; and in that it was in package form and did not|contain an accurate statement of its weight.|On July 3, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered delivered to a charitable institution.|306. Misbranding of Coston's 6 and 3 Herb Compound. U. S. v. 62 Packages of Coston's 6 and 3 Herb Compound. Default decree of destruction.ddnj00306Nov. 4, 1941C. S. CostonCoston's 6 and 3 Herb CompoundJanuary 17, 1940Harlan, Ky.Lockwood, Tenn.Harlan, Ky.Eastern District of Kentucky306F. D. C. No. 1805. Sample No. 65130-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00306ddnj|306. Misbranding of Coston's 6 and 3 Herb Compound. U. S. v. 62 Packages of|Coston's 6 and 3 Herb Compound. Default decree of destruction.|(P. D. C. No. 1805. Sample No. 65130-D.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-|ing its efficacy in the treatment of the conditions indicated below.|On April 12, 1940, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Kentucky filed a libel against 62 packages of the above-named drug product|at Harlan, Ky., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce|on at about January 17, 1940, by C. S. Coston from Lockwood, Tenn.; and|charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that it consisted essentially of plant drugs including aloe|(a bitter drug), an alkaloid-bearing drug, a laxative drug, a trace of sodium|benzoate, sugar, and water.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements|appearing in the labeling, (bottle) \"\"Coston's 6 and 3 Herb Compound Recom-|mended as Stomachic, Diuretic and Laxative Dose-Adults: One teaspoonful in|water before meals. Children: In accordance with age. Regulate the dose|to suit the action of bowels; not over two actions a day. As an occasional laxa-|tive 3 teaspoonfuls at bedtime,\"\" (carton) \"\"Coston's 6 and 3 Herb Compound|This preparation contains the extracted medicinal properties of six roots and|three barks, recommended as Stomachic, Diuretic and Laxative,\"\" and (circular)|\"\"My newspaper, Six and Three News, will be sent free upon request, containing (|numerous statements from satisfied users from all parts of the United States, /|including California and Oregon. These statements will be in detail, telling t|to what extent they were benefited, and for what maladies they were used,\"\"|were false and misleading in that they created the impression that the article|constituted an appropriate treatment in the conditions mentioned in the \"\"Six and|Three News\"\" referred to in said statements, such as disorders of the stomach,|liver and kidneys, rheumatism, impure blood, nervous affections, inflammatory|rheumatism brought on by kidney troubles, stomach trouble, inflammation of|the bladder, liver troubles, Bright's disease, sciatic rheumatism, and nervous|indigestion; whereas it was not an appropriate treatment for these conditions|and because the label failed to reveal facts material with respect to consequences|which might result from the use of the article under the conditions of use above|referred to.|On May 18, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment was entered ordering|that the product be destroyed.|307. Misbranding of Diabet-Tea. U. S. v. 9 Packages of Diabet-Tea. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00307Nov. 4, 1941Diabet-Tea Co.Diabet-TeaSeptember 11, 1940New York, N. Y.Seranton, Pa.New York, N. Y.Southern District of New York307F. D. C. No. 3084. Sample No. 34721-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00307ddnj|307. Misbranding of Diabet-Tea. U. S. v. 9 Packages of Diabet-Tea. Default|decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 3084. Sample No.|34721-E.)|The labeling of this product contained false and misleading representations|regarding its efficacy in the treatment of diabetes, and it also failed to bear|the common or usual name of the drug from which it was made.|On September 26, 1940, the United States attorney for the Southern District|of New York filed a libel against 9 packages of Diabet-Tea at New York, N. Y.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|September 11, 1940, by the Diabet-Tea Co. from Seranton, Pa.; and charging|that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted of ground Hypericum perforatum,|commonly known as St. Johnswort.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements appearing|on the label, \"\"Nature's Food Diabet-Tea for Diabetes The Contents of this|Package has been carefully prepared for the Use of Those who Suffer from|Diabetes,\"\" were false and misleading. It was alleged to be misbranded further|in that the label did not bear the common or usual name of the drug.|On October 21, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|308. Misbranding of Milk of Soya Bean. U. S. v. 2 Case of Milk of Soya Bean. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00308Nov. 4, 1941Radcliffe's [Radcliffe Soya Products]Milk of Soya BeanFebruary 8, 1940WashingtonSan Francisco, Calif.WashingtonWestern District of Washington308F. D. C. No. 1704. Sample No. 13603-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00308ddnj|308. Misbranding of Milk of Soya Bean. IT. S. v. 2 Case* of Milk of Soya Bean.|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 1704.|Sample No. 13603-E.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-|ing its efficacy in the conditions indicated below.|On March 25, 1940, the United States attorney for the Western District of|Washington filed a libel against 4 cases of powdered milk of soya beans, alleging|that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about February|8, 1940, by Radcliffe's [Radcliffe Soya Products] from San Francisco, Calif.;|and charging that it was misbranded. The article was labeled in part: \"\"A nerve,|brain and gland rejuvenator * * * for * * * diabetics.\"\"|Analysis showed that the product was a mixture of powdered soya beans and|powdered milk.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements appearing in the|labeling, \"\"A nerve, brain, and gland rejuvenator * * * for * * * dia-|betics,\"\" were false and misleading since the said statements represented that the|article was efficacious for the purposes recommended; whereas it was not|efficacious for such purposes.|The article was also alleged to be adulterated and misbranded under the pro-|visions of the law applicable to foods reported in food notice of judgment No.|1336.|On May 29, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|309. Misbranding of Oster Massagett. U. S. v. 12 Packages of Oster Massagett. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00309Nov. 4, 1941John Oster Manufacturing Co.Oster MassagettJanuary 18, 1940Le Center, Minn.Racine, Wis.Le Center, Minn.District of Minnesota309F. D. C. No. 1760 Sample No. 8077-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00309ddnj|309. Misbranding of Oster Massagett. V. 8. v. 12 Packages of Oster Massagett.|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 1760|Sample No. 8077-E.)|This device was an electric motor so constructed as to vibrate when it re-|volved, and fitted with an attachment whereby it was clamped to the back|of the hand. Its labeling bore false and misleading representations regarding|its efficacy in the conditions indicated below.|On April 9, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of Minnesota filed|a libel against 12 of the above-named devices at Le Center, Minn., alleging that|the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about January 18,|1940, by the John Oster Manufacturing Co. from Racine, Wis.; and charging ^|that it was misbranded.|The device was alleged to be misbranded in that its labeling bore representa-|tions that it would be efficacious for the development and preservation of good|health, that poor blood circulation is usually the cause of most physical ailments,|that sluggishness and congestion are due to poor blood circulation and bring|about disease; that it would stimulate blood circulation, eliminate congestion,|and banish localized pain caused by congested blood vessels pressing on sensitive|nerves; that it would bring good health and happiness; would give some relief|in the acute types of arthritis and delay the progress of chronic arthritis; that|proper functioning of the digestive organs is most essential in relieving arthritis|and that massage of the abdomen is recommended therefor; that the device|would eliminate the danger of overtraining and staleness in the grooming of|athletes; that it would be of great value in the treatment of sprains and bruises|by restoring the blood circulation on which healing depends; that it would ease|and relieve stiff joints and that adhesions in the joint would be gently separated^|that the daily application of the device to the bed-ridden patient would com-|pensate for the absence of the normal activities of life, would tend to allay|deformity arising from prolonged inactivity and the muscles from becom-|ing stiff, would stimulate the blood circulation and tone the nerves thus refreshing|and soothing the tired body, improving the color, appetite and sleep, and creating|greater contentment at being confined to bed; that the treatment would be effec-|tive in breaking up most forms of congestion and would help to bring about|relief in colds; that it would overcome lack of bowel tone and action and restore|normal activity of the bowels; that when applied to the abdomen accompanied|by gentle finger manipulation the Massagett treatment would penetrate deeply|into the stomach and intestines with sufficient force to help normalize the natural|functions of the digestive organs; that it would be efficacious in the treatment|of chronic constipation; that in cases of fatigue it would relieve strain, loosen|the tissues and joints, refresh the muscles and restore normal circulation; that|it would keep the gums firm and healthy, would be efficacious in mental fatigue|and headache, nervousness, insomnia and nerve prostration; that it would tend|to counteract nervous irritability which is usually present in those who have|been reducing by dieting without due precaution; that it would be efficacious in|the treatment of rheumatism by stimulating the nervous, glandular and elimina-|tory systems and that lumbago and neuritis would respond to its treatment;|that it had proven a boon to elderly people by contributing to their maintenance|of health by providing the needed exercise they lack due to their state of inac-|tivity ; that daily treatment with the device would promote a healthy scalp and|hair; that it would be an excellent aid to facial appearance and to muscle tone,|would cause the blood to circulate more freely, assisting in the elimination of|waste and supplying nourishment, thus toning the muscles and building up|the tissues, which representations were false and misleading since (he device|would not be efficacious for the purposes so recommended.|On May 31, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|310. Misbranding of Parity Pine Disinfectant. U. S. v. Wilco Laboratories, Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $50.ddnj00310Nov. 4, 1941Wilco Laboratories, Inc., New York, N. Y.Parity Pine DisinfectantSeptember 29, 1939New YorkNew YorkConnecticutSouthern District of New York310F. D. C. No. 2067. Sample No. 86164-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00310ddnj|310. Misbranding of Parity Pine Disinfectant. U. S. v. Wilco Laboratories, Inc.|Plea of guilty. Fine, $50. (F. D. C. No. 2067. Sample No. 86164-D.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-|ing its efficacy in the treatment of the conditions indicated below.|On July 9, 1940, the United States attorney for the Southern District of New|York filed an information against the Wilco Laboratories, Inc., New York, N. Y.,|alleging shipment by said company on or about September 29, 1939, from the|State of New York into the State of Connecticut of a quantity of Purity Pine|Disinfectant which was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted of soap, water, and pine oil.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the representations in the labeling that|it would be effective in the treatment of minor cuts and wounds when used as|directed, were false and misleading.|On September 5, 1940, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant|and the court imposed a fine of $50.|311. Misbranding of Dr. Seth Hart's Group Syrup. U. S. v. 3 1/3 Dozen Packages of Dr. Seth Hart's Croup Syrup. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00311Nov. 4, 1941Parker Medicine Co.Dr. Seth Hart's Group SyrupJanuary 8, 1940Parkersburg, W. Va.Athens, OhioParkersburg, W. Va.Northern District of West Virginia311F. D. C. No. 2496. Sample No. 27271-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00311ddnj|811. Misbranding of Dr. Seth Hart's Group Syrup. XJ. S. v. 3% Dozen Packages|of Dr. Seth Hart's Croup Syrup. Default decree of condemnation and|destruction. (F. D. C. No. 2496. Sample No. 27271-E.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-|ing its efficacy in the conditions indicated below and failed to comply with|certain labeling requirements of the law.|On August 8, 1940, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|West Virginia filed a libel against 3? dozen packages of croup syrup at Parkers-|burg, W. Va., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate com-|merce on or about January 8, 1940, by the Parker Medicine Co., from Athens,|Ohio; and charging that it was misbranded. It was labeled in part: \"\"Dr. Seth|Hart's Croup Syrup.\"\"|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of sugar, water, extracts|of plant drugs, and 3 percent of alcohol.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements appearing|in the labeling were false and misleading in that they represented that it was|efficacious for the purposes recommended; whereas it was not efficacious for|such purposes: (Carton) \"\"Cough Syrup * * * Remedy for Croup and|Whooping Cough\"\"; (bottle) \"\"Croup Syrup * * * Chronic Croup, * * *|For Acute Bronchitis, Pleurisy or Inflammation of the Lungs.\"\"|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the label did not bear the|name and address of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor, an accurate|statement of the quantity of the contents, nor the common or usual names of|the active ingredients.|On September 10, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|HABIT-FORMING DRUG NOT BEARING WARNING STATEMENT ON|ITS LABEL|2438. Misbranding of Nascent Haloid Vapor Generator device. U. S. v. 1.ddnj02438May 1949Rittenhouse & Revee, Inc., from Albuquerque, N. Mex.Nascent Haloid Vapor Generator deviceMarch 28Los Angeles, Calif.Albuquerque, N. Mex.Los Angeles, Calif.Southern District of California.2438F. D. C. No. 24395. Sample No. 31707-K.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj02438ddnj|2438. Misbranding of Nascent Haloidvapor Generator deface.|(F. D. C. No. 24395. Sample J?o. 31707-K.)|LIBEL FILED : December 30,1947JSouthern District of California.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT : Between the approximate dates of March 28 and A^ril 26,|1947, by Rittenhouse & Reve/e, Inc., from Albuquerque, N. Mex.|PRODUCT : 1 device known as nascent Haloid Vapor Generator at Los/Angeles,|Calif. Examination showed! that the device was designed to produce gas by|electrolysis of a salt solution. Analysis showed that the gas produced con-|tained chlorine and did not contain lyrdrogen chloride.|LABEL, IN PART : \"\"Nascent Haloid Vapor Germicidal Respiratory-Therapy.\"\"|NATURE OF CHARGE: MisbrandingSfiection 502 (a), certain^gfatements in an|instruction manual shipped with tnb^device were falsexrfia misleading since|they represented and suggested that tnfe??fiag prodacedpy the device was not|chlorine, but was hydrogen chloride; and that the inhalation of gas produced|by the device was effective for germicidal respiratory therapy and. in the|treatment of sinus infections, acute and chronic rhinitis, common colds, asthma,|bronchitis, hay fever, internal infections, unlocated foci of infection, arthritis,|and rheumatism. The gas produced by the device contained chlorine, and|inhalation of gases from the device was not effective for the conditions|Represented.|DISPOSITION : May 19, 1948. Rittenhouse & Revere, Inc., claimant, having con-|sented to the entry of a decree, judgment of condemnation was entered and the|device was ordered released under bond for relabeling under the supervision of|the Federal Security Agency.|312. Misbranding of paregoric. U. S. v. 49 Gallon Bottles of Paregoric. Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered released under bond for relabeling.ddnj00312Nov. 4, 1941Certified Laboratories, Philadelphia, Pa.paregoricNovember 19, 1940Philadelphia, Pa.New York, N. Y.Philadelphia, Pa.Eastern District of Pennsylvania312F. D. C. No. 3453. Sample No. 24554-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00312ddnj|312. Misbranding of paregoric. tJ. S. v. 49 Gallon Bottles of Paregoric. Con-|sent decree of condemnation. Product ordered released under bond for|relabeling. (F. D. C. No. 3453. Sample No. 24554-E.)|This product failed to bear the required statement of the quantity of opium|that it contained, together with the statement \"\"Warning-May be habit form-|ing.\"\" Moreover, its label failed to bear the name and address of the manu-|facturer, packer, or distributor.|On December 2, 1940, the United States attorney for the Eastern District|of Pennsylvania filed a libel against 49 gallon bottles of paregoric at Phila-|delphia, Pa., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce|on or about November 19, 1940, by the Leading Drug Corporation from New|York, N. Y.; and charging that it was misbranded for the reasons appearing|above.|On February 1, 1941, the Certified Laboratories, Philadelphia, Pa., claimant,|having admitted the allegations of the libel, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered released under bond conditioned that it|be correctly relabeled.|DRUG FAILING TO BEAR REQUIRED INGREDIENT STATEMENT*|313. Misbranding of Lightning Hot Drops. U. S. v. 37 Dozen Bottles of Lightning Hot Drops. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00313Nov. 4, 1941Herb Medicine Co.Lightning Hot DropsJanuary 2, 1940Paintsville, Ky.Springfield, OhioPaintsville, Ky.Eastern District of Kentucky313F. D. C. No. 2350. Sample No. 5876-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00313ddnj|313. Misbranding of Lightning Hot Drops. IT. S. v. 37 Dozen Bottles of Light-|ning Hot Drops. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 2350. Sample No. 5876-E.)|This product contained smaller proportions of ether, chloroform, and alcohol|than those stated on the label.|On July 10, 1940, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Kentucky filed a libel against 37 dozen bottles of Lightning Hot Drops at|Paintsville, Ky., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate com-|merce on or about January 2, 1940, by the Herb Medicine Co. from Springfield,|Ohio; and charging that it was misbranded. It was labeled in part: \"\"Each|Fluid Ounce contains 48 minims of Chloroform, 48 minims of Ether, Alcohol|60? by volume.\"\"|? See also Nos. 297, 298, 301, 307, 311.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that its label failed to bear a statement|of the quantity or proportion of alcohol, ether, and chloroform since it con-|tained materially less alcohol, chloroform, and ether than the amounts stated|on the label.|On August 8, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|DRUGS IN DECEPTIVE CONTAINERS OR FALSELY LABELED AS TO|QUANTITY OF CONTENTS4|314. Misbranding of mineral oil. U. S. v. 48 Bottles of Mineral Oil. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00314Nov. 4, 1941M. S. Walker, Inc.mineral oilAugust 23, 1940Nashua, N. H.Boston, Mass.Nashua, N. H.District of New Hampshire314F. D. C. No. 3259. Sample No. 36431-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00314ddnj|314. Misbranding: of mineral oil. U. S. v. 48 Bottles of Mineral Oil. Default de-|cree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 3259. Sample No.|36431-E.)|This product was short of the declared volume.|On October 26, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of New|Hampshire filed a libel against 48 bottles of mineral oil at Nashua, N. H,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|August 23, 1940, by M. S. Walker, Inc., from Boston, Mass.; and charging that|it was misbranded in that the statement \"\"1 Quart,\"\" borne on the label, was|false and misleading since it was incorrect. The article was labeled in part:|\"\"Sterling * * * 1 Quart Mineral Oil.\"\"|On December 11,1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|315. Misbranding s of Kotalko. U. S. v. 59 1/2 Dozen Packages of Kotalko. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00315Nov. 4, 1941Kotalko Sales Co.KotalkoFebruary 20, 1940Jersey City, N. J.New York, N. Y.Jersey City, N. J.District of New Jersey315F. D. C. No. 1672. Sample No. 10461-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00315ddnj|S15. Misbrandings of Kotalko. U. S. v. 59% Dozen Packages of Kotalko. De-|fault decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 1672. Sample|No. 10461-E.)|This product was contained in a wooden box which occupied only 20.7 percent|or less of the capacity of the cardboard carton in which it was packed. The|wooden boxes also contained less than the weight declared on the label.|On March 21, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of New Jersey|filed a libel against 59? dozen packages of Kotalko at Jersey City, N. J., alleging|that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about February|20, 1940, by the Kotalko Sales Co. from New York, N. Y.; and charging that it|was misbranded. It was labeled in part: \"\"For the Scalp Kotalko For the Hair.\"\"|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements \"\"Net Weight|? Oz.\"\" and \"\"Net Weight 25 gm.\"\" were not accurate statements of the quantity|of the contents, since the package contained a smaller amount. It was alleged|to be misbranded further in that its container was so made, formed, or filled|as to be misleading.|It was also alleged to be misbranded under the provisions of the law applicable|to cosmetics, as reported in notices of judgment on cosmetics.|On January 31, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|459. Adulteration and misbranding of Hart's Compound Asthma Medicine. U. S. v. 96 2-Ounee, 78 4-Ounce, and 113 6-Ounce Packages of Hart's Compound Asthma Medicine. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00459September 1942Hart's Asthma Medicine Co.Hart's Compound Asthma MedicineMarch 15, 1940, to January 13, 1941Portland, Oreg.Buffalo, N. Y.Portland, Oreg.District of Oregon459F. D. C. No. 4376. Sample Nos. 55606-E to 55608-E, Incl.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00459ddnj|459. Adulteration and misbranding of Hart's Compound Asthma Medicine. IT. S.|v. 96 2-Onnee, 78 4-0unce, and 113 6-Ounce Packages of Hart's Compound|Asthma Medicine. -Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 4376. Sample Nos. 55606-E to 55608-E, Incl.)|On April 22, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Oregon filed|a libel against the above-named product at Portland, Oreg., alleging that It had|been shipped by Hart's Asthma Medicine Co. from Buffalo, N. T., within the|period from on or about March 15, 1940, to on or about January 13, 1941;|and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of|potassium iodide (approximately 64 grains per fluid ounce), glycerin, water,|and flavoring materials including cinnamon and cardamom.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it consisted in part of a filthy|substance, namely, mold.|It was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that the labeling failed to bear such|adequate warnings against use in those pathological conditions or by children|where its use might be dangerous to health, or against unsafe dosage or methods|or duration of administration or application, in such manner and form as are|necessary for the protection of users. (2) In that representations in the label-|ing that it would be efficacious in the treatment of asthma, including the relief|of paroxysms or spasmodic attacks, bronchial trouble including bronchitis and|bronchial colds, and hay fever, and that it would preserve health, were false|and misleading since it would not be efficacious for such purposes.|On June 4, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|2553. Action to enjoin and restrain the interstate shipment of Paracelsus. U. S. v. American Biochemical Corporation. Injunction granted.ddnj02553September 1949American Biochemical Corp., Cleveland, Ohio.ParacelsusNovember 18, 1948\NCleveland, Ohio.\NNorthern District of Ohio2553Inj. No. 203.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj02553ddnj| |2553.?Action to enjoin and restrain the interstate shipment of Paracelsus. U. S. |v. American Biochemical Corporation. Injunction granted. (Inj. No. |203.) |COMPLAINT FILED : On or about November 18, 1948, Northern District of Ohio, |against the American Biochemical Corp., Cleveland, Ohio. |ALLEGED VIOLATION : The complaint alleged that the defendant had been and was |continuing to ship in interstate commerce a product known as Paracelsus, |which consisted essentially of a mixture of chemical salts and which was |distributed for use both as a dietary food supplement and for therapeutic |purposes. |That accompanying the product there was and had been theretofore printed |and graphic matter relating to the product entitled \"\"Malnutrition, Disease, |Due to Mineral Lack,\"\" which described the product and related to it; that the |printed and graphic matter had been shipped by the defendant into inter- |state commerce and had been used with the product by the consignees and |had been associated together with the product. |NATURE OF CHARGE: Misbranding, Section 502 (a), certain statements in the |accompanying labeling were false and misleading. These statements repre- |sented and suggested that the article was effective to prevent and cure malnu- |trition and disease, to provide pep, to stimulate hormone production, and to |prevent and cure arthritis; and that all individuals suffer from mineral de- |ficiency and would benefit by use of the article. The article was not effective |for such purposes and was not capable of fulfilling the promises of benefit |?See also No. 2596. |stated and implied. Further misbranding, Section 502 (a), the following label |statements were false and misleading since if taken as directed, the article |would supply materially less calcium and iron than stated: |When Taken According to Directions Will Supply Percentage of Daily |Requirements as Listed |Calcium |Iron |Man |13.50??16.00 |Woman |13.50??16.00 |Pregnancy latter half | 7.00??12.75 |Lactation | 5.25??12. 75 |Children 1 to 9 years |10. 75??19.20 |Children 10 to 12 years | 9.00??16.00 |Girls 13 to 15 years | 8.00??13. 00 |Boys 12 to 15 years | 7. 50??13. 00 |Girls 16 to 20 years |10. 50??13. 00 |Boys 16 to 20 years | 7.50??13. 00 |Further misbranding, Section 502 (f) (1), the article failed to bear ade- |quate directions for use since at times it failed to bear labeling which set |forth the purposes for which the article was intended to be used as a drug. |The article was alleged also to be adulterated and misbranded under the |provisions of the law applicable to foods, as reported in notices of judgment |on foods. |PBAYEB OF COMPLAINT : That the defendant be restrained and enjoined during |the pendency of the action and permanently, from shipping in interstate |commerce an article known as Paracelsus, or under any other name, which |was adulterated or misbranded as alleged. |DISPOSITION : December 10,1948. The defendant having consented to the entry |of a decree, a permanent injunction was granted enjoining and restraining |the defendant from shipping in interstate commerce an article under the trade |name Paracelsus, or under any other name, which was adulterated or mis- |branded as alleged in the complaint. |316. Misbranding of Dr. Scholl's Moleskin Adhesive Plaster. U. S. v. 149 1/2 Dozen Packages of Adhesive Plaster. Default decree of condemnation. Product delivered to a charitable institution.ddnj00316Nov. 4, 1941Arno Plaster CorporationDr. Scholl's Moleskin Adhesive PlasterJune 22, 1940New York, N. Y.Michigan City, Ind.New York, N. Y.Southern District of New York316F. D. C. No. 2380. Sample No. 10939-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00316ddnj|316. Misbranding: of Dr. Scholl's Moleskin Adhesive Plaster. U. S. v. 149%|Dozen Packages of Adhesive Plaster. Default decree of condemnation.|Product delivered to a charitable institution. (F. D. C. No. 2380. Sample|No. 10939-E.)|The containers of this product were unnecessarily large and could have held|approximately twice as much of the product as they did.|On July 19, 1940, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|New York filed a libel against 149? dozen packages of adhesive plaster at New|York, N. Y., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on|or about June 22, 1940, by the Arno Plaster Corporation from Michigan City,|Ind.; and charging that it was misbranded in that its container was so made,|formed, or filled as to be misleading.|On September 26,1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered delivered to a charitable institution.|NONSTERILE SURGICAL DRESSINGS|317. Misbranding of surgical absorbent cotton. U. S. v. 216 Packages of Surgical Absorbent Cotton. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00317Nov. 4, 1941Acme Cotton Products Co.surgical absorbent cottonMay 10, 1939Seattle, Wash.Dayville, Conn.Seattle, Wash.Western District of Washington317F. D. C. No. 1826. Sample No. 13608-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00317ddnj|817. Misbranding of surgical absorbent cotton. U. S. v. 216 Packages of Sur-|gical Absorbent Cotton. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 1826. Sample No. 13608-E.)|This product had been shipped in interstate commerce and was in interstate|commerce at the time of examination, at which time it was found to be con-|taminated with viable micro-organisms.|?? See also Nos. 282, 296, 298, 305, 311.|On April 17, 1940, the United States attorney for the Western District of|Washington filed a libel against 216 packages of surgical absorbent cotton at|Seattle, Wash., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate com-|merce on or about May 10,1939, by the Acme Cotton Products Co. from Dayville,|Conn.; and charging that it was misbranded.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements|appearing on the package were false and misleading as applied to an article|which was not sterile but was contaminated with viable micro-organisms: \"\"Steril-|ized after packaging * * * Purified Surgical Absorbent Cotton * * *|For the use of practising Physician and Surgeon. Its quality may be relied upon|for all home uses-first aid, sick room * * * Exacting care observed in every|process used in the manufacture of this fine cotton.\"\"|On September 11, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|318. Adulteration and misbranding of cotton swabs. U. S. v. 8 Gross of an article labeled in part \"\"Cotton Sticks.\"\" Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00318Nov. 4, 1941Cottonsticks Co.cotton swabsOctober 14 and November 9, 1940Atlanta, Ga.Inman, S. C.Atlanta, Ga.Northern District of Georgia318F. D. C. No. 3538. Sample No. 20171-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00318ddnj|318. Adulteration and misbranding of cotton swabs. TJ. S. v. 8 Gross of an article|labeled in part \"\"Cotton Sticks.\"\" Default decree of condemnation and|destruction. (F. D. C. No. 3538. Sample No. 20171-E.)|This product had been shipped in interstate commerce and was in interstate|commerce at the time of examination, at which time it was found to be con-|taminated with viable micro-organisms.|On December 23, 1940, the United States attorney for the Northern District|of Georgia filed a libel against 8 gross packages of swabs at Atlanta, Ga., alleging|that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about October 14|and November 9, 1940, by the Cottonsticks Co. from Inman, S. C,; and charging|that it was adulterated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to. be adulterated in that its purity and quality fell|below that which it purported or was represented to possess, namely, \"\"Inner|Package has been Sterilized,\"\" since it was not sterile but was contaminated with|viable micro-organisms including spore-forming bacilli.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement on the label, \"\"Inner|Package has been Sterilized under steam Pressure after sealing,\"\" was false and|misleading.|On January 18, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|319. Adulteration and misbranding of cotton swab applicators. U. S. v. 2 Gross Packages of Cotton Swab Applicators. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00319Nov. 4, 1941Wetmore-Century Corporationcotton swab applicatorsSeptember 23, 1940Atlanta, Ga.New York, N. Y.Atlanta, Ga.Northern District of Georgia319F. D. C. No. 3541. Sample No. 20172-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00319ddnj|319. Adulteration and misbranding of cotton swab applicators. TJ. S. v. 2|Gross Packages of Cotton Swab Applicators. Default decree of condem-|nation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 3541. Sample No. 20172-E.)|This article had been shipped in interstate commerce and was in interstate|commerce at the time of examination, at which time it was found to be|contaminated with viable micro-organisms.|On December 21, 1940, the United States attorney for the Northern District|of Georgia filed a libel against 2 gross packages of cotton swab applicators at|Atlanta, Ga., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce|on or about September 23, 1940, by the Wetmore-Century Corporation from New|York, N. T.; and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded. It was|labeled in part: \"\"Century Sanitary Applicators with Cotton Swab and tongue|blade.\"\"|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its purity and quality fell|below that which it was purported or was represented to possess, namely,|(display carton containing 12 retail packages) \"\"Free from Germs,\"\" since it was|not sterile.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements on the display carton,|\"\"The Modern Way of Treating Sore Throat, Cuts, Wounds, ear and nose ail-|ments,\"\" \"\"The Sanitary Way of Safeguarding your Health,\"\" \"\"Especially useful|to Mothers treating Infants,\"\" \"\"Sanitary applicators especially made for Throat|Treatment,\"\" and \"\"Sanitary Applicators Free from Germs,\"\" were false and mis-|leading as applied to an article which was not sterile but was contaminated with|viable micro-organisms, including spore-forming bacilli.|On January 11,1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|460. Adulteration and misbranding of Hart's Compound Asthma Medicine. U. S. v. 48 2-Ounce, 24 4-Ounce, and 24 6-Ounce Packages of Hart's Compound Asthma Medicine. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00460September 1942McKesson & BobbinsHart's Compound Asthma MedicineFebruary 26, 1941Seattle, Wash.Portland, Oreg.Seattle, Wash.Western District of Washington460F. D. C. No. 4377. Sample No. 55437-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00460ddnj|460. Adulteration and misbranding: of Hart's Compound Asthma Medicine. U. S.|v. 48 2-Ounce, 24 4-Ounce, and 24 6-Ounce Packages of Hart's Compound|Asthma Medicine. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 4377. Sample No. 55437-E.)|On April 28, 1941, the United States attorney for the Western District of|\"\"Washington filed a libel against the above-named product at Seattle, Wash.,|alleging that it had been shipped by McKesson & Bobbins from Portland, Oreg.,|on or about February 26, 1941; and charging that it was adulterated and|misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of|potassium iodide, glycerin, water, and flavoring materials, including cardamom|and cinnamon.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it consisted in part of a|filthy substance, namely, mold.|It was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that the labeling failed to bear such|adequate warnings against use in those pathological conditions or by children|where its use might be dangerous to health, or against unsafe dosage or methods|or duration of administration or application, in such manner and form as are|necessary for the protection of users. (2) In that representations in the label-|ing that it would be efficacious in the treatment of asthma, including the relief|of paroxysms or spasmodic attacks, bronchial trouble including bronchitis atid|bronchial colds, and hay fever, and that it would preserve health, were false|and misleading since it would not be efficacious for such purposes.|On June 30, 1941, no claimant having 'appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|DRUGS SEIZED BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH OFFICIAL OR|OWN STANDARDS OR BECAUSE OF SUBSTITUTION2|320. Misbranding of Deane's Adhesive Bandage. U. S. v. 1,044 Retail Packages of Adhesive Bandage. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00320Nov. 4, 1941Deane Plaster Co.Deane's Adhesive BandageJune 29, 1940Pittsburgh, Pa.Yonkers, N. Y.Pittsburgh, Pa.Western District of Pennsylvania320F. D. C. No. 2760. Sample No. 19049-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00320ddnj|320. Misbranding of Deane's Adhesive Bandage. IT. S. v. 1,044 Retail Packages|of Adhesive Bandage. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 2760. Sample No. 19049-E.)|This product had been shipped in interstate commerce and was in interstate|commerce at the time of examination, at which time it was found to be con-|taminated with viable micro-organisms. Its label failed to bear the name and|address of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor.|On September 6, 1940, the United States attorney for the Western District of|Pennsylvania filed a libel against 1,044 retail packages of adhesive bandages at|Pittsburgh, Pa., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce|on or about June 29, 1940, by the Deane Plaster Co. from Yonkers, N. T.; and|charging that it was misbranded in that the following statements appearing on|the packages were false and misleading as applied to an article which was not|sterile but was contaminated with viable micro-organisms, \"\"First Aid for Minor|Cuts. Wounds. * * * Apply the Gauze Pad directly over the Wound.|* * * Will afford complete protection for the cut or wound\"\"; and in that the|label did not bear the name and address of the manufacturer, packer, or|distributor.|On October 5,1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|PROPHYLACTICS|321. Adulteration of prophylactics. U. S. v. 37 Gross of Rubber Prophylactics. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00321Nov. 4, 1941Gotham Sales Co., Inc.prophylacticsFebruary 5, 1940Mobile, Ala.New York, N. Y.Mobile, Ala.Southern District of Alabama321F. D. C. No. 2314. Sample No. 9633-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00321ddnj|321. Adulteration of prophylactics. U. S. v. 37 Gross of Rubber Prophylactics.|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 2314.|Sample No. 9633-B.)|On July 3,1940, the United States attorney for the Southern District of Alabama|filed a libel against 37 gross prophylactics at Mobile, Ala., alleging that the ar-|ticle had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about February 5, 1940, by|Gotham Sales Co., Inc., from New York, N. Y.; and charging that it was adul-|terated in that its quality fell below that which it purported or was represented to|possess. It was labeled in part \"\"Tally-Ho.\"\"|On August 20, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|322. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 83 Gross of Rubber Prophylactics. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00322Nov. 4, 1941Magnet Merchandise Co.prophylacticsNovember 6, 1940Pittsburgh, Pa.New York, N. Y.Pittsburgh, Pa.Western District of Pennsylvania322F. D. C. No. 3536. Sample No. 19322-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00322ddnj|322. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 83 Gross of Rubber|Prophylactics. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 3536. Sample No. 19322-E.)|On December 18, 1940, the United States attorney for the Western District of|Pennsylvania filed a libel against 83 gross of prophylactics at Pittsburgh, Pa.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|November 6, 1940, by the Magnet Merchandise Co. from New York, N. Y.; and|charging that it was adulterated and misbranded. It was labeled in part: \"\"X Cel-|lo's * * * Mfd. By The Killiam Mfg. Co. Akron, Ohio.\"\"|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its quality fell below that|which it purported or was represented to possess. It was alleged to be mis-|branded in that the representation in the labeling that it was prophylactic was|false and misleading.|On January 16, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|323. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 9 and 42/144 Gross of Rubber Prophylactics. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00323Nov. 4, 1941Marman Products Co.prophylacticsDecember 27, 1939Monroe, La.Newark, N. J.Monroe, La.Eastern District of Louisiana323F. D. C. No. 2718. Sample No. 9880-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00323ddnj|323. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 9 and 42/144|Gross of Rubber Prophylactics. Default decree of condemnation and|destruction. (F. D. C. No. 2718. Sample No. 9880-B.)|On or about September 6, 1940, the United States attorney tor the Eastern|District of Louisiana filed a libel against 9 gross and B? dozen prophylactics|at Monroe, La., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate com-|merce on or about December 27, 1939, by the Marman Products Co. from Newark,|N. J.; and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded. It was labeled|in part: \"\"Lorica Velveen Shorts.\"\"|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its quality fell below that|which it purported or was represented to possess. It was alleged to be mis-|branded in that the statement \"\"For the Prevention of Diseases,\"\" on the carton,|was false and misleading.|On October 10, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|324. Adulteration of prophylactics. U. S. v. 198-11/18 Gross of Rubber Prophy lactics. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00324Nov. 4, 1941Parfum Levy Co.prophylacticsNovember 1, 1940Baltimore, Md.New York, N. Y.Baltimore, Md.District of Maryland324F. D. C. No. 3414. Sample No. 50142-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00324ddnj|324. Adulteration of prophylactics. XJ. S. v. 198-11/18 Gross of Rubber Prophy|lactics. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. ,|3414. Sample No. 50142-B.) |On November 19, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of Mary-|land filed a libel against 198-11/18 gross of prophylactics at Baltimore, Md.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|November 1, 1940, by the Parfum Levy Co. from New York, N. Y.; and charging|that it was adulterated in that its quality fell below that which it purported|or was represented to possess.|On December 27,1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|tJ. S. v. 57 Gross of Rubber Prophylactics.|(F. D. C. No. |2552.|331. Misbranding of radioactive cones. U. S. v. 5 Radioactive Cones. Decree of condemnation with provision for release under bond under certain conditions; otherwise that it be destroyed. Product destroyed.ddnj00331March 1942Ruby V. Turnley, Longview, Tex.radioactive conesMarch 20, 1940Shreveport, La.Inglewood, Calif.Shreveport, La.Western District of Louisiana331F. D. C. No. 2530. Sample No. 9585-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00331ddnj|331. Misbranding of radioactive cones. TJ. S. v. 5 Radioactive Cones. Decree of|condemnation with provision for release under bond under certain con-|ditions: otherwise that it be destroyed. Product destroyed. (F. D. C. No.|2530. Sample No. 9585-E.)|This product would be dangerous to health when used in the manner recom-|mended and suggested in the labeling. It also failed to comply with certain|labeling requirements of the law as indicated below.|On August 14, 1940, the United States attorney for the Western District of|Louisiana filed a libel against 5 radioactive cones at Shreveport, La., alleging|that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about March 20,|1940, by the Thomas Radioactive Cone Co. from Inglewood, Calif.; and charging|that it was misbranded.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that its labeling was misleading in that it|failed to reveal the fact material in the light of the representation that it was|radioactive, that when used to impart radioactivity to water the drinking of such|water might result in injury to the user; in that its label failed to bear the|name and place of business of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor; in that|the label failed to bear the common or usual name of the ingredient or ingre-|dients of the article; in that the labeling failed to bear adequate directions for|use; in that the labeling failed to bear adequate warnings against use by chil-|dren and against unsafe dosage or methods or duration of administration or|application in such manner and form as are necessary for the protection of|users; and in that it was dangerous to health when used with the frequency|or duration prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling.|On November 29, 1940, judgment of condemnation was entered and the prod-|uct was ordered released under bond to Ruby V. Turnley, Longview, Tex.,|claimant, conditioned that it should not be disposed of in violation of the law.|Upon failure of the claimant to comply with the conditions of the decree the|product was destroyed.|332. Misbranding of Reed's Effervescent Bromo-Sizz. U. S. v. 83 Display Cartons of Reed's Effervescent Bromo-Sizz. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00332March 1942Reed Products Co.Reed's Effervescent Bromo-SizzMay 17, 1940Omaha, Nebr.St. Louis, Mo.Omaha, Nebr.District of Nebraska332F. D. C. No. 2329. Sample No. 16463-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00332ddnj|332. Misbranding of Reed's Effervescent Bromo-Sizz. TJ. S. v. 83 Display Cartons|of Reed's Effervescent Bromo-Sizz. Default decree of condemnation and|destruction. (F. D. C. No. 2329. Sample No. 16463-E.)|This product contained acetanilid and would be dangerous to health when|used as directed, but was not labeled to show the consequences that might re-|sult from its use. The labeling also failed to comply with the law in certain|other respects as indicated hereinafter.|On July 10, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of Nebraska|filed a libel against 83 display cartons of Reed's Effervescent Bromo-Sizz at|Omaha, Nebr., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce|on or about May 17, 1940, by the Reed Products Co. from St. Louis, Mo.; and|charging that it was misbranded.|The article was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that it was in package form,|and its label failed to bear a statement of the quantity of the contents; (2) its|label failed to bear a statement of the quantity or proportion of acetanilid that|it contained since the statement \"\"each teaspoonful contains approx. 3 grains|acetanilid\"\" was not informative in view of the directions to \"\"add contents of|this tube in half glass of water\"\"; (3) its label failed to bear a declaration of|the quantity or proportion of sodium bromide present since the statement|\"\"sodium bromide approx. 3?\"\" was not a correct statement of the proportion|of sodium bromide present and was not informative to the purchaser as to|the amount of sodium bromide which would be consumed when the article|was taken in accordance with the directions; (4) the label failed to bear ade-|quate directions for use since the directions were incomplete and were not|appropriate for an article of the composition found; (5) its label failed|to bear adequate warnings against its use in those pathological conditions or|by children where its use might be dangerous to health, or against unsafe|dosage or methods or duration of administration or application in such manner|and form as are necessary for the protection of users; and (6) in that it was|dangerous to health when used in the dosage or with the frequency or duration|prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling, namely, \"\"Add contents|of this tube in half glass of water. Repeat in half hour if necessary. No more|than three teaspoonfuls to-\"\" (The words \"\"be taken within 24 hours\"\" which|followed the statements quoted were concealed on the package as purchased|by overlapping of the label.)|On November 25, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|333. Misbranding of Utra Jel. U. S. v. 32 Tubes of Utra Jel. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00333March 1942Pynosol Laboratories, Inc.Utra JelAugust 15, 1940Philadelphia, Pa.Chicago, Ill.Philadelphia, Pa.Eastern District of Pennsylvania333F. D. C. No. 3196. Sample No. 14082-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00333ddnj|333. Misbranding of XJtra Jel. U. S. v. 32 Tubes of Utra Jel. Default decree of|condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 3196. Sample No. 14082-E.)|This product would be dangerous to health when used as directed in the label-|ing. It would not be efficacious for certain purposes for which it was recom-|mended. It contained no free iodine as claimed, and the retail carton did not|bear the common or usual names of the active ingredients.|On October 14, 1940, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Pennsylvania filed a libel against 32 tubes of Utra Jel at Philadelphia, Pa.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|August 15, 1940, by Pynosol Laboratories, Inc., from Chicago, HI.; and charging|that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of water, soap, pine oil,|and combined iodine. It contained no free iodine.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statement in|the labeling was false and misleading since it was not efficacious for the said|purposes: \"\"For Specific and Non-Specific Infections of the Cervix and Cervical|Canal.\"\" It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the following statement|appearing in the labeling was false and misleading in that it was incorrect:|(Tube) \"\"Active Ingredients: 1? Iodine.\"\" It was alleged to be misbranded|further in that its carton did not bear the common or usual names of the|active ingredients; and in that it was dangerous to health when used in the|dosage, or with the frequency or duration prescribed, recommended, or sug-|gested in the labeling, namely: (Carton) \"\"1 to 5cc injected into cervical canal,|and about 3-5cc applied on wool tampon to be left in position from 12 to 20|hours\"\"; and (tube) \"\"For Cervical and Intra-Uterine Use.\"\"|On November 23, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|334. Misbranding of Young's Preparation. U. S. v. 19 Packages of Young's Preparation. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00334March 1942O. L. BrunsonYoung's PreparationMarch 4, 1940Jacksonville, Fla.Waycross, Ga.Jacksonville, Fla.Southern District of Florida334F. D. C. No. 2233. Sample No. 20701-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00334ddnj|334. Misbranding of Young's Preparation. U. S. v. 19 Packages of Young's Prepa|ration. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No.|2233. Sample No. 20701-E.)|This product contained acetic acid and would be dangerous to health when|used in the dosage or with the frequency or duration prescribed, recommended,|or suggested in the labeling, which recommended it for the relief of itching skin|and scalp and directed that it should be well-shaken and applied to afflicted|parts two or three times a day, that if the parts were raw it should be diluted|with water until it could be used full strength, and that it was natural for the|product to sting when first applied.|On June 25, 1940, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|Florida filed a libel against 19 packages of Young's Preparation at Jacksonville,|Fla., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or|about March 4,1940, by O. L. Brunson from Waycross, Ga.; and charging that it|was misbranded for the reasons appearing above.|It also was alleged to be misbranded in violation of the Federal Caustic Poison|Act, as reported in notices of judgment published under that act.|On September 30, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|335. Misbranding of Dr. Young's Rectal Dilators and Dr. Young's Piloment. U. S. v. 67 Sets of Dr. Young's Rectal Dilators and 83 Packages of Dr. Young's Piloment. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00335March 1942F. B. Young & Co. from Chicago, Ill.Dr. Young's Rectal Dilators and Dr. Young's Pilomentfrom May 10 to June 10, 1940New York, N. Y.\NNew York, N. Y.Southern District of New Tork335F. D. C. Nos. 2490, 2491. Sample Nos. 33914-E, 33915-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00335ddnj|335. Misbranding of Dr. Young's Rectal Dilators and Dr. Young's Piloment.|U. S. v. 67 Sets of Dr. Young's Rectal Dilators and 83 Packages of Dr.|Young's Piloment. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. Nos. 2490, 2491. Sample Nos. 33914-E, 33915-E.)|The rectal dilator would be dangerous to health when used with the frequency|and duration prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling. The label-|ing of both products bore false and misleading representations regarding their|efficacy in the treatment of the conditions indicated below.|On August 7, 1940, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|New Tork filed libels against 67 sets of Dr. Young's Rectal Dilators and 83|packages of Dr. Young's Piloment at New York, N. Y., alleging that the articles|had been shipped in interstate commerce within the period from on or about|May 10 to on or about June 10,1940, by F. B. Young & Co. from Chicago, 111.; and|charging that they were misbranded.|Examination of the sets of rectal dilators showed that they consisted of four|hard plastic cylinders, flanged at one end, slightly enlarged and pointed at the|other end, and varying in diameter from ? inch to 1 inch and varying in length|from 3 to 4 inches. Analysis of the Piloment showed that it consisted essentially /|of petrolatum (99.15 percent), with phenol (0.73 percent) and extracts of drugs v|including a mydriatic drug such as belladonna.|The rectal dilator was alleged to be misbranded in that representations in|the labeling that, it was a simple, harmless, convenient, nonhabit-forming, and|ideal treatment ito bring satisfactory results and permanently overcome con-|stipation and piles by inducing natural and regular bowel movement by reaching|and correcting the cause of constipation by strengthening and toning the|muscles controlling defecation; that it would improve and strengthen the body,|not weaken or injure it; that it would be efficacious in the treatment of piles|and troubles caused by faulty elimination; that it would restore the sphincter|muscles to a normal condition, relieve congestion of blood and establish a|healthy, vigorous circulation; would relieve constipation of long standing;|would bring health and comfort and promote more refreshing sleep, and would|be efficacious to aid nature in conditions commonly associated with constipation|such as coated tongue, foul breath, bad taste in the mouth, sallow skin, acne,|erythema, urticaria, anemia, lassitude, mental hebetude, insomnia, more or|less marked degree of anorexia, headache, \"\"spurious\"\" diarrhea, colicky pains|caused by enterospasm, neuralgic pains, hemorrhoids, fissure pruritus, occasional|prolapse, auto-intoxication, flatulence, indigestion, nervousness, irritability, and|cold extremities; that recovery would be permanent and that one need have|no fear of using it too long or too much, were false and misleading, since the|article would not be efficacious for such purposes and might be used too long|or too much.|The dilator was alleged to be misbranded further in that it would be danger-|ous to health when used with the frequency and duration prescribed, recom-|mended, or suggested in the following labeling: (Carton) \"\"Adults begin with|No. 1 Dilator. First warm dilator in warm water; then lubricate outside of|dilator with Dr. Young's Piloment (or if it is not available, with vaseline) and|while in a squatting position-or while lying on the side with knees drawn up-|gently insert in the rectum as far as the flange or rim. Hold in place a minute|and the anal muscles will close and retain it. Sit or lie down and allow it to|remain for half an hour or an hour to get the best results. Ten minutes will|accomplish much. When ready to go to the next larger size, it is best first to|use for a few minutes the same size you have been using, inserting and with-|drawing it several times. This is very beneficial and should not be overlooked.|Children. The Dilators should not be used by any child under 8 years except|under the instructions of a physician. An 8 to 12 year old child may use pro-|gressively our Nos. 0, 1 and 1? Dilators. * * * Directions for use are the|same as in the above paragraph for adrilts. Any larger sizes than these for|children of these ages should be used only under direction of a physician.|Children from 12 to 18 years should follow the same directions as those given|for children from 8 to 12 years except that they may use the Nos. 2 and 2y2|Dilators after they have used the smaller sizes according to directions. Try to|use the Dilators each day; * * * Keep your Dilators and make occasional|use of them. * * * Important: Do not neglect to use your Dilators; * * *|It is advisable to use occasionally as a precautionary measure. You need have|no fear of using them too much.\"\"|Dr. Young's Piloment was alleged to be misbranded in that representations in|the labeling that it would promote healing of piles, and that in conjunction with|Dr. Young's Dilators it would be efficacious in the treatment of rectal irritation,|and would be efficacious as an auxiliary treatment and relief of constipation and|piles, was a soothing treatment for itching and bleeding piles, and would help|in a more speedy recovery from piles, were false and misleading since it would|not be efficacious for such purposes.|On December 6, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgments of condemnation|were entered and the products were ordered destroyed.|Nos. 336 to 339 report the seizure and disposition of intra-cervical or intra-|uterine types of metal or rubber-covered stem pessaries which were potentially|dangerous.|461. Adulteration and misbranding of ampuls of ephedrine sulfate, quinine dihydrochloride, and pituitary solution. U. S. v. American Parentrasol Laboratories, Inc., and George Blank. Corporation lined $400; George Blank fined $400.ddnj00461September 1942American Parentrasol Laboratories, Inc., Bridgeport, Conn., and George Blankampuls of ephedrine sulfate, quinine dihydrochloride, and pituitary solutionJuly 12, 1939, to May 24, 1940ConnecticutConnecticutMichigan and PennsylvaniaDistrict of Connecticut461F. D. C. No. 2898. Sample Nos. 54573-D, 55419-5, 55461-D, 14938-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00461ddnj|461. Adulteration and misbranding of ampuls of ephedrine sulfate, quinine|dihydrochloride, and pituitary solution. U. S. v. American Parentrasol|Laboratories, Inc., and George Blank. Corporation lined $400; George|Blank fined $400. (F. D. C. No. 2898. Sample Nos. 54573-D, 55419-5),|55461-D, 14938-E.)|These products were all drugs recognized in the National Formulary and|their strength or quality differed from that set forth in that compendium. The|ampuls of quinine dihydrochloride also fell below the standard declared on their|labels.|On February 13, 1941, the United States attorney.for the District of Con-|necticut filed an information against American Parentrasol Laboratories, Inc.,|Bridgeport, Conn., and George Blank, alleging shipment within the period from|on or about July 12, 1939, to OD or about May 24, 1940, from the State of Con-|necticut into the States of Michigan and Pennsylvania of quantities of the above-|named drugs which were adulterated and misbranded.|The ephedrine sulfate was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to be|or was represented as ampuls of ephedrine sulfate, a drug the name of which|is recognized in the National Formulary, and its strength differed from or its|quality fell below the standard set forth in that compendium since it yielded|an amount of ephedrine corresponding to less than 72.6 percent, namely, not|more than 58.4 percent of the labeled amount of ephedrine sulfate; whereas' the|National Formulary provides that ampuls of ephedrine sulfate shall yield an|amount of ephedrine corresponding to not less than 72.6 percent of the labeled|amount of ephedrine sulfate. It was alleged to be misbranded in that the|statements, (ampul) \"\"1 c.c.-? gr. Ephedrine\"\" and (box) \"\"1 c.c.-? gr.|Ephedrine Sulphate,\"\" were false and misleading, since each cubic centimeter of|the article did not contain ? grain but did contain a smaller amount, namely,|slightly more than ? grain of ephedrine, and each cubic centimeter did not|contain ? grain of ephedrine sulfate but did contain a smaller amount, namely,|approximately 0.6 grain of ephedrine sulfate.|The quinine dihydrochloride was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported|to be or was represented as ampuls of quinine dihydrochloride, a drug the|name of which is recognized in the National Formulary, and its strength differed|from or its quality fell below the standard set forth in that compendium in|that it yielded less than 95 percent, namely, approximately 55.3 percent of the|labeled amount of quinine dihydrochloride; whereas the National Formulary|provides that ampuls of quinine dihydrochloride shall yield not less than 95|percent of the labeled amount of quinine dihydrochloride, and its difference in|strength or quality from such standard was not plainly stated on its label.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, (ampul) \"\"1 c. c. Quinine|Dihydrochloride 7? grs.\"\" and (box) \"\"1 c. c. Quinine Di HCL * * * 7y2|grs.,\"\" were false and misleading, since each cubic centimeter of the article con-|tained less than 1? grains, namely, 4.15 grains of quinine dihydrochloride.|The pituitary solution was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to be|or was represented as ampuls of posterior pituitary, a drug the name of which|is recognized in the National Formulary, and its strength differed from or its|quality fell below the standard set forth in that compendium, since 1 cubic|centimeter produced an activity upon the isolated uterus of a virgin guinea|pig corresponding to less than 80 percent, namely, not more than 62? percent|of that produced by O.005 gram of the standard powdered posterior pituitary;|whereas the National Formulary provides that unless otherwise stated on the|label, ampuls of posterior pituitary contain measured quantities of sterile|* See also Nos. 426, 429, 436, 446, 449, 458.|liquor pituitarii posterii, a drug recognized in the United States Pharmacopoeia,|which provides that 1 cubic centimeter of solution of posterior pituitary shall|produce an activity upon the isolated uterus of a virgin guinea pig corresponding|to not less than 80 percent of that produced by 0.005 gram of the standard|powdered posterior pituitary.|The information also charged the shipment in interstate commerce in violation|of the Food and Drugs Act of 1906 of a quantity of Ovestrin in Oil which was|adulterated and misbranded, as reported in N. J. No. 31136 published under|that act.|On May 6, 1941, pleas of nolo contendere having been entered'on behalf of|the defendants, the court imposed a fine of $400 on the corporation and $400|on George Blank. (Both defendants were fined $100 on the counts charging|violation of the Food and Drugs Act, but imposition of the sentence was sus-|pended with respect to George Blank on these counts and he was placed on|probation for a period of 2 years.)|336. Misbranding of pessaries. U. S. v. 2 Small and 6 Medium-Sized Pessaries (and 1 other seizure action against pessaries). Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00336March 1942H. Carstens Manufacturing Co. from Chicago, Ill.pessariesfrom February 15 to July 29, 1940Toledo, Ohio; Minneapolis, Minn.Chicago, Ill.Toledo, Ohio; Minneapolis, Minn.Northern District of Ohio and the District of Minnesota336F. D. C. Nos. 2542, 2646. Sample Nos. 8936-E, 27361-E, 27362-E, 27363-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00336ddnj|836. Misbranding of pessaries. 17. S. v. 2 Small and 6 Medium-Sized Pessaries|(and 1 other seizure action against pessaries). Default decrees of con-|demnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 2542, 2646. Sample Nos. 8936-E,|27361-E, 27362-E, 27363-E.)|On August 15 and October 1, 1940, the United States attorneys for the Northern|District of Ohio and the District of Minnesota filed libels (the former amended|on or about September 25, 1940) against 2 small and 6 medium-sized pessaries|at Toledo, Ohio; and 5 small, 7 medium-sized, and 9 large pessaries at Minne-|apolis, Minn., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce|within the period from on or about February 15 to on or about July 29, 1940, by|H. Carstens Manufacturing Co. from Chicago, 111.; and charging that it was|misbranded in that it was dangerous to health when used with the frequency|or duration prescribed. The article was labeled in part \"\"X. L. Gold Pessary.\"\"|On November 15, 1940, and February 10, 1941, no claimant having appeared,|judgments of condemnation were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|337. Misbranding of pessaries. U. S. v. 18 Small and 47 Medium-Sized Pessaries. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00337March 1942Gomco Surgical Manufacturing Corporation from Buffalo, N. Y.pessariesApril 11 to August 1, 1940St. Louis, Mo.Buffalo, N. Y.St. Louis, Mo.Eastern District of Missouri337F. D. C. No. 2671. Sample Nos. 15870-E to 15873-E, incl.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00337ddnj|337. Misbranding of pessaries. IT. S. v. 18 Small and 47 Medium-Sized Pessaries.|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 2671.|Sample Nos. 15870-E to 15873-E, incl.)|On August 23, 1940, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Missouri filed a libel against 18 small and 47 medium-sized pessaries at St.|Louis, Mo., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce|within the period from on or about April 11 to on or about A\"\"gust 1, 1940, by|the Gomco Surgical Manufacturing Corporation from Buffalo, N. Y.; and charg-|ing that it was misbranded in that it was dangerous to health when used with|the frequency or duration prescribed. The article was labeled in part: \"\"Gomco|Perfect Pessary * * * Small [or \"\"Medium\"\"] Size.\"\"|On September 21, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|338. Misbranding of pessaries. U. S. v. 1 Large, 10 Regular, and 4 Small-Sized Cone Pessaries (and 1 other seizure action against pessaries). Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00338March 1942Medex Supply Co.pessariesMarch 6 and August 19, 1940Cleveland, Ohio; Salt Lake City, UtahDenver, Colo.Cleveland, Ohio; Salt Lake City, UtahDistrict of Utah and the Northern District of Ohio338F. D. C. Nos. 2714, 2780. Sample Nos. 5331-E, 6708-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00338ddnj|338. Misbranding of pessaries. IT. S. v. 1 Large, 10 Regular, and 4 Small-Sized|Cone Pessaries (and 1 other seizure action against pessaries). Default|decrees of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 2714, 2780. Sample|Nos. 5331-E, 6708-E.)|On August 31 and September 10, 1940, the United States attorneys for the|District of Utah and the Northern District of Ohio filed libels against 1 large,|10 regular, and 4 small pessaries at Salt Lake City, Utah; and 6 large, 23|regular, and 6 small pessaries at Cleveland, Ohio, alleging that the article had|been shipped in interstate commerce on or about March 6 and August 19, 1940,|by the Medex Supply Co. from Denver, Colo.; and charging that it was|misbranded. The article was labeled in part: \"\"Flexible Large Size [or|\"\"Regular\"\" or \"\"Small Size\"\"] Kone Pessary.\"\"|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that it was dangerous to health|when used with the frequency or duration prescribed, recommended, or sug-|gested in the following statements in the labeling: \"\"1-Immerse the Flexible|Kone Pessary in alcohol or some other good germicidal solution and dry it.|2-Place small capsule over prongs after bringing them together. 3-Fold the|soft rubber button (see fig. 4) and grasp with lock forceps. 4-With patient in|a dorsal recumbent position, the speculum in place, start the pessary into the|os uteri with a slight rotating or up and down motion. The pessary will find|the entire length of the canal without the knowledge of the patient. 5-Hold|the pessary in place for one or two minutes to allow the gelatine capsule to|dissolve, thus liberating the prongs. 6-Carefully remove the speculum so as|to avoid displacing the pessary. 7-In conditions where there is a marked|flexion of the cervical canal, the insertion of the small end of a Sterling dilator|or other suitable instrument is advised, in order to be certain that the canal|is open.\"\" ' The lot seized at Cleveland, Ohio, was alleged to be misbranded|further in that the statement \"\"Scientific Safe\"\" borne on the label, was false|and misleading.|On October 12 and December 4, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgments|of condemnation were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|339. Misbranding of pessaries. U. S. v. 12 Pessaries. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00339March 1942Penn Surgical Manufacturing Co., Inc., from Philadelphia, Pa.pessariesJune 10 to July 3, 1940Cleveland, OhioPhiladelphia, Pa.Cleveland, OhioNorthern District of Ohio339F. D. C. No. 2625. Sample Nos. 27373-E, 27374-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00339ddnj|339. Misbranding of pessaries. U. S. v. 12 Pessaries. Default decree of con|demnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 2625. Sample Nos. 27373-E,|27374-E.)|On August 21, 1940, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Ohio filed a libel against 12 pessaries at Cleveland, Ohio, alleging that the|article had been shipped in interstate commerce within the period from on|or about June 10 to on or about July 3, 1940, by the Penn Surgical Manufactur-|ing Co., Inc., from Philadelphia, Pa.; and charging that it was misbranded in|that it was dangerous to health when used with the frequency or duration|prescribed. The article was labeled in part: \"\"Penn Plated #1 [or \"\"#3,\"\"|\"\"#4,\"\" \"\"#5,\"\" or \"\"#6.\"\"]\"\"|On September 23, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|DRUGS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO BEAR ADEQUATE|DIRECTIONS OR WARNING STATEMENTS|340. Misbranding of Fru-Lax. U. S. v. 3 Cans and 20 Cans of Fru-Lax. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00340March 1942Fru-Lax Co.Fru-LaxApril 8 and July 9, 1940Racine, Wis.Chicago, Ill.Racine, Wis.Eastern District of Wisconsin340F. D. C. No. 2436. Sample No. 30048-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00340ddnj|340. Misbranding of Frn-Lax. U. S. v. 3 Cans and 20 Cans of Fru-Lax. Default|decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 2436. Sample No.|30048-E.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-|ing its efficacy in the treatment of the conditions indicated hereinafter and|failed to bear the names of the active ingredients and adequate directions for|use, and such adequate warnings as are necessary for the protection of users.|On July 29, 1940, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Wisconsin filed a libel (amended August 16, 1940) against 3 3-ounce cans and|20 12-ounce cans of Fru-Lax at Racine, Wis., alleging that the article had been|shipped in interstate commerce on or about April 8 and July 9, 1940, by the|Fru-Lax Co. from Chicago, 111.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of purging cassia tissues,|senna-leaf tissues, and carob-bean tissues.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that representations in the label-|ing that it was not habit-forming; that it would restore and enable one to regain|health; would relieve ailments caused by poisons absorbed from the bowels; that|it was efficacious in the treatment of rheumatism, neuritis, stomach trouble,|gall-bladder trouble, headaches, catarrh, skin trouble, excessive gas, colds, piles,|high blood pressure; that it was of value in reducing; was an ideal neutralizes|would help make the body disease-proof; and that it possessed the rejuvenating|and restorative properties implied in the statements \"\"Return to Nature * * *|Don't feel 'old at 40',\"\" were false and misleading since the use of the article|might result in the laxative habit, and it would not be efficacious for the pur-|poses for which it was so recommended. It was alleged to be misbranded fur-|ther in that the label did not bear the common or usual names of the active|ingredients; in that the label did not bear adequate directions for use; and in|that the label did not bear such adequate warnings against use in those patho-|logical conditions or by children where its use might be dangerous to health, or|against unsafe dosage or methods or duration of administration in such manner|and form as are necessary for the protection of users.|On October 23, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|341. Misbranding of Maurice Le Bell's Formula No. 7. U. S. v. 143 Bottles of Maurice Le Bell's Formula No. 7. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00341March 1942Hollywood Formulas, Inc.Maurice Le Bell's Formula No. 7September 11, 1940Chicago, Ill.Los Angeles, Calif.Chicago, Ill.Northern District of Illinois341F. D. C. No. 3297. Sample Nos. 30415-E, 30417-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00341ddnj|341. Misbranding of Maurice Le Bell's Formula ]Vo. 7. U. S. v. 143 Bottles of|Maurice Le Bell's Formula No. 7. Default decree of condemnation and|destruction. (F. D. C. No. 3297. Sample Nos. 30415-E, 30417-E.)|The label of this product contained false and misleading representations regard-|ing its efficacy for the conditions indicated below. Furthermore, its labeling|failed to bear adequate directions for use.|On November 4, 1940, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Illinois filed a libel against 143 bottles of the above-named product at Chicago,|HI., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|September 11, 1940, by Hollywood Formulas, Inc., from Los Angeles, Calif.; and|charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted of tablets containing Irish moss,|rhubarb root, seaweed such as Laminaria, parsley leaf, cranberry fruit, and leaves|resembling celery.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements in|the labeling were false and misleading, since the article was not efficacious for|the purposes recommended therein: (Bottle) \"\"As Recommended by Hollywood's|Famous Dr. Maurice Le Bell, D. C. Reducing Specialist\"\" ; (booklet) \"\"The Reducing|Method of Dr. Maurice LeBell, D. C. to be Used in Connection with Formula|No. 7 * * * Important * * * The instructions contained in this booklet|are a vital part of your reducing program, and should be studied carefully. They|are a simplified form of the famous reducing method used by Dr. Maurice LeBell,|D. C, in his many years of private practice. * * * Best results are obtained by|following these instructions carefully * * * We suggest that you take a full|length front and profile snapshot of yourself today. Many people have reported|a second picture taken at the end of their supply of Formula showed most gratify-|ing results.\"\" It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the directions for|use appearing on the bottle and in the booklet. \"\"Take 8 tablets daily, 3 before|breakfast and dinner and 2 before retiring. (See exercise and diet booklet.)|440180\"\"-42?2|Decrease dosage in accordance with degrees of laxation required,\"\" were inappro-|priate for the article, since they suggested frequent and continuous consumption|and were therefore inadequate.|On January 28, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|342. Misbranding of Slendotabs. U. S. v. 80 Packages of Slendotabs. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00342March 1942Keneco ProductsSlendotabsMay 18, 1940Kansas City, Mo.Elmira, N. Y.Kansas City, Mo.Western District of Missouri34216769-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00342ddnj|342. Misbranding: of Slendotabs. V. S. v. 80 Packages of Slendotabs. Default /|decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 2532. Sample No. (|16769-E.) |The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-|ing its efficacy in the conditions indicated hereinafter. The article contained|strychnine, which fact was not declared on the label. Its labeling also failed|to bear adequate directions for use and such adequate warnings as are neces-|sary for the protection of users.|On or about August 16, 1940, the United States attorney for the \"\"Western|District of Missouri filed a libel against 80 packages of Slendotabs at Kansas|City, Mo., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on|or about May 18, 1940, by Keneco Products from Elmira, N. Y.; and charging|that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that each tablet of the article contained approximately V-|grain of phenolphthalein, a resinous drug such as leptandra resin, compounds|of iodine equivalent to 0.088 grain of iodine per tablet, and alkaloidal material|including strychnine.|The article was alleged to be misbranded (1> in that its labeling repre-|sented that it would be efficacious in reducing excessive fat, that it was a|scientifically balanced weight reduction method, and would help eliminate waste|matter and accumulated poisons from the body, which representations were|false and misleading since the article would not constitute an adequate or|appropriate treatment for such purposes; (2) in that the labeling was mislead-|ing in that it failed to reveal that the article contained strychnine, a material|fact in the light of the statement on the carton that the active ingredients were|phenolphthalein, calcium iodized, and leptandrin. It was alleged to be mis-|branded further in that its label failed to bear a statement of the presence of|and quantity of strychnine contained therein; in that its labeling failed to|bear adequate directions for use, since the directions on the carton, \"\"Take one|or two tablets immediately before each meal, three times a day. For best|results, take tablets regularly and faithfully, as directed. As these tablets|are laxative, not more than six tablets should be taken in 24 hours,\"\" and the|directions in the leaflet were not appropriate for an article of such composition|and was therefore inadequate. It was alleged to be misbranded further in|that the labeling failed to bear adequate warnings against use in those patho-|logical conditions where its use might be dangerous to health and against unsafe|dosage or methods or duration of administration in such manner and form|as are necessary for the protection of users, since the labeling did not inform|the purchaser of the danger involved in the use of the article in cases of|appendicitis, nor did it warn that frequent or continued use might result in|dependence upon laxatives, nor did the label reveal the fact the the use of|the article might result in skin eruptions.|On October 23,1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|343. Misbranding of Venus Tablets. U. S. v. 66 Cartons and 80 Cartons of Venus Tablets. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00343March 1942Thoro Sales ServiceVenus TabletsMay 6 and September 22, 1940Chicago, Ill.Los Angeles, Calif.Chicago, Ill.Northern District of Illinois343F. D. C. Nos. 2265, 4094. Sample Nos. 30305-E, 31965-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00343ddnj|343. Misbranding of Venus Tablets. IT. S. v. 66 Cartons and 80 Cartons of Venus|Tablets. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos.|2265, 4094. Sample Nos. 30305-E, 31965-E.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regarding|its efficacy in the conditions indicated hereinafter and failed to bear adequate|directions for its use and such adequate warnings as are necessary for the protec-|tion of users. It was also deceptively packaged.|On June 25,1940, and April 10,1941, the United States attorney for the Northern|District of Illinois filed libels against 146 cartons of Venus Tablets at Chicago,|111., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|May 6 and September 22, 1940, by the Thoro Sales Service from Los Angeles,|Calif.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Each carton contained a bottle labeled \"\"Venus Tablets\"\" and an envelope labeled V|\"\"Sample Tablets V-76 Laxative Tablets.\"\" Analyses showed that the Venus Tab-|lets contained rhubarb root, kelp, Irish moss, and green leafy material; and that i|the V-76 Tablets contained dried rhubarb root, cranberries, and green leafy mate- V|rial. The carton was nearly 1 Inch taller than was necessary to hold the bottle|and sample.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that its labeling was false and mis-|leading since it created the impression that the article, by virtue of its physiologi-|cal activity, would have a substantial effect in the control of body weight, would|enable one to arrive at a satisfactory weight, would enable one to attain an ideal|and slender form, and would cause one to lose ugly fat, feel better and look better;|whereas it would not be efficacious for such purposes.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that its labeling failed to bear ade-|quate directions for use of the Venus Tablets and V-76 Laxative Tablets and|failed to bear adequate warnings against their use by children or against unsafe|dosage or methods or duration of administration in such manner and form as are|necessary for the protection of users. It was alleged to be misbranded further in|that its container, i. e., carton, was so made, formed, or filled as to be misleading.|On October 21,1940, and May 13, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgments|of condemnation were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|346. Adulteration of solution citrate of magnesia. U. S. v. Joseph D. Mehlman and Robert P. Friedman (F. & M. Chemical Co.). Pleas of guilty. Fine of $100 as to Joseph D. Mehlman and $1 as to Robert P. Friedman.ddnj00346March 1942Joseph D. Mehlman and Robert P. Friedman, copartners trading as F. & M. Chemical Co., at Indianapolis, Ind.solution citrate of magnesiaJanuary 10, 1940IndianaIndianaKentuckySouthern District of Indiana346F. D. C. No. 2086. Sample No. 64997-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00346ddnj|346. Adulteration of solution citrate of magnesia. U. S. v. Joseph D. Mehlman|and Robert P. Friedman (F. & M. Chemical Co.). Pleas of guilty. Fine|of 8100 as to Joseph D. Mehlman and SI as to Robert P. Friedman. (F. D.|C. No. 2086. Sample No. 64997-D.)|This product differed in strength from the pharmacopoeial standard.|On July 23, 1940, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|Indiana filed a libel against Joseph D. Mehlman and Robert P. Friedman,|copartners trading as F. & M. Chemical Co., at Indianapolis, Ind., alleging|shipment on or about January 10, 1940, from the State of Indiana into the|State of Kentucky of a quantity of a product labeled in part, \"\"Effervescing|Solution Citrate of Magnesia,\"\" that was adulterated|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to be and was|represented as a drug which is recognized in an official compendium, i. e.,|the United States Pharmacopoeia, under the name \"\"Solution ? of Magnesium|Citrate,\"\" but its strength differed from the standard set forth in such com-|pendium in that each 100 cubic centimeters of the article contained an amount|of magnesium citrate corresponding to less than 1.6 grams of magnesium|oxide, namely, an amount of magnesium citrate corresponding to not more|than 1.49 grams of magnesium oxide; and 10 cubic centimeters of said article|contained total citric acid equivalent to less than 26 cubic centimeters, namely,|not more than 23.16 cubic centimeters of half-normal hydrochloric acid;|whereas the United States Pharmacopoeia provides that solution of magnesium|citrate shall contain, in each 100 cubic centimeters an amount of magnesium|citrate corresponding to not less than 1.6 grams of magnesium oxide, and that|10 cubic centimeters of the solution shall contain total citric acid equivalent|to not less than 26 cubic centimeters of half-normal hydrochloric acid; and the|difference in the strength of the article from the standard set forth in the|United States Pharmacopoeia was not plainly stated on its label.|On September 26, 1940, the defendants having entered pleas of guilty, the|court imposed a fine of $100 against Joseph D. Mehlman and $1 against Robert|P. Friedman.|347. Adulteration and misbranding of sandalwood oil. U. S. v. Alfred G. Hoffman (trading as Red Mill Drug Co.). Plea of guilty. Defendant sentenced to 10 months' imprisonment, sentence suspended and defendant placed on probation for 1 year.ddnj00347March 1942Alfred C. Hoffman, trading as the Red Mill Drug Co. at Brooklyn, N. Y.sandalwood oilAugust 25 to October 24, 1939New YorkNew YorkPennsylvania and MassachusettsEastern District of New York347F. D. C. No. 2079. Sample Nos. 77631-D, 77632-D, 86606-D to 86608-D, incl.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00347ddnj|347. Adulteration and misbranding of sandalwood oil. U. S. v. Alfred G. Hoffman|(trading as Red Mill Drug Co.). Plea of guilty. Defendant sentenced|to 10 months' imprisonment, sentence suspended and defendant placed on|probation for 1 year. (F. D. C. No. 2079. Sample Nos. 77631-D, 77632-D,|86606-D to 86608-D, incl.)|This product differed from the pharmacopoeial standard in the following|respects: It yielded less than 90 percent of alcohols calculated as santalol, it|did not have the characteristic odor of sandalwood, and was not soluble in 5|volumes of 70 percent alcohol. It also differed from the standard with respect|to its specific gravity, optical rotation, and refractive index.|On November 7, 1940, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|New York filed an information against Alfred C. Hoffman, trading as the Red|Mill Drug Co. at Brooklyn, N. Y., alleging shipment within the period from on|or about August 25 to on or about October 24, 1939, from the State of New|York into the States of Pennsylvania and Massachusetts of quantities of sandal-|wood oil that was adulterated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to be or was|represented as a drug the name of which is recognized in the United States|Pharmacopoeia; but its strength differed from, and its quality and purity fell|below the standard set forth in that compendium, and its difference in strength,|quality, and purity from such standard was not plainly stated on its label.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement \"\"Pure East India|(U. S. P.) Sandalwood Oil\"\" with respect to all lots, and the statement \"\"Each|Capsule Contains 5 Minims\"\" with respect to one lot, borne on the labels, were|false and misleading in that they represented that the article was sandalwood|oil which conformed to the standard laid down in the United States Pharma-|copoeia, and that in the case of one of the lots each capsule contained 5|minims thereof, whereas it was not sandalwood oil which conformed to the|standard laid down in such compendium, and the capsules in one lot contained|less than 5 minims thereof. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that|it was an imitation of sandalwood oil and was offered for sale under the name|of another article, i. e., \"\"Pure East India (U. S. P.) Sandalwood Oil.\"\"|The information also charged the defendant with various other shipments of|sandalwood oil that was adulterated and misbranded in violation of the Federal|Food and Drugs Act of 1906, as reported in notices of judgment published under|that act.|440180'|On January 7, 1941, a plea of guilty having been entered, the court sentenced|the defendant to 10 months' imprisonment on the 10 counts covering violations|of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, but suspended sentence and placed|the defendant on probation for 1 year. (On each of the 8 counts charging|violation of the Federal Food and Drugs Act of 1906 the court imposed a fine|of $1.)|348. Adulteration and misbranding of elixir iron, quinine, and strychnine phosphates; and of ammoniated mercury ointment. U. S. v. Standard Pharmaceutical Corporation. Plea of guilty. Fine, $50 and costs.ddnj00348March 1942Standard Pharmaceutical Corporation, Baltimore, Md.elixir iron, quinine, and strychnine phosphates; ammoniated mercury ointmentApril 18, 1940MarylandMarylandDistrict of ColumbiaDistrict of Maryland348F. D. C. No. 2889. Sample Nos. 1457-E, 1463-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00348ddnj|348. Adulteration and misbranding of elixir iron, quinine, and strychnine phos|phates ; and of ammoniated mercury ointment. U. S. v. Standard Pharma-|ceutical Corporation. Plea of guilty. Fine, $50 and costs. (F. D. C. No.|2889. Sample Nos. 1457-E, 1463-E.)|These products were represented to be drugs the names of which are recognized|in official compendiums and their strength differed from and their quality fell|below the standard set forth therein.|On January 31, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Maryland|filed an information against the Standard Pharmaceutical Corporation, Balti-|more, Md., alleging shipment on or about April 18, 1940, from the State of|Maryland into the District of Columbia of quantities of elixir of iron, quinine,|and strychnine phosphates and of ammoniated mercury ointment which were|adulterated and misbranded.|The elixir of iron, quinine, and strychnine phosphates was alleged to be|adulterated in that it purported to be and was represented as a drug the name|of which is recognized in the National Formulary, an official compendium, but|its strength differed from or its quality or purity fell below the standard set|forth therein, since it yielded less than 3.875 grams, namely, not more than|1.17 grams of the anhydrous alkaloids of quinine and strychnine per 1,000 cubic|centimeters; whereas the National Formulary provides that elixir of iron,|quinine, and strychnine phosphates shall contain 5 grams of quinine phosphate|and 250 milligrams of strychnine phosphate per 1,000 cubic centimeters, and a|drug so prepared should yield not less than 3.875 grams of the anhydrous alka-|loids of quinine and strychnine per 1,000 cubic centimeters; and its difference|in strength, quality, or purity from the standard set forth in said compendium|was not stated plainly on the label. The article was alleged to be misbranded|in that the statement \"\"Elixir Iron, Quinine and Strychnine Phosphates N. F.|VI.,\"\" borne on the label, was false and misleading since it did not comply with|the specifications for elixir of iron, quinine, and strychnine phosphates set forth|in the National Formulary, sixth edition.|The ammoniated mercury ointment was alleged to be adulterated in that it|purported to be and was represented as a drug the name of which is recognized|in the United States Pharmacopoeia, an official compendium, but its strength|differed from or its quality or purity fell below the standard set forth in that|compendium, since it contained not more than 4.22 percent of ammoniated mer-|cury; whereas the pharmacopoeia provides that ammoniated mercury ointment|shall contain 10 percent of ammoniated mercury. It was alleged to be mis-|branded in that the statement, \"\"Ammoniated Mercury Ointment * * *|U. S. P. This ointment contains 10? Ammoniated Mercury U. S. P.,\"\" borne on|the label, was false and misleading, since it did not comply with the specifica-|tions for ammoniated mercury set forth in the pharmacopoeia and it contained|less than 10 percent of ammoniated mercury.|On February 10, 1941, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant-|and the court imposed a fine of $50 and costs..|349. Adulteration and misbranding of aromatic spirits of ammonia and larkspur lotion. U. S. v. Royal Manufacturing; Co. of Duquesne, Koloman Kovacs, Samuel S. Kovacs, and Martin Kovacs. Pleas of nolo contendere. Judgment of gruilty. Total fines, $400. Individual defendants placed on probation for 3 years.ddnj00349March 1942Royal Manufacturing Co. of Duquesne, a corporation, Duquesne, Pa., and Koloman Kovacs, Samuel S. Kovacs, and Martin Kovacsaromatic spirits of ammonia and larkspur lotionOctober 11, 1939PennsylvaniaPennsylvaniaVirginiaWestern District of Pennsylvania349F. D. C. No. 2078. Sample Nos. 77148-D, 77149-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00349ddnj|349. Adulteration and misbranding: of aromatic spirits of ammonia and larkspur|lotion. IT. S. v. Royal Manufacturing; Co. of Duquesne, Koloman Kovacs,|Samuel S. Kovacs, and Martin Kovacs. Pleas of nolo contendere. Judg-|ment of gruilty. Total fines, $400. Individual defendants placed on|probation for 3 years. (F. D. C. No. 2078. Sample Nos. 77148-D, 77149-D.)|This case involved a shipment of a drug purporting to be aromatic spirits|of ammonia but part of which was found to consist of larkspur lotion, and of|a drug purporting to be larkspur lotion but a part of which was found to be|spirits of ammonia.|On September 5, 1940, the United States attorney for the Western District of|Pennsylvania filed an information against the Royal Manufacturing Co. of|Duquesne, a corporation, Duquesne, Pa., and Koloman Kovacs, Samuel S.|Kovacs, and Martin Kovacs, alleging shipment on or about October 11, 1939,|from the State of Pennsylvania into the State of Virginia of quantities of spirits|of ammonia and larkspur lotion which were adulterated and misbranded. The|articles were labeled in part: \"\"Powertay Spirits of Ammonia Aromatic [or|\"\"Larkspur Lotion\"\"] *? * * Distributed by Powers-Taylor Drug Company,|Richmond, Virginia.\"\"|The product purporting to be spirits of ammonia was alleged to be adulter-|ated in that its strength differed from and its quality and purity fell below that|which it purported or was represented to possess in that each of the bottles was|represented to contain spirits of ammonia aromatic U. S. P.; whereas each of|said bottles did not contain spirits of ammonia aromatic U. S. P. but a number|of them did contain larkspur lotion. It was alleged to be adulterated further|in that another substance, namely, larkspur lotion, had been substituted in part|for spirits of ammonia aromatic U. S. P.|The product purporting to be spirits of ammonia was alleged to be misbranded|in that the statements, \"\"Spirit of Ammonia Aromatic U. S. P. Alcohol 65? By|Vol. * * * An Agreeable stimulant and carminative preparation,\"\" borne|on the label, were false and misleading in that they represented that the article|consisted of aromatic spirits of ammonia which conformed to the requirements|of the United States Pharmacopoeia, that it contained 65 percent of alcohol by|volume and was an agreeable stimulant and carminative preparation; whereas|it was not as represented in that the article in a number of bottles consisted of|larkspur lotion, the larkspur lotion in the said bottles contained not more|than 22.1 percent of alcohol by volume, and larkspur lotion is not an agreeable|stimulant and carminative preparation. It was alleged to be misbranded further|in that it consisted in part of larkspur lotion and was offered for sale under the|name of another article, namely, \"\"Spirits of Ammonia Aromatic U. S. P.\"\"\"\"|The product purporting to be larkspur lotion was alleged to be adulterated in|that its strength differed from and its quality and purity fell below that which|it purported and was represented to possess in that each bottle was represented|to contain larkspur lotion; whereas a number of said bottles contained spirits of|ammonia aromatic. It was alleged to be adulterated further in that another|substance, namely, spirits of ammonia aromatic U. S. P. had been substituted in|part for larkspur lotion.|The product purporting to be larkspur lotion was alleged to be misbranded in|that the statement \"\"Larkspur Lotion * * * Alcohol 20? by Vol.,\"\" borne|on the bottle label, was false and misleading since it represented that the article|consisted of larkspur lotion and contained 20 percent of alcohol by volume;|whereas the article in a number of the bottles consisted of aromatic spirits of|ammonia and the aromatic spirits of ammonia in the said bottles contained not|less than 68.1 percent of alcohol. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that|it consisted in part of aromatic spirits of ammonia and was offered for sale under|the name of another article, namely, larkspur lotion.|On October 24, 1940, pleas of nolo contendere having been entered on behalf|of each of the defendants, they were found guilty by the court. The corporation|and each of the individual defendants were fined $100 and one-fourth of the|costs on count I, and the individual defendants were placed on probation for 3|years on the remaining three counts.|350. Adulteration of tincture of digitalis. U. S. v. Yates Drug & Chemical Co. Tried to the court. Judgment for the Government. Fine, $500.ddnj00350March 1942Yates Drug & Chemical Co., a corporation, New York, N. Y.tincture of digitalisSeptember 18, 1939New YorkNew YorkNew JerseySouthern District of New York350F. D. C. No. 940. Sample No. 68344-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00350ddnj|350. Adulteration of tincture of digitalis. U. S. v. Yates Drug & Chemical Co.|Tried to the court. Judgment for the Government. Fine, $500. (F. D. C.|No. 940. Sample No. 68344-D.)|This product differed from the strength, quality, and purity set forth in the|United States Pharmacopoeia for tincture of digitalis.|On July 30, 1940, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|New York filed an information against the Yates Drug & Chemical Co., a cor-|poration, New York, N. Y., alleging delivery for introduction in interstate com-|merce, namely, a delivery on or about September 18, 1939, for shipment from the|State of New York into the State of New Jersey, of a quantity of tincture of|digitalis that was adulterated.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its label bore the words \"\"Tinc-|ture Digitalis- U. S. P. XI,\"\" which purported and represented that it was a drug|the name of which is recognized in an official compendium, namely, the United|States Pharmacopoeia, eleventh edition, and that it was of the strength, quality,|and purity of tincture of digitalis as set forth in said compendium; whereas its|strength fell below the standard for strength of tincture of digitalis so set forth|in this, that whereas the eleventh edition of the United States Pharmacopoeia|states that the potency of tincture of digitalis shall be such that 1 cubic centi-|meter thereof shall possess an activity equivalent to not less than 1 and not more|than 1.1 U. S. P. digitalis units, the potency of the article was such that 1 cubic|centimeter possessed an activity equivalent to not more than 0.58 U. S. P.|digitalis units, and its label did not plainly state that the drug differed in|strength from the standard of strength prescribed for such drug in such|compendium.|On November 19, 1940, a jury having been wpived, the case came on for trial|before the court. Evidence was introduced on behalf of the defendant and by|the Government, and on December 2, 1940, the court entered judgment for the|Government, handing down the following opinion:|LKTBELL, District Judge. \"\"Of course, a jury does not render any opinion, and I|am sitting as a jury in this case, both sides having waived a trial by jury and|consented to a trial by the court without a jury; the defendant on its part through|a stipulation signed by one of its officers and by its counsel, and also the Govern-|ment having signed the stipulation waiving the jury trial and consenting to this|arrangement.|\"\"I have given close attention to the evidence that was offered, and sitting as a|court I have also asked a number of questions as the case went along. I realize,|of course, that the burden is on the Government to establish the guilt of the de-|fendant beyond a reasonable doubt. The court having charged what a reasonable|doubt means in so many cases, I dp not need to remind myself of it. I have|reached the conclusion that the proof of the Government was most detailed both|as to the preparation and use of the standard powder of digitalis and also the|sale, delivery in interstate commerce, and the subsequent tests of the defendant's|tincture of digitalis contained in this Exhibit 9.|\"\"I have not any doubt that the tincture of digitalis sold by the defendant, as|charged in the information, was substandard and that it did not exceed 60 percent|of the standard required by the United States Pharmacopoeia, eleventh edition.|A variance of some 20 percent from standard was allowed, but this is a variance|of 40 percent. I believe that the test set forth in the United States Pharmacopoeia|is definite, understandable, and readily followed by those whose business it is,|with expert knowledge, to make those tests. I think the testimony of the experts|here all shows that they knew how to go about making the tests required by the|United States Pharmacopoeia for the preparation of the tincture of digitalis.|\"\"The test prescribed in the pharmacopoeia is the one that under the law|must be followed. It may be that at some future date more accurate tests|will be developed. However, in this case it has been shown that the 1-hour|frog method does produce a very accurate result when applied by different|experts to the same sample of tincture of digitalis.|\"\"It may be that the defendant when it sold the bottle of tincture of digitalis,|which is the subject of this information filed against the defendant, believed|that it complied with the standard required by law, but that is not the test|that the law lays down. I do not question and have no reason to question|the good faith of the defendant, and I have no reason to believe that a con-|cern that has been in business 40 years would deliberately and wilfully sell|this bottle of tincture of digitalis knowing that it was substandard, as the|proof has shown here. But it is not necessary that the Government show|under the statute that the sale was wilful and deliberate and with full knowl-|edge of the substandard condition of the tincture of digitalis. I do not see|what this defendant had to gain from selling the substandard tincture of*|digitalis, in a monetary way, considering the reputation of the defendant in|its field as a manufacturing chemist, so that in finding the defendant guilty as|charged in the information and, of course, subject to the imposition of a penalty|under the provisions of the act, subject to the punishment provided in the act,|I think it is only fair that I should state that there is not anything to show|that the defendant deliberately set out to sell a substandard digitalis. In fact,|the only proof as to the potency of the tincture of digitalis at the time that|this particular batch was made up. namely, the testimony of Dr. Pearson, is|to the effect that it was then standard tincture of digitalis. I think his|percentage was around 94 percent, was it?\"\"|Mr. KKLLY. \"\"Ninety-six percent\"\"|THE COURT. \"\"Ninety-six percent. But I have not any doubt at all but that|the Government has shown that this particular tincture of digitalis sold by the|defendant in interstate commerce was substandard in that it had a potency of|less than 60 percent of the unit of potency required by the U. S. Pharmacopeia,|which in turn is referred to in the statute itself, Section 351 (b), Title 21,|U. S. code annotated, which is part of the Food and Drug Act.|\"\"There is not any doubt either that the label on Exhibit 9 represented that|this was tincture of digitalis of standard strength. When I say 'standard|strength' I mean the strength prescribed for the drug tincture of digitalis in|the U. S. Pharmacopeia, eleventh edition. Now, just how this happened to be|in a substandard condition, while that is immaterial on the question of the|violation of the statute, it may have occurred through deterioration; it may|have occurred in the packaging of it; it may have been the fault of some|employee, or it may have been through an oversight or negligence. But I think|all of that is outside the case, or the realm of proof in determining the guilt or|innocence of this defendant, and the question involved is whether or not it|was actually substandard and was sold by the defendant represented as|standard and sold in interstate commerce.|\"\"It is unfortunate, of course, that a concern which has been in business as|long as the defendant, the Yates Drug & Chemical Co., should be found guilty|of a violation of the Food and Drug Act, but, as I stated before, there is nothing|to indicate that the violation was deliberate or undertaken for the sake of|gain or profit for the defendant.|\"\"So, sitting as both the court and jury in this case, I find the defendant,|Yates Drug & Chemical Co., guilty as charged in the information.|\"\"I will hear you on the question of the penalty, section 333. * * *|THE COTTBT. \"\"Of course, the particular statute involved here is section 331 (a)|the introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of any food,|drug, device, or cosmetic that is adulterated or misbranded.\"\"|Mr. KEIXY. \"\"Yes, sir.\"\"|THE COURT. \"\"The label represented that this tincture of digitalis was the U. S. P.|XI and had been biologically tested so that it was supposed to comply with the|U. S. P. XI as to potency, and the representation was that it did comply. Of|course, then, there is this section 351 (b) relating to the strength or purity dif-|ferent from the official compendium which, of course, must be read together with|section 331 as constituting the offense. Then we come to section 333 (a) which is|just a straight violation, and the penalty may be imprisonment of not more than|a year or a fine of not more than $1,000 or both. Of course, this defendant is a|corporation. So, we have to consider the question of a fine. The penalty does|not fall under section 333 (b) where intent to defraud or mislead is an essential|element and the penalty accordingly higher. Well, of course, the Government has|been put to a lot of proof. I think that you might have stipulated to some of it.\"\"|Mr. KEIXY. \"\"Well, I was not asked to do that, if your honor please.\"\"|THSTCOTJBT. \"\"I know, but there was then this proof about the shipment in inter-|state commerce and also the actual use of a part of Exhibit 9 in making these tests|by the Government.\"\"|Mr. BURLING. \"\"If your honor please, I did not take it up with Mr. Kelly. I|requested another attorney of Milbank, Tweed & Hope, who specifically declined|to stipulate as to the interstate commerce shipment.\"\"|Mr. KELLY. \"\"I think counsel is referring to the shipment in interstate com-|merce, is that it?\"\"|THE COURT. \"\"Yes.\"\"|Mr. BURLING. \"\"Your honor, after that I made no request for stipulation, be-|cause Mr. O'Connell, who I believe was the party, told me that counsel for the|defendant would stipulate as to nothing and, of course, I did not make further|requests.\"\"|THE COURT. \"\"Weil, then, there was the question of the ampuls and they had|to go through a lot of detailed proof as to the fact that what was used as the|official test powder came from the proper source and all that, and I think a lot|of that proof might have been saved. I suppose, of course, that a lot of the cross-|examination of the Government witnesses as to the methods of the test and the|proper testimony of experts for the defendant was to be expected.|\"\"Under all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the sentence of the court|in this case should be that the defendant, Yates Drug & Chemical Co., shall pay|a fine of $500.|\"\"Well now, the case is completed and, of course, it is a case that has been one|of great interest to follow, and the attorneys on both sides have presented their|respective proofs and arguments showing great care in preparation, and conducted|themselves throughout the trial as attorneys who knew how to go about the work|of trying their case and had a proper respect not merely for the court but for|each other, which is a delightful thing to see in any case, lawyers having respect|for each other. It has been a pleasure to have you both here.\"\"|The defendant was sentenced to pay a fine of $500.|SEIZURES|351. Adulteration of epinephrine chloride solution. U. S. v. 12 Bottles of Epinephrine Chloride Solution. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00351March 1942Difco Laboratories, Inc.epinephrine chloride solutionJanuary 18, 1937Des Moines, IowaDetroit, Mich.Des Moines, IowaSouthern District of Iowa351F. D. C. No. 2408. Sample Nos. 15179-E, 15266-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00351ddnj|351. Adulteration of epinephrine chloride solution. U. S. v. 12 Bottles of Epine|phrine Chloride Solution. Default decree of condemnation and destruc-|tion. (F. D. C. No. 2408. Sample Nos. 15179-E, 15266-E.)|This product had been shipped in interstate commerce and was in interstate|commerce at the time of examination, at which time it was found that it did|not conform to the requirements of the United States Pharmacopoeia.|On July 23, 1940, the United States attorney for the Southern District of Iowa|filed a libel against 12 bottles of epinephrine chloride solution at Des Moines,|Iowa, alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or|about January 18,1937, by the Difco Laboratories, Inc., from Detroit, Mich.; and|charging that it was adulterated.|It was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to be and was represented|as a drug the name of which is recognized in the United States Pharmacopoeia,|but its quality fell below the standard set forth in the pharmacopoeia since|examination showed that it was dark brown in color and contained sediment;|whereas epinephrine chloride solution is a synonym for a solution of epinephrine|hydrochloride, a designation used by the United States Pharmacopoeia, which|states that a solution of epinephrine hydrochloride is \"\"a nearly colorless * * *|liquid, gradually turning dark on exposure to air and light, and when the solution|has become brown in color, or contains a precipitate, it must be rejected.\"\"|On October 9, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|422. Adulteration of prophylactics. U. S. v. 30 Gross of Rubber Prophylactics. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00422March 1942National Latex Products CorporationprophylacticsMay 27, 1940New Haven, Conn.East Newark, N. J.New Haven, Conn.District of Connecticut422F. D. C. No. 2249. Sample No. 10694-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00422ddnj|422. Adulteration of prophylactics. TJ. S. v. 30 Gross of Rubber Prophylactics.|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 2249.|Sample No. 10694-E.)|On June 24, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of Connecticut|filed a libel against 30 gross of prophylactics at New Haven, Conn., alleging that|the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about May 27, 1940, by|the National Latex Products Corporation from East Newark, N. J.; and charging|that it was adulterated in that its quality fell below that which it purported or|was represented to possess. The article was labeled in part \"\"Silk-Tex.\"\"|On September 20,1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|352. Adulteration of mineral oil. U. S. v. 16 Drums of White Oil. Decree of condemnation. Product released under bond to be disposed of for technical purposes.ddnj00352March 1942American Oil & Supply Co., Newark, N. Jmineral oilJuly 30, 1940Philadelphia, Pa.Newark, N. J.Philadelphia, Pa.Eastern District of Pennsylvania352F. D. C. No. 2550. Sample No. 14969-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00352ddnj|352. Adulteration of mineral oil. IT. S. v. 16 Drums of White Oil. Decree of|condemnation. .Product released under bond to be disposed of for techni-|cal purposes. (F. D. C. No. 2550. Sample No. 14969-E.)|This product fell below the pharmacopoeial specifications because of the pres-|ence of moisture and solid paraffins.|On August 13, 1940, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Pennsylvania filed a libel against 16 drums of white oil at Philadelphia, Pa.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|July 30, 1940, by the Wanango Oil Corporation from Newark, N. J.; and charging|that it was adulterated in that it purported to be or was represented as a drug|the name of which is recognized in an official compendium, but its strength|differed from and its quality and purity fell below the standard set forth in such|compendium. It was labeled in part \"\"White Oil.\"\"|On September 9, 1940, the American Oil & Supply Co., Newark, N. J., having|appeared as claimant, judgment of condemnation was entered and the product|was ordered released under bond. On September 21, 1940, the decree was|amended to provide that the product should not be disposed of except for tech-|nical purposes in the manufacture of various compounds.|353. Misbranding of mineral oil. U. S. v. 1,409 Dozen Pints of Mineral Oil. Consent decree of condemnation. Product released under bond for relabelingddnj00353March 1942Walgreen Co., Chicago, Ill.mineral oilAugust 21, 1940Chicago, Ill.Point Breeze, Philadelphia, Pa.Chicago, Ill.Northern District of Illinois353F. D. C. No. 3218. Sample No. 30199-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00353ddnj|353. Misbranding of mineral oil. U. S. v. 1,409 Dozen Pints of Mineral Oil.|Consent decree of condemnation. Product released under bond for re-|labeling- (F. D. C. No. 3218. Sample No. 30199-E.)|This product was light mineral oil. It was in interstate commerce when|examined, at which time it was found to be labeled to indicate that it was heavy|mineral oil.|On or about October 23, 1940, the United States attorney for the Northern|District of Illinois filed a libel against 1,409 dozen pint bottles of mineral oil at|Chicago, 111., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on|or about August 21, 1940, by the Atlantic Refining Co. from Point Breeze, Phila-|delphia, Pa., and consigned to Walgreen Drug Stores, Chicago, 111. The product,|when shipped in interstate commerce, was in bulk and had been invoiced by the|shipper as \"\"1 Tank Car Atreol 13 White Mineral Oil USP Light.\"\" Upon arrival|at Chicago it was put up in pint bottles and was incorrectly labeled in part:|\"\"White Mineral Oil (USP Light) Russian Type * * * Union Drug Co., Dis-|tributor, Chicago, Illinois.\"\"|The libel alleged that the said oil so labeled was misbranded in that the state-|ment \"\"Russian Type,\"\" was false and misleading as applied to a light white mineral|oil of domestic origin.|On December 2,1940, the Walgreen Co., Chicago, 111., claimant, having admitted|the allegations of the libel, judgment of condemnation was entered and the prod-|uct was ordered released under bond conditioned that it be properly relabeled|under the supervision of the Food and Drug Administration.|354. Adulteration and misbranding of halibut liver oil capsules. U. S. v. 24,000, 75,000, and 90,000 Halibut Liver Oil Capsules. Consent decrees of condemnation. Product ordered released under bond for relabeling.ddnj00354March 1942White Laboratories, Inc.halibut liver oil capsulesOctober 5, 1939, to February 14, 1940New York, N. Y.Newark, N. J.New York, N. Y.Southern District of New York and the Eastern District of New York354F. D. C. Nos. 2051, 2052, 2054. Sample Nos. 33424-E, 33425-E, 33426-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00354ddnj|&A4. Adulteration and misbranding of halibut liver oil capsules. IT. S. v. 24,000,|75,000, and 90,000 Halibut Liver Oil Capsules. Consent decrees of con-|demnation. Product ordered released under bond for relabeling. (F. D. C.|Nos. 2051, 2052, 2054. Sample Nos. 33424-E, 33425-E, 33426-E.)|This product was represented to consist of halibut liver oil but consisted in part|of other fish-liver oil.|On June 1 and 3, 1940, the United States attorneys for the Southern District of|New York and the Eastern District of New York filed libels against a total of|99,000 halibut liver oil capsules at New York, N. Y., and 90,000 halibut liver oil|capsules at Brooklyn, N. Y., alleging that the article had been shipped in inter-|state commerce within the period from on or about October 5, 1939, to on or about|February 14, 1940, by the \"\"White Laboratories, Inc., from Newark, N. J.; and|charging that it was adulterated and that portions were also misbranded. Por-|tions were labeled in part: \"\"Halibut Liver Oil Capsules * * * Halibut Plain,\"\"|or \"\"Halibut Liver Oil PL\"\"|All lots of the article were alleged to be adulterated in that another fish-liver|oil had been wholly or in part substituted for plain halibut-liver oil. All lots were|alleged to be misbranded in that they were offered for sale under the name of|another drug. Portions were alleged to be misbranded further in that the state-|ments, \"\"Halibut Liver Oil * ? * * Capsules,\"\" \"\"Halibut Liver Oil Plain,\"\" ana|\"\"Halibut Liver Oil PI.,\"\" were false and misleading, since the article did not con-|sist of halibut liver oil but was a mixture of fish-liver oils.|On June 25, 1940, White Laboratories, Inc., claimant, having admitted the|allegations of the libels, judgments of condemnation were entered, and it was|ordered that the product be released under bond conditioned that it be relabeled|so as to declare that the capsules contained halibut-liver oil which had been mixed|with another fish oil.|355. Adulteration and misbranding of Estrinol in oil. U. S. v. 118 Ampuls of Estrinol in Oil. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00355March 1942Bellevue Laboratories, Inc.Estrinol in oilMarch 8, 1940Pittsburgh, Pa.New York. N. Y.Pittsburgh, Pa.Western District of Pennsylvania355F. D. C. No. 2500. Sample No. 3064-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00355ddnj|355. Adulteration and misbranding of Estrinol in oil. TJ. S. v. 118 Ampuls of|Estrinol in Oil. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C.|No. 2500. Sample No. 3064-E.V|Each cubic centimeter of this product was represented to possess an activity|equivalent to 5,000 International Units of estrogenic substance, whereas it was|inert.|On August 7, 1940, the United States attorney for the Western District of|Pennsylvania filed a libel against 118 ampuls of Estrinol in oil at Pittsburgh,|Pa., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or|about March 8, 1940, by the Bellevue Laboratories, Inc., from New York. N. Y.;|and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from|that which it purported or was represented to possess, namely: (Label) \"\"1 CC|is therapeutically equivalent to 5,000 I. U. of estrogenic substance.\"\" It was|alleged to be misbranded in that the statement on the label, \"\"1 CC is thera-|peutically equivalent to 5,000 I. U. of estrogenic substance,\"\" was false and mis-|leading as applied to an article which was inert.|On September 25, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of con-|demnation was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|654. Adulteration and misbranding of gauze bandages. U. S. v. 500 Dozen Gauze Bandages (and 1 other seizure of gauze bandages). Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00654February, 1943Forest City Rubber Co.gauze bandagesSeptember 28, 1940, to on or about April 14, 1941San Francisco, Calif.Cleveland, OhioSan Francisco, Calif.Northern District of California and the District of Maryland654F. D. C. Nos. 4371, 4868. Sample Nos. 22309-E, 50831-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00654ddnj|654. Adulteration and misbranding of gauze bandages. II. S. v. 500 Dozen Gauze|Bandages (and 1 other seizure of gauze bandages). Default decrees of|condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 4371, 4868. Sample Nos.|22309-E, 50831-E.)|This product had been shipped in interstate commerce and was in interstate|commerce at the time of examination, at which time it was found to be con-|taminated with viable micro-organisms. It was packaged in ordinary type|carton without protective wrapping such as would be necessary to prevent con-|tamination with bacteria. The carton was one-third larger than was necessary|to contain the bandages.|On April 16 and June 4, 1941, the United States attorneys for the Northern|District of California and the District of Maryland filed libels against 500 dozen|gauze bandages at San Francisco, Calif., and 10 cartons each containing 1 dozen|packages of gauze bandages at Baltimore, Md. Subsequently the libel filed in|Northern California was amended. The libels alleged that the article had|been shipped in interstate commerce within the period from on or about Septem-|ber 28, 1940, to on or about April 14, 1941, by the Forest City Rubber Co. from|Cleveland. Ohio; and charged that it was adulterated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its quality fell below that|which it purported or was represented to possess, since the statement \"\"Sentinel|Gauze Bandage\"\" and the design of a soldier on the carton carried the implication,|in the absence of a specific disclaimer on the carton, that the article was sterile|and was suitable for use upon open cuts, wounds, etc.; whereas it was not|sterile, and was not suitable for such use. -|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement \"\"Sentinel Gauze Band-|age\"\" and the design of a soldier were false and misleading as applied to a|bandage which was not sterile, in the absence of a specific statement of the|material fact that the article was not sterile and was not suitable for use upon|broken skin. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the difficultly|legible statement on the carton \"\"This product was thoroughly sterilized during|manufacture and cleanly packaged, but continued sterility can not be guaran-|teed\"\" was misleading since it created the impression that reasonable precautions|were taken in the preparation and packaging of the article, to assure its con-|tinued sterility; whereas such precautions were not taken.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that its package was so filled as to|be misleading in that the retail carton was approximately one-third larger than|necessary to contain the bandage.|On July 9 and August 5, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgments of|condemnation were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|PROPHYLACTICS|356. Adulteration and misbranding of Shores Ka-Vi-Min Tablets. U. S. v. 1 2/3 Drums Containing 71,300 Tablets of Shores Ka-Vi-Min Tablets. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00356March 1942Shores Co.Shores Ka-Vi-Min TabletsFebruary 28, 1940Los Angeles, Calif.Cedar Rapids, IowaLos Angeles, Calif.Southern District of California356F. D. C. No. 3992. Sample No. 32805-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00356ddnj|356. Adulteration and misbranding of Shores Ka-Vi-Min Tablets. TJ. S. v. 1%|Drums Containing 71,300 Tablets of Shores Ka-Vi-Min Tablets. Default|decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 3992. Sample No.|32805-E.)|This product was labeled as containing 140 U. S. P. units of vitamin D and 25|International Units of vitamin Bi per tablet; whereas it contained not more|than 100 U. S. P. units of vitamin D and not more than 15 U. S. P. units of|vitamin Bi (1 U. S. P. unit of vitamin Bi is equal to 1 International Unit of the|same vitamin).|On March 14, 1941, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|California filed a libel against 1? drums of Shores Ka-Vi-Min Tablets at Los|Angeles, Calif., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce|on or about February 28, 1940, by the Shores Co. from Cedar Rapids, Iowa; and|charging that it was adulterated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from and|its quality fell below that which it was represented to possess. It was alleged|to be misbranded in that the following statements were false and misleading,|since each tablet did not contain 140 U. S. P. units of vitamin D or 25 Interna-|tional Units of vitamin Bi: \"\"Each tablet contains * * * 140 USP units|Vitamin D\"\" and \"\"25 International units Vitamin Bi.\"\" The article was also|charged to be adulterated and misbranded under the provisions of the law|applicable to food, as reported in notices of judgment on foods.|Oh April 14, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|357. Adulteration and misbranding of Sea-Clo-400-D. U. S. v. 4 Cans of Sea Clo-400-D. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00357March 1942Sea Board Supply Co., Inc.Sea-Clo-400-DJanuary 2, 1940Martinsburg, W. Va.Philadelphia, Pa.Martinsburg, W. Va.Northern District of West Virginia357F. D. C. No. 1611. Sample No. 78465-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00357ddnj|357. Adulteration and misbranding of Sea-Clo-400-D. TJ. S. v. 4 Cans of Sea-|Clo-400-D. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C.|No. 1611. Sample No. 78465-D.)|This veterinary product contained not more than 200 A. O. A. C. chick units of|vitamin D per gram and contained less than 500 U. S. P. units of vitamin A;|whereas it was represented in the labeling that it contained 400 A. 0. A C. units|of vitamin D per gram and that it contained substantially 1,000 units of vitamin|A per gram.|On March 14,1940, the United States attorney for the Northern District of West|Virginia filed a libel against 4 50-pound cans of Sea-Clo-400-D at Martinsburg,|W. Va., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or|about January 2,1940, by Sea Board Supply Co., Inc., from Philadelphia, Pa.; and|charging that it was adulterated and misbranded. It was labeled in part: \"\"Sea-|Clo-400-D Highly Fortified Cod Liver Oil in Dry Base.\"\"|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from and|its purity fell below that which it purported or was represented to possess, that|is, it was labeled: \"\"Guaranteed to contain 400 A. O. A. C. units of Vitamin D per|gram. When this product is packed it contains more than 1000 Units of Vitamin|'A' per gram, but due to a difference of opinion of our many Authorities regarding|the stability of Vitamin 'A' from Cod Liver Oil when added to feeds,-we are|making no claim for it\"\"|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements appearing on|the label were false and misleading: \"\"Sea-Clo-400-D * * * In place of each|4? lbs. straight 85-D Oil, use 1 lb. Sea-Clo-400-D. In place of each 1 lb. For-|tified 400-D Oil, use 1 lb. Sea-Clo-400-D. For each 5 pints 85-D Oil used,|replace with 1 lb. Sea-Clo-400-D.\"\"|On November 27,1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|DRUGS AND DEVICES ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF FALSE AND|MISLEADING THERAPEUTIC CLAIMS|DRUGS ALSO FAILING TO BEAR COMMON OR USUAL NAME OR REQUIRED|INGREDIENT STATEMENT|358. Misbranding of Alpine Tea. U. S. v. 57 Packages of Alpine Tea. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00358March 1942Alpine Tea Co.Alpine TeaSeptember 2, 1939Rainier, Oreg.Detroit, Mich.Rainier, Oreg.District of Oregon358F. D. C. No. 3219. Sample No. 26435-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00358ddnj|358. Misbranding of Alpine Tea. U. S. v. 57 Packages of Alpine Tea. Default|decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 3219. Sample No.|26435-E.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-|ing its efficacy in the conditions indicated below. The statement of analysis on|the label was misleading since it represented the analysis of the ash and not of|the tea itself. Its label also failed to bear a statement of its common name.|On October 21, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of Oregon filed|a libel against 57 packages of Alpine Tea at Rainier, Oreg? alleging that the|article had been shipped in interstate commerce by the Alpine Tea Co. on or|about September 2, 1939, from Detroit, Mich.; and charging that it was mis-|branded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted of cut dried leaves of blueberry.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that representations in the labeling|that it would be efficacious to balance the deficiency of body minerals; stimulate|the pancreatic glands, kidneys, bladder, and liver; increase vitality amazingly|and almost immediately, which increase would continue throughout the day;|would help one get a good night's rest; would serve as an effective aid to the|diabetic's diet, and would decrease the need for insulin; and that it was not only|efficacious for diabetics but was also good for other ailments such as those|of the liver, spleen, kidneys, bladder, and for stomach ulcers, were false and|misleading since it would not be efficacious for such purposes.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the following statements|in the labeling, (carton) \"\"Analysis: Silica (Si03) 10.99?; Iron Oxide (Fe2Os)|1.90?; Manganese Oxide (MnaOO 5.10?; Aluminum Oxide (A1203) 11.38?;|Calcium Oxide (CaO) 21.84?; Magnesium Oxide (MgO) 7.27?; Sodium Na|(as Na20) 7.11?; Potassium K (as K20) 10.06?; Sulphate (SOs) 5.32?;|Phosphate (P205) 5.86?; Carbonate (600 10.17?; Chloride (CI) 2.00?; Free|Carbon, Charcoal, etc. 2.00?; Potassium calculated as carbonate 14.76?; Cop-|per, Tin, Lead, Arsenic, Mercury, None,\"\" were false and misleading since they|did not represent an analysis of the product itself. It was alleged to be mis-|branded further in that its label.failed to bear its common or usual name.|On November 17, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|359. Misbranding of Ancestral Oil. U. S. v. 33 Packages of Ancestral Oil. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00359March 1942Ancestral Medicine Co.Ancestral OilApril 26, 1940Kansas City, Mo.Osawatomie, Kans.Kansas City, Mo.Western District of Missouri359F. D. C. No. 2461. Sample No. 16067-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00359ddnj|359. Misbranding: of Ancestral Oil. U. S. v. 33 Packages of Ancestral Oil. Default|decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 2461. Sample No.|16067-E.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-|ing its efficacy in the conditions indicated hereinafter. Its labeling also failed to|bear an accurate statement of the quantity of the contents and the common or|usual names of the active ingredients. The product was also deceptively|packaged. It was packed in a thick-walled panel bottle with rather a long neck|which was contained in a carton, creating the impression that a larger volume of|the liquid was furnished than was actually the case.|On or about August 6, 1940, the United States attorney for the Western Dis-|trict of Missouri filed a libel against 33 packages of Ancestral Oil at Kansas City,|Mo., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|April 26, 1940, by the Ancestral Medicine Co. from Osawatomie, Kans.; and|charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of a fish oil and turpentine.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the labeling bore representa-|tions that it was efficacious in the treatment of piles, rheumatism, hay fever, lum-|bago, earache, coughs, asthma, kidney affections, croup, whooping cough, influenza,|dysentery, and bloody diarrhea, phthisis, pneumonia, bronchitis and sore throat,|for inflammation of the breasts, neuralgia, lumbago, soreness of corns and|bunions, toothache, vaginal discharge or ulcers, diphtheria, lung troubles, burn|or scald, cuts, bruises, or sprains, that it would not blister or irritate the tenderest|skin; that it would penetrate, heal, and cure; that it was efficacious for the|kidneys; would allay various forms of inflammation and pleurisy; would cut|phlegm, prevent a scar; that it was the most beneficial remedy for all ailments|the human family was heir to; that it was the best all-purpose remedy for|garget or caked udder, inflammation of the udder, and that it was excellent for|horses and would be efficacious in the treatment of all flesh wounds, which repre-|sentations were false and misleading since the article would not be efficacious for|such purposes. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the label did not|bear an accurate statement of the quantity of the contents and did not bear the|common or usual name of the active ingredients. It was alleged to be misbranded|further in that the containers were so made, formed, or filled as to be misleading.|On November 25, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|360. Adulteration and misbranding of Edwenil. U. S. v. 15 Boxes, et al., of Edwenil. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00360March 1942Spicer & Co. from Glendale, Calif.EdwenilFebruary 21 to on or about April 2, 1940New York, N. Y.Glendale, Calif.New York, N. Y.Southern District of New York360F. D. C. No. 1843. Sample Nos. 10346-E to 10349-E, incl.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00360ddnj|360. Adulteration and misbranding: of Edwenil. U. S. v. 15 Boxes, et al., of|Edwenil. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No.|1843. Sample Nos. 10346-E to 10349-E, incl.)|This product would not activate or fortify the natural defenses of the body as|represented and suggested in the labeling.|On April 24,1940, the United States attorney for the Southern District of New|York filed a libel against 15 boxes each containing 10 4-cc. vials of Edwinil; 35|boxes each containing 5 4-cc. vials of Edwenil; 10 boxes each containing 10 10-cc.|vials of Edwenil; and 79 boxes each containing 1 10-cc. vial of Edwenil at New|York, N. Y., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce|within the period from on or about February 21 to on or about April 2, 1940, by|Spicer & Co. from Glendale, Calif.; and charging that it was adulterated and|misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted of a colorless liquid carrying sus-|pended amorphous white material containing total solids (approximately 1.0 per-|cent) chiefly sodium chloride (approximately 0.8 percent) and suspended matter|(0.1 percent), chiefly silicates and phosphates, and nitrogenous matter (approxi-|mately 0.03 percent), and water.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it was represented to pos-|sess a strength and quality sufficient to activate and fortify the natural defenses of|the body against acute and chronic endotoxic infections when administered in|specified doses; whereas it did not possess the strength or quality to activate|440180?-42?i|and fortify the natural defenses of the body against acute and chronic endotoxic|infections when so administered.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that representations in the labeling that|it would be efficacious in the treatment of infections of the endotoxic type by acti-|vating the natural defenses were false and misleading since it would not be|efficacious for such purposes. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that it|was offered for sale under the name of another drug, namely, under the name|previously given to an article containing substantially different ingredients and|intended for use in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in|man.|The article, with the exception of that contained in 8 boxes each containing 10|10-ce. vials, was alleged to be misbranded further in that the label failed to bear|the common or usual name of each active ingredient.|On October 7,1940, the case having been called and the claimant having failed|to appear or answer, judgment of condemnation was entered and the product was|ordered destroyed.|361. Misbranding of World's Tonic Compound with Alkalines. U. S. v. 64 Packages of World's Tonic Compound with Alkalines. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00361March 1942World's Medicine Co.World's Tonic Compound with AlkalinesJuly 6, 1940Parkersburg, W. Va.Columbus, OhioParkersburg, W. Va.Northern District of West Virginia361F. D. C. No. 2672. Sample No. 27270-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00361ddnj|361. Misbranding of World's Tonic Compound with Alkalines. U. S. v. 64|Packages of World's Tonic Compound -with Alkalines. Default decree|of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 2672. Sample No. 27270-E.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regarding|its efficacy in the conditions indicated hereinafter, and it also failed to bear an|accurate statement of the quantity or proportion of strychnine present.|On August 28, 1940, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|West Virginia filed a libel against 64 packages of the above-named product at|Parkersburg, W. Va., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate|commerce on or about July 6, 1940, by the World's Medicine Co. from Columbus,|Ohio; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of extracts of plant drugs|including sassafras, licorice, and laxative plant drugs such as aloe and emodin-|bearing drugs, together with alcohol (12 percent), a small quantity of iron,|strychnine (not over 0.004 grain per fluid ounce, equivalent to 0.36 grain of nux|vomica), and a very small proportion of alkaline substances.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the following and similar statements|appearing in the labeling were false and misleading since it was essentially a lax-|ative and could not serve as a tonic or as a source of alkalies: (Carton, bottle, and|circular) \"\"World's Tonic Compound With Alkalines\"\"; (circular) \"\"Contains a com-|bination of especially selected herbs, barks and roots, vegetable in origin and|recognized for their merit. All Roots, Barks, Herbs, etc., used in World's Tonic|and imported from Foreign Countries are Examined by the United States Depart-|ment of Agriculture. * * * The number of bottles of World's Tonic Com-|pound with alkalines one should take to bring about the best results varies ac-|cording to the condition of the person.\"\" It was alleged to be misbranded further|in that the label did not bear a statement of the quantity or proportion of strych-|nine since the statements \"\"Nux Vomica 3 grains to each fluid ounce, containing|1.15? of a grain of strychnine to each grain of nux vomica,\"\" borne on the label,|was incorrect.|On January 7, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|362. Misbranding of hair tonic. U. S. v. 72 Pint Bottles of Red Fox Quinine Hair Tonic. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00362March 1942Healox Co., Inc.hair tonicNovember 12, 1940Jacksonville, Fla.Brooklyn, N. Y.Jacksonville, Fla.Southern District of Florida362F. D. C. No. 3621. Sample No. 20735-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00362ddnj|362. Misbranding of hair tonic. U. S. v. 72 Pint Bottles of Red Fox Quinine Hair|Tonic. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No.|3621. Sample No. 20735-E.)|The labels of this product failed to bear a statement of the active ingredients|and an accurate statement of the quantity of the contents, and some failed to bear|a statement of the quantity or proportion of alcohol. Moreover, it would not be|efficacious as a hair tonic as represented on the labels, nor would it be efficacious|for the relief of dandruff as represented on some of the labels.|On January 2, 1941, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|Florida filed a libel against 72 pint bottles of Red Fox Quinine Hair Tonic at|Jacksonville, Fla., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate com-|merce from Brooklyn, N. Y., by the Healox Co., Inc., on or about November 12.|1940; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that it consisted essentially of alcohol, water, and small|amounts of brucine and perfume material. It contained no quinine.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements \"\"Quinine (|Hair Tonic\"\" on all the labels, and \"\"Relieves Dandruff,\"\" appearing on some of the V|labels were false and misleading, since it was not efficacious for the purposes|recommended.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that its label did not bear an|accurate statement of the quantity of the contents; and in that the label did not|bear the common or usual names of the active ingredients, and some of the labels|did not bear a statement of the quantity or proportion of alcohol that it contained.|On March 11, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|380. Misbranding of Colusa Natural Oil. U. S. v. 12 Bottles of Colusa Natural Oil. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00380March 1942C. W. ColgroveColusa Natural OilMay 21, 1940Kansas City, Mo.Hollywood, Calif.Kansas City, Mo.Western District of Missouri380F. D. C. No. 2264. Sample No. 16069-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00380ddnj|380. Misbranding of Colusa Natural Oil. TJ. S. v. 12 Bottles of Colusa Natural Oil. '|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 2264.|Sample No. 16069-E.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-|ing it's efficacy in the conditions indicated hereinafter.|On or about July 9, 1940, the United States attorney for the Western District|of Missouri filed a libel against 12 2-ounce bottles of Colusa Natural Oil at|Kansas City, Mo., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate com-|merce on or about May 21, 1940, from Hollywood, Calif., by C. W. Colgrove;|and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted of crude petroleum oil.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that representations in the labeling|that it was efficacious in the treatment of athlete's foot or ringworm; that it|was efficacious to relieve painful and irritating itching and unsightly blemishes|on hands; that it was efficacious in the treatment of eczema, psoriasis, acne,|foot burns and cuts and poison oak; that it was efficacious on surface skin|irritations acting as a stimulant increasing circulation and thereby aiding in|the healing; that it possessed penetrating qualities and reducing properties|which would help relieve the discomfort and pain; and that it possessed deter-|gent and mild antiseptic action which would inhibit the spreading of skin|irritations and help restore the normal skin surface, were false and misleading|since it would not be efficacious for such purposes.|On August 3, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|363. Misbranding of Wonder Dandruff Cure. U. S. v. 69 Bottles of Wonder Dandruff Cure. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00363March 1942Wonder Dandruff Cure Co.Wonder Dandruff CureAugust 3, 1940Eugene, Oreg.Cedar Rapids, IowaEugene, Oreg.District of Oregon363F. D. C. No. 3721. Sample No. 52198-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00363ddnj|363. Misbranding of Wonder Dandruff Cure. U. S. v. 69 Bottles of Wonder|Dandruff Cure. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C.|No. 3721. Sample No. 52198-E.)|The label of this product contained false and misleading representations re-|garding its efficacy in the conditions indicated below. It also failed to bear a|statement of the quantity and proportion of alcohol and arsenic and an accurate|statement of the quantity of contents.|On January 29, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Oregon|filed a libel against 69 bottles of Wonder Dandruff Cure at Eugene, Oreg., alleging|that the article had been shipped on or about August 3, 1940, by the Wonder|Dandruff Cure Co. from Cedar Rapids, Iowa; and charging that it was mis-|branded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it was an artificially colored,|perfumed aqueous fluid containing arsenic, alcohol, and glycerin.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements|appearing in the labeling were false and misleading since it was not efficacious for|the purposes recommended: \"\"Wonder Dandruff Cure * * * positively eradi-|cates dandruff, restores lifeless hair to a healthy natural condition and prevents|it from coming out, stops irritation and itching of the scalp. The Wonder|Dandruff Cure Company. Apply to scalp with fingers not more than three times|a week until dandruff disappears.\"\"|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the label did not bear the|common or usual name of each active ingredient, an accurate statement of the|quantity and proportion of alcohol, nor the quantity or proportion of arsenic or|any derivative or preparation of arsenic.|On March 11, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|364. Misbranding of Marie de Medicis Scalp Food. U. S. v. 9 1/12 Dozen Retail Packages of Marie de Medicis Scalp Food. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00364March 1942Marie de Medicis Products Co.Marie de Medicis Scalp FoodSeptember 30, 1940Baltimore, Md.Philadelphia, Pa.Baltimore, Md.District of Maryland364F. D. C. No. 3976. Sample No. 28151-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00364ddnj|364. Misbranding: of Marie de Medicis Scalp Food. V. S. v. 9\\{2 Dozen Retail|Packages of Marie de Medicis Scalp Food. Default decree of condemna-|tion and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 3976. Sample No. 28151-E.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-|ing its efficacy in the conditions indicated hereinafter.|On March 14, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Maryland|filed a libel against 9?2 dozen retail packages of Marie de Medicis Scalp Food|at Baltimore, Md., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate,|commerce on or about September 30, 1940, from Philadelphia, Pa., by Marie|de Medicis Products Co.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted of a perfumed brown ointment|containing free sulfur, lanolin, and petrolatum.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that representations in the label-|ing regarding its efficacy to make the hair beautiful and healthy, to nourish|the scalp, to loosen a dry scalp; and its efficacy in the treatment of dandruff,|falling hair, itching scalp, and various scalp ills, were false and misleading|since it was not efficacious for the purposes recommended. It was alleged|to be misbranded further in that it was fabricated from two or more ingredients|and the label did not bear the common or usual name of each active ingredient.|On April 16, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|365. Misbranding of Iodimelk. U. S. v. 151 1/2 Gallons of Iodimelk. Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered released under bond to be relabeled.ddnj00365March 1942Dawes Products Co.IodimelkJune 8, 1940Chicago, Ill.Denver, Colo.Chicago, Ill.Northern District of Illinois365F. D. C. No. 2400. Sample No. 4526-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00365ddnj|365. Misbranding' of Iodimelk. TJ. S. v. 151% Gallons of Iodimelk. Consent decree|of condemnation. Product ordered released under bond to be relabeled.|(P. D. C. No. 2400. Sample No. 4526-E.)|The labeling of this veterinary product contained false and misleading repre:|sentations regarding its efficacy in the conditions indicated below, and it also|failed to bear certain information required by law.|On or about July 26,1940, the United States attorney for the Northern District|of Illinois filed a libel against 151? gallons of Iodimelk at Chicago, 111., alleging|that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about June 8,|1940, by the Dawes Products Co. from Denver, Colo.; and charging that it was|misbranded.|Analysis showed that it consisted essentially of concentrated buttermilk and|combined iodine.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements|in the labeling were false and misleading since they represented that it was|efficacious for the purposes recommended ; whereas it was not efficacious for such|purposes: \"\"Digestive Tract Control of Cocci * * * An Aid in Control of|Coccidiosis Blackhead in Poultry Ducks Turkeys Game Fowls.\"\" It was alleged|to be misbranded further in that the label failed to bear an accurate statement|of the quantity of contents; in that the label failed to bear the name and|address of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor; and in that it failed to|bear the common or usual names of the active ingredients of the article.|On September 6, 1940, the Dawes Products Co., claimant, having admitted|the allegations of the libel and having consented to the entry of a decree,|judgment of condemnation was entered and it was ordered that the product be|released under bond for relabeling under the supervision of the Food and Drug|Administration.|366. Misbranding of Ko-Ex-7 Powder and Ko-Ex-7 Mastitis Detector. U. S. v. 11 Packages of Ko-Ex-7 Powder and 11 Packages of Ko-Ex-7 Mastitis Detector. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00366March 1942Sunset Feed & Grain Co., Inc.Ko-Ex-7 Powder and Ko-Ex-7 Mastitis DetectorMay 3, 1940Meadville, Pa.Buffalo, N. Y.Meadville, Pa.Western District of Pennsylvania366F. D. C. Nos. 2250, 2251. Sample Nos. 3665-E, 3666-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00366ddnj|366. Misbranding of Ko-Ex-7 Powder and Ko-Ex-7 Mastitis Detector. U. S.|v. 11 Packages of Ko-Ex-7 Powder and 11 Packages of Ko-Ex-7 Mastitis|Detector. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos.|2250, 2251. Sample Nos. 3665-E, 3666-E.)|The labeling of these veterinary products bore false and misleading representa-|tions regarding their efficacy in the conditions indicated hereinafter. The label|of the Mastitis Detector failed to bear the common or usual name of the active|ingredient, namely, bromthymol blue.|On June 25, 1940, the United States attorney for the Western District of Penn-|sylvania filed libels against 11 16-ounce packages of Ko-Ex-7 Powder and 11|packages of Ko-Ex-7 Mastitis Detector at Meadville, Pa., alleging that the articles|had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about May 3,1940, by the Sunset|Feed & Grain Co., Inc., from Buffalo, N. Y.; and charging that they were mis-|branded.|Analysis showed that the Ko-Ex-7 Powder consisted essentially of potassium|nitrate, ferrous sulfate, boric acid, together with small proportions of ammonia|and plant material; and that the Ko-Ex-7 Mastitis Detector consisted of a square|of blotting paper, a portion of which had been impregnated with an indicator such|as bromthymol blue, the purpose of which was to determine whether a solution|placed thereon was acid or alkaline in reaction.|The mastitis detector was alleged to be misbranded in that the following state-|ments in the labeling were false and misleading: \"\"To stop losses from Mastitis1-|Use the Ko-Ex-7 Mastitis Detector * * * If detector shows milk derangement|segregate cow at once, and begin treatment.\"\" It was alleged to be misbranded|further in that the label failed to bear the common or usual name of the active|ingredient.|The Ko-Ex-7 Powder was alleged to be misbranded in that representations in|the labeling that it was efficacious in the treatment of mastitis, or garget, that|it would help correct faulty metabolism, that it would bring about normal milk|secretion, that it would be efficacious to control mastitis and stop mastitis losses,|were false and misleading since it would not be efficacious for such purposes.|On July 30, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgments of condemnation|were entered and the products were ordered destroyed.|CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS|367. Misbranding of Axine Plates. U. S. v. Walter Gordon Pervis. Tried to the court and a jury. Verdict of guilty. Defendant sentenced to 6 months in jail and $1,000 fine. Jail sentence suspended and defendant placed on probation for 2 years.ddnj00367March 1942Walter Gordon Pervis, of Tennille, Ga.Axine PlatesSeptember 30, 1939GeorgiaGeorgiaMissouriMiddle District of Georgia367F. D. C. No. 958. Sample No. 72023-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00367ddnj|367. Misbranding of Axlne Plates. IT. S. v. Walter Gordon Pervis. Tried to the|court and a jury. Verdict of guilty. Defendant sentenced to 6 months|In jail and $1,000 fine. Jail sentence suspended and defendant placed on|probation for 2 years. (F. D. C. No. 958. Sample No. 72023-D.)|The labeling of this device bore false and misleading representations and|designs regarding its efficacy in the conditions indicated below.|On June 1, 1940, the United States attorney for the Middle District of Georgia|filed an information against Walter Gordon Pervis, of Tennille, Ga., alleging|shipment on or about September 30,1939, from the State of Georgia into the State|of Missouri of a quantity of Axine Plates which were misbranded. Accompany-|ing the article was a circular headed \"\"Health Without Medicine\"\" which bore a|design showing two individuals, one an invalid on crutches opposite whom|was a figure purporting to be the same individual but healthy and vigorous.|Emanating from the heels of the healthy individual were radiations indicating|electrical energy. Underneath the design were the words \"\"Vigor\"\" and \"\"Produced|by Electricity in the Human Body.\"\"|Examination showed that the article consisted of two plates, of which one|consisted essentially of copper and the other consisted essentially of zinc.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the above-described design|and certain statements in the circular represented that it would produce|health and vigor by means of electricity in the human body; would relieve the|stiffness of old age and make one feel young again; would rid the blood of|uric acid; would be efficacious in the mitigation, treatment, and prevention of|high blood pressure, low blood pressure, headache, asthma, paralysis, kidney|trouble, rheumatism and diabetes, eczema, cold hands and feet, poor circula-|tion; and would be efficacious \"\"to draw the acid from the larynx glands and|thus stop excessive coughing of asthma,\"\" were false and misleading since the|article would not be efficacious for such purposes. The article was alleged to|be misbranded further in that certain statements in the circular were false|and misleading since they represented that uric acid forms in the stomach;|that it forms as the result of eating food that disagrees with the stomach;|that the acid then filters through the blood and travels through the blood as a|very fine crystal; that the device consisted of a composition of metals which|\"\"would act upon the human electricity, and would make human electricity fast\"\";|that it would heat the blood about 2 degrees, and thus dissolve uric acid in|the blood; that uric acid would pass through the blood into the device, i. e.,|metal plates worn in the heels of the shoes; whereas uric acid does not form|in the stomach, it does not form as the result of eating food that disagrees|with the stomach; it does not filter through the blood and travel through the|blood as a very fine crystal; the device would not act upon human electricity,|and would not make human electricity fast; it would not heat the blood about|2 degrees, and would not dissolve uric acid in the blood; and uric acid would|not pass through the blood into the device. The article was alleged to be mis-|branded further in that certain statements in the circular represented that the|cause of high blood pressure is the uric acid crystals stopping in the arteries,|hardening the arteries and enlarging the heart; that the device would stimulate|one's own electric current; that the electric current would pass through|the brain and dissolve and draw away clot on the brain caused by high blood|pressure; whereas the cause of high blood pressure is not uric acid crystals|stopping in the arteries, hardening the arteries and enlarging the heart; the|device would not stimulate one's own electric current; and the electric current|would not pass through the brain and dissolve and draw away the clot on|the brain caused by high blood pressure. It was alleged to be misbranded|further in that certain statements in the labeling represented that uric acid|stiffens the prostate gland; that because of uric acid the prostate gland stands|open and will not \"\"pan down\"\"; that failure of the prostate glands to \"\"pan|down\"\" causes diabetes; that the device would produce heat by the metals|acting as a battery on the human electricity; that the heat produced by the|device would cause the prostate gland to \"\"pan down\"\" and relieve the patient,|which representations were entirely false and misleading, since uric acid does|not stiffen the prostate gland and cause it to stand open and fail to \"\"pan|down\"\"; the failure of the prostate gland to \"\"pan down\"\" does not cause dia-|betes ; the device would not produce heat by the metals acting as a battery on|the human electricity; and it would not cause the prostate gland to \"\"pan|down\"\" and relieve the patient entirely.|On November 11, 1940, a plea of not guilty having been entered, the case|came on for trial before the court and jury. The trial was concluded on|November 13, 1940, on which date the court delivered the following instructions|to the jury:|DEAVER, Judge: \"\"Gentlemen of the Jury. Without attempting to state to|you all the provisions of the Food and Drug Act, it is only necessary for me|to state one provision of it, and that is very short and simple. Congress has|made it a crime to ship in interstate commerce, that is to say from one State|into another State, any device which is misbranded. Now, misbranded under|the terms of the statute is this: A device is misbranded when the label and|statements in connection with it are false or misleading. That is the whole|provision of the law applicable to this case.|\"\"Now, the information in this case, which you will have out with you, is|somewhat long but it charges in substance that this defendant shipped in inter-|state commerce a certain device, which you already know about, certain heel|plates known as Axine Plates, from this State into another State, and that the|shipment was misbranded, that the device was misbranded; that is to say, that|the statements or representations on the label or these circulars, which you have|seen here in evidence and which you will have out with you, are false or mis-|leading. Now, that is the question that you are to determine, whether the label|or statements in connection with this device are false or misleading.|\"\"Now, you will find in this indictment set out, I take it-I haven't read it|but I think that you will find that true, you may read it all if you care to-|the statements which were either on the label or in these circulars and the|allegations in the information that certain things in here are false or misleading,|and you will follow that right straight on through.|' It sets out one provision|after another and then alleges that those statements are false or misleading in|certain respects.|\"\"Now, to that charge the defendant has entered on the back of this informa-|tion a plea of not guilty. That plea is in substance a denial of every essential|allegation in the information, and the information together with the plea of|not guilty makes up an issue of fact, a question of fact, for this jury to determine.|\"\"Then, the trial begins and the burden is on the Government to produce evi-|dence sufficient to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant|is guilty, as charged.|\"\"In the beginning of the trial, the defendant is presumed to be innocent and|that presumption continues unless it is overcome by the testimony in the case,|testimony sufficient to overcome the presumption and to convince the jury beyond|a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.|\"\"The testimony has been somewhat long, necessarily long. There is no criti-|cism of anybody in that connection because it was necessary to bring you the|evidence bearing on this question and you are to take all of that evidence on|both sides and consider all of it, oral testimony and documentary testimony, and|say from it all what you honestly believe about it, what your honest conviction|is as to whether the statements made by the defendant in these circulars or|printed matter sent out with the shipment are false or misleading. If those|statements are false and misleading, then the shipment was misbranded and,|therefore, the shipping constituted a crime.|\"\"That is all there is to the case. I say there is a lot of testimony but the|question to be decided is very simple and easy to state.|\"\"Now, I might just repeat it this one time: You determine from all the evi-|dence in the case whether the statements made by this defendant in connection|with the shipment of these heel plates are false or misleading. Oh, of course,|there are a great many facts set out here in the information that are necessary|with reference to jurisdiction and shipment in interstate commerce and various|things of that sort, but, as you have heard here in the trial of this case, there|is really no dispute between the parties here as to any of those things, and that's|the reason why I say you haven't got but one question. It is admitted, I believe,|here that the shipments were made in interstate commerce, that they contained|these circulars and these representations and all those various things, and for|that reason I say you have, in substance, only the one question to decide: Were|these statements false or misleading? If they were, then he is guilty. If they|were not, or if the Government has failed to convince you beyond a reasonable|doubt that they are, then you ought to turn the defendant loose.|\"\"You will write your verdict on the back of this information. There is a blank|verdict there that you can fill out and let your foreman sign it, date it, and,|if you think under all this testimony that the statements and representations|made are false or misleading, then you ought to find this verdict, 'We the jury|find the defendant guilty.' If you think the Government has failed to carry|the burden of showing that fact, then your verdict ought to be, 'We the jury|find the defendant not guilty.'\"\"|Mr. DAVIS. \"\"Your Honor, will you charge the jury that if they find that any|of the statements are false, they should find the defendant guilty? There are|quite a number of statements on there. They wouldn't have to find all of them|were false.\"\"|\"\"Yes, any of the statements, gentlemen of the jury, which in this information|are alleged to be false or misleading. It wouldn't be necessary to prove that|every statement in the circular or every statement set out in the copy of the|circulars or representations in this information is false or misleading, but it is|necessary to find, in order for you to find the defendant guilty, that some state-|ment copied in this information and alleged to be false or misleading is false|or misleading.\"\"|The jury retired and after due deliberation returned a verdict of guilty, and|the court sentenced the defendant to 6 months in jail and imposed a fine of|$1,000. On December 12, 1940, the court suspended the 6-months' jail sentence|and placed the defendant on probation for 2 years.|368. Misbranding of Dr. Burnham's San-Yak K-L-B Pills. U. S. v. Robert H. Lee (Lee Chemical Co.). Plea of guilty. Sentence: 6 months' imprisonment which was suspended and defendant placed on probation for 2 years. Fine of $100 also imposed.ddnj00368March 1942Robert H. Lee, trading as Lee Chemical Co. at Birmingham, Mich.Dr. Burnham's San-Yak K-L-B PillsMarch 15, 1940MichiganMichiganIndianaEastern District of Michigan368F. D. C. No. 2106. Sample No. 5761-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00368ddnj|368. Misbranding: of Dr. Burnham's San-Yak K-L-B Pills. IT. S. v. Robert H.|Lee (Lee Chemical Co.). Plea of guilty. Sentence: 6 months' imprison-|ment which -was suspended and defendant placed on probation for 2 years.|Fine of $100 also imposed. (F. D. C. No. 2106. Sample No. 5761-E.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-|ing its efficacy in the conditions indicated below and falsely represented that|it complied with the law.|On September 5, 1940, the United States attorney for the Eastern District|of Michigan filed an information against Robert H. Lee, trading as Lee Chemical|Co. at Birmingham, Mich., alleging shipment on or about March 15, 1940, from|the State of Michigan into the State of Indiana of a quantity of the above-|named product which was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article contained extracts of plant drugs including|cinchona, sandalwood, and a laxative drug, and compounds of magnesium, calcium,|and iron.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that representations in the|labeling that it would be efficacious in establishing proper functioning of the|kidneys and liver; that it would be beneficial in correcting rheumatism, sugar|in the blood and high blood pressure; that it was an efficacious treatment and|remedy for kidney, liver, and bladder disorders; that it would reduce sugar|in the blood and urine, would relieve frequent urination, would alleviate|aches and pains in the back and joints, and was efficacious in the treatment|of constipation and piles; and that \"\"each and all of the 15 ingredients used|in the composition of the article were not misbranded within the meaning of the|Pure Food and Drug Act,\"\" were false and misleading since the article would|not be efficacious for the purposes claimed and was misbranded within the|meaning of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.|. On November 29, 1940, a plea of guilty having been entered, the court imposed|a fine of $100 and sentenced the defendant to 6 months' imprisonment, which|sentence was suspended for a period of 2 years and the defendant was placed|on probation for the same period.|393. Misbranding of Vitaphore. U. S. v. 11 Devices labeled in part \"\"Vitaphore.\"\" Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00393March 1942Vitaphore Appliances, Inc.VitaphoreApril 27, 1940Glendale, Calif.South Bend, Ind.Glendale, Calif.Southern District of California393F. D. C. No. 2231. Sample No. 7610-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00393ddnj|393. Misbranding of Vitaphore. U. S. v. 11 Devices labeled in part \"\"Vitaphore.\"\"|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 2231. Sample|No. 7610-E.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-|ing its efficacy in the conditions indicated hereinafter.|On June 20, 1940, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|California filed a libel against 11 of the above-named devices at Glendale, Calif.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|April 27, 1940, by Vitaphore Appliances, Inc., from South Bend, Ind.; and|charging that it was misbranded.|Examination showed that the article was an electrical device so constructed|as to apply vibration and heat to the body.|The device was alleged to be misbranded in that representations in the|labeling that it was efficacious to improve the complexion, to maintain a skin of|delicate charm and texture, to enable one to gain and retain vital health, buoy-|ant youthfulness and glowing beauty; to soothe tired, sagging facial muscles,|to strengthen and build firm tissues, to produce a youthful, healthy glow, to|open the pores and penetrate dormant cells and tissues, to rejuvenate and restore|at once; that it was efficacious in the treatment of headaches, incipient colds,|neuritis, sinus pains, acne, scars, large pores, rough, reddened skin; that|wrinkles and laughter lines would be miraculously erased; that it was efficacious|in the treatment of oily skin, head colds, hay fever, skin diseases, varicose veins,|asthma, backache, boils, carbuncles, bronchitis, croup, catarrh, constipation,|earache, eyestrain, fatigue, falling hair, influenza, insomnia, painful or delayed|menstruation, nervousness, pleurisy, pyorrhea, sciatica, stiff neck, tired feet, and|pelvic and abdominal cramps, were false and misleading since it would not be|efficacious for such purposes.|On August 12, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|370. Misbranding of Elga Bust Developer. U. S. v. Myrtle E. Edwards (Elga Laboratories). Plea of guilty. Defendant placed on probation for a period of 4 years.ddnj00370March 1942Myrtle E. Edwards, trading as Elga Laboratories at San Francisco, Calif.Elga Bust DeveloperJanuary 29, 1940CaliforniaCaliforniaOhioNorthern District of California370F. D. C. No. 2115. Sample No. 5904-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00370ddnj|370. Misbranding of Elga Bust Developer. U. S. v. Myrtle E. Edwards (Elga|Laboratories). Plea of guilty. Defendant placed on probation for a|period of 4 years. (F. D. C. No. 2115. Sample No. 5904-E.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-|ing its efficacy in the conditions indicated below.|On September 11, 1940, the United States attorney for the Northern District|of California filed an information against Myrtle E. Edwards, trading as Elga|Laboratories at San Francisco, Calif., alleging shipment on or about January 29,|1940, from the State of California into the State of Ohio of a quantity of Elga|Bust Developer that was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of invert sugar, small|proportions of calcium phosphate, and extracts of plant drugs, and water, colored|with a red dye.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, \"\"Elga Bust Developer.|A Specialized normalizing Food designed to supplement nature, feeding sys-|temically the sensitive, delicate, starved cells of immature, sagging or depleted|breasts,\"\" borne on the bottle label, were false and misleading since they repre-|sented that it would develop the bust, that it was a specialized normalizing food|designed to supplement nature, that it would feed systemically the sensitive,|delicate, starved cells of immature, sagging, or depleted breasts, and that it was|strictly a food; whereas it would not be efficacious for such purposes and it was|not strictly a food, but was a drug. The article was also alleged to be mis-|branded under the provisions of the law applicable to food, as reported in|F. N. J. No. 2096.|On February 4, 1941, a plea of guilty having been entered, the court placed|the defendant on probation for a period of 4 years.|371. Misbranding of Hannon's Rub External Treatment. U. S. v. Hannon Medi cines, Inc., and Louis A. Hannon. Pleas of guilty. Fines, $100.ddnj00371March 1942Hannon Medicines, Inc., Brookhaven, Miss., and Louis A. HannonHannon's Rub External TreatmentApril 29, 1940MississippiMississippiLouisianaSouthern District of Mississippi371F. D. C. No. 2846. Sample No. 9563-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00371ddnj|371. Misbranding of Hannon's Rub External Treatment. U. S. v. Hannon Medi|cines, Inc., and Louis A. Hannon. Pleas of guilty. Fines, 8100. (F. D. C.|No. 2846. Sample No. 9563-E.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regarding|its efficacy in the conditions indicated hereinafter. The cartons for both sizes|were unnecessarily large. The 1-ounce bottle occupied approximately 32 percent|and the 2-ounce bottle approximately 38 percent of the space in the carton.|On April 19, 1941, the United States attorney for the Southern District of Mis-|sissippi filed an information against Hannon Medicines, Inc., Brookhaven, Miss.,|and Louis A. Hannon, alleging shipment on or about April 29, 1940, from the|State of Mississippi into the State of Louisiana of a quantity of Hannon's Rub|External Treatment which was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of camphor, soap, chloro-|form, water, and alcohol.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that certain statements in the|labeling were false and misleading in that they represented that it was efficacious|in the treatment of rheumatism, arthritis, neuritis, croup, coughs, laryngitis,|chest colds, paroxysms due to asthma, menstrual colic, sciatica, bursitis, lumbago|and backache; that it would relieve severe sprains, headache, neuralgia, or|rheumatism; that it was efficacious in the treatment of stiff muscles and joints|which accompany rheumatism, lumbago, and neuralgia; whereas it would not be|efficacious for such purposes. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that|its container, i. e., carton, was so made, formed, or filled as to be misleading.|On May 5, 1941, pleas of guilty having been entered, the court sentenced the|corporation and the individual each to pay a fine of $50.|372. Misbranding of Dr. Hunt's Cervical Spine Relaxer. U. S. v. Dr. Albert Thurlow Hunt. Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $50.ddnj00372March 1942Dr. Albert Thurlow Hunt, Los Angeles, Calif.Dr. Hunt's Cervical Spine RelaxerJanuary 3, 1940CaliforniaCaliforniaTexasSouthern District of California372F. D. C. No. 2110. Sample No. 11019-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00372ddnj|372. Misbranding of Dr. Hunt's Cervical Spine Relaxer. U. S. v. Or. Albert|Thurlow Hunt. Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, 850. (F. D. C. No. 2110.|Sample No. 11019-E.)|The labeling of this device bore false and misleading representations regard-|ing its efficacy in the conditions indicated hereinafter.|On October 14, 1940, the United States attorney for the Southern District|of California filed an information against Dr. Albert Thurlow Hunt, Los|Angeles, Calif., alleging shipment on or about January 3, 1940, from the State|of California into the State of Texas of a device known as Dr. Hunt's Cervical|Spine Relaxer which was misbranded.|Examination showed that the device consisted of a sling fitting under the|chin and around the back of the neck and riveted to a horizontal bar. A|block and tackle were used to operate the device. One end of this block and|tackle was inserted in the horizontal bar and the bar was to be fastened to|a hook over a door or to some overhead point. The block and tackle were|manipulated to cause a stretching of the operator's neck.|The device was alleged to be misbranded in that certain statements and|designs appearing in the circular were false and misleading in that they|represented that it was an effective and competent treatment to prevent|the following disorders, or to overcome them if they already existed: Functional|disorders of the head, throat and neck, headaches, insomnia, hay fever, nasal|catarrh', catarrhal deafness, enlarged tonsils, sinus troubles, pyorrhea, eye|troubles, goiter, apoplexy, neck, shoulder and arm neuralgia, brachial neuralgia,|draining sinuses, head noises, dizziness, tonsillitis, sinus congestion, bronchitis,|bronchial asthma, eyestrain and crossed eyes, mastoid abscess, angina pectoris,|mental aberration, curvature of the spine, exophthalmic goiter, laryngitis,|various heart troubles, and many other distressing conditions which are bene-|fited by improved circulation; that it constituted an effective and competent|self-administered home treatment of many serious and painful disorders;|that it would bring about the restoration of normal circulation; that it would|give complete relief with no other treatment; that it was the best possible|self-administered treatment for the relief of that great intractable group of|head and throat disorders so disappointingly treated by other measures, that|is, that it was an effective and competent treatment for said disorders; and|that it would relax the cervical spine; whereas it was not an effective or|competent treatment for such purposes.|On October 14, 1940, the defendant having entered a plea of nolo contendere,|the court imposed a fine of $50.|373. Misbranding of Rogers' Mineral Extract. U. S. v. Lafayette Rogers (The Rogers Mineral Co.) Plea of nolo contendere. Fine. $25.ddnj00373March 1942Lafayette Rogers, trading as the Rogers Mineral Co., Cullomburg, Ala.Rogers' Mineral ExtractJanuary 25, 1940AlabamaAlabamaMississippiSouthern District of Alabama373F. D. C. No. 2111. Sample No. 61879-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00373ddnj|373. Misbranding of Rogers' Mineral Extract. IT. S. v. Lafayette Rogers (The|Rogers Mineral Go.) Plea of nolo contendere. Fine. $25. (F. D. C. No.|2111. Sample No. 61879-D.)|The label of this product bore false and misleading representations regarding|its efficacy in the conditions indicated hereinafter.|On September 25, 1940, the United States attorney for the Southern District|of Alabama filed an information against Lafayette Rogers, trading as the Rogers|Mineral Co., Cullomburg, Ala., alleging shipment on or about January 25, 1940,|from the State of Alabama into the State of Mississippi of a quantity of Rogers'|Mineral Extract which was misbranded. The article was labeled in part: \"\"Rogers'|Mineral Extract Formerly Known as Acid Iron Earth.\"\"|Analysis showed that the article was a water solution containing approximately|6 percent of mineral matter, mainly, iron, aluminum, and sodium sulfates.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that certain statements in the|labeling were false and misleading in that they represented that it was ef-|ficacious in the internal and external treatment of indigestion, liver, kidneys|and blood, hemorrhage of lungs, early stages of consumption, lung trouble,|diarrhea or any bowel trouble, pellagra, rheumatism, cuts, burns, sores of all|kinds, bruises, scalds, inactive liver, ulcerated stomach, liver and kidney trouble,|flux and dysentery and other spring and summer diseases, run-down condition,|ulcers, early stages of eczema, backache and general weakness, \"\"T. B. of the|bone,\"\" and skin diseases; that it was efficacious to prevent malaria, to regulate|the appetite and to \"\"cause the food to assimilate, which means strength, health|and happiness\"\"; that it was efficacious as a blood purifier; would remove pimples|from the face; that it was a natural remedy and purifier which would cooperate|with the blood system and action of the body, and thus give nature an opportunity|to restore to the body that which it had lost; that it would cause the body to|legain strength and its proper functioning power; that it possessed healing power;|that it would insure health; that it was efficacious as a system builder; that it was|efficacious to prevent cholera in hogs and chickens, and that it was efficacious in|the treatment of sorehead in chickens; whereas it was not efficacious for such|purposes.|On November 8, 1940, the defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere and the|court imposed a fine of $25.|374. Misbranding of Sun Dried Nova Scotia Dulse. U. S. v. Gus E. Sjoberg (Coffin Fish Co.). Plea of nolo contendere. Fine of $150 on count 1. Imposition of sentence suspended on count 2 and defendant placed on probation for 9 months.ddnj00374March 1942Gus E. Sjoberg, trading as the Coffin Fish Co. at Seattle, Wash.Sun Dried Nova Scotia DulseAugust 23 and December 27, 1939WashingtonWashingtonCalifornia and OregonWestern District of Washington374F. D. C. No. 2094. Sample Nos. 73116-D, 83523-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00374ddnj|374. Misbranding of Sun Dried Nova Scotia Dulse. U. S. v. Gus E. Sjoberg|(Coffin Fish Co.). Plea of nolo contendere. Fine of $150 on count 1.|Imposition of sentence suspended on count 2 and defendant placed on|probation for 9 months. (F. D. C. No. 2094. Sample Nos. 73116-D, 83523-D.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regarding|its efficacy in the conditions indicated below.|On August 22, 1940, the United States attorney for the Western District of|Washington filed an information against Gus E. Sjoberg, trading as the Coffin Fish|Co. at Seattle, Wash., alleging shipment on or about August 23 and December 27,|1939, from the State of Washington into the States of California and Oregon of|quantities of dulse that was misbranded. It was labeled in part: \"\"Sun Dried|Nova Scotia Dulse * * * Imported and Packed by Coffin Fish Co. Seattle,|U. S. A.\"\"|Examination showed that the article was a dark brown vegetable material,|apparently dried seaweed.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that representations on the cartons|and in the circulars that it would be efficacious in the treatment of goiter and con-|stipation ; would be efficacious for preventing scurvy; would be efficacious in the|prevention of all diseases of the thyroid; would maintain resistance of the body|to infection ; would be efficacious as a stimulant and benefit to the stomach; would|have a wonderfully soothing effect in cases of intestinal flu, colds in the throat|or lungs; and that physicians would advise the use of the article in all troubles|resulting from an insufficient daily supply of iodine, were false and misleading|since it would not be efficacious for the said purposes and since physicians would|not advise its use in all troubles resulting from an insufficient daily supply of|iodine.|On December 20, 1940, a plea of nolo contendere having been entered by the|defendant, the court imposed a fine of $150 on count 1. Imposition of sentence|was suspended on count 2 and the defendant was placed on probation for 9 months.|375. Misbranding of World Famous New Life Laxative Tonic. U. S. v. Harry B. Kahng (New Life Laboratories and Oriental New Life Medicine Co.). Tried to a jury. Verdict of guilty. Defendant placed on probation for 1 year.ddnj00375March 1942Harry B. Kahng, trading as the New Life Laboratories and as the Oriental New Life Medicine Co. at Atlanta, Ga.World Famous New Life Laxative TonicOctober 2 and December 7, 1939GeorgiaGeorgiaAlabama and FloridaNorthern District of Georgia375F. D. C. No. 952. Sample Nos. 5425-D, 82986-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00375ddnj|375. Misbranding of World Famous New Life Laxative Tonic. U. S. v. Harry B.|Kahng (New Life Laboratories and Oriental New Life Medicine Co.).|Tried to a jury. Verdict of guilty. Defendant placed on probation for 1|year. (F. D. C. No. 952. Sample Nos. 5425-D, 82986-D.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-|ing its composition and its efficacy in the conditions indicated below, and falsely|represented that the article contained no harmful or habit-forming drugs.|On June 18, 1940, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Georgia filed an information against Harry B. Kahng, trading as the New Life|Laboratories and as the Oriental New Life Medicine Co. at Atlanta, Ga., alleging|shipment on or about October 2 and December 7, 1939, from the State of Georgia|into the States of Alabama and Florida of quantities of the above-named drug|product which was misbranded.|Analyses showed the article contained Epsom salt, free sulfur, senna, anise,|cascara, licorice, and unidentified substances.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, \"\"New|Life * * * System Cleanser and Tonic for Every Member of the Family|*?* * A Real Remedy for every one,\"\" borne on the cartons, were false and|misleading in that they represented that it would be efficacious in producing the|improvement in health, well-being, and vigor implied in the expression \"\"New|Life\"\"; that it would be efficacious as a system cleanser and tonic for every member|of the family and was a real remedy for everyone; whereas it would not be|efficacious for such purposes.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the statements, \"\"Highly recom-|mended for constipation, the usual cause of stomach disorder, kidney, bladder|trouble, gas pains, biliousness, thus promoting better health in general and bring|resistance to many common diseases,\"\" borne on the cartons, were false and|misleading in that they represented that constipation is the usual cause of stomach|disorders, kidney and bladder troubles, gas pains, and biliousness, and that the|article would be efficacious in the prevention of the usual stomach disorders,|kidney and bladder troubles, gas pains and biliousness, and would promote better|health in general and bring resistance to many common diseases; whereas con-|stipation is not the usual cause of stomach disorders, kidney and bladder troubles,|gas pains and biliousness, but said disorders and ailments have many and varied|causes, and the article would not be efficacious in prevention of the conditions|named in the said statements, would not promote better health in general, and|would not bring resistance to many common diseases.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the statements, \"\"New Life A|preparation of many centuries old world famous Oriental Gen Sen formula.|*?* * Directions: Take regularly at bed time ? teaspoonful in ? glass warm|or cold water (stirred well). Regulate dose to bring 2 evacuations of-bowels|daily by either increase or decrease doses, as some individuals are different than|others. Children proportion to the age. If desired, add sugar to improve|taste. * * * . Known to be highest value of herbal tonic. Contains no harmful|or habit forming drugs,\"\" borne on the cartons, were false and misleading in that|they represented that the article was a preparation of \"\"many centuries old world|famous Oriental Gen Sen formula,\"\" that it was an herbal tonic and contained|no harmful or habit-forming drugs; whereas it was not a preparation of \"\"many|centuries old world famous Oriental Gen Sen formula,\"\" it was not an herbal|tonic since it contained Epsom salts and free sulfur, mineral substances, and|contained drugs which when used in the dosage and with the frequency pre-|scribed in the labeling might be harmful and habit-forming.|On October 24, 1940, the defendant having entered a plea of not guilty, the|case came on for trial before a jury. The trial was concluded on October 28|on which date the court, after hearing arguments of counsel on behalf of the|Government and the defendant, instructed the jury as follows:|UNDEBWOOD, District Judge. \"\"Geatlemen of the jury, this is an indictment|which is not evidence, but merely the charges of the Government brought by|the United States against this defendant charging him with the violation of a|certain Federal law to which I will direct your attention later.|\"\"To this indictment, the defendant has entered a plea of not guilty and this|plea puts the burden upon the Government to prove him guilty of the offense|charged beyond a reasonable doubt. Before instructing you with respect to|the law governing the particular offense charged in the indictment, there are|some general rules of law to which I will call your attention.|\"\"It is the judge's duty to instruct you as to the law of the case, and you|must accept the law as given by the court, but you are the sole judges of the|facts in the case, the weight of the evidence, and credibility of the witnesses.|If the court should express, or you think he has expressed any opinion whatever,|with respect to the facts in the case, you are not bound by it, but should follow|your own conclusions and make your own finding of fact since I have stated|you are the sole judges of the facts. You should take the law as charged|by the court and apply it to the evidence and render such verdict that you find|the law and the evidence demands.|\"\"The defendant comes into court with the presumption of innocence in his|favor, and that presumption remains with him throughout the trial, until he|has been shown to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense charged|in the indictment. This presumption has relation to every fact that must be|established in order to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.|\"\"Reasonable doubt does not mean just any possible doubt that you might have,|but it means such reasonable doubt as a careful, prudent, and reasonable man|ought to entertain in the circumstances proven. That is, it means reasonable|moral certainty that all reasonable doubt of defendant's guilt is excluded by|the evidence.|\"\"Now in weighing the evidence in this case, you should consider the circum-|stantial, as well as the direct testimony, for frequently it is not possible to prove|facts by direct testimony. The weight of the evidence and the credibility of|the witnesses, as I have stated, what are the force and effect of the facts and|circumstances proved in this case are questions solely for your determination.|\"\"In weighing the testimony and the credibility of the witness the jury may,|among other things, consider his manner and demeanor on the stand, his feeling,|interest, prejudice or bias, if any; his means of knowing what he is testifying|to; the probability or improbability of what he testifies to; the consistency|or inconsistency of his statements with other facts proved in the case;|the reasonableness or unreasonableness of his testimony and also his personal|credibility, so far as it may legitimately appear from the trial of the case. The|number of witnesses on any contested point may be considered by you, but the|truth is not always with the greater number.|\"\"If conflicts in the testimony of witnesses exist, it is your duty to reconcile|them without imputing perjury to anyone, if you reasonably can, but if you can't|do this reasonably, of course, you will believe the one that you think most worthy|of belief.|\"\"Certain expert testimony has been introduced in evidence. You will consider|that and treat it in the same manner that you do any other testimony in the|case. The simple fact that it was offered by experts does not compel you to take|their testimony in preference to any other, but you should givei the testimony|of expert witnesses the same weight, the same consideration, everything else|being equal, as that of other witnesses. That is, give such opinions, and receive|of them such weight as you deem them entitled to. Where opinions are given|by experts based upon hypothetical questions, you should carefully examine the|statement of facts that have been assumed in the question and determine whether|or not such facts have been proven, and what the opinion is in the light of what|has actually been proven.|\"\"This indictment is in two counts. The first, charging the defendant with|violating the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, by introducing into inter-|state commerce a certain drug known as New Life. It is alleged that the inter-|state shipment charged in the indictment was made on June 25, 1938, from|Atlanta, Ga., to C. W. Barnard, in Birmingham, Ala.|\"\"The second count charges a similar offense on the same day, in the same|language except that the interstate shipment was from Atlanta, Ga., to Hugh|E. Tuck, Tallahassee, Fla.|\"\"In both counts of the indictment it is charged the misbranding consisted of|certain representations on the labels of the drug which the Government main-|tains were false and misleading.|\"\"First, it is claimed that the following expressions were false and misleading.|To wit: *New Life * * * System Cleanser and Tonic for every member of|the family * * * a real remedy for every one.'|\"\"Second, the Government maintains that the article was further misbranded|in that the labels stated the drug was \"\"highly recommended for constipation, the|usual cause of stomach disorder, kidney, bladder trouble, gas pains, biliousness,|thus promoting better health in general and bringing resistance to many common|diseases.'|\"\"The Government's contention is, while the label literally recommends the|drug only for constipation, nevertheless, the immediate association of the category|of diseases which the label asserts are usually caused by constipation, was mis-|leading and really amounted to an assertion that the drug was a remedy for such|diseases, as well as for constipation.|\"\"The Government further maintains that the statement on the label that the|drug was 'a preparation of many centuries old, world famous Oriental Gen Sen|formula,' was false and misleading; and that if the preparation was taken as|directed on the label, it would be harmful and habit-forming; and further, that|the claim that the drug was 'known to be of highest value of herbal tonic, Con-|tains no harmful or habit-forming drug' was false and misleading.|\"\"The defendant, on the other hand, denies all these charges and contends the|drug in question was not represented on the label to be anything more than a|satisfactory remedy for constipation and that the defense in the case shows that|all of its ingredients taken separately, or in the combination indicated,-were|suitable and helpful in the treatment of constipation and have been used for a|great many years by reputable physicians and recognized in the standard phar-|macopoeia as suitable for the treatment of constipation, and that there was not|a single ingredient that was either harmful or habit-forming; that the prepara-|tion is a recognized and satisfactory remedy for constipation ' and especially|valuable for people seeking relief from such trouble who are unable or unwilling|to consult physicians and to secure specific treatment and prescriptions from|them.|\"\"Defendant further contends there is no evidence to show that this preparation|is not an old world famous Gen Sen formula, and, as a matter of fact it is such.|I do not recall any evidence produced by the Government that the preparation is|not an Oriental formula, but the evidence of the Government was merely that|the doctors testifying did not know of any such Oriental formula.|\"\"Of course the burden of proof is on the Government to prove beyond a|reasonable doubt the charges in the indictment.|\"\"Defendant further contends that the label does not represent the prepara-|tion to be a remedy for stomach disorder, kidney, bladder trouble and so forth,|and that the words used would not mislead the general public or anyone pur-|chasing the drug into believing that it was represented to be a remedy for|such diseases, but that such purchaser would clearly understand the remedy|was recommended for constipation only.|\"\"These contentions raise questions of fact which the Government must prove|beyond a reasonable doubt, and as I have said before, you are the sole judges|of the facts.|\"\"Now the law provides that a drug or device shall be deemed to be mis-|branded if its label is false or misleading in any particular, and it is, for you|to determine from the evidence in this case and instructions given you by the|court, whether or not the label on the drug as quoted in the indictment is|false or misleading in the sense the term as used in the label, in the terms|of misbranding as used in the act, the act itself provides if the article is|alleged to be misbranded, it is because the label is misleading. Then in deter-|mining whether the label is misleading there should be taken into account,|among other things, not only representations made, or suggested by state-|ment, word, design, description, or any combinations thereof, but also the extent|to which the label fails to reveal, if there is any such failure, facts material|in the light of such representation, or material with respect to consequences|which may result from the use of the article to which the label relates, under|the conditions of use prescribed in the label thereof, or under such conditions|of use as are customary or usual.|\"\"In determining whether or not the label in question in this case was false|and misleading, you must approach the question from the viewpoint of a|man of ordinary intelligence who might be suffering from constipation and|desirous of being relieved of it. That is, the language used on the label should|be given the meaning ordinarily conveyed by it, to whom it is addressed, and|if you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the language so construed is false|and misleading, then you would have to find the defendant guilty.|\"\"The act seeks to protect those who might be induced to purchase the|article by the representation made in the label, and the proper test for the|construction of such language is what it means to such persons, and not|necessarily to those who are skilled in medicine and medical or pharmaceutical|science, capable of making necessary distinctions. Its purposes are to secure|purity in foods and drugs; to inform purchasers of what they are buying; to|prevent injury to the public health, and to require the manufacturer to be|honest in his statements, those resulting from insufficient directions and ambi-|guity, as well as statements that are false, come within the contemplation of|the act.|\"\"Now gentlemen of the jury, if from the evidence in this case and under|the instructions that the court has given you, you find this defendant guilty|beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense charged in the indictment, then the|form of your verdict would be, 'We, the jury, find the defendant guilty.' On|the other hand, if you find him not guilty, then the form of your verdict|would be, 'We, the jury, find the defendant not suilty.' Tou may retire.\"\"|The jury, after due deliberation, returned a verdict of guilty and the court|placed the defendant on probation for 1 year.|SEIZURES|376. Misbranding of Electreat Mechanical Heart. U. S. v. 6 Electreat Mechanical Hearts. Tried to the court. Judgment for the Government. Decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00376March 1942Electreat Manufacturing Co.Electreat Mechanical HeartMarch 6, 1940Kansas City, Mo.Peoria, Ill.Kansas City, Mo.Western District of Missouri376F. D. C. No. 1736. Sample No. 16222-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00376ddnj|376. Misbranding of Electreat Mechanical Heart. TJ. S. v. 6 Electreat Mechanical|Hearts. Tried to the court. Judgment for the Government. Decree of|condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 1736. Sample No. 16222-E.)|The labeling accompanying this device bore false and misleading representa-|tions regarding its efficacy in the conditions indicated below.|On April 2, 1940, the United States attorney for the Western District of|Missouri filed a libel against six of the above-named devices at Kansas City,|Mo., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or|about March 6, 1940, by the Electreat Manufacturing Co. from Peoria, III.; and|charging that it was misbranded.|Examination showed that the device consisted of dry cells, a small buzzer|coil, and various attachments intended to apply electrical currents to the body.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that statements appearing on|the carton and in an accompanying circular and booklet were false and mis-|leading since they represented that it was efficacious for the purposes recom-|mended ; whereas it was not efficacious for such purposes. The respect in|which the labeling was false and misleading appears in the opinion of the|court.|On May 5, 1940, the Electreat Manufacturing Co. appeared as claimant and|on July 18, 1940, filed an answer denying the allegations of misbranding. On|February 28, 1941, the case having come on for trial before the court and the|evidence having been heard and considered, the court handed down the follow-|ing opinion sustaining the Government's allegations:|COLLETT, District Judge. \"\"On March 6, 1940, six devices called Electreat|Mechanical Hearts were mailed in interstate commerce1 from Peoria, 111., to|Kansas^ City, Mo., for the purpose of sale at the latter place. The devices|were seized by the Government and libel proceedings instituted at Kansas City,|Mo., for the purpose of bringing about the destruction of the devices.|'The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of June 25, 1938 (Title 21, Sec.|301 et seq. U. S. C. A.) authorizes the destruction of misbranded devices.2 The|^'Sec. 321 (b) : The term 'interstate commerce' means (1) commerce between any State \\,|or Territory and any place outside thereof * * *.\"\"|1 \"\"Sec. 334 (a) : Any * * * device * * * that is * * * misbranded when|Introduced into or while in interstate commerce * * * shall be liable to be proceeded -.?-|against while in interstate commerce, or at any time thereafter, on libel of information and (|condemned in any district court of the United States within the jurisdiction of which the v|article is found * * V|term 'device' is defined in the act.8 The statute provides that if the device is|alleged to be misbranded because of misleading labeling, in the determination|of that question there shall be taken into account, among other things, not only|representations made in the labeling but also the extent to which the labeling|fails to reveal material facts/ 'Labeling' is defined to include all labels and|other written, printed, or graphic matter upon the article or any of its con-|tainers or wrappers or accompanying the article.5 The libel charges false and|misleading labeling. The good faith of the manufacturer is not an issue. The|inherent dangerousness of the device or lack of it is of no consequence. The|issue is simply whether the claims made for the device are false or misleading.|\"\"The principal and most numerous claims made for the device are contained in|a booklet which accompanied the devices seized. There the device is referred to|as 'The Mechanical Heart.' In the language of the booklet it will relieve pain,|strengthen weak eyes, soothe sore eyes, improve the hearing, cure earache, moisten|dry noses or dry running noses, thicken thin lips, relieve toothache, strengthen the|voice, relieve sore throat, build up weak lungs, relieve pleurisy^ strengthen the|kidneys, cure lumbago, relieve constipation, soothe the piles, is good for neuritis,|subtracts pain from burns, relaxes the muscles in a stiff thumb and soothes the|pain in a mashed finger, retards or accelerates the development of a boil, heals|broken noses, relaxes muscle cramps, is good for varicose veins and will warm|cold feet or stop the foot from perspiring.|\"\"The booklet undertakes to demonstrate 'why the good die young,' what the|'father and mother' of disease is, the cause of wakefulness, how to grow strong,|and the corrective qualities of the device in each instance.|\"\"It then gives specific directions about how to use the Blectreat for the treat-|ment of headache, neuralgia, sinus congestion, neuritis, sore throat, weak lungs,|athletic strains, lumbago, rheumatism, gout and tired feet, stomach, indigestion|and cramps, kidney and bladder trouble, liver disorders, constipation, piles, sexual|weakness male and female, menstruation, menopause, enlarged prostate, paralysis,|deafness and catarrh, toothache, eye ailments, asthma, hay fever, flu, broken|bones, burns, cuts, sores, hardening of arteries, cramps of the calf, nervousness,|to reduce weight or increase weight as desired, beautification of the skin, enlarge|the bust and increase the flow of milk, and to stop falling hair. Then follows a|number of testimonials affirming the efficacy of Electreat for the treatment of|many and sundry bodily ailments ranging from congenital and jake-leg paralysis|through heart ailments, piles, rejuvenation, to appendicitis and female trouble.|The testimony of the manufacturer who intervened in the cause as claimant, indi-|cates that the theory upon which the multitudinous claims were made was that|the instrument produces a faradic electrical current with the alternating im-|pulses occurring at the rate of from 140 to 180 times a second, which would cause|the muscles and muscular tissue of the human body to contract and relax with|beneficial results. The instrument is simple enough. It consists of a cylindrical|metal container having much the appearance of an ordinary flashlight, approxi-|mately 10 to 11 inches long, an inch and a half in diameter with two small flash-|light batteries in one end and in the other two coils. The primary coil is wound|upon a soft iron core. The secondary coil is so wound that it may be moved longi-|tudinally over the primary coil by means of a button attached to it and extending|through the metal cylinder much as the switch on an ordinary flashlight is ar-|ranged. A common vibrator such as might be used on the old-fashioned doorbell,|makes and breaks the current from the battery and transforms the galvanic cur-|rent from the battery into the faradic or alternating current, which is delivered|to the body through a projection on one end of the instrument. The strength of|the charge delivered to the body from the instrument is increased or decreased by|means of sliding the secondary coil further over or away from the primary coil.|?\"\"See. 321 (h) : The term 'device' * * * means instruments, apparatus, and con-|trivances, including their components, parts, and accessories, intended (1) for use in|the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals ;|or (2) to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals.\"\"|*\"\"Sec. 321 (n) : If an article is alleged to be misbranded because the labeling is mis-|leading, then in determining whether the labeling is misleading there shall be taken into|account (among, other things) not only representations made or suggested by statement,|word, design, device, or any combination thereof, but also the extent to which the labeling|fails to reveal facts material in the light of such representations or material with respect|to consequences which may result from the use of the article to which the labeling relates|under the conditions of use prescribed in the labeling thereof or under such conditions of|use as are customary or usual.\"\"|5 \"\"Sec. 321 (m) : The term 'labeling' means all labels and other written, printed, or|graphic matter (1) upon any article or any of its containers or wrappers, or (2)|accompanying such article.\"\"|\"\"An adequate amount of highly respectable and convincing testimony was|offered by the Government to demonstrate that even the principle sought to be|followed by the makers of the instrument could not be applied with this instru- r|ment. It was explained that the speed or rapidity at which muscular tissue {|could contract and relax was much less than the rate at which the vibrations|occurred in this instrument and the alternating impulses were given, and hence|the only effect from the use of the instrument on the muscles of the body was|to cause them to contract and remain so until the instrument was removed, the|batteries wore out, or the muscles relaxed from fatigue. Many of the particular|claims made for the instrument were specifically referred to by the witnesses.|In each instance the explanation of why the instrument could not produce the|results claimed for it was most convincing.|\"\"Among others appearing for the Government was the eminent physiologist,|Dr. Carlson. His testimony and the illustrations he gave supporting his con-|clusions were in all respects as fully convincing of the accuracy of his judgment|as was his test for the determination of which of two fluids was a sugar solution.8|\"\"The extent of the accuracy of the actual claims made for the Electreat in|the literature accompanying it may be summarized much as one of the witnesses|expressed it when, in describing a diagram of the human anatomy with accom-|panying descriptive matter which appeared in one of the exhibits, he stated that|there was an element of truth in the diagram, the element of truth being-that|the head was on the right end in the picture and the 'rump' appeared in the|proper position. From a practical standpoint, the benefit to be derived from|the use of the instrument was tersely stated by one of the several leading physi-|cians of Kansas City, to be that the use of the instrument would not injure one|if there was nothing the matter with him, but that if a person was suffering from|any disorder or ailment its use might and probably would be injurious.|\"\"Further detailed reference to the facts should be unnecessary to demonstrate|the irresistible conclusion arising from the evidence that the claims made for|the devices in the literature accompanying them were as falsely misleading as|might well be possible by the use of the English language. The conclusion follows|that the act of Congress has been violated and the requested order for the|destruction of the devices must be made.|\"\"It is beyond the issues in this proceeding to consider the question of whether,|if the devices were properly described and labeled and their efficacy stated with-|out exaggeration, the devices could be barred from the mails and interstate|commerce. Hence, evidence bearing upon that question admitted subject to|objection, is excluded from consideration.|\"\"Neither is the question of whether the manufacturer acted in good faith in|an honest belief that the devices would do the things claimed for them an issue|in this proceeding. The Government does not seek a penalty in this case other|than the destruction of the devices. Evidence bearing upon that question, like-|wise admitted subject to objection, should also be excluded.|\"\"Formal findings of fact and conclusions of law are filed herewith. Judgment|will be entered in accordance with the views herein expressed.\"\"|On February 28,1941, judgment was entered (amended March 10, 1941) order-|ing that the marshal destroy the product. On March 20, 1941, the claimant filed|a motion for a rehearing and application for stay of proceedings which were|argued April 25,1941, and denied by the court without opinion.|377. Misbranding of El Agruinaldo Cuban Honey. U. S. v. 50 Bottles of El Agninaldo Cuban Honey (and 3 other seizure actions involving the same product). Default decrees of condemnation. Portion of product ordered destroyed; remainder ordered delivered to charitable institutions.ddnj00377March 1942Cuban Honey, Inc., from Lansing, Mich.El Agruinaldo Cuban HoneyDecember 27, 1939, to on or about February 10, 1941St. Paul, Minn.; Minneapolis, Minn.Lansing, Mich.St. Paul, Minn.; Minneapolis, Minn.District of Minnesota and the Southern District of Ohio377F. D. C. Nos. 2498, 2725, 3438, 3462. Sample Nos. 8932-B, 8937-E, 27491-E, 27495-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00377ddnj|377. Misbranding of El Agruinaldo Cuban Honey. U. S. v. 50 Bottles of El Agni-|naldo Cuban Honey (and 3 other seizure actions involving the same|product). Default decrees of condemnation. Portion of product ordered|destroyed; remainder ordered delivered to charitable institutions. (F. D.|C. Nos. 2498, 2725, 3438, 3462. Sample Nos. 8932-B, 8937-E, 27491-B, 27495-B.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-|ing its efficacy in the conditions indicated hereinafter.|On August 6, September 4, November 27, and December 5, 1940, the United|States attorneys for the District of Minnesota and the Southern District of|Ohio filed libels against 50 bottles of El Aguinaldo Cuban Honey at St. Paul,|Minn.; 118 bottles of the same product at Minneapolis, Minn.; and 171 bottles|at Cincinnati, Ohio, alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate com-|merce within the period from on or about December 27, 1939, to on or about|? \"\"Time magazine, February 10, 1941, page 44, I. c. 47 : Another time he had two beakers|of liquid before him: one containing urine, the other, sugar solution. He stuck his finger|in one of the containers, tested it and said: 'Ya, dot's sugar.' \"\"|October 29, 1940, by Cuban Honey, Inc., from Lansing, Mich.; and charging|that it was misbranded.|Examination of the article showed that it was honey.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the labeling which accompanied it|bore representations that carbohydrates in this form (honey) mean \"\"pep\"\"|and pep means \"\"a better you\"\"; that it contained many of the necessary mineral|salts; that it had been clinically tested, and that such tests had been carried|on in cases of bronchial asthma and bronchitis under the care of reputable|physicians; that it had been found to be a desirable food supplement to a|bland diet in cases of stomach ulcers and other digestive disorders; that the|contents of the stomach had been examined at specific intervals and X-rays|taken and that all cases showed much greater improvement when El Aguinaldo|Cuban Honey was a part of the diet than without it; that the diets used tended|to relieve discomfort, increase vitality, improve the appetite and provide a|mild laxative; that it had been used in various types of illness with very|pleasing results in many cases; that the article would be efficacious as a pallia-|tive for local irritations of nose and throat associated with coughs, colds,|asthma, and bronchitis; that for sinus and hay fever it should be diluted with|water and used as a nasal spray and should be taken internally 1 or 2 tea-|spoonfuls one-half hour before meals and before retiring; that in stomach ulcers|where a soft bland diet would be prescribed and in other digestive disorders|it should be used as a special-purpose food, which representations in the label-|ing were false and misleading since it was not efficacious for the purposes|represented and suggested by the labeling.|On September 19 and October 25, 1940, and January 25, 1941, no claimant|having appeared, judgments of condemnation were entered and the lot seized|at St. Paul was ordered destroyed and those seized at Minneapolis and Cin-|cinnati were ordered delivered to charitable institutions.|381. Misbranding of Colusa Natural Oil. U. S. v. 257 1-ounce Bottles of Colusa Natural Oil. Default decree of destruction.ddnj00381March 1942Swan Manufacturing Co.Colusa Natural OilDecember 16, 1939Kansas City, Mo.San Francisco, Calif.Kansas City, Mo.Western District of Missouri381F. D. C. No. 2263. Sample No. 16068-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00381ddnj|381. Misbranding of Colusa Natural Oil. XJ. S. v. 257 l-ounce Bottles of Colusa|Natural Oil. Default decree of destruction. (F. D. C. No. 2263. Sample No.|16068-B.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-|ing its efficacy in the conditions indicated below.|On or about July 9, 1940, the United States attorney for the Western District|of Missouri filed a libel against 257 l-ounce bottles of the above-named product|at Kansas City, Mo., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate|commerce on or about December 16, 1939, by the Swan Manufacturing Co. from|San Francisco, Calif.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Examination showed that it was crude petroleum oil.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements|appearing on the label were false and misleading since they represented that|it was efficacious for the purposes recommended, whereas it was not efficacious|for the purposes recommended: \"\"For external use in the relief and treatment|of * * * cuts, eczema, psoriasis, acne, skin blemishes, pyorrhea, varicose|veins * * * and hay fever.\"\"|On August 3, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment was entered order-|ing destruction of the product.|382. Misbranding of Durets. U. S. v. 40 Packages of Durets. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00382March 1942James Lawrence Co., Inc.DuretsMay 25, 1940Reading, Pa.New York, N. Y.Reading, Pa.Eastern District of Pennsylvania382F. D. C. No. 2161. Sample No. 14678-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00382ddnj|382. Misbranding of Durets. IT, S. v. 40 Packages of Durets. Default decree of|condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 2161. Sample No. 14678-B.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-|ing the conditions indicated hereinafter.|On June 5,1940, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsyl-|vania filed a libel against 40 packages of Durets at Reading, Pa., alleging that|the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about May 25, 1940,|by James Lawrence Co., Inc., from New York, N. Y.; and charging that it was|misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted of tablets, each containing theophyl-|line (? grain), methenamine (1 grain), sodium biphosphate (2.3 grains), and|starch.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that representations in the labeling|that it would help to drive out poisonous body wastes; would relieve loss of /|sleep; was efficacious in the treatment of backache, headache, mental depression, v|excessive tiredness, pains in the groin, burning, frequent, smarting, painful, or|scanty urination; that it was efficacious in the treatment of rheumatic muscular|pains or joint pains due to chronic prostatitis; that it was efficacious in the|treatment of inflammation or catarrh of the bladder, inflammation of the pelvis|of the kidney, kidney stone, or bladder stone, and urethritis; and that it would|help purify the urinary passages, and help nature heal, were false and misleading|since it was not efficacious for such purposes.|On June 27, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|383. Misbranding of grapefruit juice. U. S. v. 94 Cases of Grapefruit Juice. Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered released under bond to be relabeled.ddnj00383March 1942Tolson Davies Co.grapefruit juiceJuly 4, 1940Chicago, Ill.Brownsville, Tex.Chicago, Ill.Northern District of Illinois383F. D. C. No. 3516. Sample No. 4353-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00383ddnj|383. Misbranding of grapefruit juice. U. S. v. 94 Gases of Grapefruit Juice.|Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered released under bond|to be relabeled. (P. D. C. No. 3516. Sample No. 4353-E.)|The label of this product bore false and misleading representations regarding|its efficacy in the conditions indicated below.|On or about December 27, 1940, the United States attorney for the Northern|District of Illinois filed a libel against 94 cases of grapefruit juice at Chicago,|111., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or|about July 4, 1940, by Tolson Davies Co. from Brownsville, Tex.; and charging|that it was misbranded. The article was labeled in part: \"\"Perk-Up * * *|Unsweetened Grapefruit Juice.\"\"|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, \"\"Recommended|*?* * as a help in the prevention of colds and * * * also helpful in keep-|ing the system on the 'alkaline side,'\"\" were false and misleading. It was also|alleged to be misbranded under the provisions of the law applicable to foods,|as reported in F. N. J. No. 1904.|On February 3, 1941, the Tolson Davies Co., claimant, having admitted the|allegations of the libel and having consented to the entry of a decree, judgment|of condemnation was entered and it was ordered that the product be released|under bond conditioned that it be properly relabeled.|384. Misbranding of Kru-Lax. U. S. v. 270 Packages of Kru-Lax. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00384March 1942Oriental LaboratoryKru-LaxMay 22, 1940Birmingham, Ala.St. Louis, Mo.Birmingham, Ala.Northern District of Alabama384F. D. C. No. 2293. Sample No. 9759-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00384ddnj|384. Misbranding of Era-Lax. IT. S. v. 270 Packages of Krn-Lax. Default decree|of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 2293. Sample No. 9759-B.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-|ing its efficacy in the conditions indicated below.|On June 28, 1940, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Alabama filed a libel against 270 packages of Kru-Lax at Birmingham, Ala.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|May 22, 1940, by the Oriental Laboratory from St. Louis, Mo.; and charging|that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that it consisted of Epsom salt, sulfur, and ground plant|material including licorice, anise, buchu, and laxative plant drugs.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements|appearing in the circular distributed with it were false and misleading since it|was not efficacious for the purposes recommended: \"\"Oriental Herbal Compound|*?* * to relieve constipation * * * The usual cause of the following ail-|ments : Stomach: Indigestion, Dyspepsia, Bloating, Headache, Heartburn, Pal-|pitation, Gas Pains. Liver: Biliousness, Dizzy Spells, Sluggishness. Kidney:|Rheumatism, Pain in Neck, Shoulders, Arms, Arthritis, Lumbago, Sciatica, Gout,|Prostate Trouble. Female Complaints. Bladder: Inflammation and Getting Up|at Night. Skin : Pimples, Blackheads, Boils, Rash, Itching. Blood: Thin, Weak,|High or Low Blood Pressure. Bowels: Piles, Tape Worm, Appendicitis, Colic,|Overweight, Underweight. * * * A person with proper working bowels will|never have appendicitis. If the liver is working properly will never catch cold.|Witfe-properly working bowels and liver the germs of tuberculosis, cold, catarrh,|typhoid or any other forms of contagious or acute disease cannot gain foothold|in the system. It has been tested and proved to be a fact. We'claim Kru-Lax|will regulate the bowels and liver. If you just realize what constipation means|to your health, or the health of some loved one, if you just knew from the|medical viewpoint the human wreckage that is charged to constipation, you|would not lose a moment in trying a package of this wonderful remedy. It is|so little in price but so great aid to general health. Try it and be convinced.\"\"|On July 31, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|385. Misbranding of Natural Mineral Extracts. U. S. v. 38 Bottles of Natural Mineral Extracts. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00385March 1942Colonial Drug Co.Natural Mineral ExtractsFebruary 13, 1940Whiting, Ind.Tulsa, Okla.Whiting, Ind.Northern District of Indiana385F. D. C. No 1888. Sample No. 4661-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00385ddnj|385. Misbranding of Natural Mineral Extracts. U. S. v. 38 Bottles of Natural|Mineral Extracts. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No 1888. Sample No. 4661-E.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-|ing its efficacy in the conditions indicated hereinafter.|On May 6,1940, the United States attorney for the Northern District of Indiana|filed a libel against 38 bottles of Natural Mineral Extracts at Whiting, Ind., alleg-|ing that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about February|13, 1940, by Colonial Drug Co. from Tulsa, Okla.; and charging that it was mis-|branded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of ferric sulfate and water|with small proportions of aluminum, calcium, and magnesium compounds.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that representations in the labeling|that it was efficacious to maintain the mineral balance, keep the system in perfect|health, give new life to weakened and general run-down conditions of the system|and resistance against attacks of germs and infection, that it was efficacious as a|tonic for run-down, anemic conditions; that it was efficacious in the treatment of|indigestion, stomach, liver, and intestinal disorders, ulceration of the stomach,|kidney and bladder disorders, female trouble, high blood pressure, rheumatism,|and many other run-down conditions of the blood; that it was efficacious in the|external treatment of eczema and other skin conditions, was efficacious in the|treatment of sore throat, tonsilitis, bleeding gums, enlarged prostate glands of old|and middle-aged men; internal hemorrhoids, bleeding piles, old sores, pimples,|carbuncles, toothache, itch: that it would stop the flow of blood instantly; and|that it was efficacious when administered internally as a blood purifier, that it|would bring comfort and health and was efficacious for general debility and many|other chronic ailments, were false and misleading since it would not be efficacious|for the purposes recommended.|On June 22, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|386. Misbranding of Natural Ray Mineral Water. U. S. v. 280 Cases and 13 Bottles of Natural Ray Mineral Water. Default decree of condemnation. Water dumped and bottles sold.ddnj00386March 1942Natural Ray Mineral Water Co.Natural Ray Mineral WaterAugust 11, 1939Cleveland, OhioSt. Louis, Mich.Cleveland, OhioEastern District of Ohio386F. D. C. No. 1099. Sample Nos. 75476-D, 75477-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00386ddnj|386. Misbranding of Natural Ray Mineral Water. U. S. v. 280 Cases and 13 Bottles|of Natural Ray Mineral Water. Default decree of condemnation. Water|dumped and bottles sold. (F. D. C. No. 1099. Sample Nos. 75476-D, 75477-D.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-|ing its efficacy for the conditions indicated below.|On November 29, 1939, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Ohio filed a libel (and on December 20, 1939, an amended libel) against 280 cases|each containing 6 half-gallon bottles and 135 gallon bottles of the above-named|product at Cleveland, Ohio, alleging that the article had been shipped in inter-|state commerce on or about August 11,1939, by the Natural Ray Mineral Water Co.|from St. Louis, Mich.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Examination showed that the article was a moderately mineralized water,|slightly alkaline, the mineral constituents consisting for the most part of calcium|bicarbonate, calcium sulfate, and magnesium sulfate with small proportions of|other inorganic constituents.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements|appearing in the labeling were false and misleading, since it was not efficacious|for the purposes recommended: (Label attached to the ?-gallon and 5-gallon|bottles) \"\"Natural Ray Mineral Water From the Spring of Michigan Magnetic|Mineral Water Co.\"\"; (label attached to 5-gallon bottles only) \"\"* * * it has|proven remarkably successful in the treatment of rheumatism, uric acid and|kidney disorders\"\"; and (bags enclosed in the case with ?-gallon bottles) \"\"Natural|Ray Mineral Water Will Help you Maintain as Well as Regain Your|Health * * * Successfully used for seventy years in the treatment of con-|stipation-uric acid-stomach-kidney troubles-and rheumatic conditions. * * *|When used primarily as a Health Water, serve at room temperature.\"\"|On September 23, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condejnna-|tion was entered and it was ordered that the water be dumped and the bottles|sold.|394. Misbranding of Vitawine. U. S. v. 5 2/3 Dozen Bottles of Vitawine. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00394March 1942Interstate Laboratories, Inc.VitawineApril 3, 1940Indianapolis, Ind.Louisville, Ky.Indianapolis, Ind.Southern District of Indiana394F. D. C. No. 2531. Sample No. 5268-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00394ddnj|394. Misbranding of Vitawine. U. S. v. 5% Dozen Bottles of Vitawine. Default|decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 2531. Sample No.|5268-E.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-|ing its efficacy in the conditions indicated hereinafter.|On August 12, 1940, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|Indiana filed a libel against 5? dozen bottles of Vitawine at Indianapolis,|Ind,. alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or|about April 3, 1940, by Interstate Laboratories, Inc., from Louisville, Ky.;|and charging that it was misbranded. The article was labeled in part: \"\"Vita-|wine * * * A Vitamin B and Iron Tonic.\"\"|Analysis showed that the article contained alcohol (14.48 percent), iron and|ammonium citrate (15.56 grains per fluid ounce), manganese citrate (0.63|grain per fluid ounce), and sodium citrate (5.23 grains per fluid ounce). Bio-|logical examination showed that it contained 500 International Units of vitamin|Bi per fluid ounce.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that its labeling bore repre- f|sentations that it would assist in renewing health, restoring energy, enriching 1|blood, increasing metabolism, and promoting normal growth; that it contained|blood and body building ingredients; that it was indicated in any form of|anemia; that it was a health tonic, ideal for those enfeebled by age and that|it was efficacious in loss of appetite, nervousness, that it would provide nourish-|ment, assist to strengthen and cleanse, restore and maintain vitality, vigor|and health, tone up the intestinal tract, help prevent certain types of neuritis,|prevent pellagra, inflammation of the skin, diarrhea, and mental and physical|nervousness; that it was an organic revitalizer; that it would be efficacious in|treating convalescents from debilitating diseases, and that it would correct|sluggishness, mental fatigue, and tired worn-out feeling, which representations|were false and misleading, since it would not be efficacious for such purposes.|On October 19, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|387. Misbranding of Naturzelp. U. S. v. 34 Bottles of Naturzelp. Consent decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00387March 1942Neutro Distributing AssociationNaturzelpJanuary 1, 1940Arcade, N. Y.Columbiana, OhioArcade, N. Y.Western District of New York387F. D. C. No. 1862. Sample No. 3207-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00387ddnj|387. Misbranding of Naturzelp. U. S. v. 34 Bottles of Naturzelp. Consent decree|of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 1862. Sample No. 3207-E.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-|ing its efficacy in the conditions indicated hereinafter.|On April 25, 1940, the United States attorney for the Western District of|New York filed a libel against 34 bottles of Naturzelp at Arcade, N. Y., alleging|that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about January 1,|1940, by the Neutro Distributing Association from Columbiana, Ohio; and|charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of Epsom salt, sodium|salicylate, and extracts of plant drugs including licorice and a laxative plant|drug.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that its labeling contained|representations that it was efficacious as a general purifier; that it would|act directly upon the liver and purge it of its excess toxins; would help the|flow of bile; would be efficacious in the relief of rheumatism, arthritis, neuritis,|lumbago; that it would act as a tonic for the stomach, liver, kidneys, and|bowels; would make the digestive organs clean; improve the system in general ;|overcome constipation, remove poisons, restore normal alkaline dominance,|render the system less susceptible to disease, relieve liver congestion; would|get rid of the symptoms of diabetes, i. e., loss of weight, thirst, hunger,|frequency of urination, and would drive the sugar from the urine; and that|it would have a diuretic action upon sluggish kidneys, which representations|were false and misleading since it was not efficacious for the purposes|recommended|On November 25, 1940, the claimant, the Neutro Distributing Association,|having withdrawn its claim and having consented to the entry of a decree,|judgment of condemnation was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|388. Misbranding of Parkelp and Parkelp Tablets. U. S. v. 10 Cartons of Parkelp and 58 Cartons of Parkelp Tablets. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00388March 1942Philip R Park, Inc.Parkelp and Parkelp TabletsAugust 2, 1940Denver, Colo.San Pedro, Calif.Denver, Colo.District of Colorado388F. D. C. No. 3265. Sample Nos. 44487-E, 44488-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00388ddnj|388. Misbranding of Parkelp and Parkelp Tablets. TJ. S. v. 10 Cartons of Parkelp|and 58 Cartons of Parkelp Tablets. Default decree of condemnation and|destruction. (F. D. C. No. 3265. Sample Nos. 44487-E, 44488-E.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-|ing its efficacy in the conditions indicated hereinafter.|On October 29, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of Colorado|filed a libel against 10 cartons each containing 7 ounces of Parkelp, 17 cartons|each containing 200 Parkelp Tablets; 31 cartons each containing 500 Parkelp|Tablets, and 10 cartons each containing 800 Parkelp Tablets at Denver, Colo.,|which had been consigned by Philip R Park, Inc., alleging that the article had|been shipped in interstate commerce on or about August 2, 1940, from San|Pedro, Calif.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the Parkelp consisted of dried kelp (seaweed) ; and|that the tablets consisted of the same material compressed into tablet form.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that representations in the|labeling that it would be efficacious to improve the appetite, nutrition, bowel|function, and skin condition; that it would be efficacious in the treatment of|the hair and scalp; that it would be efficacious in secondary anemia, rickets,|and other types of bone deficiency, and that it would supply adequate amounts|of minerals to the diet, thus relieving colds, anemia, obesity, asthma, acidosis,|mental exhaustion, rheumatism, stomach, kidney and bladder trouble, heart|disorders, constipation, general debility, headaches, weakness, eczema, under-|weight, fatigue,, glandular disturbances, goiter, thin blood, and poor circulation;|and that it would be efficacious to decrease nervous irritability, increase alert-|ness and cause marked improvement in the mental condition of dull listless|children and would regulate weight and growth, were false and misleading|since it would not be efficacious, for such purposes.|On December 23, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|389. Misbranding of Pronto. U. S. v. 157 Packages of Pronto. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00389March 1942Alfred S. HopeProntoMay 8, 1940Chicago, Ill.Los Angeles, Calif.Chicago, Ill.Northern District of Illinois389F. D. C. No. 3246. Sample No. 30159-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00389ddnj|389. Misbranding of Pronto. V. S. v. 157 Packages of Pronto. Default decree|of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 3246. Sample No. 30159-E.)|The label of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-|ing its efficacy in the conditions indicated below.|On November 4, 1940, the United States attorney for the Northern District|of Illinois filed a libel against 157 packages of Pronto at Chicago, 111., alleging|that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about May 8,|1940, by Alfred S. Hope from Los Angeles, Calif.; and charging that it was|misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted of powders, each containing bis-|muth subcarbonate (9.15 grains), magnesium oxide 4.22 grains), aspirin|(free and combined, 3.6 grains), a silicate such as kaolin, and sugar.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that representations in the|labeling that it was efficacious in the treatment of stomach and bowel ailments,|colitis, and ulcers including acute, long-standing and severe cases, duodenal|ulcers, acute pains, vomiting \"\"showing of blood\"\" accompanying ulcers and|colitis; that it would spread a thin protective film over the lining of the entire|digestive canal and would heal or soothe; that it would quiet down the colon|and other fretful organs, control nervousness and contractions, and restore|exhausted tissues, or normal functions, were false and misleading since it|was not efficacious for such purposes.|On March 7, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|390. Misbranding of Ro-Mari. U. S. v. 141 Bottles of Ro-Mari. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00390March 1942American Ru-Mari Co. from Los Angeles, Calif.Ro-MariFebruary 17 to April 1, 1940Cleveland, OhioLos Angeles, Calif.Cleveland, OhioNorthern District of Ohio390F. D. C. No. 2210. Sample No. 5990-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00390ddnj|390. Misbranding of Ro-Marl. U. S. v. 141 Bottles of Ro-Mari. Default decree|of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 2210. Sample No. 5990-E.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations|regarding its efficacy in the conditions indicated hereinafter.|On June 14, 1940, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Ohio filed a libel against 141 bottles of Ro-Mari at Cleveland, Ohio, alleging|that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce within the period|from on or about February 17 to on or about April 1, 1940, by the American|Ru-Mari Co. from Los Angeles, Calif.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article contained about 99 percent water with|small proportions of potassium carbonate, sodium carbonate, sodium hydroxide,|sodium chloride, sodium sulfate, and a trace of an organic compound such|as chloramine T.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the word \"\"Ru-Mari\"\" which|constituted a part of the firm name ''American Ru-Mari Company\"\" and|appeared in the labeling, was false and misleading since it suggested that|the article was a remedy for rheumatism; whereas it was not. It was alleged|to be misbranded further in that its labeling bore representations that it would|be efficacious to attack and correct harmful acid conditions, that it possessed|effective diuretic action, and would be efficacious for arthritis, neuritis, sciatica,|lumbago, gout, and allied conditions; and that it was designed to strike at the|cause of pain and stiffness, and would promote elimination of toxin-forming|matter through the urinary tract and was a blood conditioner, which repre-|sentations were false and misleading since it was not efficacious for the pur-|poses recommended.|On October 4, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|391. Misbranding of T-P Preparation. U. S. v. 35 Packages of T-P Preparation External and Internal. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00391March 1942Tee Pee Chemical Co.T-P PreparationJanuary 26, 1940Valdosta, Ga.Durham, N. C.Valdosta, Ga.Middle District of Georgia391F D. C. No. 2030. Sample No. 142-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00391ddnj|391. Misbranding of T-P Preparation. U. S. v. 35 Packages of T-P Preparation|External and Internal. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F D. C. No. 2030. Sample No. 142-E.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-|ing its efficacy in the conditions indicated below.|On May 24,1940, the United States attorney for the Middle District of Georgia|filed a libel (amended July 13, 1940) against 35 packages of the above-named|product at Valdosta, Ga., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate|commerce on or about January 26, 1940. by the Tee Pee Chemical Co. from|Durham, N. C.; and charging that it was misbranded.|The article consisted of a bottle of liquid and a box of tablets. Analysis|showed that the liquid consisted essentially of water, berberine sulfate, boric|acid, borax, and bismuth subnitrate; and that the tablets consisted essentially|of cubeb, a laxative plant drug such as cascara sagrada, ferrous carbonate, and|resinous material such as Venice turpentine and copaiba.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements,|(carton) \"\"T-P * * * Preparation External and Internal,\"\" (bottle) \"\"T. P.|* * * External Injection * * * After voidance of urine (passing water),|inject small syringeful three times daily. Inject slowly and hold in urethra for|several minutes. For best results use T. P. as directed for 3 or 4 weeks,\"\" and|(circular) \"\"The following directions will be found very beneficial when using|T. P. Preparation: Eat very little meat; drink large quantities of water. Do|not drink whiskey, wine or beer. T. P. Preparation is absolutely safe and harm-|less. You will be positively satisfied after using T. P. Preparation. For best|results continue using T. P. Preparation for at least three or four weeks,\"\" were|false and misleading since they created the impression that the article consti-|tuted a treatment for gonorrhea; whereas it did not constitute a treatment for|gonorrhea.|On September 16, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|392. Misbranding of Vibratherm. U. S. v. 17 Retail Packages of Vibratherm. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00392March 1942Vitaphore Appliances, Inc.VibrathermApril 29 and May 10, 1940Ferndale, Mich.South Bend, Ind.Ferndale, Mich.Eastern District of Michigan392F. D. C. No. 2176. Sample No. 4032-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00392ddnj|392. Misbranding of Vibratherm. U. S. -v. 17 Retail Packages of Vibratherm.|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 2176. Sample|No. 4032-E.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regarding|its efficacy in the conditions indicated hereinafter.|On June 7, 1940, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Mich-|igan filed a libel against 17 packages of Vibratherm at Ferndale, Mich., alleging|that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about April 29|and May 10, 1940, by Vitaphore Appliances, Inc., from South Bend, Ind.; and|charging that it was misbranded.|Examination showed that the device was a black plastic cylindrical appli-|cator with electrical connections so constructed as to enable one to apply heat|and vibration to any portion of the body desired.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that its labeling contained repre-|sentations that it was efficacious in the treatment of pelvic infection including|endometritis, simple cervicitis, chronic proctitis, colitis, and chronic salpingitis;|that it was efficacious in the treatment of prostate trouble, including nervousness,|irritability, inability to sleep soundly, melancholia, pain in the crotch and rec-|tum, frequent and painful urination, a tense feeling of the bladder and rectum,|severe, intense pain in the back, loins and thighs, decreased flow of urine;|that it was efficacious to dilate the blood vessels, and relax the muscles; would|reduce inflammation and relieve congestion; would be efficacious to stimulate|the tissues, and assist in solution of prostate gland trouble; and would be effi-|cacious to bring satisfactory relief and comfort, which representations were|false and misleading since it would not be efficacious for such purposes.|On September 16, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|2600. Misbranding of General Hog-Liquid. U. S. v. 5 Drums, etc.ddnj02600September 1949General Veterinary Co.General Hog-LiquidMarch 25, 1948Carroll, Iowa.Omaha, Nebr.Carroll, Iowa.Northern District of Iowa.2600F. D. C. No. 24942. Sample No. 25222-K.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj02600ddnj|2600. Misgranding of General Hog-Liquid. U. S. v. 5 Drums, etc. (F D. C. No.|24942. Sample No. 25222-K.)|LIBEL FILED : July 6,1948, Northern District of Iowa.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT: On or about March 25, 1948, by the General Veterinary|Co., from Omaha, Nebr.|PRODUCE: 5 5-gallon drums, 5 3-gallon drums, and 5 2-gallon drums of|General Hog-Liquid at Carroll, Iowa.|LABEL, IN PART: \"\"General Hog-Liquid * * * Ingredients Calcium Phos-|phate, Beechwood Creosote, Potassium Iodide, Extract of Glycyrrhiza, Sodium|Hydroxide, Copper Sulphate, Creosote U. S. P., Water 10.5?. Extract of Nux|Vomica, giving one quart of medicine 0.10 Grams of strychnine. Solution of|Potassium Arsenite 59.5? (giving one quart of medicine 60 gr. of arsenic).\"\"|NATTOE OP CHARGE: Misbranding, Section 502 (a), certain statements on the|label of the article were false and misleading since they represented and|suggested that the article was effective in the treatment of some intestinal|infections and diarrhea of hogs, whereas the article was not effective for|such purposes. .|DISPOSITION : August 6,1948. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|INDEX TO NOTICES OF JUDGMENT D. D. N. J. NOS. 2551 TO 2600|PRODUCTS|N. J. No.|Adolphus vitamin and mineral|products?____|. * 2579|Ammoniated mercury ointment?2567|Anademin Tablets| 2571|Aquadiol _| 2570|Arner Formula No. 37,200 Special|Formula Tablets| 2571|Arthritis, remedy for| 2588|Atropine sulfate tablets? 2589|B complex with distilled water- 2563|Bolax tablets|'2580,2581|Calfurdine| 2597|Cetabs tablets|2 2580,2581|Chexit-?_| 2599|Chiro Antiseptic Powder, Neidig- 2572|Cloro devices| 2556|Cosmetic (subject to the drug pro-|visions of the Act) : Frenco's|Papaya Tooth Powder? 2583|Cravex| 2590|Dainty Maid Service| 2595|De-A-Tol capsules| 2584|Devices-?:|2551, * 2555,|2556/2573-2577,2592-2595|Dextrose in distilled water__ 2557,2558|in isotonic solution of sodium|chloride|2559, 2560|Dia-B-Plex tablets|2584|Diabetes, remedy for|* 2578|N. J. No.|Dicalcium Phosphate and Vita-|min D Tablets|* 2579|Dietrim capsules|2584|Dolcin tablets| 2588|Estrogenic substance|2570|Everm wheat germ oil capsules- * 2580,|2581|Fenugreek tea|* 2580,2581|Fero-B-Plex tablets?'2580,2581|Food Supplement Mineral Cap-|sules-|* 2579|Fox No. 1 Mineral Feed, Fox Spe-|cial No. 7, and Fox Triumph|Swine Liquid| 2596|Frenco's Papain, Frenco's Pap-|Tabs, and Frenco's Papaya|Tooth Powder| 2583|Garlic Parsley capsules|* 2579|Plus tablets|? 2580, 2581|General Hog-Liquid| 2600|Gomco ring pessaries| 2551|Gotu Kola tablets|J 2580,2581|High Potency Vitamin C Tablets. * 2579|Improved \"\"B\"\" Complex Tablets- * 2579|Infra-Bed Heat Applicator,|Therm-Massage| 2592|Injection preparations. See Par-|enteral drugs.|Kaadt Diabetic Treatment?e 2578|1 (2579, 2582) Prosecution contested.|* (2580) Prosecution contested. Contains opinions of the courts|* (2555) Seizure contested. Contains finding of fact and conclusions of law.|4 (2573) Contempt of court proceedings. Contains opinions of the court.|? (2578) Prosecution contested.|Contains opinion of the court.|396. Misbranding of Par-A-Pac reducing pads. U. S. v. 11 Packages of Par-A-Pac Reducing Pack and Natural Heating Pad, 7 Packages of Par-A-Pac Reducing Pack, and 10 Packages of Par-A-Pac Natural Heating Pad and Bandage. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00396March 1942Par-A-Pac Co.Par-A-Pac reducing padsMay 21, 1940VentnorNew YorkVentnorDistrict of New Jersey396F. D. C. No. 3198. Sample Nos. 14397-E, 14398-E, 14399-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00396ddnj|396. Misbranding of Par-A-Pac reducing pads. U. S. v. 11 Packages of Par-A-Pac|Reducing Pack and Natural Heating Pad, 7 Packages of Par-A-Pac Re-|ducing Pack, and 10 Packages of Par-A-Pac Natural Heating Pad and|Bandage. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C.|No. 3198. Sample Nos. 14397-E, 14398-E, 14399-E.)|The labeling of these products bore false and misleading representations regard-|ing their efficacy in the conditions indicated hereinafter.|On October 15, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of New Jersey|filed a libel against the above-named products at Ventnor and Atlantic City, N J.,|alleging that they had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about May 21,|1940. by the Par-A-Pac Co. from New York, N. T.; and charging that they were|misbranded.|Examination showed that the devices consisted of belts or pads made up of|layers of parchment, flannel, and rayon.|The articles were alleged to be misbranded in that representations in the label-|ing of the reducing belt that it would be efficacious for spot reducing, would reduce|the waist line, abdomen, hips, thighs, legs, arms, or shoulders, would be effective ^|to oxidize the superfluous fatty tissues and would slenderize without dieting or|exercise; representations in the labeling of the reducing pack that it would be|efficacious for spot reducing, would reduce the waist line, abdomen, hips, thighs, t|legs, arms, or shoulders, and would help throw off body toxins and waste, and |representations in the labeling of the heating pack that it would relieve conges-|tion, chest colds, lumbago, arthritis, backache, and muscular soreness, were false|and misleading since they would not be efficacious for such purposes.|On April 18,1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the products were ordered destroyed.|397. Misbranding of Redus-Aid candy. U. S. v. 250 Packages of Redus-Aid Reducing Plan and Vitadex Candy. Default decree of condemnation and sale.ddnj00397March 1942Illinois Vitamin Products Co.Redus-Aid candySeptember 6 and 7, 1940Atlanta, Ga.Evanston, Ill.Atlanta, Ga.Northern District of Georgia397F. D. C. No. 3289. Sample No. 20462-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00397ddnj|397. Misbranding: of Redus-Aid candy. U. S. v. 250 Packages of Redus-Aid|Reducing: Plan and Vitadex Candy. Default decree of condemnation and|sale. (F. D. C. No. 3289. Sample No. 20462-E.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-|ing its efficacy as an aid in weight reduction.|On October 25, 1940, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Georgia filed a libel against 250 packages of the above-named product at Atlanta,|Ga., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or|about September 6 and 7, 1940, by the Illinois Vitamin Products Co. from|Evanston, 111.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted chiefly of sugars (including sucrose,|glucose, and invert sugar), fats, proteins, and a small proportion of mineral|matter including salt and a calcium compound. It had the taste and appear-|ance of caramel candy and would furnish the same amount of calories as|ordinary candy.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that statements and designs in the labeling|represented and suggested that it would be efficacious to cause a loss of weight|easily and sensibly, would curb the appetite for sweet, rich foods, would enable|the user to cut down on the amount of food without pangs of hunger, and|would help remove excess fat and increase bodily vigor, which were false and|misleading since it would not be efficacious for such purposes.|On November 25, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and it was ordered that the product be sold but that the|boxes and literature be destroyed.|398. Misbranding of Dr. Wright's Big Four Emulsion. U. S. v. 127 Gallon Cans of Br. Wright's Big Four Emulsion. Consent decree of condemnation. Product released under bond to be relabeled.ddnj00398March 1942Big Four Mills, Ltd.Dr. Wright's Big Four EmulsionFebruary 24, 1940Rockford, Ill.Covington, Ky.Rockford, Ill.Northern District of Illinois398F. D. C. No. 1852. Sample No. 4114-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00398ddnj|398. Misbranding: of Dr. Wright's Big Four Emulsion. IT. S. v. 127 Gallon Cans|of Br. Wright's Big: Four Emulsion. Consent decree of condemnation.|Product released under bond to be relabeled. (F. D. C. No. 1852. Sample|No. 4114-E.)|The labeling of this veterinary product bore false and misleading representa-|tions regarding its efficacy in the conditions indicated below.|On or about May 10, 1940, the United States attorney for the Northern|District of Illinois filed a libel against 127 gallon cans of the above-named|product at Rockford, 111., alleging that the article had been shipped in inter-|state commerce on or about February 24, 1940, by the Big Four Mills, Ltd., from|Covington, Ky.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article was an emulsion containing fatty oils, small|proportions of volatile oils (including oil of eucalyptus, ginger, and turpentine),|and water.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements in|the labeling, \"\"Dr. Wright's Big Four Emulsion for the treatment and prevention|of Round and Tape worms in Chickens and Turkeys. Dr. Wright's Big Four|Emulsion is n< 7 dsonous. It will not in any way retard appetite, growth or|production of _ l')ird,\"\" were false and misleading since it would not be|efficacious for the purposes recommended, namely, the treatment and preven-|tion of round and tape worms in chickens and turkeys and against worms that|infest poultry.|On November 27,1940, Big Four Mills, Ltd., claimant, having admitted the alle-|gations of the libel, judgment of condemnation was entered, and it was ordered|that the product be released under bond conditioned that it be relabeled under|the supervision of the Food and Drug Administration.|399. Misbranding of Kendall's Acute Spavin Counter-irritant. U. S. v. 20 Bottles of Kendall's Acute Spavin Counter-irritant. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00399March 1942Dr. B. J. Kendall Co.Kendall's Acute Spavin Counter-irritantJanuary 2 and March 25, 1940Boston, Mass.Enosburg Falls, Vt.Boston, Mass.District of Massachusetts399F. D. C. No. 2303. Sample No. 2483-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00399ddnj|399. Misbranding: of Kendall's Acute Spavin Counter-irritant. U. S. v. 20 Bottles|of Kendall's Acute Spavin Counter-irritant. Default decree of condem-|nation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 2303. Sample No. 2483-E.)|The labeling of this veterinary product bore false and misleading representa-|tions regarding its efficacy for the conditions indicated below.|On July 1, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of Massachusetts|filed a libel against 20 bottles of the above-named product at Boston, Mass.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|January 2 and March 25, 1940, by the Dr. B. J. Kendall Co., from Enosburg|Falls, Vt.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of various oils (including|thymol, camphor, oil of cloves, oil of turpentine, and oil of cade), iodine in|combined form, and alcohol.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the carton and bottle labels|bore representations regarding its efficacy in the treatment of acute bone spavin,|ringbones, splints, acute irritations of the tendons (tendinitis), lameness,|scratches, cracked heels, swellings, and bruises which were false and misleading|since it would not be efficacious in the treatment of such conditions.|On August 6, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|400. Misbranding of I-O-Tab (Iotein Tablets). U. S. v. 1 19/24 Cases of I-O-Tab (Iotein Tablets). Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00400March 1942Dr. F. Y. Chuck Research LaboratoriesI-O-Tab (Iotein Tablets)February 29, 1940Portland, Oreg.San Francisco, Calif.Portland, Oreg.District of Oregon400F. D. C. No. 1948. Sample No. 13373-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00400ddnj|400. Misbranding of I-O-Tab (Iotein Tablets). U. S. v. H%4 Cases of I-O-Tab|(Iotein Tablets). Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F.|D. C. No. 1948. Sample No. 13373-E.)|The labeling of this veterinary product bore false and misleading representa-|tions regarding its efficacy in the conditions indicated below.|On May 21, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of Oregon filed a|libel against lx?4: cases of the above-named product at Portland, Oreg., alleging|that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about February 29,|1940, by the Dr. F. Y. Chuck Research Laboratories from San Francisco, Calif.;|and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the tablets contained 3.44 percent of nicotine and 0.85|percent of iodine incorporated in a base of feed concentrate containing crude|fat (24 percent), reducing sugars, wheat starch, and tannic acid.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements on the|label and representations in an accompanying circular regarding its efficacy in|the prevention and treatment of coccidiosis, blackheads and worms in general|were false and misleading since it was not efficacious for the purposes recom-|mended: (Label) \"\"For the Treatment of Fowl Suffering from Coccidiosis,|'blackhead.'- Cecum Worms (Heterakis gallina * * * I-O-Tab is Iotein|in tablet form for individual treatment of pullets, hens or turkeys that have gone|'backward' or 'light' due to Chronic Coccidiosis, 'Blackhead,' * * * Cecum|Worms. The active principle in I-O-Tab is Iotaline, a complex lodo-Alkaloidal v|compound having a destructive action on the parasites specified, but little, if any|toxic action on the fowl, when used as directed. Pick out all the birds that show|the slightest sign of 'going backward' into a small pen and give each bird an|I-O-Tab daily for 3-4 days. * * * help to nourish the birds back to health. A|laxative should be given on the firsthand third days of treatment to activate the|ceca in case of cecum worm infestation * * * Decided improvements should|be noticed in the birds one week following treatment. Birds that have not|yet responded should be treated again. For a flock treatment use Iotein.\"\"|On July 2, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|DRUGS IN DECEPTIVE CONTAINERS|401. Misbranding of salicylic acid. U. S. v. 83 Gases of Salicylic Acid. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00401March 1942George H. Nowland Co.salicylic acidAugust 2, 1939Ashland, Ky.Cincinnati, OhioAshland, Ky.Eastern District of Kentucky401F. D. C. No. 1389. Sample No. 80322-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00401ddnj|401. Misbranding of salicylic acid. 17. S. v. 83 Gases of Salicylic Acid. Default|decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 1389. Sample No.|80322-D.)|The packages containing this product were filled to not more than 46 percent|of their capacity.|On January 19, 1940, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Kentucky filed a libel against 83 cases, each containing 12 one-quarter-ounce boxes|of salicylic acid at Ashland, Ky., alleging that the article had been shipped in|interstate commerce on or about August 2, 1939, by the George H. Nowland Co.|from Cincinnati, Ohio; and charging that it was misbranded in that its con-|tainers were so made, formed, or filled as to be misleading.|On February 15,1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|423. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 3 7/12 Gross of Prophylactics (and 2 other seizure actions against prophylactics). Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00423March 1942Penn Jersey Drug Co.prophylacticsOctober 10, 1940Williamsport, Pa.; Scranton, Pa.; Dixie, Ga.Newark, N. J.Williamsport, Pa.; Scranton, Pa.; Dixie, Ga.Middle District of Pennsylvania and the Middle District of Georgia423F. D. C. Nos. 2988, 3271, 3533. Sample Nos. 14997-E, 20147-E, 46322-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00423ddnj|423. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 3%2 Gross of Pro|phylactics (and 2 other seizure actions against prophylactics). Default|decrees of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 2988, 3271, 3533.|Sample Nos. 14997-E, 20147-E, 46322-E.)|This product was not only defective because of the presence of holes, but its|label failed to bear certain information required by the law as indicated here-|inafter.|On September 16, October 23, and December 18, 1940, the United States attor-|neys for the Middle District of Pennsylvania and the Middle District of Georgia|filed libels against 3& gross of prophylactics at Williamsport, Pa.; 35 gross at|Scranton, Pa.; and 3rV gross at Dixie, Ga., alleging that the article had been|shipped in interstate commerce within the period from August 22 to on or about|October 10,1940, by the Penn Jersey Drug Co. from Newark, N. J.; and charging|that it was adulterated and misbranded. A portion of the article was labeled in|part: \"\"Sanytex.\"\" The remainder was labeled in part: \"\"Saf-T-Skin * * *|Gotham Rubber Co. Chicago New York.\"\"|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its quality fell below that|which it purported or was represented to possess. \"\"It was alleged to be mis-|branded in that the following statements appearing on the labeling were false|and misleading: (Sanytex) \"\"Disease Preventative,\"\" \"\"Select Quality,\"\" \"\"Unlimited|Guarantee Against Deterioration,\"\" and \"\"For Prevention of Disease\"\"; (Saf-T-Skin) f|\"\"The Dependable Prophylactic Saf-T-Skin * * * to prevent disease Guar- ^|anteed Five Years.\"\" The Sanytex brand was alleged to be misbranded further|in that its label did not bear the name and address of the manufacturer, packer,|or distributor. The Saf-T-Skin brand was alleged to be misbranded further in|that its label did not bear an accurate statement of the quantity of the contents.|On November 2 and 18, 1940, and February 20, 1941, no claimant having ap-|peared, judgments of condemnation were entered and the product was ordered|destroyed.|402. Misbranding of Zymole Trokeys. U. S. v. 71 Dozen Packages of Zymole Trokeys. Default decree of condemnation. Product ordered delivered to a Federal institution.ddnj00402March 1942Consolidated Drug Trade ProductsZymole TrokeysNovember 12, 1940Detroit, Mich.ChicagoDetroit, Mich.Eastern District of Michigan402F. D. C. No. 3588. Sample No. 31531-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00402ddnj|402. Misbranding of Zymole Trokeys. IT. S. v. 71 Dozen Packages of Zymole|Trokeys. Default decree of condemnation. Product ordered delivered to|a Federal institution. (F. D. C. No. 3588. Sample No. 31531-E.) |This product occupied only 61.5 percent of the available space in the carton in?\"\"|which it was packed.|On December 23, 1940, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of (|Michigan filed a libel against 71 dozen packages of Zymole Trokeys at Detroit, v..|Mich., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or|about November 12,1940, by the Consolidated Drug Trade Products from Chicago,|111.; and charging that it was misbranded in that its container was so made,|formed, or filled as to be misleading.|On January 9, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered delivered to a Federal institution.|403. Misbranding of moleskin adhesive plaster. U. S. v. 72 Dozen Packages of Moleskin Adhesive Plaster. Consent decree of condemnation. Product released under bond for repackaging.ddnj00403March 1942American White Cross Laboratories, Inc., from New Rochelle, N. Y.moleskin adhesive plasterMay 7 to June 8, 1940Chicago, Ill.New Rochelle, N. Y.Chicago, Ill.Northern District of Illinois403F. D. C. No. 2230. Sample Nos. 30164-E, 30165-E, 30169-E, 30170-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00403ddnj|403. Misbranding: of moleskin adhesive plaster. V. S. v. 72 Dozen Packages|of Moleskin Adhesive Plaster. Consent decree of condemnation. Product|released under bond for repackaging. (F. D. C. No. 2230. Sample Nos.|30164-E, 30165-E, 30169-E, 30170-E.)|The carton containing this product was considerably larger than was neces-|sary; approximately twice as much could have been placed in each carton.|On June 19, 1940, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Illinois filed a libel against 72 dozen packages of moleskin adhesive plaster at|Chicago, 111., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce|within the period from on or about May 7 to on or about June 8, 1940, by the|American White Cross Laboratories, Inc., from New Rochelle, N. Y.; and charg-|ing that it was misbranded in that its container was so made, formed, or filled|as to be misleading. The article was labeled in part: \"\"Physicians and Sur-|geons * .* * Valentine Laboratories Inc. Distributor, Chicago.\"\"|On July 31, 1940, the American White Cross Laboratories, Inc., having|admitted the allegations of the libel, judgment of condemnation was entered|and the product was ordered released under bond for repackaging under the|supervision of the Food and Drug Administration.|NONSTERILE SURGICAL DRESSINGS|404. Misbranding of first aid kits. U. S. v. 60 Retail Packages of Sentinel Junior Ace First Aid Kits. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00404March 1942McCrory Stores Corporationfirst aid kitsFebruary 15, 1940Indianapolis, Ind.New York, N. Y.Indianapolis, Ind.Southern District of Indiana404F. D. C. No. 1934. Sample No. 5241-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00404ddnj|404. Misbranding of first aid kits. U. S. v. 60 Retail Packages of Sentinel Junior|Ace First Aid Kits. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 1934. Sample No. 5241-E.)|This product had been shipped in interstate commerce and was in interstate|commerce at the time of examination, at which time it was found that the|cotton and gauze bandages in the kits were contaminated with micro-organisms.|All items had been packed in containers which were unnecessarily large, i. e.,|the mercurochrome was contained in an extremely thick-walled bottle; the|absorbent cotton occupied approximately one-half of the available space in|the carton; the gauze bandages occupied approximately 35 percent of the|available space of its carton; and the adhesive plaster occupied approximately|32 percent of the available space of its carton.|On May 14, 1940, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|Indiana filed a libel against 60 retail packages of the above-named product at|Indianapolis, Ind. On August 27, 1940, an amended libel was filed. It was|alleged in the amended libel that the article had been shipped on or about|February 15, 1940, by the McCrory Stores Corporation from New York, N. Y.,|and that it was misbranded.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements on the label, \"\"First|Aid Kit\"\" and \"\"This product was thoroughly sterilized during manufacture|and cleanly packaged, but continued sterility cannot be guaranteed,\"\" were|false and misleading when applied to an article that was not sterile but was|contaminated by micro-organisms. It was alleged to be misbranded further|in that the containers were so made, formed, or filled as to be misleading.|On October 18, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|405. Misbranding of first aid kits. U. S. v. 20 Cartons of First Aid Kits. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00405March 1942American White Cross Laboratoriesfirst aid kitsApril 26, 1939Los Angeles, Calif.New Rochelle, N. Y.Los Angeles, Calif.Southern District of California405F. D. C. No. 3834. Sample No. 32675-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00405ddnj|405. Misbranding of first aid kits. V. S. v. 20 Cartons of First Aid Kits. Default|decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 3834. Sample No.|32675-E.)|This product had been shipped in interstate commerce and was in interstate|commerce at the time of examination at which time the gauze bandages and|absorbent cotton were found to be contaminated with viable micro-organisms.|On February 17, 1941, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|California filed a libel against 20 cartons of first aid kits at Los Angeles, Calif.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|April 26, 1939, by the American White Cross Laboratories from New Rochelle,|N. Y.; and charging that it was misbranded. The article was labeled in part:|\"\"White Cross Emergency First Aid Kit.\"\"|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements and design|appearing on the packages were false and misleading, since the bandages and|cotton labeled \"\"Absorbent Cotton\"\" were not sterile but -were contaminated with|viable micro-organisms: \"\"The White Cross of Perfection is Tour Protection. (De-|sign of Nurse) * * * Emergency First Aid Kit. Be Prepared for Emer-|gencies. This Handy Kit Contains Sterilized Surgical Dressings for Emergency?(|First Aid.\"\"|On March 26, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|437. Misbranding of Syn-O-Scope and Synex. U. S. v. 9 Packages of Syn-O-Scope and 8 Bottles of Synex. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00437September 1942Syn-O-Scope LaboratoriesSyn-O-Scope and SynexAugust 24, 1940Spokane, Wash.Los Angeles, Calif.Spokane, Wash.Eastern District of Washington437F. D. C. Nos. 8551, 3552. Sample Nos. 52531-E, 52582-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00437ddnj|437. Misbranding of Syn-O-Scope and Synex. \"\"U. S. v. 9 Packages of Syn.-0-Scope|and 8 Bottles of Synex. Default decrees of condemnation and destruc-|tion. (F. D. C. Nos. 8551, 3552. Sample Nos. 52531-E, 52582-E.)|Each package of the Syn-O-Scope consisted of a vaporizing apparatus and a|small unlabeled vial of liquid. The vaporizing apparatus would have been dan-|gerous to health when used according to directions, and the label also bore|false and misleading therapeutic claims. The vial of liquid and the bottles of|Synex also failed to comply with certain labeling requirements of the law.|On December 23 and on or about December 27, 1940, the United States attorney|for the Eastern District of Washington filed libels against the above-named|products at Spokane, Wash., alleging that the articles had been shipped on or|about August 24, 1940, by Syn-O-Scope Laboratories from Los Angeles, Calif.;|and charging that they were misbranded.|Analyses of samples of the liquid contained in each package of Syn-O-Scope|and of Synex showed that they consisted essentially of alcohol (19.5 percent by|volume), camphor, eucalyptus oil, and water.|The Syn-O-Scope was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that it would be dan-|gerous to health when used in the dosage or with the frequency or duration pre-|scribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling, namely, \"\"Syn-O-Scope The|Modern and Scientific Instrument for the Application Of Medicaments To Irri-|tated And Congested Nasal Passages. Directions: Unscrew the cap where hose|is attached to Syn-O-Scope. Allow 15 to 20 drops of medicant to flow into the|sponge within the barrel. Replace cap. Then, merely place the tip in the nostril,|holding it in position by the hand. Grasp the mouthpiece between the lips and|blow. Use the amount of pressure suitable to your own case, but not too hard|at first. The harder you blow, the deeper the medicated vapor reaches into the|nasal cavities. Each day of active use add 3 to 5 drops of medicament to the|sponge.\"\" (2) In that the following statements, (carton) \"\"Syn-O-Scope The|Modern Treatment For Nasal Irritations And Congestions,\"\" and (circular)|\"\"Syn-O-Scope The Modern And Scientific Instrument For The Application of|Medicaments To Irritated And Congested Nasal Passages,\"\" were false and mis-|leading since they represented that it was efficacious for the purposes recom-|mended; whereas it was not efficacious for such purposes. (3) In that the car-|ton and vial containing the liquid did not bear the common or usual names of|the active ingredients, including the quantity of alcohol. (4) In that the vial|containing the liquid failed to bear a label containing the name and address of|the manufacturer, packer, or distributor. (5) In that the carton and vial con-|taining the liquid failed to bear a label containing ^ statement of the quantity|of contents.|The Synex was alleged to be misbranded in that the label failed to bear (1)|the common or usual names of the active ingredients; (2) the name and address|of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor; and (3) an accurate statement of|the quantity of contents.|On February 24, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgments of condemna-|tion were entered and the products were ordered destroyed.|406. Misbranding of gauze bandage. U. S. v. 57 Cartons of Gauze Bandage. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00406March 1942American White Cross Laboratories, Inc.gauze bandageMarch 12, 1940Seattle, Wash.New Rochelle, N. Y.Seattle, Wash.Western District of Washington406F. D. C. No. 2419. Sample No. 26924-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00406ddnj|406. Misbranding: of gauze bandage. IT. S. v. 57 Cartons of Gauze Bandage.|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 2419.|Sample No. 26924-E.)|This product was contained in a carton which was 40 percent larger than was|necessary; and it failed to bear a label containing the name and place of busi-|ess of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor.|On July 24,1940, the United States attorney for the Western District of Wash-|ington filed a libel against 57 cartons of gauze bandage at Seattle, Wash., alleging|that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about March 12,|1940, by the American White Cross Laboratories, Inc., from New Rochelle, N. T.:|and charging that it was misbranded in that the package failed to bear a label|containing the name and place of business of the manufacturer, packer, or dis-|tributor; and in that the container was so made, formed, or filled as to be|misleading.|On January 31, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|407. Adulteration and misbranding of gauze bandages. U. S. v. 56 Dozen and 208 Dozen Retail Packages of Non-Ravel Surgical Gauze Bandage. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00407March 1942Handy Pad Supply Co.gauze bandagesJuly 3, 1940Erie, Pa.Worcester, Mass.Erie, Pa.Western District of Pennsylvania407F. D. C. No. 2820. Sample Nos. 19424-E, 19426-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00407ddnj|407. Adulteration and misbranding: of gauze bandages. U. S. -v. 56 Dozen and|208 Dozen Retail Packages of Non-Ravel Surgical Gauze Bandage. Default|decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 2820. Sample Nos.|19424-E, 19426-E.)|This product had been shipped in interstate commerce and was in interstate|commerce at the time of examination at which time it was found to be con-|taminated with viable micro-organisms.|On September 14, 1940, the United States attorney for the Western District|of Pennsylvania filed a libel against 56 dozen packages each containing 10|yards of 1-inch gauze bandage, and 208 dozen packages each containing 10|yards of 2-inch gauze bandage at Erie, Pa., alleging that the articles had been|shipped in interstate commerce on or about July 3, 1940, by the Handy Pad|Supply Co. from Worcester, Mass.; and charging that they were adulterated|and misbranded. The article was labeled in part: \"\"Surgical Gauze Ban-|dage * * * Erie Drug Company.\"\"|The bandages were alleged to be adulterated in that their purity or quality|fell below that which they purported or were represented to possess, namely,|\"\"Sterilized,\"\" in that they were not sterile but were contaminated with viable|micro-organisms. They were alleged to be misbranded in that the following|statements appearing on the cartons were false and misleading as applied|to articles which were not sterile but were contaminated with viable micro-|organisms: \"\"Surgical Gauze Bandage Sterilized After Packaging Prepared|Especially For The Medical Profession * * . * manufactured under most|sanitary conditions, for surgical use. Sterilized.\"\"|On October 15, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|408. Adulteration and misbranding of gauze bandage. U. S. v. 20 Gross Packages of Gauze Bandage. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00408March 1942Meditex Supply Co.gauze bandageJune 24, 1940Pittsburgh, Pa.New York, N. Y.Pittsburgh, Pa.Western District of Pennsylvania408F. D. C. No. 2692. Sample No. 19028-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00408ddnj|408. Adulteration and misbranding of gauze bandage. V. S. v. 20 Gross Packages|of Gauze Bandage. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 2692. Sample No. 19028-E.)|This product had been shipped in interstate commerce and was in interstate|commerce at the time of examination, at which time it was found to be con-|taminated with viable micro-organisms. The carton was about 60 percent larger|than was necessary, and the product consisted of pieces of bandage sewed|together and not of a continuous strip as is expected in such a product; the|roll measured less than the declared length.|On August 29, 1940, the United States attorney for the Western District|of Pennsylvania filed a libel against 20 gross packages of Meditex Gauze|Bandage at Pittsburgh, Pa., alleging that the article had been shipped in inter-|state commerce on or about June 24, 1940, by the Meditex Supply Co. from|New York, N. X.; and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its purity and quality fell|below that which it purported or was represented to possess, namely, \"\"Gauze|Bandage Sterilized After Packing,\"\" since it did not consist of continuous strips|of gauze but of pieces sewed together; and it was not sterile but was con-|taminated with viable micro-organisms.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements on the carton, \"\"Gauze|Bandage,\"\" \"\"Sterilized After Packing,\"\" and \"\"10 yds.,\"\" were false and misleading|as applied to an article which did not consist of continuous strips of gauze,|which was not sterile, and which was not 10 yards long, and the label of which|did not reveal the fact, material in the light of the representation that the|article was gauze bandage 10 yards long, that the bandage did not consist of a|continuous strip but of pieces sewed together. It was alleged to be misbranded|further in that the package failed to bear on its label an accurate statement|of the quantity of the contents in terms of measure; and in that the container|was so made, formed, or filled as to be misleading.|On September 30, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|PROPHYLACTICS|409. Action to enjoin and restrain distribution of adulterated and misbranded rubber prophylactics. U. S. v. Dean Rubber Manufacturing Co. Consent decree perpetually enjoining and restraining defendant from distributing in Interstate commerce or exporting in foreign commerce rubber prophylactics.ddnj00409March 1942Dean Rubber Manufacturing Co., a corporation, North Kansas City, Mo.rubber prophylacticsthe years 1938 and 1939MissouriNorth Kansas City, Mo.MissouriWestern District of Missouri409Sample No. 10786-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00409ddnj|409. Action to enjoin and restrain distribution of adulterated and misbranded|rubber prophylactics. V. S. v. Dean Rubber Manufacturing Co. Consent|decree perpetually enjoining and restraining defendant fr\"\"om distributing|in Interstate commerce or exporting in foreign commerce rubber pro-|phylactics. (Sample No. 10786-E.)|On August 8, 1940, the United States attorney for the Western District of|Missouri filed a bill of complaint against the Dean Rubber Manufacturing Co.,|a corporation, North Kansas City, Mo., alleging that the defendant was en-|gaged in the manufacture, distribution, and sale in interstate and foreign com-|merce of rubber prophylactics; that the said prophylactics were recommended|and purported to be sold for the prevention of venereal diseases; that they were|labeled variously: \"\"Beware of social diseases. Be protected,\"\" \"\"An aid in pre-|venting venereal diseases,\"\" \"\"No. 1 grade blown tested,\"\" \"\"First Quality,\"\" and|\"\"Guaranteed two years against deterioration.\"\"|The complaint alleged further that during the period from on or about Jan-|uary 1 to on or about June 30, 1940, a large number of seizures had been made|of prophylactics shipped in interstate commerce by the defendant which were|adulterated in that their quality fell below that which they purported or were|represented to possess and were misbranded in that the labeling was false and|misleading.|The complaint alleged further that during the years 1938 and 1939 a large|number of samples of rubber prophylactics shipped in interstate commerce by|the defendant had been collected and found upon examination to contain holes.|The complaint alleged further that the defendant had on hand a large quantity|of the article adulterated and misbranded as aforesaid which he contemplated|introducing into interstate commerce and exporting in foreign commerce; that|the prophylactics so intended for export were not in accordance with the specifi-|cations of any foreign purchaser and were misbranded and adulterated in con-|flict with the laws of the countries to which they were intended for export.|The complaint alleged further that because of the methods of manufacture,|inspection, and preparation for shipment, used by the defendant, a large per-|centage of faulty articles was inevitable; that the defendant had not changed|its methods and had on hand for distribution in interstate and foreign commerce|a large supply of defective prophylactics intended for distribution in interstate|and foreign commerce.|The complaint prayed that the defendant, its officers, and its agents be per-|petually enjoined from distributing in interstate commerce or shipping for export|defective stock which it had on hand or might subsequently acquire. It prayed|further that a temporary restraining order issue forthwith without a hearing|and that, within 10 days thereafter, a hearing be held and a temporary injunction|be issued to be continued until a final hearing could be had and the complainant|granted a permanent injunction. On August 8, 1940, a temporary restraining|order was issued in accordance with the prayer of the bill of complaint and|August 15, 1940, was fixed as the date for a hearing as to why a temporary|injunction should not issue.|On August 15, 1940, the defendant having consented to the entry of a decree,|an injunction issued enjoining and perpetually restraining the defendant, its|officers, or agents from distributing in interstate commerce or for export,|except in compliance with the law, any defective prophylactic which it then|had on hand at North Kansas City, Mo., or any other point, or might subse-|quently acquire. On September 11, 1940, the court set aside the order of|August 15, 1940, and entered an order with the same restraining provisions|as the order of August 15, 1940, and defining \"\"defective\"\" within the meaning of|the order as prophylactics which contained holes or were otherwise imperfect|to the extent of making them unsuited for the prevention of venereal diseases.|410. Alleged violation of injunction. U. S. v. Dean Robber Manufacturing Co. Defendant adjudged not guilty.ddnj00410March 1942Dean Rubber Manufacturing Co., a corporation, North Kansas City, Mo.injunctionNovember 27, 1940MissouriNorth Kansas City, Mo.Omaha, Nebr., and Pittsburgh, Pa.Western District of Missouri410Sample No. 10786-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00410ddnj|410. Alleged violation of injunction. U. S. v. Dean Robber Manufacturing Co.|Defendant adjudged not guilty. (Sample No. 10786-E.)|On June 6, 1941, the United States attorney for the Western District of Mis-|souri filed an information against the Dean Rubber Manufacturing Co., a cor-|poration, North Kansas City, Mo., alleging that on or about November 27,|1940, the defendant shipped in interstate commerce from North Kansas City,|Mo., to Omaha, Nebr., and Pittsburgh, Pa., quantities of prophylactics which|were adulterated. The information further alleged that said shipments were|made by the defendant wilfully, unlawfully, contumaciously and contemptuously,|in violation of the injunction theretofore entered in said court, reported in|notice of judgment D. D. N. J. No. 409. On the same date an order was entered|that the defendant appear before the court on June 23, 1941, to show cause|why it should not be punished for contempt for violation of such injunction.|On June 23, 1941, the case was heard before the court and at the completion|of the evidence, the court found the defendant not guilty of wilfully and con-|temptuously violating the injunction.|Nos. 411 to 425 report actions based on interstate shipment of prophylactics|that were defective because of the presence of holes.|411. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. Goodwear Rubber Co., Inc., and Harry L. Ain. Plea of guilty. Corporation fined $1,000. Individual sentenced to 30 days In jail on each count. Execution of sentence on count II suspended and defendant placed on probation for 1 year to commence after having served 30 days' jail sentence on count 1.ddnj00411March 1942Goodwear Rubber Co., a corporation, New York, N. Y., and Harry L. Ain.prophylacticsNovember 29, 1939New YorkNew YorkFloridaSouthern District of New York411F. D. C. No. 2096. Sample No. 94913-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00411ddnj|411. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. Goodwear Rubber|Co., Inc., and Harry L. Ain. Plea of guilty. Corporation fined $1,000.|Individual sentenced to 30 days In jail on each count. Execution of|sentence on count II suspended and defendant placed on probation for 1|year to commence after having served 30 days' jail sentence on count I.|(F. D. C. No. 2096. Sample No. 94913-D.)|On September 30, 1940, the United States attorney for the Southern District|of New York filed an information against the Goodwear Rubber Co., a corpora-|tion, New York, N. Y., and Harry L. Ain, alleging shipment on or about November|29, 1939, from the State of New York into the State of Florida, of a quantity of|prophylactics that were adulterated and misbranded.|The articles were alleged to be adulterated in that their quality fell below that|which they were represented to possess in that they were represented to consist|of excellent quality, air-tested, rubber prophylactics; whereas they did not con-|sist of excellent quality, air-tested, rubber prophylactics but were defective be-|cause they contained holes. They were alleged to be misbranded in that the|statements \"\"Prophylactic Rubbers * * * Excellent Quality * * * Guaran-|teed 5 Years,\"\" borne on the cartons, and the statement \"\"Air Tested\"\" on the articles|were false and misleading, since the said statements represented that the articles|consisted of excellent quality, air-tested, rubber prophylactics; whereas they did|not, but were defective because they contained holes.|On October 2,1940, pleas of guilty having been entered on behalf of the defend-|ants, the court imposed a fine of $1,000 against the corporation and sentenced the|individual defendant, Harry L. Ain, to serve a sentence of 30 days in jail on count|I and also 30 days in jail on count II. The sentence on the latter count was sus-|pended and the defendant was placed on probation for 1 year to commence after|serving the jail sentence on count I.|412. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. Charles E. Jenkins, James L. Tyrrell, and Maurice Gasman (Killashun Sales Division). Pleas of guilty. Fine, $400.ddnj00412March 1942Charles E. Jenkins, James L. Tyrrell, and Maurice Gusman, copartners, trading as the Killashun Sales Division, at Akron, OhioprophylacticsAugust 25, 1939OhioOhioPennsylvaniaNorthern District of Ohio412F. D. C. No. 2100. Sample Nos. 3112-E, 3114-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00412ddnj|412. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. TJ. S. v. Charles E. Jenkins,|James L. Tyrrell, and Maurice Gasman (Klllashun Sales Division). Pleas|of guilty. Fine, $400. (P. D. C. No. 2100. Sample Nos. 3112-E, 3114-E.)|On August 12, 1940, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Ohio filed an information against Charles E. Jenkins, James L. Tyrrell, and|Maurice Gusman, copartners, trading as the Killashun Sales Division, at Akron,|Ohio, alleging shipment on or about August 25, 1939, from the State of Ohio|into the State of Pennsylvania, of quantities of prophylactics which were adul-|terated and misbranded. The article was labeled in part: \"\"Made From * * *|Liquid Latex Mfg. By L. E. Shunk Latex Prod. Inc. Akron, Ohio, U. S. A.\"\"|The articles were alleged to be adulterated in that their quality fell below|that which they purported or were represented to possess, in that they were|represented to be disease preventives, and in that they were guaranteed to be|effective for such purpose for 5 years; whereas they were not disease preventives|which were guaranteed to be effective for such purpose for 5 years, since they|were in whole or in part defective because of the presence of holes.|They were alleged to be misbranded in that the statements in the labeling,|\"\"For Prevention of Disease * * * Guaranteed Five Years * * * Disease|Preventative Guaranteed 5 Tears,\"\" were false and misleading since they repre-|sented that the articles would be effective to prevent disease and were guaran-|teed for such purposes for 5 years; whereas they were not effective to prevent|disease and would not be effective for such purposes for 5 years since they were|defective because of the presence of holes.|The information also charged other shipments of this product which were|adulterated and misbranded in violation of the Food and Drugs Act.of 1906,|as reported in notices of judgment published under that act.|On June 18, 1941, the defendants having entered pleas of guilty, the court|imposed a fine of $100 on each of the counts, the fine on the counts charging|violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act amounting to $400.|413. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 3 1/6 Gross, 285 Dozen, 18 Dozen, and 30 Dozen Prophylactics. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00413March 1942W. H. Reed & Co., Inc.prophylacticsOctober 3, November 5, and December 5, 1940New York, N. Y.Atlanta, Ga.New York, N. Y.Southern District of New York413F. D. C. Nos. 3264, 3519, 3586. Sample Nos. 10439-E, 10440-E, 10722-E, 34728-E, 34729-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00413ddnj|413. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. IT. S. v. 3% Gross, 285|Dozen, 18 Dozen, and 30 Dozen Prophylactics. Default decrees of con-|demnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 3264, 3519, 3586. Sample Nos.|10439-E, 10440-E, 10722-E, 34728-E, 34729-E.)|On October 30 and December 19 and 30, 1940, the United States attorney for|the Southern District of New York filed libels against 3Ve gross and 333 dozen|prophylactics at New York, N. Y., alleging that the article had been shipped in|interstate commerce on or about October 3, November 5, and December 5, 1940,|by W. H. Reed & Co., Inc., from Atlanta, Ga.; and charging that it was adul-|terated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its quality fell below that|which it purported or was represented to possess.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements were false|and misleading: (Envelope) \"\"Three Star Brand Goldbeaters are made from choice|grade of materials * * * and represent high quality of Goldbeaters *, * *|for the Prevention Of Disease,\"\" and (instruction sheet) \"\"The merchandise which|you will find in this package is made of selected material * * * with all|the care and skill which long experience in manufacturing can give\"\"; (carton)|\"\"Supreme * * * Specially Selected,\"\" and (envelope) \"\"Supreme * * *|Specially Selected Silver-Tex Brand Goldbeaters are made from the choicest|grade of materials obtainable, * * * and represent the highest quality of|Goldbeaters. * * * for the prevention of contagious diseases\"\"; (carton)|\"\"Guaranteed Five Years,\"\" and (envelope) \"\"Texide Brand Goldbeaters are made|from the choicest grade of materials obtainable, * * * and represent the|highest quality of Goldbeaters. * * * for the prevention of contagious dis-|eases only\"\"; and (carton) \"\"Double Selected * * * Supreme,\"\" (envelope)|\"\"Double Selected * * * Supreme Monat Brand Goldbeaters are made from|the choicest grade of materials obtainable, * * * and represent the highest|quality * * * for the prevention of contagious diseases,\"\" and (direction|sheet) \"\"* * * for the prevention of disease.\"\"|Portions of the article were alleged to be misbranded further in that it was|in package form but (1) did not bear a label containing the name and place|of business of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor; and (2) did not bear|a label containing an accurate statement of the quantity of the contents.|On November 22,1940, and January 8 and 17,1941, no claimant having appeared,|judgments of condemnation were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|414. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 983 Gross of Prophylactics (and 6 other seizure actions against prophylactics). Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00414March 1942Killashun Sales DivisionprophylacticsMarch 11, 1939, to December 4, 1940Dallas, Tex.; Pittsburgh, Pa.; New York, N. Y.; Chicago, Ill.; Kansas City, Mo.Akron, OhioDallas, Tex.; Pittsburgh, Pa.; New York, N. Y.; Chicago, Ill.; Kansas City, Mo.Northern District of Texas, Western District of Pennsylvania, Southern District of New York, Northern District of Illinois, and Western District of Missouri414F. D. C. Nos. 1314, 1315, 2430, 3160. 3624. 3645, 3671, 3676. Sample Nos. 61197-D. 61198-D, 3192-E, 10727-E. 16943-E. 19248-E, 31937-E, 31939-E, 31949-E, 31950-E, 31951-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00414ddnj|414. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. TJ. S. v. 983 Gross of Pro|phylactics (and 6 other seizure actions against prophylactics). Default|decrees of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 1314, 1315, 2430,|3160. 3624. 3645, 3671, 3676. Sample Nos. 61197-D. 61198-D, 3192-E, 10727-E.|16943-E. 19248-E, 31937-E, 31939-E, 31949-E, 31950-E, 31951-E.)|Between January 10, 1940, and January 20, 1941, the United States attorneys|for the Northern District of Texas, Western District of Pennsylvania, Southern|District of New York, Northern District of Illinois, and Western District of|Missouri filed libels against 983 gross of prophylactics at Dallas, Tex., 11^ gross|at Pittsburgh, Pa., 48 gross at New York, N. Y., 1,595 gross at Chicago, 111., and|143 gross at Kansas City, Mo., alleging that the article had been shipped in|interstate commerce by the Killashun Sales Division from Akron, Ohio, within|the period from on or about March 11, 1939, to on or about December 4, 1940;|and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded. The article was labeled|in part variously: \"\"Genuine LES Liquid Latex\"\"; \"\"Pickaniny Brand Supreme|Goldbeaters * * * Olympia Lab. Atlanta, Ga.\"\"; \"\"Diana Special * * *|Distributed by Boland Laboratories, * * * New York City\"\"; \"\"Killian Mfg.|Co. Akron, Ohio\"\"; \"\"Tetratex\"\"; \"\"X-cello's\"\"; \"\"Genuine Texide\"\"; \"\"Silver-Tex\"\";|\"\"Apris\"\"; and \"\"Texide.\"\"|The \"\"Genuine LES Liquid Latex\"\" was alleged to be adulterated in that its|strength fell below the professed standard or quality under which it was sold.|The remaining products were alleged to be adulterated in that their quality fell|below that which they purported or were represented to possess.|Misbranding was alleged in that the following statements in the labeling were|false and misleading: (Genuine LES Liquid Latex) \"\"For the prevention of|disease .* * * prophylactic * * * Guaranteed five years\"\"; (Pickaniny|brand) \"\"Supreme * * * Pickaniny Brand Goldbeaters are made from choice|materials and represent a high quality of Goldbeaters * * * for prevention of|disease\"\"; (Diana Special) \"\"Special Quality\"\"; (Tetratex) \"\"Prophylactics * * *|for prevention of venereal disease\"\"; and (Texide) \"\"For prevention of disease\"\";|.(X-cello's, Silver-Tex, and Apris) \"\"Prophylactic.\"\"|Between February 23, 1940, and March 14, 1941, no claimant having appeared,|judgments of condemnation were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|415. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 38 Gross of Prophylactics. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00415March 1942Allied Latex CorporationprophylacticsOctober 4, 1940New York, N. Y.East Newark, N. J.New York, N. Y.Southern District of New York415F. D. C. No. 3332. Sample No. 10432-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00415ddnj|415. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 38 Gross of Pro|phylactics. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C.|No. 3332. Sample No. 10432-E.)|On November 7, 1940, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|New York filed a libel against 38 gross of prophylactics at New York, N. Y., alleg-|ing that the article had been shipped on or about October 4, 1940, by the Allied|Latex Corporation from East Newark, N. J.; and charging that it was adulterated|and misbranded. It was labeled in part: \"\"Smithies.\"\"|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength fell below the|professed standard or quality under which it was sold, in that it was sold as and|for a prophylactic and was not suitable for such purpose by reason of the fact that|a large percentage contained perforations or punctures.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement \"\"Prophylactics\"\" in the|labeling was false and misleading.|On December 5,1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|438. Misbranding of Wonder Salve. U. S. v. 13 Cans of Wonder Salve. Consent decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00438September 1942Brookgate Remedies Co.Wonder SalveDecember 21, 1939Pittsburgh, Pa.Evansville, Ind.Pittsburgh, Pa.Western District of Pennsylvania438F. D. C. No. 3164. Sample No. 19079-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00438ddnj|438. Misbranding of Wonder Salve. V. S. v. 13 Cans of Wonder Salve. 'Consent|decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 3164. Sample No.|19079-E.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-|ing its effi?acy as indicated hereinafter. The article would be dangerous to|health when used in the manner recommended and suggested in the labeling.|On October 10. 1940, the United States attorney for. the Western District of|Pennsylvania filed a libel against 13 cans of Wonder Salve at Pittsburgh, Pa.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|December 21, 1939, by Brookgate Remedies Co. from Evansville, Ind.; and|charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of phenolic compounds,|including 5.44 percent of carbolic acid, camphor, and turpentine in an ointment|base.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements|on the label were false and misleading, since it would not be efficacious for the|purposes for which it was so recommended: \"\"For all cases of Inflammation|or Infection. For * * * Mashed Members, Cinders or any other Foreign|substances in the Eye.\"\" It was alleged to be misbranded further in that it|would be dangerous to health when used in the dosage or with the frequency|or duration prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling, namely,|\"\"Apply salve freely to affected parts and bandage. For cinders or other foreign|substance in eye, place salve on absorbent cotton and place same over closed|eye and bandage.\"\"|The product was also alleged to be misbranded in violation of the Federal|Caustic Poison Act, as reported in notice of judgment No. 103 published under that|act.|On January 26, 1942. the shipper having consented to the entry of a decree,|judgment of condemnation was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|DRUGS AND DEVICES ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO BEAR|ADEQUATE DIRECTIONS FOR USE OR WARNING STATEMENTS1|416. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 48 Gross and 11 Gross of Prophylactics. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00416March 1942Crown Rubber Sundries Co. from Akron, OhioprophylacticsNovember 20, 1940New York, N. Y.Akron, OhioNew York, N. Y.Southern District of New York416F. D. C. Nos. 3622, 3623. Sample Nos. 10726-E, 10729-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00416ddnj|416. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 48 Gross and 11|Gross of Prophylactics. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. Nos. 3622, 3623. Sample Nos. 10726-E, 10729-E.)|On January 6, 1941, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|New York filed a libel against a total of 59 gross of prophylactics at New York,|N. Y., alleging that the articles had been shipped in interstate commerce on or|about November 20, 1940, by the Crown Rubber Sundries Co. from Akron, Ohio;|and charging that they were adulterated and misbranded. They were labeled in|part: \"\"Latex Made from liquid rubber Water Cured\"\"; or \"\"Brevs.\"\"|The lot labeled \"\"Latex\"\" was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements,|\"\"Extra Quality 2 Year Guarantee * * * Guaranteed against deterioration for|two years * * * for the prevention of contagious diseases,\"\" were false and|misleading; and in that the label did not bear an accurate statement of the quan-|tity of the contents. The lot labeled \"\"Brevs\"\" was alleged to be misbranded in|that the statements, \"\"Prophylactics * * * an aid for prevention of disease|* * * new type prophylactic,\"\" were false and misleading since they were not|suitable for the prevention of disease because they contained perforations and|punctures; and because of their short length could not be depended upon to guard|against disease.|On January 25, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|417. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 2 1/4 Gross of Prophylactics. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00417March 1942Dean & AdelspergerprophylacticsFebruary 9, 1940Alton, Ill.Kansas City, Mo.Alton, Ill.Southern District of Illinois417F. D. C. No. 1719. Sample No. 15386-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00417ddnj|417. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. IT. S. v. 2% Gross of|Prophylactics. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C.|No. 1719. Sample No. 15386-E.)|On or about March 26, 1940, the United States attorney for the Southern|District of Illinois filed a libel against 2? gross of prophylactics at Alton, 111.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|February 9, 1940, by Dean & Adelsperger from Kansas City, Mo.; and charging|that it was adulterated and misbranded. The article was labeled in part:|\"\"Dean's Peacocks.\"\"|It was alleged to be adulterated in that its quality fell-below that which it|purported or was represented to possess since it was represented to be a prophy-|lactic ; whereas it was defective in that it contained holes.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements in the labeling, \"\"Pea-|cocks are all air-blown tested-an aid in preventing venereal diseases * * *|for your protection * * * No. 1 grade blown tested,\"\" were false and mis-|leading.|On May 26,1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the article was ordered destroyed.|418. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 10 1/4 Gross, 9 1/4 Gross, and 14 Gross of Prophylactics. Decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00418March 1942Dean Rubber Manufacturing Co.prophylacticsNovember 27, 1940Omaha, Nebr.North Kansas City, Mo.Omaha, Nebr.District of Nebraska and the Western District of Pennsylvania418F. D. C. Nos. 3508, 3578. Sample Nos. 16578-E, 16579-E, 19323-E, 19333-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00418ddnj|418. Adulteration and misbranding- of prophylactics. IT. S. v. 10% Gross, 9%|Gross, and 14 Gross of Prophylactics. Decrees of condemnation and de-|struction. (F. D. C. Nos. 3508, 3578. Sample Nos. 16578-E, 16579-E, 19323-E,|19333-E.)|On December 13 and 23, 1940, the United States attorneys for the District of|Nebraska and the Western District of Pennsylvania filed libels against 19-|gross of prophylactics at Omaha, Nebr., and 14 gross at Pittsburgh, Pa., alleging|that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about November|27, 1940, by the Dean Rubber Manufacturing Co. from North Kansas City, Mo.;|and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded. The article was labeled in|part: \"\"Sekurity\"\" or \"\"Sentinel.\"\"|It was alleged to be adulterated in that its quality fell below that which it|purported or was represented to possess.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements|apearing in the labeling were false and misleading: (Sekurity brand, envelope)|\"\"Sekurity * * * Tested and Guaranteed for 2 years * * * For Use As|An Aid In Preventing Venereal Diseases,\"\" (tin) \"\"Sekurity * * * Prophy-|lactics Sekuritys are guaranteed air blown tested. * * * An aid in preventing|venereal diseases,\"\" and (stamped on article) \"\"Air Blown Tested Sekurity\"\";|and (Sentinel brand, tin) \"\"Prophylactics Every Sentinel air blown tested under|new testing process Finest quality * * * Beware of social diseases, be|protected,\"\" (stamped on article) \"\"Air Blown-Tested,\"\" and (circular) \"\"Air-Blown|tested * * * carefully selected and inspected Sentinel prophylactics are|individually air-tested, and secure maximum protection. Unconditionally guar-|anteed. 'When you Ask For Sentinel You get the Best' * * * For the|Prevention of Disease.\"\"|On January 16, 1941, no claimant having appeared for the product seized at|Pittsburgh, and on March 6, 1941, the claimant for the product seized at Omaha|having consented to the entry of a decree, judgments of condemnation were|entered and the produet was ordered destroyed.|419. Misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 49 Gross of Prophylactics. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00419March 1942Gotham Sales Co., Inc.prophylacticsJanuary 10, 1940Danville, Va.New York, N. Y.Danville, Va.Western District of Virginia419F. D. C. No. 1668. Sample No. 1049-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00419ddnj|419. Misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 49 Gross of Prophylactics. Default|decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 1668. Sample No.|1049-E.)|On March 22, 1940, the United States attorney for the Western District of|Virginia filed a libel against 49 gross prophylactics at Danville, Va., which had|been consigned by Gotham Sales Co., Inc., alleging that the article had been|shipped in interstate commerce on or about January 10, 1940, from New York,|N. Y.; and charging that it was adulterated in that its strength fell below the|professed standard of quality under which it was sold. It was labeled in part:|\"\"Crescent.\"\"|On September 4,1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|420. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 6 Gross of Prophylactics (and 7 other seizure actions against prophylactics). Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00420March 1942Eveready Trading Co. from New York, N. Y., and Newark and East Newark, N. J.prophylacticsJuly 8 to on or about August 31,1940Pittsburgh, Pa.; Chicago, Ill.; Indianapolis, Ind.; Kansas City, Mo.; Cleveland, Ohio; Detroit, Mich.; Birmingham, Ala.New York, N. Y., and Newark and East Newark, N. J.Pittsburgh, Pa.; Chicago, Ill.; Indianapolis, Ind.; Kansas City, Mo.; Cleveland, Ohio; Detroit, Mich.; Birmingham, Ala.Western District of Pennsylvania, Northern District of Illinois, Southern District of Indiana, Western District of Missouri, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern District of Michigan, and Northern District of Alabama420F. D. C. Nos. 2544, 2708, 2729, 2791, 2810, 2998. 3149, 3197. Sample Nos. 4076-E, 16158-E, 18004-E, 19217-B, 19247-E, 27449-E, 27562-E, 30906-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00420ddnj|420. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. IT. S. v. 6 Gross of Pro|phylactics '(and 7 other seizure actions against prophylactics). Default|decrees of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 2544, 2708, 2729,|2791, 2810, 2998. 3149, 3197. Sample Nos. 4076-E, 16158-E, 18004-E, 19217-B,|19247-E, 27449-E, 27562-E, 30906-E.)|Between August 14 and October 12, 1940, the United States attorneys for the|Western District of Pennsylvania, Northern District of Illinois, Southern District|of Indiana, Western District of Missouri, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern|District of Michigan, and Northern District of Alabama, filed libels against 11|gross 5? dozen prophylactics at Pittsburgh, Pa.; 9? gross of the product at|Chicago, 111.; 8? gross at Indianapolis, Ind.; 13 gross at Kansas City, Mo.; 5-|gross at Cleveland, Ohio; 6? gross at Detroit, Mich.; and 4 gross at Birmingham,|Ala., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce within|the period from on or about July 8 to on or about August 31,1940, by the Eveready|Trading Co. from New York, N. Y., and Newark and East Newark, N. J.; and|charging that it was adulterated and misbranded. It was labeled in part:|\"\"Beacon Tips. * * * Beacon Sundries, Inc., New York City.\"\"|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its quality fell below that|which it purported or was represented to possess. .|It was alleged to be misbranded in that representations in the labeling regard- (|ing its efficacy as a protection against infection were false and misleading.|Between September 9 and December 7, 1940, no claimant having appeared,|judgments of condemnation were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|421. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 19 Dozen Prophylactics and 76 Dozen Prophylactics. Default decree of destruction.ddnj00421March 1942International DistributorsprophylacticsApril 11, 1941Tulsa, Okla.Memphis, Tenn.Tulsa, Okla.Northern District of Oklahoma421F. D. C. Nos. 4870, 4871. Sample Nos. 43433-E, 43434-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00421ddnj|421. Adulteration and misbranding1 of prophylactics. TJ. S. v. 19 Dozen Prophy-|lactics and 76 Dozen Prophylactics. Default decree of destruction. (F.|D. C. Nos. 4870, 4871. Sample Nos. 43433-E, 43434-E.)|On June 9, 1941, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Oklahoma filed a libel against 19 dozen animal membrane prophylactics and 76|dozen rubber prophylactics at Tulsa, Okla., alleging that the articles had been|shipped in interstate commerce on or about April 11, 1941, by International|Distributors from Memphis, Tenn.; and charging that they were adulterated and|misbranded. The rubber prophylactics were labeled in part: \"\"Rough Rider.\"\"|The articles were alleged to be adulterated in that their quality fell below that|which they purported or were represented to possess.|The animal membrane prophylactics were alleged to be misbranded in that|they were in package form and the label did not bear the name and place of|business of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor; and in that they were in|package form and the label did not bear an accurate statement of the quantity|of contents.|The rubber prophylactics were alleged to be misbranded in that the statement|\"\"for prevention of disease,\"\" which appeared on the 1-gross carton, the 1-dozen|carton, and the 3-unit carton, and was stamped on the article, was false and|misleading.|On June 27,1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment was entered ordering|that the products be destroyed.|424. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 13 Gross of Rubber Prophylactics. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00424March 1942W. H. Heed & Co., Inc.prophylacticsJuly 26, 1940Spartanburg, S. C.Atlanta, Ga.Spartanburg, S. C.Western District of South Carolina424F. D. C. No. 2687. Sample No. 20099-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00424ddnj|424. Adulteration and misbranding: of prophylactics. U. S. v. 13 Gross of Rubber|Prophylactics. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D.|C. No. 2687. Sample No. 20099-E.)|On August 29, 1940, the United States attorney for the Western District of|South Carolina filed a libel against 13 gross of prophylactics at Spartanburg, S. C,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|July 26,1940, by W. H. Heed & Co., Inc., from Atlanta, Ga.; and charging that it|was adulterated and misbranded. It was labeled in part \"\"Golden Pheasant.\"\"|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its quality fell below that|which it purported or was represented to possess.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements on the label-|ing were false and misleading: (Tin) \"\"Prophylactics,\"\" and (stamped on article)|\"\"Guaranteed.\"\"|On October 2, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|425. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 2 7/12 Gross and 59 Gross of Prophylactics. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00425March 1942Rubber Research Products CorporationprophylacticsMay 22 and June 26, 1940Pittsburgh, Pa.Jersey City, N. J.Pittsburgh, Pa.Western District of Pennsylvania and the Southern District of New York425F. D. C. Nos. 2388, 2428. Sample Nos. 3191-E, 10843-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00425ddnj|425. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 2%2 Gross and 59|Gross of Prophylactics. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. Nos. 2388, 2428. Sample Nos. 3191-B, 10843-E.)|On July 19 and 26, 1940, the United States attorneys for the Western District|of Pennsylvania and the Southern District of New York filed libels against 2&|gross of prophylactics at Pittsburgh, Pa., and 59 gross of prophylactics at New|York, N. Y., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on|or about May 22 and June 26, 1940, by the Rubber Research Products Corporation|from Jersey City, N. J.; and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded.|It was labeled in part \"\"Kaps.\"\" '|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its quality fell below that|which it purported or was represented to possess.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, \"\"It is a limited but|valuable Aid, though Not an Entire preventive, against venereal infection,\"\" borne|on the packages and similar statements in a leaflet contained in the package,|were false and misleading.|On August 19 and September 25, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgments|of condemnation were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|426. Adulteration and misbranding of Catawba's Nervine and Acetandyne Pain Tablets; misbranding of Black Tablets for Kidneys, Bladder, and Uretes, Catawba's Bu-Q-Ju Diuretic, Catawba's Pep-A-Man Tonic Laxative, and Nu-Vig-Or Laxative-Tonic. U. S. v. William B. Goebel (Botanical Medicine Co.). Plea of guilty. Fine, $100.ddnj00426September 1942William B. Goebel, trading as Botanical Medicine Co., Kannapolis, N. C.Catawba's Nervine and Acetandyne Pain Tablets; Black Tablets for Kidneys, Bladder, and Uretes, Catawba's Bu-Q-Ju Diuretic, Catawba's Pep-A-Man Tonic Laxative, and Nu-Vig-Or Laxative-TonicJune 7 and 10, 1940North CarolinaNorth CarolinaVirginia and South CarolinaMiddle District of North Carolina426F. D. C. No. 2906. Sample Nos. 340-E, 341-E, 20232-E to 20235-E, incl.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00426ddnj|426. Adulteration and misbranding of Catawba's Nervine and Acetandyne Pain|Tablets; misbranding of Black Tablets for Kidneys, Bladder, and Uretes,|Catawba's Bu-Q-Ju Diuretic, Catawba's Pep-A-Man Tonic Laxative, and|Nu-Vig-Or Laxative-Tonic. V. S. v. William B. Goebel (Botanical Medi-|cine Co.). Plea of guilty. Fine, $100. (F. D. C. No. 2906. Sample Nos.|340-E, 341-E, 20232-E to 2023-5-E, incl.)|Catawba's Nervine would be dangerous to health when used according to|directions in the labeling, and its labeling also failed to bear adequate directions|for use. Adequate warning statements did not appear in the labeling of the|Nervine and of the Acetandyne Pain Tablets. These two products also failed|to meet their own standards of strength and quality, the Nervine was falsely|labeled as a safe treatment for certain conditions, and the other products all bore|false and misleading therapeutic claims.|On March 28, 1941, the United States attorney for the Middle District of|North Carolina filed an information against William B. Goebel, trading as|Botanical Medicine Co., Kannapolis, N. C, alleging shipment on or about|June 7 and 10, 1940, from the State of North Carolina into the States of Virginia|and South Carolina of a quantity of the above-named products, of which a portion|were misbranded and the remainder were adulterated and misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of Catawba's Nervine showed that it contained not|more than 3.97 grains of sodium bromide per y8 fluid ounce, not more than 3.7|467449'-42-|211|grains of potassium bromide per ? fluid ounce, and not less than 0.93 grain pf|ammonium bromide per ? fluid ounce. It was alleged to be adulterated In?f\"\"|that its strength differed from or its quality fell below that which it purported?A|or was represented to possess since it was represented to contain 4? grains|of sodium bromide, 4? grains of potassium bromide, and ? grain of ammonium|bromide in each ? fluid ounce; whereas it contained not more than 3.97 grains?v|of sodium bromide, not more than 3.7 grains of potassium bromide, and.not less|than 0.93 grain of ammonium bromide. It was alleged to be misbranded: (1)|In that the statement on the label, \"\"Each teaspoonful (? oz.) Contains Sodium|Bromide 4*? gr. Potassium Bromide 4? gr. Ammonium Bromide ? gr.,\"\" was|false and misleading. (2) In that the bottle label represented and suggested|that it constituted| a safe and appropriate treatment for the conditions men-|tioned thereon; whereas it was a dangerous drug and the labeling failed to|reveal the material fact that its use under the conditions of use prescribed|in the labeling or under such conditions of use as are customary or usual, i. e.,|the use of the drug in accordance with the directions, might lead to mental|derangement. (3) In that it would be dangerous to health when used in the|dosage or with the frequency or duration prescribed, recommended, or suggested|in the labeling, \"\"Adult dose-Take one teaspoonful in half glass of water. If|necessary repeat but do not take over four teaspoonfuls in any twenty-four hour|period.\"\" (4) In that its labeling failed to bear adequate directions for use.|(5) In that its labeling failed to bear adequate warnings against use in those|pathological conditions or by children where its use might be dangerous to health|or against unsafe dosage or methods or duration of administration in such|manner and form as are necessary for the protection of users.|Analysis of a sample of Black Tablets for the Kidneys, Bladder, and Uretes|showed that they contained compounds of magnesium and aluminum, cubeb,|copaiba, methyl salicylate, and sugar. They were alleged to be misbranded|in that the statement in the labeling, \"\"For The Kidneys Bladder and Uretes,\"\"|was false and misleading since it represented that the drug was efficacious in|the treatment of disorders of the kidneys, bladder, and uretes (ureter) ; whereas|it was not efficacious for such purposes.|Analysis of a sample of Catawba's Bu-Q-Ju Diuretic showed that it consisted|essentially of extracts of plant drugs (including cubeb and peppermint), sugar,|alcohol, and water. It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement in|the labeling, \"\"aids the elimination of the toxic poisonous substances,\"\" was false|and misleading since the drug was not efficacious for that purpose.|Analysis of a sample of the Acetandyne Pain Tablets showed that they contained|not more than 0.99 grain of acetanilid and not less than 2.79 grains of aspirin|per tablet. They were alleged to be adulterated in that their strength differed|from or their quality fell below that which they purported or were represented|to possess since each tablet was represented to contain 2 grains of acetanilid|and 1 grain of aspirin; whereas each of the tablets contained not more t!han|0.99 grain of acetanilid and not less than 2.79 grains of asipirin. They were|alleged to misbranded in that the statement, (carton) \"\"Acetandyne Pain Tablets|This preparation contains Acetanilid 2 gr. Aspirin 1 gr.,\"\" was false and mis-|leading. They were alleged to be misbranded further (1) in that the labeling|failed to bear adequate warnings against unsafe dosage or methods or duration|of administration in such manner and form as are necessary for the protection|of users; and (2) in that the statement in the labeling, \"\"Pain Tablets * * ? *|pains caused by menstrual disturbances * * * Menstrual pains,\"\" was false|and misleading since it represented that the drug was efficacious in the treatment|of pains caused by menstrual disturbances; whereas they were not efficacious|for such purposes.|Analysis of a sample of Nu-Vig-Or showed that it contained plant material|including cloves, capsicum, an emodin-bearing drug such as senna, and a bitter|principle such as gentian, sulfur, sodium sulfate, magnesium carbonate, and|sodium bicarbonate. It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement|in the labeling, \"\"Nu-Vig-Or * * * Tonic Nu-Vig-Or is a tonic,\"\" was false|and misleading since it represented that the drug would supply new vigor and|would restore vigor; whereas it was not efficacious for such purposes.|Analysis of a sample of Catawba's Pep-A-Man Tonic Laxative showed that it|contained extracts of plant drugs including a laxative drug, aloin, and strychnine|sulfate. It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement in the labeling, 7|\"\"Pep-A-Man Tonic,\"\" was false and misleading since it represented that the?v..|drug possessed tonic properties and the restorative, vitalizing, and invigorating|properties implied in the name \"\"Pep-A-Man\"\"; whereas it did not possess such|properties.|On April 21,1941, the defendant entered a plea of guilty and the court imposed|a fine of $100 and placed the defendant on probation for 3 years.|427. Misbranding of Hillman's D Compound. U. S. v. David Hillman (Hillman Pharmaceutical Co.). Plea of guilty. Fine, $1 and costs.ddnj00427September 1942David Hillman, trading as Hillman Pharmaceutical Co., Chicago, Ill.Hillman's D CompoundFebruary 5, 1910IllinoisIllinoisWisconsinNorthern District of Illinois427F. D. C. No. 2866. Sample No. 4610-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00427ddnj|427. Misbranding of Hillman's D Compound. V. S. v. David Hillman (Hillman|Pharmaceutical Co.). Plea of guilty. Fine, $1 and costs. (F. D. C. No.|2866. Sample No. 4610-E.)|On November 15, 1940, the United States attorney for the Northern District|of Illinois filed an information against David Hillman, trading as Hillman Phar-|maceutical Co., Chicago, 111., alleging shipment on or^about February 5, 1910,|from the State of Illinois into the State of Wisconsin of a quantity of Hillman's|D Compound which was misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that the capsules each contained|aminopyrine (1.44 grains), a small proportion of ephedrine sulfate, and milk|sugar, flavored with peppermint oil.|The article was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that it would be dangerous|to health when used in the dosage or with the frequency or duration prescribed,|recommended, or suggested in the labeling; (2) in that its labeling did not bear|adequate directions for use;. (3) it did not bear adequate warnings against unsafe|dosage or methods or duration of administration in such manner and form as are|necessary for the protection of users. It was alleged to be misbranded further|in that the labeling was false and misleading since it created the impression|that the article constituted a safe and appropriate treatment for the conditions|mentioned in the labeling; whereas it did not constitute a safe and appropriate|treatment for the conditions mentioned in the labeling, but was a dangerous drug,|and the labeling failed to reveal the material fact that this drug might cause|serious blood disturbances. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that|statements in the labeling representing that it would be efficacious in the treat-|ment of dysmenorrhea (painful menstruation), would be efficacious in the treat-|ment of cramps, backache, and headache which accompany menstruation, and|would banish painful menstruation,, were false and misleading since it would|not be efficacious for such purposes.|On December 18, 1940, the defendant entered a plea of guilty and the court|imposed a fine of $1 and costs.|439. Misbranding of Pine-Orum Compound. U. S. v. John C. Schaffer (Pine-Orum Chemical Co.). Plea of guilty. Fine, $50.ddnj00439September 1942John C. Schaffer, trading as Pine-Orum Chemical Co., at New Augusta, Miss.Pine-Orum CompoundFebruary 23, 1940MississippiMississippiTexasSouthern District of Mississippi439F. D. C. No. 4169. Sample No. 11224-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00439ddnj|439. Misbranding of Pine-Orum Compound. U. S. v. John C. Schaffer (Pine-Omni|Chemical Co.). Plea of guilty. Fine, $50. (F. D. C. No. 4169. Sample No.|- 11224-E.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-|ing its efficacy in the treatment of certain conditions and failed to comply with|certain mandatory labeling requirements of the law as indicated hereinafter.|On September 13, 1941, the United States attorney for the Southern District|of Mississippi filed an information against John C. Schaffer, trading as Pine-|Orum Chemical Co., at New Augusta, Miss., alleging shipment on February 23,|1940, from the State of Mississippi into the State of Texas of a quantity of|Schaffer's Pine-Orum Compound that was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article was a medium heavy oil having a strong|pine oil odor consisting essentially of a pine tar distillate containing sulfur or|sulfur compounds and a small percentage of water.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that certain statements on the bottle label|were false and misleading since they represented and suggested that the article|was efficacious as a treatment and remedy for coughs, colds, flu, pneumonia,|headache, indigestion, worms in humans and animals, cuts, burns, infections|and blood poison, insect bites, tonsillitis, sore throat, toothache, pyorrhea, bruises,|rheumatism, neuritis, sprains, stiff joints, old chronic sores, hemorrhoids, athlete's|foot, itch, poison oak, dew poison and dandruff; that it would be efficacious to|stop the flow of blood; that when used in the bath it would have medicinal|properties, and it was efficacious for many animal ailments; whereas it was not|efficacious for such purposes.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that it was in package form and|did not bear a label containing the name and place of business of the manu-|facturer, packer or distributor, placed thereon with such conspicuousness (as|compared with other words, statements, designs or devices in the labeling) as .|to render it likely to be read under customary conditions of purchase, since the|name and place of business of the manufacturer did not appear on the panel|of the bottle label which was displayed under customary conditions of purchase.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that it was in package form and|did not bear a label containing an accurate statement of the quantity of the con-|tents in terms of measure; in that it was fabricated from two or more ingredients|and its label did not bear the common or usual name of each active ingredient;|and in that its labeling did not bear adequate directions for use, since it was|recommended for conditions requiring external application and the labeling bore|no directions for external use.|On October 13, 1941, the defendant having entered a plea of guilty, the court|imposed a fine of $50.|1 See also Nos. 426, 427, 429-432, 434-436, 459, 460.|440. Misbranding of Cascarin Compound Tablets. U. S. v. 573 Bottles of S. C. Tablets Cascarin Compound Dr. Hinkle No. 3. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00440September 1942Boyce Pharmacal Co.Cascarin Compound TabletsJuly 10, 1940Phoenix, Ariz.Los Angeles, Calif.Phoenix, Ariz.District of Arizona440F. D. C. No. 3638. Sample No. 32634-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00440ddnj|440. Misbranding; of Cascarln Compound Tablets. U. S. v. 573 Bottles of S. C.|Tablets Cascarln Compound Dr. Hinkle Ho. 3. Default decree of con-|demnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 3638. Sample No. 32634-E.)|On January 9, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Arizona|filed a libel against 578 bottles of the above-named product at Phoenix, Ariz.,|alleging that the article had been shipped by the Boyce Pharmacal Co. from|Los Angeles, Calif., on or about July 10, 1940; and charging that it was|misbranded.|Analysis of a sample showed that the tablets each contained alkaloidal ma-|terial including strychnine sulfate (approximately 0.024 grain), podophyllin|(approximately V& grain>, aloin (? grain), and an emodin-bearing drug such|as cascara sagrada.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the label failed to bear|adequate warnings against use in those pathological conditions or by children|where its use may be dangerous to health or against unsafe dosage or duration|of administration in such manner and form as are necessary for the protection|of users, since it did not inform the purchaser that the tablets should not be taken|when symptoms of appendicitis are present and that its use by children and|elderly persons is particularly dangerous, and did not warn against frequent|or continued use of the article when such use is capable of causing dependence|upon laxatives to move the bowels. It was alleged to be misbranded further|(1) in that the designation \"\"Oascarin Compound,\"\" appearing on the label, was|false and misleading since it suggested that the essential ingredient in the|preparation was derived from some species of cascara when in fact its principal|active ingredients were aloin, podophyllin, and strychnine; (2) in that the|designation \"\"Dr. Hinkle No. 3,\"\" appearing on the label, was false and misleading|since it created the impression that the article had the essential composition|described in the National Formulary for Hinkle's pills when in fact its com-|position differed therefrom, particularly in that it contained strychnine sulfate,|which is not an ingredient of Hinkle's pills; and (3) in that the label failed to|bear the common or usual name of each of its active ingredients since the coined|word \"\"Oascarin,\"\" appearing on the labei in the list of ingredients, was not the|common or usual name of any drug.|On February 10,1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|428. Misbranding of Young's Preparation. U. S. v. Oscar Lee Brunson. Plea of guilty. Defendant placed on probation for 3 years.ddnj00428September 1942Oscar Lee Brunson of Waycross, Ga.Young's PreparationMarch 4 and May 31, 1940GeorgiaGeorgiaFloridaSouthern District of Georgia428F. D. C. No. 2931. Sample Nos. 537-E, 20701-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00428ddnj|428. Misbranding of Young's Preparation. U. S. v. Oscar Lee Brunson. Plea of|guilty. Defendant placed on probation for 3 years. (F. D. C. No. 2931.|Sample Nos. 53T-E, 20701-E.)|This product would be dangerous to health when used in the dosage or with|the frequency or duration prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling,|in which it was recommended for the relief of itching skin and scalp and which|contained directions that it should be well shaken and applied to afflicted parts|two or three times a day; that if the parts were raw, it should be diluted|with water until it could be used full strength and that it was natural for the|drug to sting when first applied.|On March 11, 1941, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|Georgia filed an information against Oscar Lee Brunson of Waycross, Ga.,|alleging shipment on or about March 4 and May 31, 1940, from the State of|Georgia into the State of Florida, of quantities of Young's Preparation which|was misbranded for the reasons appearing above.|The article was also alleged to be misbranded in violation of the Federal|Caustic Poison Act, as reported in Notice of Judgment No. 105 published under|that act.|On June 16, 1941, a plea of guilty having been entered, the defendant was|placed on probation for 3 years.|429. Adulteration and misbranding of B-D-Mint Powders. U. S. v. 55 Cards of B-D-Mint Powders. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00429September 1942South Bluefleld Pharmacy, Inc.B-D-Mint PowdersOctober 25, 1940Pulaski, Va.Bluefleld, W. Va.Pulaski, Va.Western District of Virginia429F. D. C. No. 3389. Sample No. 28215-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00429ddnj|429. Adulteration and misbranding of B-D-Mint Powders. IT. S. v. 55 Cards of|B-D-Mint Powders. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 3389. Sample No. 28215-E.)|This product would be dangerous to health when used as directed in the|labeling and was not labeled to indicate the consequences that might result|from its use. Its labeling also bore false and misleading representations regard-|ing its curative and therapeutic efficacy and was further objectionable as indi-|cated below.|On or about November 20, 1940, the United States attorney for the Western|District of Virginia filed a libel against 55 cards, each carrying 28 envelopes|of B-D-Mint Powders, at Pulaski, Va., alleging that the article had been shipped|in interstate commerce by South Bluefleld Pharmacy, Inc., from Bluefleld, W. Va.,?r|on or about October 25, 1940; and charging that it was adulterated and mis-?\\|branded. The article was labeled in part: \"\"Prepared By B. D Medicine Co.,|Pulaski, Va.\"\"|Analysis showed that the powders each contained approximately 3.83 grains of?(|acetophenetidin, 2.23 grains of acetanilid, 1.5 grains of citrated caffeine, and 3.6|grains of sodium bicarbonate, together with milk sugar and sweetened with|saccharin and flavored with peppermint oil.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from|that which it purported or was represented to possess, since the envelope was|labeled, \"\"Not Over 2? Grains Each Acetanilid Acetophenetidin\"\"; whereas each|pjwder contained materially more than 2V2 grains of acetophenetidin.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements on the display card,|\"\"No Harmful Ingredients,\"\" \"\"Safe,\"\" \"\"No After Effect,\"\" and the designation|\"\"B-D-Mint\"\" were false and misleading since it contained potentially harmful|ingredients, was not free from danger, might cause serious aftereffects, and|fhe principal active ingredients were not derived from mint.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the statements, (envelope)|\"\"Quick Relief, For the Pain and Discomfort Arising From Simple Headache|Neuralgia Muscular Aches and Pains Head Colds and as Nerve Sedative,\"\"|\"\"For * * * Female Pains, Muscular Aches and Pains, Simple Head Colds,|for Reducing Fever, as Nerve Sedative,\"\" and (display card) \"\"Quick Relief For|the Pain and Discomfort Arising from Simple Headache Neuralgia Rheuma-|tism Earache Toothache,\"\" \"\"Headache Head Colds * * * Neuralgia Nerve|Sedative * * * Muscular Aches and Pains,\"\" were false and misleading since|it was not an adequate treatment for the various conditions mentioned and|because of failure of the label to reveal the material fact that its use in such|conditions might cause ill effects.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the statement in the labeling,|\"\"Prepared by B. D. Medicine Co., Pulaski, Va.,\"\" was false and misleading since|it was prepared by South Bluefleld Pharmacy, Inc., Bluefleld, W. Va. It was|alleged to be misbranded further in that its label failed to bear the common|or usual name of each of the active ingredients together with the statements of|the quantity or proportion of acetanilid and acetophenetidin since the statement|on the label, \"\"Not Over 2? Grains Each Acetanilid Acetophenetidin,\"\" was not|such a statement and was not true in fact.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the package failed to bear a|statement of the quantity of the contents; and in that its labeling failed to bear|adequate directions for use since the directions appearing on the envelope,|\"\"Take one powder * * * may repeat in one hour if not relieved. After sec-|ond do|se, not oftener than every 2 or 3 hours. If not relieved, after four or|five doses consul t your doctor. Children over 8 years old: One-fourth powder.|May repeat in 2 or 3 hours,\"\" were not suitable and appropriate directions for|the use of the article.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the labeling failed to bear|adequate warnings against use in those pathological conditions or by children|where its use might be dangerous to health, or against unsafe dosage or methods|or duration of administration or application, in such manner and form, as are|necessary for the protection of users; and in that it was dangerous to health|when used in the dosage or with the frequency or duration prescribed, recom-|mended, and suggested in the labeling.|On May 16, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|430. Misbranding of Bromo-Thein. U. S. v. 48 Bottles of Bromo-Thein. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00430September 1942Lockwood LaboratoriesBromo-TheinFebruary 8, 1941Detroit, Mich.Hammond, Ind.Detroit, Mich.Eastern District of Michigan430F. D. C. No. 3943. Sample No. 31586-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00430ddnj|430. Misbranding of Bromo-Thein. IT. S. v. 48 Bottles of Bromo-Thein. Default|decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 3943. Sample No.|31586-E.)|This product consisted essentially of acetanilid, bromides (such as sodium bro-|mide and potassium bromide), aspirin, caffeine, sodium bicarbonate, citric acid,|and tartaric acid. It would be dangerous to health when used as recommended?/|and its labeling failed to reveal the consequences which might result from its?-|use and failed in other respects as indicated hereinafter to comply with the|labeling requirements of the law.|On March 10, 1941, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of?(|Michigan filed a libel against 48 bottles of Bromo-Thein at Detroit, Mich.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|February 8, 1941, by Lockwood Laboratories from Hammond, Ind.; and charging|that it was misbranded.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement of active|ingredients, the directions for use, and the warning appearing upon the label|were not prominently placed thereon with such conspicuousness as to render|them likely to be read and understood by the ordinary individual under customary|conditions of purchase and use, since the statement \"\"Chester A, Lockwood\"\"|diagonally written across these, statements tended to obscure them.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the label failed to bear adequate|directions for use, since they did not provide for a limit as to duration or|frequency of administration.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the label failed to bear|adequate warnings against use in those pathological conditions where its use|might be dangerous to health, or against unsafe dosage or methods or duration|of administration, in such manner and form, as were necessary for the pro-|tection of users, since there was no warning that the frequent or continued|use of acetanilid might be dangerous, causing serious blood disturbances, anemia,|collapse, or a dependence on the drug, and that frequent or continued use of|bromides might lead to mental derangement, skin eruptions, or other serious|effects. (The preparation, when taken according to directions, would permit|the administration of 6.84 grains of acetanilid daily,)|The article was alleged to be misbranded further in that it was dangerous|to health when used in the dosage, or with the frequency or duration prescribed,|recommended, or suggested in the labeling thereof, namely: \"\"Dose: a heaping|teaspoonful in half glass of water; if not relieved repeat after interval of four|hours, not to exceed three doses in twenty-four hours.\"\"|On April 3, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|431. Misbranding of Casey's Compound. U. S. v. 329 Bottles of Casey's Compound. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00431September 1942Geo. E. Madison Co.Casey's CompoundFebruary 12, 1941Portland, Oreg.San Francisco, Calif.Portland, Oreg.District of Oregon431F. D. C. No. 4004. Sample No. 60029-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00431ddnj|431. Misbranding: of Casey's Compound. U. S. v. 329 Bottles of Casey's Com|pound. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No.|4004.. Sample No. 60029-E.) |On March 29, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Oregon|filed a libel against the above-named product at Portland, Oreg., alleging that|it had been shipped on or about February 12, 1941, by the Geo. E. Madison Co.|from San Francisco, Calif.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it contained potassium|iodide (19.8 grains per fluid ounce) in a flavored syrup.|The article was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that it would be dan-|gerous to health when used in the dosage and with the frequency and dura-|tion prescribed, recommended, and suggested in the labeling. (2) In that|the label failed to bear adequate directions for use since the directions (bottle|and carton) \"\"One-half teaspoonful in half a glass of water, one hour after|each meal for four days; then gradually increase to one full teaspoonful over|4 days time and continue the dose of one teaspoonful. This is the usual dose|but may be increased ,to double the amount,\"\" were not adequate. (3) In|that its labeling failed to bear adequate warnings against use where its use|might be dangerous to health or against unsafe dosage or duration of admin-|istration in such manner and form as are necessary for the protection of|users. (4) In that statements in a leaflet entitled \"\"Casey's Compound,\"\" sup-|plied in response to a request by postcard enclosed in the retail package,|representing that it would be efficacious for the relief of arthritis, neuritis,|rheumatism, and sciatica; and that its use would make the purchaser's general|health much better, and enable him to enjoy a good night's rest, were false and|misleading since it would not be efficacious for such purposes.|On June 4, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|wag entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|432. misbranding of Cold Special No. 2 Red. U. S. v. 1 Bottle and 18 Bottles of Cold Special Capsules (and 2 other seizures of Cold Special Capsules). Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00432September 1942\NCold Special No. 2 Red\NWashington, D. C.\NWashington, D. C.District of Columbia432F. D. C. Nos. 3873 to 3875, incl. Sample No. 50059-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00432ddnj|432. misbranding: of Cold Special No. 2 Red. U. S. v. 1 Bottle and 18 Bottles of|Cold Special Capsules (and 2 other seizures of Cold Special Capsules).|Default decrees of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 3873 to|3875, incl. Sample No. 50059-E.)|On February 26, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Columbia|filed libels against 1 bottle containing 2,800 Cold Special Capsules, 1 bottle|containing 25 capsules, and 65 bottles containing 12 capsules at Washington,|D. C, alleging that they were being offered for sale in the District of Colum-|bia-1 large bottle and 18 small bottles at Albany Pharmacy, 1 large bottle|and 16 small bottles at the Southern Drug Co., and 81 small bottles at National|Press Pharmacy; and charging that they were misbranded. The articles?f|were labeled in part: \"\"Capsules Cold Special * * * [or \"\"Cold Special?\\|* * * Each Capsule Contains:\"\"] *. * * Dose: One capsule every hour as - \"\"-|required [or \"\"Directions One Capsule every 2 or 8 hours * * * Notice-|Acetanilid is a dangerous drug, over dosage may cause depression of .the heart?(|or circulatory system\"\" or \"\"Dosage Adults: 1 capsule every hour until 4 or 5 have|been taken, then 1 capsule every three hours as required * * * Acetanilid|preparation may depress the heart and should not be taken continuously except|under the direction of a physician\"\"].\"\"|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that each capsule contained|acetanilid (approximately 2 grains), quinine sulfate (approximately ? grain),|camphor, podophyllin, and aloin.|The article was alleged to be-misbranded (1) in that it would be dangerous|to health when used in the dosage or with the frequency and duration pre-|scribed, recommended, and suggested in the labeling; (2) in that the labeling|failed to bear adequate directions for use since the directions appearing|thereon were inappropriate for an article of the composition of this one; (3)|in that the labeling failed to bear an adequate warning against use in those|pathological conditions and by children where its' use might be dangerous to|health, or against unsafe dosage or duration of administration in such manner|and form as are necessary for the protection of users; and (4) in that the|designation \"\"Cold Special,\"\" appearing on the labeling, was false and mislead-|ing since the article did not constitute a treatment or preventive for the|disease condition commonly known as \"\"cold.\"\"|On May 20, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgments of condemnation|were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|433. Misbranding of Halomist Sets and Refills. U. S. v. 89 Packages of Halomist Sets and 100 Bottles of Halomist (and 1 other seizure of Halomist and Halomist Refills). Default decrees ordering destruction of the products.ddnj00433September 1942Halomist, Inc.Halomist Sets and RefillsMarch 19 to April 21, 1941Los Angeles, Calif.Seattle, Wash.Los Angeles, Calif.Southern District of California and the District of Minnesota433F. D. C. Nos. 4347, 4872. Sample Nos. 53047-E, 53048-E, 58037-E, 58038-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00433ddnj|433. Misbranding; of Halomist Sets and Refills. IT. S. v. 89 Packages of Halomist|Sets and 100 Bottles of Halomist (and 1 other seizure of Halomist and|Halomist Refills). Default decrees ordering; destruction of the products.|(F. D. C. Nos. 4347, 4872. Sample Nos. 53047-E, 53048-B, 58037-E, 58038-E.)|This product, in addition to being potentially dangerous when used accord-|ing to directions, bore false and misleading therapeutic claims in its labeling|and also failed to comply with certain other labeling provisions of the law.|On May 27 and June 6, 1941, the United States attorneys for the Southern|District of California and the District of Minnesota filed libels against 89|packages (each package containing an applicator, medicine dropper, and a|bottle of Halomist) and 100 bottles of Halomist at Los Angeles, Calif., and 11|Halomist Sets, 27 1-ounce and 4 half-ounce Halomist Refills at Minneapolis,|Minn., alleging that the article had been shipped by Halomist, Inc., from|Seattle, Wash., within the period from on or about March 19 to on or about|April 21, 1941; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analyses of samples showed that the Halomist consisted essentially of|racemic epinephrine hydrochloride (in one sample, 2.3 grams, in the other,|2.4 grams per 100 cubic centimeters), chlorobutanol, and water.|The article was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that it would be dangerous|to health when used in the dosage or with the frequency or duration pre-|scribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling, which recommended that|it be used at least 3 times daily-with inhalations of 15 to 35 minutes'|duration and in extreme cases, of 45 minutes' to 2 hours' duration. (2) In|that statements in the labeling that it would be efficacious for the relief of|paroxysms of bronchial asthma, for treatment of hay fever or sinusitis; that|it would be efficacious to prevent asthma attacks, to build up natural resistance|and strength and to build up weight; that the user would be able to eat what|he pleased; that it would be soothing to the membranes; that it contained an|ideal antiseptic for the sinuses; that it would build up resistance against|sinus disorders and catarrhal conditions: and that it would toughen the tissues|against infection and irritation, were faise and misleading since it was neither|a safe nor an appropriate treatment for the conditions named.. (8) In that|the carton containing the set did not bear the common or usual names of the|active ingredients nor a statement of the quantity or proportion of chlorobutanol?(|present. (4) In that the name and address of the manufacturer was not|prominently placed on the carton with such conspicuousness (as compared with|other words, statements, designs, or devices in the labeling) and in such?(|terms as to render it likely to be read by the ordinary individual under cus- ^--|tomary conditions of purchase and use. (5) In that the carton containing the|set did not bear an accurate statement of the quantity of contents.|On June 24 and September 25, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgments|were entered ordering that the product be destroyed.|434. Misbranding of Happy Day Headache Powders. U. S. v. 21 1/2 Gross Packages of Happy Day Headache Powders. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00434September 1942Sessions Specialty CoHappy Day Headache PowdersSeptember 16, 1940Roanoke, Va.Winston-Salem, N. C.Roanoke, Va.Western District of Virginia434F. D. C. No. 4008. Sample No. 50903-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00434ddnj|434. Misbranding of Happy Day Headache Powders. U. S. v. 21% Gross Packages|of Happy Day Headache Powders. Default decree of condemnation and|destruction. (F. D. C. No. 4008. Sample No. 50903-E.)|This product would be dangerous to health when used according to direc-.|tlons, its labeling failed to bear adequate directions for use and warning state-|ments, and in addition it bore false and misleading therapeutic claims.|On or about March 21, 1941, the United States attorney for the Western|District of Virginia filed a libel against 21? gross packages of Happy Day|Headache Powders at Roanoke, Va., alleging that the article had been shipped|from Winston-Salem, N. C, in part in the personally owned automobile of|Max Caplan, owner of the Capital Drug Co., Roanoke, Va., on or about Septem-|ber 16, 1940, and in part by the Sessions Specialty Co. on or about November 8,|1940; and charging that it was misbranded. It was labeled in part: \"\"Happy|Day Headache Powders * * * Manufactured by Gulf Laboratories Inc.|Lafayette Louisiana.\"\"|Analyses of samples of the article showed that it consisted essentially of|acetanilid (2? grains per powder), aspirin, caffeine, phenolphthalein, and|milk sugar.|The article was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that it would be dangerous|to health when used in the dosage or with1 the frequency or duration prescribed,|recommended, or suggested in the labeling, namely, (envelope containing pow-|der) \"\"Directions Take one powder dry on the tongue followed with water, or|mixed with a little water. One powder usually gives the desired results. If|necessary, another powder may be taken in 30 minutes. Women will find this|especially beneficial during painful menstrual periods\"\"; (circular) \"\"Take one|powder dry on the tongue, followed by a swallow of water, or mix well with|small quantity of water and take. Repeat in 20 minutes if necessary. One|powder usually gives relief. Children over 6 years: ? to y2 of one powder.|* * * One powder well mixed in a little water at the first sign of cold or|fever and one two hours later. One powder at night just before retiring is|recommended. Children over six years: y2 powder mixed in water 3 times daily|according to age. * * * One powder dissolved in water every 2 or 3 hours as|required.\"\" (2) In that th'e labeling failed to bear adequate directions for use.|(3) In that the labeling did not bear such adequate warnings against use in|those pathological conditions or by children where its use might be dangerous|to health or against unsafe dosage or methods or duration of administration or|application in such manner and form as are necessary, for the protection of|users. (4) In that statements in the labeling representing that it would be|efficacious for the relief of discomfort arising from head colds, hay fever, and|nervousness; that it would reduce fever, insuring speedy relief; that it would|be efficacious for the relief of pains caused by menstrual disturbances, tonsillitis,|headache caused by sinus trouhle, rheumatism, influenza, and throat irritations,|were false and misleading since it would not be efficacious for such purposes.|(5) In that the label did not bear the common or usual names of the active|ingredients. (6) In that the label did not bear an accurate statement of the|quantity of contents.|On July 15, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|435. Misbranding of Suppletive Formula Number 1, Supportive Formula S. G. M. a, and Formula No. 1. U. S. v. 326 Ampuls of Suppletive Formula Number 1, 88 Ampuls of Supportive Formula S. G. M. a, and 2 Bottles of Formula No. 1. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00435September 1942E. S. Miller Laboratories, Inc.Snppletive Formula Number 1, Supportive Formula S. G. M. a, and Formula No. 1May 3 and October 17, 1940Chicago, Ill.Los Angeles, Calif.Chicago, Ill.Northern District of Illinois435F. D. C. Nos. 3318, 3548, 3549. Sample Nos. 30843-E, 31909-E, 31912-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00435ddnj|435. Misbranding of Snppletive Formula Number 1, Supportive Formula S. G. M. a,|and Formula No. 1. IT. S. v. 326 Ampuls of Suppletive Formula Number 1,|88 Ampuls of Supportive Formula S. G. M. a, and 2 Bottles of Formula No.|1. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 3318,|3548,3549. Sample Nos. 30843-E, 31909-E, 31912-E.)|Examination of Suppletive Formula Number 1 disclosed that it contained|emetine hydrochloride. This product would be dangerous to health when used|in the dosage suggested in the labeling. Its label and that of Formula No. 1|failed to bear such warnings as might be necessary for the protection of users.|All three products failed to bear adequate directions for usa and to name the|active ingredients present.|On November 16 and December 20, 1940, the United States attorney for the|Northern District of Illinois filed libels against the above-named products at|Chicago, 111., alleging that the articles had been shipped in interstate commerce|on or about May 3 and October 17, 1940, by the E. S. Miller Laboratories, Inc.,|from Los Angeles, Calif.; and charging that they were misbranded. The articles|were labeled in part: \"\"Suppletive Formula Number 1 [or \"\"Supportive Formula|S. G. M. a\"\"] Specially prepared for the Samaritan Treatment\"\"; or \"\"Formula|No. 1 Manufactured for The Samaritan Treatment.\"\"|Analyses showed that the Supportive Formula consisted essentially of glandular|material and water; and that Formula No. 1 consisted essentially of com-|pounds of ephedrine, pilocarpine, emetine, and. strychnine, sulfates and chlorides,|and water.|The Suppletive Formula Number 1 was alleged to be misbranded in that it|would be dangerous to health when used in the dosage suggested in its labeling.-|This product and Formula No. 1 both were alleged to be misbranded in that|their labeling failed to bear adequate warnings against use in those pathological|conditions (or by children in the case of Formula No. 1) where their use might|be dangerous to health or against unsafe dosage or methods or duration of|administration or application in such manner and form as are necessary for|protection of users.|All three products were alleged to be misbranded (1) in that their labeling|failed to bear adequate directions for use; and (2) in that they were fabricated|from two or more ingredients and their labeling failed to bear the common or|usual names of their active ingredients.|On January 28 and March 3, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgments|of condemnation were entered and products were ordered destroyed.|436. Adulteration and misbranding of Sterile Uteroids, Prevent-All, Leucorrhea Special No. 9; misbranding of Gleet Specific, Argosine, Piericine, Prostatic Depletent, Prostatic Absorbent, and Aesculus Pile Cerate. U. S. v. 94 Cartons and 125 Tubes of Sterile Uteroids, 10 Cartons of Prevent-All, 94 Cartons of Leucorrhea Special No. 9, 34 Packages of Gleet Specific, 117 Cartons of Argosine, 126 Cartons of Piericine, 23 Cartons of Prostatic Depletent, 21 Cartons of Prostatic Absorbent, and 23 Cartons of Aesculus Pile Cerate. Default decrees ordering destruction.ddnj00436September 1942C. F. Breitenbach (Mucine Co.)Sterile Uteroids, Prevent-All, Leucorrhea Special No. 9; Gleet Specific, Argosine, Piericine, Prostatic Depletent, Prostatic Absorbent, and Aesculus Pile CerateNovember 23 and December 20, 1940; January 22 to on or about November 11, 1940Kansas City, Mo.Chicago, Ill.Kansas City, Mo.Western District of Missouri436F. D. C. Nos. 3370 to 3374 incl. , 3376. 3378, 3501 to 3503, incl. Sample Nos. 16393-E to 16397-E, incl. , 16399-E 16901-E, 16913-E to 16915-E, incl.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00436ddnj|436. Adulteration and misbranding of Sterile Uteroids, Prevent-All, Leucorrhea|Special No. 9j misbranding of Gleet Specific, Argosine, Piericine, Prostatic|Depletent, Prostatic Absorbent, and Aesculus Pile Cerate. U. S. v. 94 Car-|tons and 125 Tubes of Sterile Uteroids, lO Cartons of Prevent-All, 94 Car-|tons of Leucorrhea Special No. 9, 34 Packages of Gleet Specific, 117 Cartons|of Argosine, 126 Cartons of Piericine, 23 Cartons of Prostatic Depletent,|21 Cartons of Prostatic Absorbent, and 23 Cartons of Aesculus Pile Cerate.|Default decrees ordering destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 3370 to 3374 incl., 3376.|3378, 3501 to 3503, incl. Sample Nos. 16393-E to 16397-E, incl., 16399-E|16901-E, 16913-E to 16915-E, incl.)|Adequate directions for use were not borne on the labels of Leucorrhea Special|No. 9; the labeling of Piericine and Aesculus Pile Cerate failed to bear adequate|warnings against use in those pathological conditions where its use might be|dangerous to health, or against unsafe dosage or methods or duration of|administration or application, in such manner and form, as are necessary for|the protection of users; the labeling of all the other products except Prevent-|All failed to bear adequate directions for use and adequate warning statements.|The Sterile Uteroids, Prevent-All, and Leucorrhea Special No. 9 were adulterated|because their strength differed from and their quality fell below that which|they purported or were represented to possess. All of the products except|Piericine and Argosine bore false and misleading statements regarding their|ingredients or their therapeutic properties. The labels on the immediate con-|tainer (collapsible tube) of the repackaged portion of Leucorrhea Special No. 9,|the labeled portion of. Argosine (and the cartons of the remainder of these two|products), and of all the other products failed to bear the common or usual|name of each of their active ingredients.|The' packages of all the products (and the cartons in the case of the unlabeled|portion of Argosine and the portion of Leucorrhea Special No. 9 that had not|been repackaged) failed to bear a label containing the name and place of|business of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor, since the immediate con-|tainer (collapsible tube) carried no label; and the name and address Ainsworth|Specialty Co., Kansas City, Mo., appearing On the carton were not those of the|manufacturer, and were not qualified by a phrase which revealed the connection|the firm mentioned had with the drugs. The packages of all the products (the|immediate container (collapsible tube) of the labeled portion of Argosine and|of the repackaged portion of Leucorrhea Special No. 9, and the cartons contain-|ing the unlabeled portion of Argosine and the portion of Leucorrhea Special No.|9 that had not been repackaged) failed to bear the required quantity of contents|statement.|On or about November 23 and December 20, 1940, the United States attorney|for the Western District of Missouri filed libels against the above-named|products at Kansas City, Mo., alleging that the articles had been shipped by C.|F. Breitenbach (Mucine Co.) from Chicago, 111., within the period from on or|about January 22 to on or about November 11, 1940; and charging that portions|of the articles were misbranded and that the remainder were adulterated and|misbranded.|Analyses of samples of the Sterile Uteroids showed that they consisted essen-|tially of ichthammol, menthol, an iodine compound (a trace of an iodine com-|pound in one lot), and extracts of plant drugs, incorporated in wool wax|(lanum); and that they contained no alum and no zinc sulfate. They were|alleged to be adulterated in that their strength differed from and their quality|fell below that which they purported and were represented to possess. They|were alleged to be misbranded (1) in that the statement on the carton label,|\"\"Powd. Alum 10?. Zinc. Sulph. 1?,\"\" was false and misleading since they con-|tained no alum and no zinc sulfate; (2) in that the statement on the carton|label, \"\"Sterile Uteroids For Intra-Uterine Treatment * * * Endometritis,\"\"|was false and misleading; and (3) for the four further reasons appearing in|the first paragraph of this notice.|Analysis of a sample of Prevent-All showed that it consisted essentially of|calomel (4.4 percent) and zinc oxide (9.3 percent) incorporated in wool wax|(lanum). It was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from|and its quality fell below that which it purported or was represented to possess.|It was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that the statement on the outer carton|label, \"\"Lanum base 67? Calomel 33?,\"\" was false and misleading in view of|its actual composition; (2) in that the following statements on the outer carton|were false and misleading: \"\"Prevent-All A * * * Combination to Prevent|All Sexual Diseases in the Male. Gonorrhea, Chancres (Syphilis). * * *|Prevent-All * * * Gonorrhea or Syphilis, * * * Will Prevent It. De-|stroys micro-organism and prevents incubation. * * * Endorsed and rec-|ommended by leading physicians\"\" ; and (3) for the three further reasons appear-|ing in the first paragraph of this notice.|Analysis of a sample of Leueorrhea Special No. 9 showed that it contained|quinine sulfate (0.64 percent), boric acid (19.95 percent), and thymol, in-|corporated in petrolatum. It was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength|differed from and its quality fell below that which it purported or was repre-|sented to possess. The repackaged portion of this article was alleged to be|misbranded (1) in that the statement on the label, \"\"Quinine Sulph. 2? Powd.|Boracic Acid 10?,\"\" was false and misleading since it contained materially less|quinine sulfate and materially more boric (boracic) acid than the amounts|stated; (2) in that the statements on the label of the repackaged portion,|\"\"Leueorrhea Special\"\" and \"\"For the Local Treatment of Leueorrhea,\"\" were|false and misleading; and (3) for the four further reasons appearing in the|first paragraph of this notice.|Analysis of a sample of Gleet Specific showed that it contained a mercury|compound, calculated as mercury oxycyanide (0.2 percent (1-50O)), eucalyptus|oil, and an extract of a plant drug incorporated in wool wax (lanum). It was|alleged to be misbranded (1) in that the statement on the label, \"\"Gleet Specific,\"\"|was false and misleading; (2) in that its label failed to bear a statement of the|proportion of mercury, derivative of, or preparation of mercury that it con-|tained since the statement on the label, \"\"Mercury Oxy-cyanide 1-1500,\"\" was not|an accurate statement of the proportion of mercury or mercury derivative or|preparation that it contained; and (3) for the five further reasons appearing in|the first paragraph of this notice.|Analysis of a sample of Argosine showed that it contained a silver compound|such as argyrol, an extract of a plant drug, and water. It was alleged to be|misbranded for the five reasons appearing in the first paragraph of this notice.|Analysis of a sample of Prostatic Depletent showed that it contained glycerin|(approximately 12 percent), Epsom salt (approximately 6 percent), and water,|emulsified. It was alleged to be misbranded in. that the following statements|on the label, \"\"Prostatic Depletent * * * Highly depletent and cleansing,|with immediate relief of congestion of the rectal area. Used as a Primary|treatment on Prostatic disorders (Nonoperative),\"\" were false and misleading;|and for the five further reasons appearing in the first paragraph of this notice.|- Analysis of a sample of Picricine showed that it consisted essentially of picric|acid and eucalyptus oil incorporated in wool wax (lanum). It was alleged to|be misbranded for the four reasons appearing in the first paragraph of this|notice.|Analysis of a sample of the Prostatic Absorbent showed that it consisted essen-|tially of ichthammol, juniper oil, and extracts of plant drugs incorporated in|467449?-42?2.|wool wax (lanum). It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements|on the label, \"\"Prostatic Absorbent\"\" and \"\"Soothing and relieving Chronic condi-|tions of the Prostate and Bladder neck,\"\" were false and misleading; and for|the five further reasons appearing in the first paragraph of this notice.|Analysis of a sample of Aesculus Pile Cerate showed that it consisted essen-|tially of ichthammol, tar oil, and extracts of plant drugs incorporated in petro-|latum. It was alleged to be misbranded in that the designation \"\"Pile Cerate\"\"|and the statement \"\"Believes Bleeding, Itching, Blind, Protruding, Ulcerated|Piles,\"\" on the carton label were false and misleading; and for the four further|reasons |appearing in the first paragraph of this notice.|Between December 31, 1940, and January 29,1941, default decrees were entered|ordering that the products be destroyed.|3400. Misbranding of Slenderform device. U. S. v. 4 Cartons.ddnj03400August 1951Miles Mfg. Co., from Charlotte, N. C.Slenderform deviceAugust 22, 1949Ridgewood, N. J.Charlotte, N. C.Ridgewood, N. J.District of New Jersey.3400F. D. C. No. 27839. Sample No. 57045-K.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj03400ddnj|3400. Misbranding of Slenderform device. U. S. v. 4 Cartons * * *. (F. D. C.|No. 27839. Sample No. 57045-K.)|LIBEL FIXED : September 14, 1949, District of New Jersey.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT : On or about August 22, 1949, by the Miles Mfg. Co., from|Charlotte, N. C.|PEODTTCT : 4 cartons containing 25 Slenderform devices and a number of circulars|entitled \"\"Instructions For The Use Of The Slenderform Reducer And Home|Massager,\"\" at Ridgewood, N. J. Examination disclosed that the device con-|sisted of an electric motor so mounted as to vibrate during operation, attached|to a handle and a belt.|NATURE OF CHARGE: Misbranding, Section 502 (a), the following statements|in the accompanying circulars were false and misleading since the device was|not effective for the purposes stated and implied: \"\"Slenderform Reducer|* * * ladies-and * * * gentlemen-massage away their fat and ex-|haustion in the privacy of the home. No bother, no effort-just relax and|let Slenderform do it for you. When using Slenderform for reducing pur-|poses * * * if you want to reduce the waist first, use it on the waist|exclusively until desired results are obtained, then start on another portion|of the body where it is most needed, and keep up this procedure until you|have reduced all portions to your satisfaction * * * when reducing the|waist * * * the reducer * * * should be placed * * * up|against the waist line * * * The Slenderform massager also is an ex-|cellent aid in general health. It stimulates circulation, helps restore and|maintain your vitality, improves sleep * * * It aids elimination by the|natural process of liver stimulation.''|DISPOSITION: March 26, 1951. Default decree of condemnation. The court|ordered that two of the devices be delivered to the Food and Drug Adminis-|tration and that the remainder of the devices be destroyed.|INDEX TO NOTICES OF JUDGMENT D. D. N. J. NOS. 3384 TO 3400|PRODUCTS|N. J. No.|Amphetamine hydrochloride tab-|lets| 3392|Bone Food (bone phosphate)? 3395|Bone phosphate| 3395|N. J. No.|Burnett's, Dr., New Cold Rem-|edy| 3396|Burnett's, Dr., Preparation? 3397|Colds, remedy for| 3396|448. Misbranding of mineral oil. U S. v. 1,122 Bottles of Mineral OiL Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered released under bond for relabeling.ddnj00448September 1942Purex Products, Inc.mineral oilMarch 9 to May 3, 1940Brooklyn, N. Y.Boston, Mass.Brooklyn, N. Y.Eastern District of New York448F. D. C. No. 4839. Sample Nos. 56418-33, 5-6419-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00448ddnj|448. Misbranding of mineral oil, ,U- S. v. 1,122 Bottles of Mineral OIL Consent|decree of condemnation. Product ordered released under *bond for re-|labeling. <?\"\"? D. C. No. 4839. Sample NOB.' 56418-33, 5-6419-E.)|This product was light mineral on and not heavy mineral oil as suggested by|its labeling. Moreover, its labeling failed to bear such warnings as are necessary|for the protection of users.|On Jane 2, 1941, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of New|York filed a libel against 1,122 bottles of mineral oil at Brooklyn, N. Y., alleging|that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce within the period from|on or about March 9 to on or about May 3, 1940, by PUTCX Products, Inc., from|Boston, Mass.; and charging that it was misbranded. The article was labeled in|part: '\"\"PuRex Russian Mineral Oil Xjght/'|. The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the designation \"\"Russian|Mineral Oil\"\" (in comparatively large type) and the word \"\"'Light\"\" (in compara-|tively small type) borne on the label were misleading, since the term \"\"Russian|Mineral Oil\"\" is associated in the minds of purchasers with an oil having a|kinematic viscosity, which is substantially higher than that of the article.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that its labeling failed to bear|adequate warnings against unsafe methods of administration in such manner|and form as are necessary for the protection of users, sinee the labeling carried|no warning against its administration directly before or after meals.|On June 24, 1941, Purex Products, Inc., claimant, having admitted the allega-|tions of the libel, judgment of condemnation was entered and the product was|ordered released under bond conditioned that it be relabeled to comply with|the law.|449. Adulteration and misbranding of solution of citrate of magnesia. U. S. v. 137 Bottles of Solution of Citrate of Magnesia. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00449September 1942McMillan Drug Co.solution of citrate of magnesiaSeptember 10, 1940Augusta, Ga.Columbia, S. C.Augusta, Ga.Southern District of Georgia449F. D. C No. 3482. Sample No. 20499-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00449ddnj|449. Adulteration and misbranding- of solution of citrate of magnesia. IT. S. v.|137 Bottles of Solution of Citrate of Magnesia. Default decree of con-|demnation and destruction. ?F. D. C No. 34=82. Sample No. 20499-E.)|This product contained less magnesium citrate and less citric acid than the|amounts required by the United States Pharmacopoeia. Its labeling also failed|to bear a statement of the quantity of the contents or a warning against its|use in those pathological conditions where its use might be dangerous to health.|On November 23, 1940, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|Georgia filed a libel against 137 bottles of the above-named product at Augusta,|Ga., alleging that it had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about Septem-|ber 10,1940, by the McMillan Drug Co. from Columbia, S. C; and charging that|it was adulterated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to be or was|represented as a drug, the name of which is recognized in the United States|Pharmacopoeia, and its strength differed from the standard set forth therein.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that it was a drug in paekage form and|the label failed to bear an accurate| statement of the quantity of contents;|and in that the labeling failed to bear adequate warnings against use in those|pathological conditions where its use might be dangerous to bealth as might be|necessary for the protection of users.|On January 1, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|450. Misbranding of National Peerless Remedy. U. S. v. 23 Bottles of National Peerless Remedy. Default deeree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00450September 1942National Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Co.National Peerless RemedyJune 20, 1940Chambersburg, Pa.Baltimore, Md.Chambersburg, Pa.Middle District of Pennsylvania450F. D. C. No. 3512. Sample No. 50103-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00450ddnj|450. Misbranding of National Peerless Remedy. TJ. S. v. 23 Bottles of National|Peerless Remedy. Default deeree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 3512. Sample No. 50103-B.)|The label of this product not only failed to bear adequate directions and|warning statements but also the common or usual name of each of the active|ingredients, which included extracts of plant drugs including aloe.|On December 13, 1940, the United States attorney for the Middle District of|Pennsylvania filed a libel against 23 bottles of National Peerless Remedy at|Chambersburg, Pa., alleging that the article had been shipped by the National|Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Co. from Baltimore, Md., on or about June 20,|1940; and charging that it was misbranded.|It was-alleged to be misbranded (1) in that the label failed to bear adequate|directions for use; (2) in that the label failed to bear adequate warnings|against use in those pathological conditions where its use might be dangerous to|health or against unsafe dosage or duration of administration in such manner|and form as are necessary for the protection of users; and (3) in that the label|failed to bear the common or usual name of each active ingredient.|On June 16, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|451. Misbranding of O'D Easylax. U. S. v. 2 Gross Packages of O'D Easylax. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00451September 1942Washington Wholesale Drug ExchangeO'D Easylax\NWashington, D. C.\NWashington, D. C.District of Columbia451F. D. C. No. 3650. Sample No. 50056-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00451ddnj|451. Misbranding: of O'D Kasylax. U. S. v. 2 Gross Packages of O'D Easylax.|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 3650.|Sample No. 50056-E.)|In addition to failure to bear adequate warnings, the label of this product|bore false and misleading therapeutic claims. It also failed to bear the required|ingredient statement with the quantity or proportion of strychnine present; a|statement of the quantity of contents; and the complete address of the manu-|facturer, packer, or distributor. Furthermore, the carton container was much|taller than was necessary to hold its contents.|On January 9, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Columbia|filed a libel against 2 gross packages of O'D Easylax at Washington, D. C,|alleging that the article was being offered for sale in the District of Columbia|at Washington Wholesale Drug Exchange, Washington, D. G.; and charging|that it was misbranded. It was labeled in part: \"\"O'D Easylax * * * Liberty|Drug Co. Washington, D. C.\"\"|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of|phenolphthalein, aloin, strychnine, talc, and calcium carbonate together with a|green coloriitg material.|It was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that labeling failed to bear adequate|warnings against use in those pathological conditions or by children where|its use might be dangerous to\"\" health, or against unsafe dosage or methods or|duration of administration or application: (2) in that the following statements|appearing on the label were false and misleading since it was not efficacious|for the purposes recommended: (Carton) \"\"They work naturally and form no|habit * * * A Home Remedy for Indigestion Torpid Liver Chronic Con-|stipation,\"\" and (bottle label) \"\"They work naturally and form no habit. For|Indigestion\"\"; (3) in that the label did not bear the common or usual names of|the active ingredients and a statement of the quantity or proportion of strych-|nine that it contained; (4) in that the carton and bottle label failed to 6ear the|address of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor; (5) in that the bottle label|failed to bear a statement of the quantity of contents; and (6) in that the con-|tainer was so made, formed, or filled as to be misleading.|On February 4, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed,|452. Misbranding of Prunlax. U. S. v. 236 Bottles of Prunlax. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00452September 1942Adams Laboratories, Inc.PrunlaxOctober 11, 1940St. Louis, Mo.Cleveland, Miss.St. Louis, Mo.Eastern District of Missouri452F. D. C. No. 3960. Sample No. 57020-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00452ddnj|452. Misbranding of Pranlax. IT. S. v. 236 Bottles of Prnnlax. Default decree|of condemnation and destruction.. (F. D. C. No. 3960. Sample No. 57020-E.)|On March 12, 1941, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Missouri filed a libel against 31 12-fluid-ounce, 131 5-fluid-ounce, and 74 sample-|sized packages of Prunlax at St. Louis, Mo., alleging that the article had been|shipped by Adams Laboratories, Inc., from St. Louis, Mo., to Cleveland, Miss.,|on or about October 11, 1940, and that it had been- shipped from Cleveland|to St. Louis on or about October 14, 1940; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of|extracts of plant materials including laxative plant drugs, sugar, glycerin,|flavoring materials, and water, preserved with salicylic acid.|The article was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that the directions (sample|package) \"\"Children One-quarter to one teaspoonful. Adults-One to two tea-|spoonfuls,\"\" and (remainder of product, bottle label) \"\"Adjust dose to individual?(|needs. And, taper off as action becomes normal. Children: According to age,-|one-quarter to one teaspoonful as needed. Adults: One to two teaspoonfuls night|and morning until regulated,\"\" and (carton) \"\"Dose: Children, 3 to 5 years, one-?/|quarter teaspoonful; 5 to 9 years, one-half teaspoonful; 9 to 15, one teaspoonful.?^|Adults, one to two teaspoonfuls night and morning until bowels act well,\"\" were|not appropriate and were otherwise not adequate. (2) In that its labeling|failed to bear adequate warnings against use in those pathological conditions or|by children where its use might be dangerous to health, or against unsafe dosage|cr duration of administration in such manner and form as are necessary for the|protection of users, since the labeling did not inform the purchaser that its use|was contraindicated in cases of appendicitis and that frequent or continued use|might result in dependence upon laxatives to move the bowels. (3) In that the|name \"\"Prunlax\"\" was false and misleading since the active laxative ingredients|in the preparation were not derived from prunes; in that the statement on the|bottle labels, \"\"To further promote its helpful harmony with health processes|of the body, no phenolphthalein, alcohol, or other disturbing drug is used in|Prunlax,\"\" was false and misleading since Prunlax cannot be depended upon to|act in helpful harmony with health processes of the body, and the statement|would tend to create the impression that the article contained no potentially|harmful or deleterious ingredients, when such was not the case; and in that|representations in the labeling that it was a safe laxative which would correct|constipation without habit formation and without the use of irritating drugs;|that it was especially helpful in cases of biliousness, sour stomach, colic due to|gas, and diarrhea due to improper diet; and that it would prevent the user|from having dizzy spells, were false and misleading since it would not be safe|under all conditions and would not be efficacious for the disease conditions|mentioned. (4) In that the sample-sized package failed to bear a label contain-|ing the common or usual name of each of its active ingredients. (5) In|that the sample-sized package failed to bear a label containing a statement of|the quantity of contents.|On May 3, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|Was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|462. Adulteration and misbranding of ammoniated mercury ointment, phenobarbital and atropine sulfate tablets, and Vitaphosphates. U. S. v. Physicians Drug & Supply Co. Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $500.ddnj00462September 1942Physicians Drug & Supply Co., a corporation at Philadelphia, Pa.ammoniated mercury ointment, phenobarbital and atropine sulfate tablets, and VitaphosphatesApril 16 and 30, 1940PennsylvaniaPennsylvaniaNew JerseyEastern District of Pennsylvania462F. D. C. No. 2843. Sample Nos. 14174-E, 14476-E, 14477-E, 14492-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00462ddnj|462. Adulteration and misbranding of ammoniated mercury ointment, phenobar-|bital and atropine sulfate tablets, and Vitaphosphates. U. S. v. Physicians|Drug & Supply Co. Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $500. CF. D. C. No.|2843. Sample Nos. 14174-E, 14476-B, 14477-E, 14492-E.)|The ammoniated mercury ointment contained a smaller proportion of mercury|than that required by the standard set forth in the United States Pharmacopoeia|and of that declared on its label; the phenobarbital and atropine sulfate tablets|contained no phenobarbital and no atropine sulfate, but did contain ?3 grain|of strychnine sulfate; and the Vitaphosphates contained approximately only|one-eighth the amount of vitamin Bi declared on the label.|On December 4, 1940, the United States attorney for the Eastern District|of Pennsylvania filed an information against Physicians Drug & Supply Co.,|a corporation at Philadelphia, Pa., alleging shipment on or about April 16|and 30, 1940, from the State of Pennsylvania into the State of New Jersey,|of quantities of the above-named drugs that were adulterated and misbranded.|The ammoniated mercury ointment was alleged to be adulterated in that it|purported to be a drug the name of which is recognized in the United States|Pharmacopoeia, llth Revision, but its strength differed from the standard set|forth in such compendium in that it contained ammoniated mercury corre-|sponding to not more than 3.22 percent of mercury; whereas the pharmacopoeia|provides that ammoniated mercury ointment shall contain ammoniated mercury|corresponding to not less than 7.1 percent of mercury, and the respect in which|its strength differed from such standard was not stated plainly on the label. It|was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement \"\"Ammoniated Mercury|Ointment Five (5?) Per Cent,\"\" borne on the jar label, was false and misleading|since it did not contain 5 percent of ammoniated mercury but did contain a|smaller amount, namely, not more than 4.1 percent of ammoniated mercury.|The phenobarbital and atropine sulfate tablets were alleged to be adulterated|in that their strength differed from and their purity or quality fell below that|which they purported or were represented to possess, since each of said tablets|was represented to contain Yi grain of phenobarbital and ?oo grain of atropine|sulfate, whereas they contained no phenobarbital and no atropine sulfate but|did contain approximately ?3 grain of strychnine sulfate. They were alleged|to be adulterated further in that tablets each containing approximately ?3|grain of strychnine sulfate had been substituted in whole or in part for tablets|each containing ? grain of phenobarbital and ?oo grain of atropine sulfate,|which they purported to be. They were alleged to be misbranded in that the|statement, \"\"Each Tablet Contains: Phenobarbital Gr. ? * * * Atropine|Sulphate Gr. ?oo>\"\" borne on the bottle label, was false and misleading since the|said tablets contained no phenobarbital and no atropine sulfate but did contain|approximately ?3 grain of strychnine sulfate. They were alleged to be mis-|branded further in that tablets each containing approximately ?3 grain of strych-|nine sulfate had been offered for sale under the name of another drug.|The drug Vitaphosphates was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength|differed from or its quality or purity fell below that which it purported or was|represented to possess, in that, each fluid ounce, was represented to contain|400 U. S. P. units of vitamin Bi; whereas each fluid ounce contained less than|400 U. S. P. units, namely, not more than 50 U. S. P. units, of vitamin Bi. It|was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement \"\"Each Fluid Ounce Contains:|Vitamin Bi 400 units,\"\" borne on the bottle label, was false and misleading|467495?-42?4|since each fluid ounce did not contain 400 U. S. P. units of vitamin Bi but did|contain a smaller amount.|On February 28, 1941, a plea of nolo contendere was entered on behalf of?(|the defendant and the court imposed a fine of $500.|463. Adulteration of chloroform. U. S. v. 795 Bottles and 972 Bottles of, Chloroform. Default decrees of condemnation. Portion of product ordered destroyed; remainder ordered delivered to a hospital to be used for technical purposes.ddnj00463September 1942City Chemical CorporationchloroformMay 27, 1941Perry Point, Md.New York, N. Y., and Jersey City, N. J.Perry Point, Md.District of Maryland and the Northern District of Illinois463F. D. C. Nos. 5174, 5180. Sample Nos. 47480-E, 50848-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00463ddnj|463. Adulteration of chloroform. U. S. v. 795 Bottles and 972 Bottles of ,|Chloroform. Default decrees of condemnation. Portion of product or- I|dered destroyed; remainder ordered delivered to a hospital to be used for|technical purposes. (F. D. C. Nos. 5174, 5180. Sample Nos. 47480-E,|50848-E.)|This product differed from the pharmacopoeial standards because of the pres-|ence of carbonizable substances in both lots and of chlorinated decomposition|products in one.|On July 19 and 22, 1941, the United States attorneys for the District of Mary-|land and the Northern District of Illinois filed libels against 972 bottles of|chloroform at Perry Point, Md., and 795 bottles of chloroform at Chicago, 111.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|May 27, 1941, by the City Chemical Corporation from New York, N. Y., and|Jersey City, N. J.; and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded. It|was labeled in part: \"\"Chloroform USP XI (Not for Anesthesia).\"\"|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to be or was|represented as a drug the name of which is recognized in the United States|Pharmacopoeia and its strength differed from and its quality and purity fell|below the standard set forth in that compendium since it contained carbonizable|substances and in one lot chlorinated decomposition products. It was alleged|to be misbranded in that the statement \"\"Chloroform USP XI,\"\" borne on the|label, was false and misleading.|On September 20 and October 15, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgments|of condemnation were entered and the goods seized at Chicago were ordered|destroyed and those seized at Perry Point were ordered delivered to a hospital.|The latter lot was relabeled by obliterating the term \"\"U. S. P.\"\" and stamping|on the label the words, \"\"For technical uses only.\"\"|453. Misbranding of Rogers Headache Soda. U. . v. 95 Dozen and 3 1/2 Dozen Packages of Rogers Headache Soda. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00453September 1942Rogers Drug Co.Rogers Headache SodaNovember 7, 1940, and February 4, 1941Cairo, Ill.Memphis, Tenn.Cairo, Ill.Eastern District of Illinois453F. D. C. No. 4000. Sample Nos. 39686-E, 39700-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00453ddnj|453. Misbranding of Rogers Headache Soda. U. ?. v. 95 Dozen and 3% Dozen|Packages of Rogers Headache Soda. Default decree of condemnation and|destruction. (F. D. C. No. 4000. Sample Nos. 39686-E, 39700-E.)|This product contained acetanilid and its label did not bear adequate direc-|tions for use and such adequate warnings as are necessary for the protection of|users. It contained not more than 1.9 grains of acetanilid per powder, whereas|it was labeled as containing 2? grains of acetanilid per powder. Its principal|ingredient was not soda as suggested by its name.|On March 20, 1941, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Illinois filed a libel against 95 dozen 10-cent packages and 3? dozen 25-cent|packages' of Rogers Headache Soda at Cairo, 111., alleging that the article had|been shipped in interstate commerce on or about November 7, 1940, and Febru-|ary 4, 1941, by the Rogers Drug Co. from Memphis, Tenn.; and charging that|it was misbranded.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements on the label,|\"\"Headache Soda-Each Powder Contains 2? grs. Acetanilid,\"\" were false and|misleading since they were incorrect. It was alleged to be misbranded further|in that the label did not bear a statement of the quantity or proportion of|acetanilid contained in the article; and in that the label did not bear adequate|directions for use and adequate warnings against use in those pathological con-|ditions or by children where its use might be dangerous to health, or against|unsafe dosage or methods or duration of administration, in such manner and|form as are necessary, for the protection of users.|On April 26, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|454. Misbranding of Rux compounds and Williams formulas. U. S. v. Certain Quantities of Rux Compound Regular, Rux Compound Strengthened, Williams Formula Regular, and Williams Formula Strengthened. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00454September 1942Williams S. L. K. LaboratoriesRux compounds and Williams formulasJuly 26, 1940Sayre, Pa.Milwaukee, Wis.Sayre, Pa.Middle District of Pennsylvania454F. D. C. No. 3390. Sample Nos. 24139-E to 24143-E, incl.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00454ddnj|454. Misbranding of Rux compounds and Williams formulas. V. S. v. Certain|Quantities of Rux Compound Regular, Rux Compound Strengthened, Wil-|liams Formula Regular, and Williams Formula Strengthened. Default|decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 3390. Sample Nos.|24139-E to 24143-E, tocl.)|The label of the Williams formulas failed to bear adequate directions and|warning statements, and that of all four products bore false and misleading|therapeutic claims.|On November 18, 1940, the United States attorney for the Middle District of|Pennsylvania filed a libel against 29 bottles of Rux Compound Regular; 191|8-fluid-ounce bottles, 16 3-fluid-ounce bottles, and 2 quart bottles of Rux Com-|pound Strenthened; 27 bottles of Williams Formula Regular; and 195 8-fluid-|ounce bottles, 20 3-fluid-ounce bottles, and 2 quart bottles of Williams Formula|Strengthened at Sayre, Pa., alleging that the articles had been shipped on or|about July 26, 1940 by the Williams S. L. K. Laboratories from Milwaukee,|Wis.; and charging that they were misbranded.|Analyses of samples showed that Rux Compound Regular consisted essentially|of scdium, potassium, and strontium salts of salicylic, benzoic, and acetic acids,|extracts of plant drugs including quassia, saccharin,.and water, the total amount|of salicylic acid represented being 21.1 grains per fluid ounce; Rux Compound|Strengthened consisted essentially of the same ingredients, the total amount of|salicylic acid represented being 32.8 grains per fluid ounce; Williams Formula|Regular consisted essentially of Rochelle salt (21.5 grains per fluid ounce),|methenamine (5.2 grains per fluid ounce), iron and ammonium citrate (2.4|grains per fluid ounce), extracts of plant drugs including a laxative drug, nux|vomica, and Cayenne pepper, alcohol (3 percent), and water; and Williams|Formula Strengthened consisted essentially of Rochelle salt (40.2 grains per|fluid ounce), methenamine (9.3 grains per fluid ounce), iron and ammonium|citrate (3.8 grains per fluid ounce), extracts of plant drugs including a laxative|drug, nux vomica, and Cayenne pepper, alcohol (2.3 percent), and water.|Williams Formula Regular and Williams Formula Strengthened were alleged|to be misbranded in that the labeling did not bear adequate directions for use|since the following directions were not suitable and appropriate for articles of|their composition and therefore were not adequate: (Bottle and carton contain-|ing Williams Formula Regular and 8-fluid-ounce bottle- and carton containing|Williams Formula Strengthened) \"\"Adults-Tablespoonful before meals and at|bedtime with a glass of water with each dose. Reduce dose if too active\"\";|(circular accompanying 8-fluid-ounce bottle of Williams Formula Strengthened)|\"\"Important Directions Williams Formula is generally taken right before meals|and at bedtime, making four doses a day to start. * * * Follow carefully|directions for ^dosage on label. If desired, 2 teaspoonsful may be taken each|dose for a few days. Reduce dose if too active. * * * After taking a|course of Williams Formula many people prefer to keep a bottle on hand to be|taken as needed. Some find it advisable to take the medicine a week or ten|days, then skip a week or two, resuming the dosage when they feel the need|of it. Your own experience should soon guide as to how to take Williams|Formula to obtain the most good from it. * * * Directions For Combina-|tion Use When using Rux and Williams Formula together, in indicated- condi-|tions, follow these directions: Take 2 teaspoonsful of Rux every 3 hours for|the first 8 days, and Williams Formula before meals and at bedtime. After 8|days, take 1 teaspoonful of Rux after meals and at bedtime, using Williams|Formula morning and night only. In this way one bottle of Williams Formula|lasts as long as two bottles of Rux.\"\" .Williams formulas were alleged to be|misbranded further in that the labeling failed to bear adequate warnings against|unsafe dosage or methods or duration of administration in such manner and|form as are necessary for the protection of users, since it did not inform the|purchaser that frequent or continued use of the article might result in depend-|ence upon laxatives to move the bowels. They were alleged to be misbranded|still further in that representations in the labeling that Williams Formula|Regular would provide iron for the blood and.an alkalizer for excess stomach|acid; that it would be efficacious in the treatment of constipation, sick head-|aches,, dizzy attacks, nausea, poor appetite, gas pains, bloat, tired-out, run-down,|\"\"half-alive\"\" feeling; that it had helped bring users to a greater enjoyment of|living; that it would relieve suffering and make life happier; that it would give|gentle laxing action; that it would serve as a tonic to help whip the user out of|depressing mental laziness and give him increased pep and vitality; that it would|alkalize urine flow to relieve acid kidney pains, and that it would serve as a|diuretic for kidneys; that it would cure pimples, relieve choking spells, and tone|up the intestinal muscles; and that Williams Formula Strengthened was an|iron source, were false and misleading since the drugs were not efficacious for|such purposes.|Rux Compound Regular and Rux Compound Strengthened were alleged to be|misbranded in that representations in the labeling that they were efficacious for|pronounced pain and for relief of muscular pain and congestion, were false and|misleading since they would not be efficacious for such purposes.|On June 30, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the products were ordered destroyed.|Nos. 455 to 457 report the seizure and disposition of intra-cervical or|intra-uterine types of metal or rubber-covered stem pessaries which were|potentially dangerous.|455. Misbranding of pessaries. U. S. v. 8 Gold Pessaries. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00455September 1942American Platinum WorkspessariesNovember 19, 1938, March 14, 1939, and July 23, 1940Brooklyn, N. Y.Newark, N. J.Brooklyn, N. Y.Eastern District of New York455F. D. C. No. 3004. Sample No. 34352-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00455ddnj|455. Misbranding of pessaries. U. S. ?. 8 Gold Pessaries. Default decree of|condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 3004. Sample No. 34352-E.)|On September 19, 1940, the United States attorney for the Eastern District|of New York filed a libel against 8 gold pessaries at Brooklyn, N. Y., alleging|that the article had been shipped on or about November 19, 1938, March 14,|1939, and July 23, 1940, by American Platinum Works from Newark, N. J.; and|charging that its was misbranded in that its labeling failed to bear adequate|directions for use.|On November 14, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|456. Misbranding of pessaries. U. S. v. 1 Large, 2 Small, and 6 Medium Gold Pessaries. Default decree of condemnation. Product ordered delivered to United States Mint.ddnj00456September 1942Kny-Scheerer CorporationpessariesSeptember 10, 1940Fort Worth, Tex.Long Island City, N. Y.Fort Worth, Tex.Northern District of Texas456F. D. C. No. 3309. Sample No. 35296-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00456ddnj|456. Misbranding of pessaries. U. S. v. 1 Large, 2 Small, and 6 Medium Gold|Pessaries. Default decree of condemnation. Product ordered delivered to|United States Mint. (F. D. C. No. 3309. Sample No. 35296-E.)|On or about November 2, 1940, the United States attorney for the Northern|District of Texas filed a libel against 9 .gold pessaries at Fort Worth, Tex.,|alleging that the article had been shipped on or about September 10, 1940, by|the Kny-Scheerer Corporation from Long Island City, N. Y.; and charging that|it was misbranded. It was labeled in part: \"\"Perfection 1/10 14 Kt. Gold|Pessary.\"\"|The article was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that its labeling did not|bear adequate directions for use; and (2) in that its labeling did not bear|adequate warnings against use in those pathological conditions where its use|might be dangerous to health or against unsafe dosage or methods or duration|of administration or application in such manner and form as are necessary for|protection of users.|On February 26, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered delivered to the Director of the|.Mint for reclamation, for the use of the United States, of its gold content.|457. Misbranding of pessaries. U. S. v. 125 Gold Pessaries. Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered released under bond to be relabeled.ddnj00457September 1942Illinois Surgical Supply Co., Chicago, Ill.pessariesAugust 28, 1940Chicago, Ill.New York, N. Y.Chicago, Ill.Northern District of Illinois457F. D. C. No. 3095. Sample Nos. 30915-E to 30920-E, incl.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00457ddnj|457. Misbranding of pessaries. U. S. v. 125 Gold Pessaries. Consent decree of|condemnation. Product ordered released under bond to be relabeled.|(F. D. C. No. 3095. Sample Nos. 30915-E to 30920-E, incl.)|On October 15, 1940, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Illinois filed a libel against 125 pessaries at Chicago, 111., alleging that the|article had been shipped by Nicholas Mandula from New York, N. Y., on or|about August 28, 1940; and charging that it was misbranded. It was labeled|in part: \"\"Illinois Special Gold Medium [or \"\"Small\"\" or \"\"Large\"\"] Pessary 10|Karat\"\"; or \"\"Illinois Special Gold-Filled Pessary Medium [or \"\"Small\"\" or \"\"Large\"\"]|Tubular X-Cel.\"\"|The article was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that the labeling failed to|bear adequate warnings against its use in those pathological conditions where|its use might be dangerous to health or against unsafe methods or duration of|administration or application; and (2) in that the labeling failed to bear|adequate directions for use.|On December 27, 1940, the Illinois Surgical Supply Co., Chicago, 111., claimant,|having admitted the allegations of the libel, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered released under bond to be relabeled under|the supervision of the Food and Drug Administration.|DRUGS SEIZED BECAUSE OF CONTAMINATION WITH FILTH|6218. Various vitamin preparations.ddnj06218March 1961Hudson Vitamin Products, Inc.Various vitamin preparations1-22-60New York, N.Y.outside New York.New York, N.Y.S. Dist. N.Y.6218F. D. C. No. 44190. S. Nos. 99-261/77 P.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj06218ddnj|6218. Various vitamin preparations. (F.D.C. No. 44190. S. Nos. 99-261/77 P.)|QUANTITY: 29,951,258 vitamin capsules consisting of vitamin A capsules, vita-|mins A & D capsules, vitamin E capsules, wheat germ oil capsules, Adavite|capsules, Minaquin capsules, Quin-Kaps capsules, Theracrest capsules, Thera-|vim capsules, and Zel-Kaps capsules, and 15 5-gal. drums and 525 16-fluid oz.|btls. of wheat germ oil and Neo-Vi drops, at New York, N.Y., in possession of|Hudson Vitamin Products, Inc.|SHIPPED : Prior to 1-22-60, from outside the State of New York.|LABEL IN PART: \"\"Hudson Vitamin 'A' 100 [or \"\"250\"\"] capsules Natural [or|\"\"Synthetic\"\" or \"\"Water Soluble\"\"] 25,000 [or \"\"50,000\"\"] U.S.P. Units Hudson|Vitamin Products, Inc.,\"\" \"\"Hudson A & D Vitamins 100 [or \"\"250\"\"] capsules,\"\"|\"\"Hudson E-Kaps 100 [or \"\"250\"\"] capsules,\"\" \"\"Hudson Wheat Germ Oil 100|[or \"\"250\"\"] Capsules 3 minims each [or \"\"4 fluid ounces\"\"], \"\"Hudson Ada-|vite 100 [or \"\"250\"\"] capsules Fortified Therapeutic Vitamins,\"\" \"\"Hudson Neo-|Vi 60 cc. drops New and improved water-dispersible multivitamin drops|with Vitamin B-12,\"\" \"\"Hudson Minaquin 100 [or \"\"250\"\"] capsules Vitamins|with Minerals,\"\" \"\"Hudson Quin-Kaps 100 [or \"\"250\"\"] capsules Improved|Poly-vitamins,\"\" \"\"Hudson Theracrest 100 [or \"\"50\"\" or \"\"250\"\"] capsules Forti-|fied Therapeutic Polyvitamins,\"\" \"\"Hudson Theravim 100 [or \"\"250\"\"] capsules|Therapeutic Vitamins Minerals Increased Potency,\"\" \"\"Hudson Zel-Kaps 100|[or \"\"250\"\"] capsules High Potency Multiple Vitamins.\"\"|ACCOMPANYING LABELING: Booklets entitled \"\"Hudson Vitamin Catalog Janu-|ary, I960.\"\"|RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION : The booklets were printed for Hudson Vitamin|Products, Inc., for promotional purposes and to explain the use of the articles.|LIBELED : 1-22-60, S. Dist. N.Y.|CHARGE: 502(a)-while held for sale, the labeling which accompanied the|articles was false and misleading as follows:|(a)?Vitamin A Natural, Vitamin A Synthetic, Vitamin A Water Soluble-|the labeling of the articles contained representations that infections, low|resistance to infections, including infection by the common cold, ophthalmic|disorders, retarded growth, low vitality, loss of vigor, and night blindness are|commonly and usually caused by deficiencies of vitamin A in the diet; that|use of the articles would correct and prevent such conditions; and that the|natural sources of vitamin A are limited to green vegetables, tomatoes, eggs,|and butter, which representations were false and misleading since the condi-|tions named are rarely, if ever, caused by a deficiency of vitamin A in the diet;|use of the articles would not prevent or correct such conditions; and vitamin|A is readily available in many foods which comprise the normal diet and not|only in those foods listed as supplying the natural sources of vitamin A ;|(b)?Vitamins A & D capsules-the labeling of the article contained repre-|sentations that infections, low resistance to infections, ophthalmic disorders,|retarded growth, low vitality, sterility, loss of vigor, night blindness, tooth|decay, bone deformities, and muscular weakness are usually caused by a de-|ficiency of vitamins A and D in the diet; that use of the article would correct|and prevent such conditions; and that the natural sources of vitamin A are|limited to green vegetables, tomatoes, eggs, and butter and the natural sources|of vitamin D are limited to cod liver oil, sunlight, eggs, and milk, which repre-|sentations were false and misleading since such conditions are rarely, if ever,|caused by deficiencies of vitamins A and D in the diet; use of the articles|would not prevent or correct such conditions; and vitamins A and D are|readily available in many foods which comprise the normal diet and not only|in those foods listed in the labeling as supplying the natural sources of vita-|mins A and D;|(c)?E-Eaps {Vitamin E) Natural, wheat germ oil capsules and wheat germ|oil liquid, Neo-Vi drops, Theracrest capsules, Theravim capsules-the labeling|of the articles contained representations that the articles were adequate and|effective for the treatment and prevention of sterility, muscular dystrophy,|failure of reproduction, abortion, heart conditions and abnormal muscular|conditions and to promote muscular mobility; and that the natural sources of|vitamin B are limited to wheat germ, whole cereals, and whole wheat, which|representations were false and misleading since the articles were not adequate|and effective for the treatment and prevention of such conditions or to promote|muscular mobility; and vitamin B is readily available in many articles of the|ordinary diet and not only in the foods listed in the labeling, and it is unneces-|sary to supplement the diet to obtain an adequate amount of vitamin E;|(d) Adavite capsules, Neo-Vi drops, Minaquin capsules, Quin-Kaps capsules|TJieracrest capsules, Theravim capsules, and Zel-Caps capsules-the labeling|of the articles represented that infections, low resistance to infection, ophthal-|mic disorders, retarded growth, low vitality, sterility, loss of vigor, night|blindness, poor appetite or loss of appetite, neuritis, poor digestion, digestive|disturbances, intestinal disturbances, fatigue, depression, depressed bodily|activity, abnormal cell growth and development, nervous disorders and dis-|turbances, disturbances of growth, skin disorders, anemias, tooth decay, hem-|orrhage, muscular weakness, and bone deformities are commonly and usually|caused by deficiencies in the diet of vitamins A, Bi, B2, niacinamide, B9,|Bi2, C, and D and that use of the articles would correct and prevent such con-|ditions ; and that the natural sources of the named vitamins were limited to|(A) green vegetables, eggs, tomatoes and butter, (Bi) yeast, wheat germ, and|milk, (B2) yeast, milk and eggs, (niacinamide) green vegetables, beans, yeast,|(Be) eggs, cabbage, cantaloupe, (Ba) liver (beef), (C) lemons, oranges,|tomatoes, and grapefruit, (D) cod liver oil, sunlight, eggs and milk, which|representations were false and misleading since such conditions are rarely,|if ever, caused by a deficiency of these named vitamins; use of the articles|would not correct or prevent such conditions; and the named vitamins are|readily available in many foods which comprise the normal diet, and not only|in those foods listed in the labeling as supplying the natural sources of such|vitamins.|Neo-Vi drops-in addition, the labeling of the article represented that|adequate and proper nutrition could be obtained by children only by such|vitamin-supplementation as provided by Neo-Vi drops formula; and that such|supplementation would balance an otherwise unregulated or improper diet|for children, which representation was false and misleading since adequate|nutrition for children can be easily obtained without such a supplement as|Neo-Vi drops, and the addition of such a supplement alone does not insure a|balanced diet, or proper nutrition of children.|Theracrest capsules-in addition, the labeling of the article represented|that the average adult in this country is suffering from vitamin deficiencies|and poor health and that the article would promote good health and pro-|vide sparkle and vigor to daily living, which representation was false and|misleading since it was contrary to fact.|Theravim capsules-in addition, the labeling of the article represented and|suggested that the average adult in this country is likely to be suffering from|a vitamin and mineral deficiency; that the article would improve body tone|and provide pep and zest to the average adult; and that a restricted diet|would result in the absence of vitamins from such a diet, which representations|were false and misleading since they were contrary to fact.|DISPOSITION: 1-28-60. Consent-claimed by Hudson Vitamin Products, Inc.,|and relabeled.|464. Adulteration of powdered extract of digitalis. U. S. v. 1 Can of Powdered Extract of Digitalis. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00464September 1942J. L. Hopkins & Co.powdered extract of digitalisNovember 2, 1940Philadelphia, Pa.New York, N. Y.Philadelphia, Pa.Eastern District of Pennsylvania464F. D. C. No. 3742. Sample No. 25065-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00464ddnj|464. Adulteration of powdered extract of digitalis. TJ. S. v. 1 Can of Powdered|Extract of Digitalis. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 3742. Sample No. 25065-E.)|This product possessed a potency of not more than 1.3 U. S. P. digitalis units|per 0.1 gram; whereas the National Formulary provides that it should possess a|potency of not less than,2.75 U. S. P. digitalis units per 0.1 gram. Moreover, it|was invoiced as \"\"P. E. Digitalis 1-4,\"\" which meant that each gram should possess|an activity of not less than 4 U. S. P. digitalis units.|On January 31, 1941, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Pennsylvania filed a libel against 1 can of powdered extract of digitalis at|Philadelphia, Pa., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate com-|merce on or about November 2, 1940, by J. L. Hopkins & Co. from New York,|N. Y.; and charging that it was adulterated. It was labeled in part: \"\"Powdered|Extract Not Biologically Tested Defatted Digitalis * * * Not N. F.\"\"|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to be or was|represented as a drug the name of which is recognized in the National Formu-|lary, an official compendium,; but its strength differed from the standard set|forth in such compendium and its difference in strength from such standard|was not stated on its label. It was alleged to be adulterated further in that a|substance, namely, a preparation of digitalis possessing a potency of not more|than 1.3 U. S. P. digitalis units per 0.1 gram had been substituted therefor.|On March 8, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|465. Adulteration and misbranding of powdered extract digitalis leaves. U. S. v. 1 Can of Powdered Extract Digitalis Leaves. Consent decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00465September 1942S. B. Penick & Co.powdered extract digitalis leavesSeptember 27, 1939Pittsburgh, Pa.Jersey City, N. J.Pittsburgh, Pa.Western District of Penn sylvania465F. D. C. No. 2156. Sample Nos. 3014-E, 3060-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00465ddnj|465. Adulteration and misbranding- of powdered extract digitalis leaves. IT. S. v.|1 Can of Powdered Extract Digitalis Leaves. Consent decree of condemna-|tion and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 2156. Sample Nos. 3014-E, 3060-E.)|This product possessed a potency of 1.6 U. S. P. digitalis units per 0.1 gram,|whereas the National Formulary requires that extract of digitalis possess a|potency of not less than 2.75 U. S. P. digitalis units per 0.1 gram.|On June 4, 1940, the United States attorney for the Western District of Penn-?[|sylvania filed a libel against one can of powdered extract digitalis leaves at|Pittsburgh, Pa., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate com-|merce on or about September 27, 1939, by S. B. Penick & Co. from Jersey City,?/|N. J.; and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to be and was|represented as a drug the name of which is recognized in the National Formulary,|an official compendium, and its strength differed from the standard set forth in|such compendium.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement on the label, \"\"Extract|Tested N. F.,\"\" was false and misleading since the said statement represented|that the article was a drug the name of which is recognized in the National|Formulary; whereas its strength differed from the standard set forth in that|compendium.|On September 30,1941, the claimant having consented to the entry of a decree,|judgment of condemnation was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|466. Adulteration of tincture of digitalis. U. S. v. 6 Bottles of Tincture Digitalis U. S. P. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00466September 1942Eli Lilly & Co.tincture of digitalisOctober 22, 1940, and February 21, 1941St. Louis, Mo.Indianapolis, Ind.St. Louis, Mo.Eastern District of Missouri466F. D. C. No. 4830. Sample No. 39804-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00466ddnj|466. Adulteration of tincture of digitalis. IT. S. v. 6 Bottles of Tincture Digitalis|U. S. P. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No.|4830. Sample No. 39804-E.)|Examination of this product showed that its potency was not more than 63|percent of the U. S. Pharmacopoeia XI minimum requirement.|On May 24, 1941, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Mis-|souri filed a libel against 6 pint bottles of tincture of digitalis at St. Louis, Mo.,|alleging that the article had been shipped by Eli Lilly & Co. from Indianapolis,|Ind., on or about October 22, 1940, and February 21, 1941; and charging that it|was adulterated in that it purported to be a drug the name of which was|recognized in an official compendium, namely, the United States Pharmacopoeia,|but its strength fell below the standard set forth in such conpendium.|On June 18, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|467. Adulteration and misbranding of triple distilled water. U. S. v. 180 Ampuls, 2,740 Ampuls, and 70 Bottles of Triple Distilled Water. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00467September 1942Diarsenol Co., Inc.triple distilled waterMarch 29 to May 22, 1941Houston, Tex.Buffalo, N. Y.Houston, Tex.Southern District of Texas467F. D. C. No. 5159. Sample Nos. 11275-E. 11276-E, 11277-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00467ddnj|467. Adulteration and misbranding of triple distilled water. V. S. v. ISO Ampuls,|2,740 Ampuls, and 70 Bottles of Triple Distilled Water. Default decree of|condemnation and destruction. ((F. D. C. No. 5159. Sample Nos. 11275-E.|11276-E, 11277-E.) |These ampuls of distilled water failed to conform to the requirements of the|National Formulary for hydrogen ion concentration and a portion were short|of the declared volume and were not packaged as required by the formulary.|The water in the bottles contained as much as 11 times the maximum amount of|oxidizable substances permitted by the National Formulary.|On or about July 18,1941, the United States attorney for the Southern District|of Texas filed a libel against 2,920 10-cc. ampuls and 70 100-cc. bottles of triple|distilled water at Houston, Tex., alleging that the article had been shipped in|interstate commerce within the period from on or about March 29 to on or about|May 22, 1941, by Diarsenol Co., Inc., from Buffalo, N. Y.; and charging that it|was adulterated and misbranded.|The product contained in the ampuls was alleged to be adulterated in that It|purported to be and was represented as a drug the name of which is recognized|in the National Formulary, an official compendium, but its quality fell below the|standard set forth therein since it failed to comply with the National Formulary|requirement for pH (hydrogen ion concentration). The product contained in|the bottles was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to be and was|represented as a drug the name of which is recognized in the National Formulary,|an official compendium, and its purity and quality fell below the standard set|forth therein since, when 100 cubic centimeters of the article was heated to|boiling, acidulated with 10 cubic centimeters of diluted sulfuric acid, and|0.1 cubic centimeter of twentieth-normal potassium permanganate was added,|the color of the liquid completely disappeared after boiling for 10 minutes;|whereas the National Formulary requires that when 100 cubic centimeters of|distilled water is heated to boiling, is acidulated with 10 cubic centimeters of|diluted sulfuric acid, and 0.1 cubic centimeter of twentieth-normal potassium|permanganate is added, it does not become completely decolorized after boiling for|10 minutes.|A portion of the article contained in the ampuls was alleged to be mis-|branded in that the statement- \"\"10 cc\"\" on the ampuls was false and misleading|since a portion of the ampuls contained less than 10 cubic centimeters of water;|and in that it purported to be a drug the name of which is recognized in the|National Formulary and was not packaged as therein prescribed.|On August 22, 1911, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|468. Adulteration and misbranding of Petrodine and Special Formula No. 2389 Ampoules; misbranding of Klorseptic Oil and Klorseptic Ointment. U. S. v. Howard D. Day (High Chemical Co.). Plea of guilty. Fine, $400.ddnj00468September 1942Howard D. Day, trading as the High (Chemical Co. at Philadelphia, Pa.Petrodine and Special Formula No. 2389 Ampoules; Klorseptic Oil and Klorseptic OintmentJanuary 12 to February 14, 1940PennsylvaniaPennsylvaniaNew York and New JerseyEastern District of Pennsylvania468F. D. C. No. 2886. Sample Nos. 10266-E, 69883-D, 69890-D, 77846-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00468ddnj|468. Adulteration, and misbranding of Petrodine and Special Formula No. 2389|Ampoules; misbranding of Klorseptlc Oil and Klorseptic Ointment. .-U.S.- (|v. Howard D. Day (High Chemical Co.). Plea of guilty. Fine, $400. <|(F. D. C. No. 2886. Sample Nos. 10266-E, 69883-D, 69890-D, 77846-D.) |On April 18, 1941, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Pennsylvania filed an information against Howard D. Day, trading as the High?(|Chemical Co. at Philadelphia, Pa., alleging shipment within the period from on|or about January 12 to on or about February 14, 1940, from the State of Penn-|sylvania into the States of New York and New Jersey of quantities of the above-|named products of which portidns were adulterated and misbranded and the|remainder was misbranded. The Petrodine was labeled in part: \"\"Petrodine|* * * Mineral Oil with Iodine * * * Prepared only by Iodine Products|Co. * * * Philadelphia, Pa.\"\"|The Petrodine was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from|and its quality or purity fell below that which it purported or was represented to|possess, in that it was represented to contain 0.2 grain of elementary iodine per|fluid ounce; whereas it contained not more than 0.09 grain of elementary iodine|per fluid ounce. It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement \"\"* * *|containing 0.2 gr. elementary iodine to the fluid ounce,\"\" borne on the label, was|false and misleading.|The Special Formula No. 2389 Ampoules were alleged to be adulterated in|that their strength differed from and their quality or purity fell below that which|they purported or were represented to possess, in that the contents of each of|the ampuls was represented to consist of a solution containing 1 grain of lecithin|per cubic centimeter; whereas the contents of each ampul contained not more|than 0.338 grain of lecithin per cubic centimeter. The article was alleged|to be misbranded in that the statement \"\"Ampoules * * * Lecithin * * *|lgr. * * * 1 cc,\"\" on the box label, was false and misleading.|Analysis of a sample of the Klorseptic Oil showed that it consisted essentially|of a semi-viscous oil having the odor of eucalyptus oil- and containing an organic|chloride; and that it contained no free chlorine.|The Klorseptic Oil was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that the statements|\"\"Klorseptic Oil is a * * * Chlorinated topical dressing * * * contain-|ing approximately 25? chlorine,\"\" appearing in the labeling, were misleading|since it contained no free chlorine. (2) In that the following statements in|the labeling, \"\"Useful as a topical dressing in burns, infected wounds, both|superficial and deep, Otitis Media, and skin lesions,\"\" were false and misleading|since they represented that it would be efficacious as a topical dressing in burns,|infected wounds, both superficial and deep, and that it would be efficacious as|an adequate treatment of otitis media and skin lesions; whereas it would not|be efficacious for such purposes.|iixamination of a sample of Klorseptic Ointment showed that it was an|amber-colored ointment having a eucalyptus odor; analysis showed that it|contained no free chlorine. It was alleged to be misbranded in that the|following statements in the labeling, \"\"Useful in some forms of wounds, lacera-|tions, abrasions, burns arid wherever topical dressing is indicated,\"\" were false|and misleading since they represented that it would be useful in the treatment|of wounds, lacerations, abrasions, burns, and wherever a topical dressing is.|indicated; whereas it would not be useful in the treatment of some forms of|wounds, lacerations, abrasions, burns or wherever a topical dressing is indicated.|On May 21, 1941, the defendant entered a plea of guilty and the court|imposed a fine of $400.|500. Misbranding of Dr. Carey's Marsh Root Prescription 777 Tablets (and Laxative Pills). U. S. v. 105 Packages of Dr. Carey's Marsh Root Prescription 777 Tablets. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00500September 1942Earle Soap Manufacturing Co.Dr. Carey's Marsh Root Prescription 777 Tablets (and Laxative Pills)September 13, 1940Roanoke, Va.Baltimore, Md.Roanoke, Va.Western District of Virginia500F. D. C. No. 3134. Sample No. 1391-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00500ddnj|500. Misbranding- of Dr. Carey's Marsh Root Prescription 777 Tablets (and|Laxative Pills). U. S. v. 105 Packages of Dr. Carey's Marsh Root Prescrip-|tion 777 Tablets. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. ,-|(F. D. C. No. 3134.- Sample No. 1391-E.) |On or about October 7,1940, the United States attorney for the Western District|of Virginia filed a libel against 105 packages of the above-named products at|Roanoke, Va., which had been consigned by the Earle Soap Manufacturing Co.,?(|alleging that the article had been shipped from Baltimore, Md., on or about|September 13, 1940; and charging that it was misbranded. Accompanying each|bottle of this product was an envelope that contained 4 pills labeled \"\"Dr. Carey's|Marsh Root Laxative Pills.\"\"|Analyses of samples showed that the Prescription 777 Tablets consisted essen-|tially of plant drugs including a laxative drug and an alkaloid-bearing drug,|methyl salicylate, sodium salicylate, potassium nitrate, sugar, starch, and talc;|and that the Laxative Pills consisted essentially of plant material, including a|laxative drug.|The packages of Marsh Root Prescription 777 Tablets were alleged to be mis-|branded in that the names \"\"Dr. Carey's Marsh Root Prescription 777 Tablets\"\"|and \"\"Dr. Carey's Marsh Root Laxative Pills\"\" were false and misleading since|the tablets and the pills both contained therapeutically active ingredients other|than marsh root. They were alleged to be misbranded further in that statements|appearing upon and within the package representing that Prescription 777 Tablets|would be efficacious as a diuretic, as a stimulant of the kidneys and urinary sys-|tem, and as a cure, preventive, or mitigation of kidney diseases; and that the|Laxative Pills would be efficacious as a tonic, that they were \"\"gentle as Nature,\"\"|that they were not habit-forming, that they were of value for sufferers of kidney|or bladder troubles, and that it is necessary for an individual to have laxation|before any medication is effective, were false and misleading since the tablets|and the pills would not be efficacious for such purposes.|On January 14, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|501. Misbranding of Myasthene Tablets. U. S. v. 183 Bottles of Myasthene Tablets (and 1 other seizure action against Myasthene Tablets). Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00501September 1942Medicinal Specialties Co.Myasthene TabletsMarch 30, 1940Washington, D. C.New York, N. Y.Washington, D. C.District of Columbia501F. D. C. Nos. 24S3, 2643. Sample Nos. 1676-E, 1677-E, 1678-E, 28932-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00501ddnj|501. Misbranding of Myasthene Tablets. U. S. v. 183 Bottles of Myastbene|Tablets (and 1 other seizure action against Myasthene Tablets). Default|deerces of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 24S3, 2643. Sample|Nos. 1676-E, 1677-E, 1678-E, 28932-E.)|On August 2 and 21,1940, the United States attorney for the District of Colum-|bia filed libels against 326 bottles of Myasthene Tablets at Washington, D. C,|alleging that 183 of said bottles had been shipped in interstate commerce on or|about March 30,1940, by the Medicinal Specialties Co. from New York, N. Y., and|that 143 were being offered for sale in the District of Columbia at various branches|of the Whelan Drug Co., Inc.; and charging that the article was misbranded.|Analysis showed that it contained 7.5 grains of aminoacetic acid (glycocoll) per|tablet.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that representations in the labeling| that|it would increase the chemical source of muscular energy, would increase muscle|phosphocreatine in the system when a deficiency existed, would provide energy|for muscle action, would relieve tiredness or fatigue, would be efficacious in the|treatment of muscular ailments, including mild muscular debility; and in that|representations in the labeling of a portion of the article that it would check|tiredness, pep up muscles, and give the user an amazing feeling of strength, that|it would relieve weakness, exhaustion, run-down conditions, and lack of pep and|appetite, that it would produce amazing results in conditions of overwork and of|protein deficiency, would increase the chemical source of energy for muscular|action right in the muscles themselves, that it would combat certain poisonous|substances which ordinarily may be harmful, and would give the user vim, vigor,|pep, and energy, were false and misleading, since it would not be efficacious for|such purposes.|On March 14, 1941, the claim and answer of the Medicinal Specialties Co. having|been withdrawn, judgments of condemnation were entered and the product was|ordered delivered to the Food and Drug Administration for technical uses.|469. Adulteration and misbranding of mercurochrome. U. S. v. Max Mirkis (Southeastern Chemical Co. and Carolina Vinegar Co.). Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $50.ddnj00469September 1942Max Mirkis, trading as the Southeastern Chemical Co. and Carolina Vinegar Co. at Jacksonville Fla.mercurochromeFebruary 9, 1940FloridaFloridaGeorgiaSouthern District of Florida469F. D. C. No. 2904. Sample No. 20554-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00469ddnj|469. Adulteration and misbranding of mercurochrome. U. S. v. Max Mirkis|(Southeastern Chemical Co. and Carolina Vinegar Co.). Plea of nolo|contendere. Fine, $50. (F. D. C. No. 2904. Sample No. 20554-E.)|On January 2, 1941, the United States attorney for the Southern District|of Florida filed an information against Max Mirkis, trading as the Southeastern|Chemical Co. and Carolina Vinegar Co. at Jacksonville Fla., alleging delivery,|on or about February 9, 1940, for introduction in interstate commerce from the|State of Florida into the State of Georgia of a quantity of mercurochrome that|was adulterated and misbranded. It was labeled in part: \"\"Mercurochrome?i|2? Solution H. W. & D. SCO * * * Prepared from Genuine Mercuro-|chrome.\"\"|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from?(|or its quality fell below that which it purported to possess in that it was rep-?<^|resented to contain 2 percent of mercurochrome; whereas it contained not more|than 1.21 percent of mercurochrome. It was alleged to be misbranded in that| JUDGMENT |239|the statement \"\"Mercurochrome 2? Solution,\"\" appearing on the label, was|false and misleading.|On January 13, 1941, the defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere and|the court imposed a fine of $50.|470. Adulteration and misbranding of barbital tablets, cough tablets, conjunctivitis tablets, and equine worm powder; misbranding of eye ointment. U. S. v. Lloyd M. Curts and Charles D. Folse (Curts-Folse Laboratories). Pleas of guilty. Fine, $1 and costs.ddnj00470September 1942Lloyd M. Curts and Charles D. Folse, trading as Curts-Folse Laboratories at Kansas City, Kans.barbital tablets, cough tablets, conjunctivitis tablets, and equine worm powder; eye ointmentAugust 29 and November 29, 1939KansasKansasIllinois; OklahomaDistrict of Kansas470F. D. C. No. 2861. Sample Nos. 4466-E, 4467-E, 4468-E, 16018-E, 16739-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00470ddnj|470. Adulteration and misbranding of barbital tablets, cough tablets, conjunc-|tivitis tablets, and equine worm powder; misbranding of eye ointment.|U. S. v. Lloyd M. Curts and Charles D. Folse (Curts-Fol.se Laboratories).|Pleas of guilty. Fine, $1 and costs. (F. D. C. No. 2861. Sample Nos. 4466-E,|4467-E, 4468-E, 16018-E, 16739-E.)|All of these veterinary products contained smaller amounts of certain ingredi-|ents than those declared on their labels. Furthermore, the labels of the cough|tablets, the conjunctivitis tablets, the eye ointment, and the equine worm powder|contained false and misleading representations regarding, their efficacy in the|treatment of certain diseases of animals.|On January 10, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Kansas|filed an information against Lloyd M. Curts and Chajles D. Folse, trading as|Curts-Folse Laboratories at Kansas City, Kans., alleging shipment on or about|August 29 and November 29, 1939, from the State of Kansas into the State|of Illinois of a quantity of barbital tablets, cough tablets, and conjunctivitis|tablets that were adulterated and misbranded, and on or about October 6, 1939,|and February 26, 1940, from the State of Kansas into the State of Oklahoma of|a quantity of eye ointment that was misbranded and of equine worm powder|that was both adulterated and misbranded.|The articles were labeled in part: \"\"Barbital Tablets 1? grs. Cu-Fo Dose|Dogs and Cats iy2 to 10 grains\"\"; \"\"Cough Tablets Small Animals Ammon|Chloride 1 gr. * * ?* Dose Dogs and Cattle\"\"; \"\"Conjunctivitis Tablets No.|1 Contains Boric Acid ? gr. Salicylic Acid 2 grs. Zinc Sulphate 1 gr. * * *|for eye wash\"\"; \"\"Eye Ointment * * * Distributed by Barber and Cochran|*?* * Oklahoma City, Okla.\"\"; \"\"Equine Worm Powder Contains * * *|Arsenic 2?.\"\"|The barbital tablets were alleged to be adulterated in that their strength|differed from that which they purported or were represented to possess in that|each of said tablets was represented to contain 1? grains of barbital; whereas|each tablet contained not more than 1.18 grains of barbital. They were alleged|to be misbranded in that the statement \"\"Barbital Tablets iy2 grs.,\"\" borne on|the bottle label, was false and misleading since each of the tablets did not|contain 1? grains of barbital but did contain a smaller amount.|Analysis of a sample of the cough tablets showed that they consisted essen-|tially of ammonium chloride (0.76 grain per tablet) and extracts of plant|material, including licorice. They were alleged to be adulterated in that their|strength differed from that which they purported or were represented to possess|in that each of said tablets was represented to contain 1 grain of ammonium|chloride; whereas each tablet contained less than 1 grain, namely, not more|than 0.76 grain of ammonium chloride. They were alleged to be misbranded|in that the statement \"\"Tablets * * * Contain Ammon Chloride 1 gr.,\"\" borne|on the bottle label, was false and misleading since each of the tablets did not|contain |1 grain of ammonium chloride but did contain a smaller amount. They|were alleged to be misbranded further in that the statement \"\"Cough Tablets|*?* * Cattle,\"\" borne on the bottle label, was false and misleading since the|tablets would not be efficacious in the treatment of coughs in cattle.|Analysis of a sample of the conjunctivitis tablets showed that each of them|consisted essentially of boric acid (0.45 grain), salicylic acid (1.48.grains), zinc|sulfate (0.73 grain), and methylene blue. They were alleged to be adulterated|in that their strength differed from that which they purported or were repre-|sented to possess in that each of said tablets was represented to contain -|grain of boric acid, 2 grains of salicylic acid, and 1 grain of zinc sulfate;|whereas each of said tablets contained not more than 0.45 grain of boric acid,|not more than 1.48 grains of salicylic acid, and not more than 0.73 grain of|zinc sulfate. They were alleged to be misbranded in that the statement \"\"Tab-|lets * * * Contains Boric Acid ? gr. Salicylic Acid 2 grs. Zinc Sulfate 1|gr.,\"\" borne on the bottle label, was false and misleading since each of said|tablets contained less than ? grain of boric acid, less than 2 grains of salicylic|acid, and less than 1 grain of zinc sulfate. They were alleged to be misbranded|further in that the statement \"\"Conjunctivitis,\"\" borne on the bottle label, was|false and misleading since said drug would not be efficacious in the treatment|of conjunctivitis.|Analysis of a sample of the eye ointment showed that it consisted essentially|of yellow mercuric oxide incorporated in a suitable base. It was alleged to be?,-|misbranded in that the statement \"\"For the treatment of eye inflammations?(|and infections * * * If the eye contains pus,\"\" borne on the cartons, was?v-|false and misleading since it would not be efficacious for the treatment of eye|inflammations and infections or of pus in the eye.|Analysis of a sample of the equine worm powder showed that it consisted|essentially of arsenic trioxide (1.57 percent), plant material including areca|nuts and tobacco, compounds of sodium, iron, and calcium, chlorides, sulfates,|and phosphates. It was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed|from or its quality or purity fell below that which it purported or was|represented to possess in that it was represented to contain 2 percent of|arsenic, i. e., arsenic trioxide; whereas it contained less than 2 percent, namely,|not more than 1.57 percent of arsenic trioxide. It was alleged to be misbranded|in that the statements \"\"Equine Worm Powder\"\" and \"\"Contains * * * Arsenic|2?,\"\" appearing on the label, were false and misleading since it was not|efficacious in the treatment of worms in horses and it did not contain 2|percent of arsenic trioxide, but did contain a smaller amount.|On January 28, 1941, the defendants entered pleas of guilty and the court|imposed a fine of $1 and costs to be paid jointly.|471. Adulteration and misbranding of sodium cacodylate solution, calcium gluconate compound solution, and liquid nux vomica alkaloids. U. S. v. 14 Bottles of Sodium Cacodylate Solution, 68 Bottles of Calcium Gluconate Compound Solution, and 8 Bottles of Liquid Nux Vomica Alkaloids. Default decree of destruction.ddnj00471September 1942Peerless Serum Co.sodium cacodylate solution, calcium gluconate compound solution, and liquid nux vomica alkaloidsAugust 22 and October 5 and 26, 1940Tulsa, Okla.Kansas City, Mo.Tulsa, Okla.Northern District of Oklahoma471F. D. C. Nos. 3710 to 3712, incl. Sample Nos. 43057-E, 43061-E, 43076-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00471ddnj|471. Adulteration and misbranding of sodium cacodylate solution, calcium|gluconate compound solution, and liquid nux vomica alkaloids. U. S. v.|14 Bottles of Sodium Cacodylate Solution, 68 Bottles of Calcium Gluconate|Compound Solution, and 8 Bottles of Liquid Nux Vomica Alkaloids. De-|fault decree of destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 3710 to 3712, incl. Sample Nos.|43057-E, 43061-E, 43076-E.)|On January 27, 1941, the United States attorney for the Northern District|of Oklahoma filed a libel against the above-named products at Tulsa, Okla.,|alleging that they had been shipped from Kansas City, Mo., by the Peerless|Serum Co. of Kansas City, Kans., on or about August 22 and October 5 and|26,1940; and charging that they were adulterated and misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the sodium cacodylate solution showed that it|contained not more than 2.6 grains of sodium cacodylate per cubic centimeter.|It was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from that which|it was purported or was represented to possess, namely, \"\"Sodium Cacodylate|Solution 4.5 Gr. per cc.\"\" It was alleged to be misbranded in that statements|on the label, \"\"Sodium Cacodylate Solution 4.5 Gr. per cc,\"\" and \"\"Useful in|the treatment of Anaplasmosis, Swamp Fever, Anemia, Influenza, Shipping|Fever, Chronic Skin Diseases, and to build up Convalescent Patients,\"\" were|false and misleading since it did not constitute an effective treatment for the|diseases named on the label.|Analysis of a sample of the calcium gluconate solution showed that it|contained approximately 15 percent of calcium gluconate. It was alleged to|be adulterated in that its strength differed from that which it purported or|was represented to possess, namely, \"\"Calcium Gluconate Comp. Solution * * *|23? Solution.\"\" It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements on the|label, \"\"Calcium Gluconate Comp. Solution * * * 23? Solution,\"\" and \"\"In-|dications: * * * Azoturia,\"\" were false and misleading since it did not \"\"|contain 23 percent of calcium gluconate and did not constitute an adequate|treatment for azoturia.|Analysis of a sample of the nux vomica alkaloids liquid showed that it|contained per. cubic centimeter approximately 0.15 grain (less than 1/6 grain)|of strychnine sulfate, and approximately 0.045 grain (approximately 1/22 grain)|of brucine sulfate. It was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed|from that which it purported or was represented to possess, namely, \"\"Each|cc. contains a quarter grain each of Strychnine Sulphate and Brucine Sulphate.\"\"|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the above-quoted statement was false|and misleading since it contained materially less than *4 grain each of|strychnine sulfate and brucine sulfate per cubic centimeter.|On February 24, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment was entered|ordering that the products be destroyed.|472. Adulteration and misbranding of Mineralvita. U. S. v. 99 Bottles of Mineralvita. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00472September 1942Miueralvita Sales Co.MineralvitaFebruary 1 and 3, 1941Pontiac, Mich.Toledo, OhioPontiac, Mich.Eastern District of Michigan472F. D. C. No. 3887. Sample No. 31578-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00472ddnj|472. Adulteration and misbranding of Mineralvita. U. S. v. 99 Bottles of Mineral-|vita. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. ((P. D. C. No.|3887. Sample No. 31578-E.) |On February 27, 1941, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of?K-|Michigan filed a libel against 99 bottles of Mineralvita at Pontiac, Mich., alleg-|ing that the article had.been shipped by the Miueralvita Sales Co. from Toledo,|Ohio, on or about February 1 and 3. 1D41; and charging that it was adulter-|ated and misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of|sodium sulfate (1.3 percent), and slaked lime (0.& percent), and that it con-|tained but inconsaquential traces of, if any, manganese peptonate, lithium|carbonate, calcium phosphate, manganese sulfate, dipotassium phosphate, diso-|dium phosphate, lithium bromide, magnesium glycerophosphate, ferric phosphate,|and magnesium chloride.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from|and its quality fell below that which it purported or was represented to possess,|in that the labeling bore representations that minerals including manganese|peptonate, lithium carbonate, calcium phosphate, manganese sulfate, dipotassium|phosphate, disodium phosphate, lithium bromide, magnesium glycerophosphate,|ferric phosphate, and magnesium chloride had been added thereto, whereas it|contained but inconsequential traces, if any, of the above-named minerals; in|that representations in the labeling (leaflet) that it had always been a source|of precious minerals such as calcium phosphate and ferric phosphate, and that|4 ounces four times a day in combination with regular meals would furnish|young and old their daily requirement of minerals including phosphorus, where-|as it contained no phosphorus, no significant- proportion of calcium phosphate or|ferric phosphate and could not be depended upon to supply the various minerals|which might be deficient in the daily diet; and that Mineralvita had been|scientifically blended with the minerals found in the human system and then|treated by a form of electrolysis which prepared them for assimilation into the|blood stream, whereas it had not been scientifically blended with the minerals|found in the human system, and treatment by electrolysis, if used, would not|separate and prepare any of its minerals for entry into the human system nor|make them readily assimilated into the blood stream.|It was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that the statement on the bottle|label, \"\"Minerals Added Manganese peptonate Lithium carbonate Calcium|oxide Calcium phosphate Manganese sulphate Potassium iodide Di Potas-|sium phosphate Potassium chloride Di Sodium phosphate Lithium Bromide|Magnesium glycerophosphate Calcium gluconate Ferric Phosphate Magnes-|ium chloride Sodium sulphate Artificial coloring,\"\" was false and misleading|since it contained but inconsequential proportions of, or no, manganese pepto-|nate, lithium carbonate, calcium phosphate, manganese sulfate, dipotassium|phosphate, disodium phosphate, lithium bromide, magnesium glycerophos-|phate, ferric phosphate, or magnesium chloride. (2) In that the statement|in the labeling \"\"treated by * * * electrolysis\"\" was false and misleading since|the labeling failed to reveal the material fact that any treatment by electrolysis|to which the water may have been subjected had not affected its composition or|quality in any material manner. (3) In that the designation \"\"Mineralvita\"\" on|the bottle label and shipping case and the statement on the shipping case|label, \"\"Manufactured from Nature's Minerals to Promote Health and Strength,\"\"|was false and misleading since it did not contain life minerals, was not man-|ufactured from natural minerals, and could not be depended upon to promote|health and strength.|On April 4, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|473. Adulteration and misbranding of Vlreitalis Digitalis Lanata Tablets. U. S. v. 7 Bottles of Virgitalis Digitalis Lanata Tablets. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00473September 1942Van Pelt & Brown, Inc.Vlreitalis Digitalis Lanata TabletsJanuary 8, 1941Washington, D. C.Richmond, Va.Washington, D. C.District of Columbia473F. D. C. No. 3902. Sample Nos. 50070-E, 50095-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00473ddnj|473. Adulteration and misbranding of Vlreitalis Digitalis Lanata Tablets. TJ. S.|v. 7 Bottles of \"\"Virgitalis Digitalis Lanata Tablets. Default decree of con-|demnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 3902. Sample Nos. 50070-B,|50095-E.)|The labeling of this product represented that it possessed per gram (approx-|imately 1? grains) an activity equivalent to not less than 1 U. S. P. unit of|digitalis; whereas it possessed an activity not greater than ? U. S. P. unit of|digitalis.|On March 3,' 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Columbia|filed a libel against the above-named product at Washington, D. C, alleging that|it had been shipped by Van Pelt & Brown, Inc., on or about January 8, 1941,|from Richmond, Va.; and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded. It|was labeled in part: \"\"Tablets Virgitalis Digitalis Lanata * * * Each|Tablet Assays * * * \\y2 grains Standardized Whole Digitalis Leaf (Physi-|ologically Standardized).\"\"|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from|that which it purported or was represented to possess, namely, \"\"Each Tablet|Assays|* * * IY2 grains Standardized Whole Digitalis Leaf (Physiologically|Standardized).\"\" It was alleged to be misbranded in that the above-quoted?f|statement was false and misleading.|On March 21, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|474. Adulteration of sassafras oil. U. S. v. 49 Pounds of an Article Labeled In Part \"\"Oil Sassafras Natural.'' Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00474September 1942M. B. Proffittsassafras oilJanuary 1, 1941New York, N. Y.Johnson City, Tenn.New York, N. Y.Southern District of New York474F. D. C. No. 3682. Sample No. 10873-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00474ddnj|474. Adulteration of sassafras oil. IT. S. v. 49 Pounds of an Article Labeled In|Part \"\"Oil Sassafras Natural.'' Default decree of condemnation and|destruction. (F. D. C. No. 3682. Sample No. 108T3-E.)|This product was not sassafras oil but was a mixture of oils obtained from|sources other than sassafras including a small proportion of methyl salicylate.|On January 23, 1941, the United States attorney for the Southern District- of|New York filed a libel against 49 pounds of sassafras oil at New York, N. Y.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|January 1, 1941, by M. B. Proffitt from Johnson City, Tenn.; and charging that|it was adulterated and misbranded. It was labeled in part: \"\"Southern Oleum|Sassafras, U. S. P.\"\"|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that a substance, namely, a mix-|ture of oils other than sassafras oil, had been substituted wholly or in part|therefor.|It was alleged to be misbranded^ in that the statement on the label, \"\"Oil|Sassafras Natural,\"\" was false and misleading as applied to this article, which|was not the article described in the United States Pharmacopoeia under the|title \"\"Oleum Sassafras,\"\" subtitle \"\"Oil of Sassafras.\"\"|On February 15, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|VITAMIN PREPARATIONS|475. Adulteration and misbranding of Vitamin A-D Tablets. U. S. v. 15 Cartons of Vitamin A-D Tablets. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00475September 1942Bleything LaboratoriesVitamin A-D TabletsMarch 7 and 11, 1941Denver, Colo.Los Angeles, Calif.Denver, Colo.District of Colorado475F. D. C. No. 5154. Sample No. 65018-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00475ddnj|475. Adulteration and misbranding of Vitamin A-D Tablets. T7. S. v. 15 Cartons -|of Vitamin A-D Tablets. Default decree of condemnation and destruc-|tion. (F. D. C. No. 5154. Sample No. 65018-E.)|Each of these tablets was represented to contain 3,150 U. S. P. units of vitamin|A, but biological examination showed that they contained not more than 2,500|U. S. P. units of vitamin A per tablet.|On July 15, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Colorado filed a|libel against 15 cartons each containing 90 Vitamin A-D Tablets at Denver, Colo.,|which had been consigned by Bleything Laboratories, alleging that the article|had been shipped from Los Angeles, Calif., on or about March 7 and 11, 1941;|and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from|and its quality fell below that which it was represented to possess. It was|alleged to be misbranded in that the statement on the label, \"\"Each tablet con-|tains not less than 3,150 U. S. P. units of vitamin 'A',\"\" was false and misleading.|It was also alleged to be adulterated and misbranded under the provisions of|the law applicable to foods, as reported in F. N. J. No. 2991.|On September 17, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|476. Adulteration and misbranding of Hain Becompx Capsules. U. S. v. 56 Packages of Hain Becompx Capsules. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00476September 1942International Vitamin CorporationHain Becompx CapsulesDecember 9, 1940CaliforniaBrooklyn, N. Y.CaliforniaSouthern District of California476F. D. C. No. 4375. Sample No. 32497-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00476ddnj|476. Adulteration, and misbranding of Haln Becompx Capsules. IT. S. v. 56|Packages of Haln Becompx Capsules. Default decree of condemnation|and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 4375. Sample No. 32497-E.)|This product was represented to contain 100 International Units of vitamin B,|per capsule. Biological assay, howeve*, showed that it contained not more than|60 U. S. P. units of vitamin Bi per capsule (1 U. S. P. unit is equivalent to 1 Inter-|national Unit of vitamin Bi).|On April 17, 1941, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|California filed a libel against 56 packages of Haih Becompx Capsules, alleging|that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about December|9, 1940, by the International Vitamin Corporation from Brooklyn, N. Y.; and|charging that it was adulterated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from|and its quality fell below that which it was represented to possess, namely, \"\"Each?^-|capsule contains: B,-100 International (200 Sherman) Units.\"\" The article|was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements appearing on the?/|box were false and misleading since they were incorrect: \"\"Each Capsule contains r?(|Bj-1C0 International (200 Sherman) Units.\"\" The article was also charged to|be adulterated and misbranded under the provisions of the law applicable to|foods, as reported in F. N. J. No. 2821.|On June 16, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|477. Adulteration and misbranding of R M Dietary Supplements Vitamin A and D. U. S. v. 38 Bottles of R M Dietary Supplements Vitamin A and D. Default decree of condemnation. Product ordered distributed to hospitals.ddnj00477September 1942Ryer MouserR M Dietary Supplements Vitamin A andNovember 2, 1940Minneapolis, Minn.Los Angeles, Calif.Minneapolis, Minn.District of Minnesota477F. D. C. No. 4304. Sample No. 8319-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00477ddnj|477. Adulteration and misbranding of R M Dietary Supplements Vitamin A and.|D. U. S. v. 38 Bottles of R M Dietary Supplements Vitamin A and D. De-|fault decree of condemnation. Product ordered distributed to hospitals.|(F. D. C. No. 4304. Sample No. 8319-E.)|This product was represented to contain 3,140 International Units of vitamin|A and 314 International Units of vitamin D per tablet, but contained not more|than 30 U. S. P. units of vitamin A and not more than 150 U. S. P. units of vita-|min D. (By definition, 1 U. S. P. unit of vitamin A or D is equivalent to 1 Inter-|national Unit of the same vitamin.) A large core of cotton extended more than|halfway to the bottom of the bottle and tablets surrounded the cotton. When|the cotton was removed, the tablets filled the bottle approximately half full.|On April 12,1941, the United States attorney for the District of Minnesota filed|a libel against 38 bottles of the above-named product at Minneapolis, Minn.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|November 2, 1940, by Ryer Mouser from Los Angeles, Calif.; and charging that|it was adulterated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from and|its quality fell below that which it was represented to possess.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements appearing|on the label were false and misleading: \"\"Each Tablet Contains Vitamin A from|fish liver oil * * * 3140 I. U. Vitamin D from fish liver oil 314 I. U.\"\" It was|alleged to be misbranded further in that its container was so filled as to be|misleading.|It was also alleged to be adulterated and misbranded under the provisions|of the law applicable to foods reported in F. N. J. No. 2549.|On May 29, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered distributed to hospitals chosen by the|marshal in his discretion.|478. Adulteration and misbranding of Vi-An Tablets. U. S. v. 30 Bottles and 24 Bottles of Vi-An Tablets. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00478September 1942Vegetrates, Inc.Vi-An TabletsNovember 29, 1940Seattle, Wash.Los Angeles, Calif.Seattle, Wash.Western District of Washington478F. D. C. No. 3821. Sample No. 55245-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00478ddnj|478. Adulteration and misbranding' of Vi-An Tablets. U. S. v. 30 Bottles and 24|Bottles of Vi-An Tablets. Default decree of condemnation and destruc-|tion. (F. D. C. No. 3821. Sample No. 55245-E.)|Each of these tablets was represented to contain 1,250 International Units of|vitamin A and 125 International Units of vitamin D, but biological assay showed|that they contained not more than 40 International Units of vitamin A and 60|International Units of Vitamin D.|On February 14, 1941, the United States attorney for the Western District of|Washington filed a libel against the above-named product at Seattle, Wash.,|alleging that it had been shipped by Vegetrates, Inc., from Los Angeles, Calif.,|on or about November 29, 1940; and charging that it was adulterated and|misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from and|its quality fell below that which it was represented to possess. It was alleged|to be misbranded in that the statement \"\"Four tablets a day * * * furnish: Vita-|min A . . . 5,000 I. U. * * * Vitamin D ... 500 I. U.\"\" was false and misleading|since it was incorrect.|It also was alleged to be adulterated and misbranded under the provisions of|the law applicable to foods, as reported in F. N. J. No. 2822.|On April 24, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|3401. ACTH. U. S. v. 1 Jar, etc.ddnj03401September 1951Princeton Laboratory Products Co., from Princeton, N. J.ACTHSeptember 14, 1950New York, N. Y.Princeton, N. J.New York, N. Y.Southern District of New York.3401F. D. C. No. 29802. Sample No. 73760-K.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj03401ddnj|FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION|NOTICES OF JUDGMENT UNDER THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG,|AND COSMETIC ACT|[Given pursuant to section 705 of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act]|3401-3420|DRUGS AND DEVICES|The cases reported herewith were instituted in the United States district|courts by the United States attorneys, acting upon reports submitted by the|Federal Security Agency, and include, where indicated, the results of investiga-|tions of the Agency, prior to the institution of the proceedings. Published by|direction of the Federal Security Administrator.|CHAELES W. CRAWFORD, Commissioner of Food and Drugs.|WASHINGTON, D. C, August 24,1951.|CONTENTS*|Page|New drug shipped without effective|application |392|Drugs actionable because of failure|to bear adequate directions or|warning statements |392|Drugs arid devices actionable be-|cause of deviation from official|or own standards |399|Page|Drugs actionable because of false|and misleading claims |400|Drugs for human use |400|Drug for veterinary use |406|Index. _._ |407|*For presence of a habit-forming narcotic without warning statement, see Nos. 3402, 3403, 3406, 3407,|3410, 3412; omission of, or unsatisfactory, ingredients statements, Nos. 3404, 3408, 3410-3412; failure to|bear a label containing an accurate statement of the quantity of the contents, Nos. 3402-3410, 3412, 3419,|3420; failure to bear a label containing the name and place of business of the manufacturer, packer, or dis-|tributor, Nos. 3404, 3405, 3407, 3410-3412; labeling information not likely to be read and understood by the|ordinary individual under customary conditions of purchase and use, No. 3420.|391|959756-51 1 |* NEltM,p$UG SHIPPED WITHOUT EFFECTIVE APPLICATION?f|3401. ACTH. U. S. v. 1 J&^f tc. (F. D. C. No. 29802. Sample-No. 73760-K.)|LIBEL FILED: October 19, 19T^& Southern District of New York.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT : On or abour J^tember 14, 1950, by the Princeton Labora-|tory Products Co., from Princeton, Nr3.|PRODUCT: 1 jar containing 25.3 grams and 1 jar containing 21.6 grams of ACTS,|together with 2 1-gram vials, 1 500-microgram vial, and 12 100-microgram|vials of the same product at New York, N. Y.|LABEL, IN PART: \"\"Biological Derivatives, Inc. * * * ACTH (Princeton).\"\"|NATURE OF CHABQE: Section 505 (a), the article was a new drug within the|meaning of the law, and an application filed pursuant to the law was not effec-|tive with respect to such drug.|DISPOSITION: January 24, 1951. Default decree of condemnation. \"\"The court|ordered that the product be delivered to the Food and Drug Administration,|to be used for experimental purposes.|DRUGS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO BEAR ADEQUATE|DIRECTIONS OR WARNING STATEMENTS|479. Adulteration and misbranding of poultry codliver oil. U. S. v. 19 Drums of Cod-Liver Oil. Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered released under bond for relabeling.ddnj00479September 1942Gorton Pew Fisheries Co., Gloucester, Mass.poultry cod-liver oilJuly 17, 1940Minneapolis, Minn.Gloucester, Mass.Minneapolis, Minn.District of Minnesota479F. D. C. No. 4073. Sample No. 38450-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00479ddnj|479. Adulteration and misbranding of poultry cod-liver oil. U. S. v. 19 Drums|of Cod-Liver Oil. Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered re-|leased under bond for relabeling. (F. D. C. No. 4073. Sample No. 38450-E.)|This product was labeled as containing 400 A. O. A. C. chick units of vitamin|D per gram, but contained not more than 320 such units per gram.|On March 28, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Minnesota|filed a libel against 19 drums of cod-liver oil at Minneapolis, Minn., alleging|that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about July 17,|1940, by the New England By-Products Corporation from Gloucester, Mass.;|and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded. The article was labeled|in part: \"\"Gorton's G P Cod Liver Oil Fortified.\"\"|467449\"\"-42?5|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from|aW its quality fell below that which it was represented to possess. It was|alleged to be misbranded in that the following statement was false since it was?f|incorrect: \"\"400 Units Vitamin D Per Gram A O A 0.\"\"|The article was also alleged to be adulterated and misbranded in violation|of the provisions of the law applicable to foods reported in F. N. J. No. 2156.?/|On July 3, 1941, the Gorton Pew Fisheries Co., Gloucester, Mass., claimant,?*|having admitted the allegations of the libel, judgment of condemnation was en-|tered and the product was ordered released under bond conditioned that it|be relabeled under the supervision of the Food and Drug Administration.|480. Adulteration and misbranding of codliver oil concentrate. U. S. v. 1 1/4 420-Pound Drums of Five X Concentrate. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00480September 1942Whitmoyer Laboratories, Inc.cod-liver oil concentrateSeptember 9, 1940Plainfield, N. J.Myerstown, Pa.Plainfield, N. J.District of New Jersey480F. D. C. No. 3478. Sample No. 34377-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00480ddnj|480. Adulteration and misbranding of cod-liver oil concentrate. U. S. v. 1%|420-Pound Drums of Five X Concentrate. Default decree of condemna-|tion and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 3478. Sample No. 34377-E.)|This product contained less than 300 A. 0. A. C. chick units of vitamin D|per gram; whereas its label represented that it contained not less than 425|A. O. A. C. chick units of vitamin D per gram.|On December 4, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of New|Jersey filed a libel against 1? 420-pound drums of cod-liver oil concentrate|at Plainfield, N. J., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate|commerce on or about September 9, 1940, by the Whitmoyer Laboratories, Inc.,|from Myerstown, Pa.; and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded.|The article was labeled in part: \"\"Whitmoyer Quality Five X Concentrate.\"\"|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from|and its quality fell below that which it was represented to possess. It was|alleged to be misbranded in that the statement on the label, \"\"Five X Con-|centrate is guaranteed to contain not less than 425 A. O. A. C units vitamin D|per gram,\"\" was false and misleading since it was incorrect.|The article was also alleged to be adulterated and misbranded under the|provisions of the law applicable to foods, as reported in F. N. J. No. 2647.|- On June 2, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|481. Adulteration and misbranding of fortified codliver oil. U. S. v. Seaboard Supply Co., Inc. Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $150.ddnj00481September 1942Seaboard Supply Co., Inc., a corporation, Philadelphia, Pa.fortified cod-liver oilJanuary 2 to March 28, 1940PennsylvaniaPennsylvaniaWest Virginia and DelawareEastern District of Pennsylvania481F. D. C. No. 2890. Sample Nos. 1236-E, 14209-E, 78465-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00481ddnj|481. Adulteration and misbranding: of fortified cod-liver oil. U. S. v. Seaboard|Supply Co., Inc. Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $150. (F. D. C. No. 2890.|Sample Nos. 1236-E, 14209-E, 78465-D.)|This veterinary product was found to be deficient in both vitamin D and|vitamin A.|On January 8, 1941, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Pennsylvania filed an\"\"information against Seaboard Supply Co., Inc., a corpora-|tion, Philadelphia, Pa., alleging shipment within the period from on or about|January 2 to on or about March 28, 1940, from the State of Pennsylvania into|the States of West Virginia and Delaware of quantities of fortified cod-liver|oil that was adulterated and misbranded. The article was labeled in part:|\"\"50 Lbs. Net Sea-Clo-400-D Highly Fortified Cod Liver Oil In Dry Base.\"\"|It was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from, or its|quality fell below, that which it purported or was represented to possess since|it was represented to contain 400 units of vitamin D per gram, and approxi-|mately 1,000 units of vitamin A per gram; whereas it contained less than 400|units of vitamin D per gram, namely, less than 200 units of vitamin D per|gram, and materially less than 1,000 units of vitamin A per gram, namely, not|more than 500 units of vitamin A per gram.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, \"\"In place of each|4? lbs. straight 85-D Oil use 1 lb. Sea-Clo-400-D. In place of each 1 lb.|Fortified 400-D Oil use 1 lb. Sea-Clo-400-D. For each 5 pints 85-D Oil used,|replace with 1 lb. Sea-Clo-400-D,\"\" and \"\"Guaranteed to contain 400 A. O. A. C.|units of Vitamin D. per gram. When this product is packed it contains more|than 1,000 units of Vitamin 'A' per gram, but due to a difference of opinion of|our many authorities regarding the stability of Vitamin 'A' from Cod Liver|Oil when added to feeds, we are making no claim for it,\"\" appearing in the|labeling, were false and misleading since it contained less than 400 units of|vitamin D per gram and contained materially less than 1,000 units of vitamin A|per gram, and 1 pound of the article would not be equivalent in feeding value?\\|or as a source of vitamin D and vitamin A to 4? pounds of straight 85-D|cod liver oil, or 1 pound of fortified 400-D cod liver oil or 5 pints of 85-D|cod liver oil.|The article was also charged to be adulterated and misbranded under the|provisions of the law applicable to foods, as reported in F. N. J. No. 2645.|On March 24, 1941, the defendant having entered a plea of nolo contendere,|the court imposed a fine of $150.|482. Adulteration and misbranding of sardine oil. U. S. v. Industrial Oil Products Corporation. Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $100 on count 1. Imposition of sentence suspended on remaining counts.ddnj00482September 1942Industrial Oil Products Corporation, trading at Los Angeles,. Calif.sardine oilSeptember 4 and October 24, 1940CaliforniaCaliforniaNew JerseySouthern District of California482F. D. C. No. 4155. Sample Nos. 24504-E, 40103-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00482ddnj|4S2. Adulteration and misbranding of sardine oil. IT. S. v. Industrial Oil Prod-|ucts Corporation. Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $100 on count I. Im-|position of of sentence suspended on remaining counts. (F. D. C. No. 4155.|Sample Nos. 24504-E, 40103-E.)|This veterinary product contained less vitamin D than the amount declared|on the label.|On August 7; .1941, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|California filed an information against the Industrial Oil Products Corpora-|tion, trading at Los Angeles,. Calif., alleging shipment on or about September 4|and October 24, 1940, from the State of California into the State of New|Jersey of quantities of sardine oil which was adulterated and misbranded.|The article was labeled in part: \"\"Fox Special Sardine Oil * * * The Fox Com-|pany, Newfield, New Jersey.\"\"|It was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from and its|quality fell below that which it purported or was represented to possess since|it was represented in its labeling to contain 85 A. O. A. C. chick units of|vitamin D per gram; whereas it contained less than so represented, the prod-|uct in one shipment containing not more than 60 and that in the other ship-|ment containing not more than 65 A. O. A. C. chick units of vitamin D per gram.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement \"\"Guaranteed 85|AOAC Chick Units of Vitamin D per Gram,\"\" borne on the drum, was false|and misleading since the article contained less than 85 A. O. A. O. chick units of|vitamin D per gram.|The article was also alleged to be adulterated and misbranded under the|provisions of the law applicable to foods, as reported in F. N. J. No. 2648.|On August 28, 1941, a plea of nolo contendere having been entered, the court|sentenced the defendant to pay a fine of $100 on count I and suspended im-|position of sentence on the remaining 7 counts.|DRUGS AND DEVICES ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF FALSE AND MIS-|LEADING STATEMENTS IN THE LABELING8|Nos. 483 to 536, inclusive, report actions based on interstate shipment|of drugs or devices the labeling of which contained false and misleading state-|ments-in most instances regarding their therapeutic efficacy.|483. Misbranding of El Panal Cuban Honey. U. S. v. Albert H. Hoffman (Hoffman Health Products Co.). Plea of guilty. Fine, $50.ddnj00483September 1942Albert H. Hoffman, trading as Hoffman Health Products Co., Tampa, Fla.El Panal Cuban HoneyOctober 14, 1939FloridaFloridaNorth CarolinaSouthern District of Florida483F. D. C. No. 960. Sample No. 65858-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00483ddnj|483. Misbranding of El Panal Cuban Honey. 17. S. v. Albert H. Hoffman (Hoff-|man Health Products Co.). Plea of guilty. Fine, $50. (F. D. C. No. 960.|Sample No. 65858-E.)|This honey was falsely labeled to indicate that it possessed minerals and|other nutritional elements materially in excess of those contained in ordinary|honey. Its label also bore false and misleading representations regarding its|efficacy in the conditions indicated below.|Oh May 28, 1940. the United States attorney for the Southern District of|Florida filed an information against Albert H. Hoffman, trading as Hoffman|Health Products Co.,- Tampa, Fla., alleging shipment on or about October 14, 1939,|from the State of Florida into the State of North Carolina, of a quantity of|El Panal Wonder Honey that was misbranded. The article was labeled in part:|\"\"El Panal Cuban Honey. Imported direct from Cuba.\"\"|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that certain statements in the|labeling were false and misleading since they represented and implied that|it was a \"\"Wonder Honey,\"\" i. e., that it differed materially from ordinary honey;|and that it contained minerals which help build nerve, bone, and muscle|tissue materially in excess of those contained in ordinary honey; that it would|supply the elements valuable in ailments resulting from mineral deficiencies in|amounts materially in excess of such minerals found in ordinary honey; that|it possessed proportionately high amounts of potassium, sodium, calcium,|magnesium, iron, phosphorus, chlorine, sulfur, silicon, and undetermined min-|erals; that it possessed value as a food, body builder, and constructive nutri-|tional factor materially in excess of that possessed by ordinary honey; and that|it contained minerals and other nutritional elements lacking in other honey;|1 See also Nos. 426, 427, 429, 431-434, 436-448, 451-454, 459, 460, 468, 470, and 471.|whereas it did not differ materially from ordinary honey. It was alleged|to be misbranded further in that certain statements in the labeling were false|and misleading since they represented that it possessed efficacy as a dietary?(~|supplement in the treatment of sinus, coughs, asthma, hay fever, constipation,?^v.|stomach ulcers, digestive ailments; that it possessed efficacy as a general tonic|and body builder and had produced effective results in the treatment of such|ailments; that it possessed natural healing properties; that it was of great|value to both children and adults who are anemic, have poor appetite and|other symptoms of rundown condition; that it would alkalize, vitalize, and|upbuild the body; that it would aid in preventing respiratory ailments and|would build resistance; that it was efficacious to produce improvement in|general health of children; that it was efficacious in relieving the attacks of|asthma, coughs, and bronchitis; would help remove mucus and was a boon to|raw and inflamed respiratory tracts; that it was efficacious in relieving pain,|reducing inflammation and healing the ulcerous surfaces in ulcers, of the|stomach; that it was efficacious in bowel and colon trouble by helping to|change the intestinal flora, and that its lubricating effect would aid in relieving|pain and discomfort and assist nature to overcome the ailment; that it was an|accessory of great value in many disease conditions; that it was beneficial for|asthma and kindred disorders; that it contained a pollen which would counteract|the pollen which causes hay fever; that it was highly beneficial for stomach|disorders such as ulcers, and for combating constipation; that it was efficacious|for various pathogenic conditions of the body; that its healing properties|were without equal; that it was efficacious to relieve bronchial asthma and|sinus condition and to prevent choking sensation of asthma and to induce|restful sleep; that it was efficacious to heal ulcerated stomach; that it was|efficacious as a tonic and body builder and would induce increase in weight;|that it was efficacious in the treatment of rundown conditions; highly mucous|condition of the throat and chest, and enlarged tonsils; that it would promote|sound restful sleep and build health, and that it had accomplished wonderful|results in the aforesaid conditions; whereas it would not be efficacious for such|purposes.|On July 18, 1941, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant|and the court imposed a fine of $50.|484. Misbranding of Diabet Tea. U. S. v. Paul Constantini, Angelo Constantini, and Anselmo Constantini (Diabet Tea Co.). Case tried to a Jury. Verdict of guilty. Fines, $150. Defendants all placed on probation for three years.ddnj00484September 1942Paul Constantini, Angelo Constantini, and Anselmo Constantini, copartners trading as Diabet Tea Co. at Scranton, Pa.Diabet TeaSeptember 9, 1940PennsylvaniaPennsylvaniaNew YorkMiddle District of Pennsylvania484F. D. C. No. 2969. Sample No. 34721-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00484ddnj|484. Misbranding of Diabet Tea. IT. S. v. Paul Constantini, Angelo Constantini,|and Anselmo Constantini (Diabet Tea Co.). Case tried to a Jury. Verdict|of guilty. Fines, $150. Defendants all placed on probation for three|years. (F. D. C. No. 2969. Sample No. 34721-E.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-|ing its efficacy in the treatment of diabetes.|On May 16,1941, the United States attorney for the Middle District of Pennsyl-|vania filed an information against Paul Constantini, Angelo Constantini, and|Anselmo Constantini, copartners trading as Diabet Tea Co. at Scranton, Pa.,|alleging shipment by said defendants on or about September 9, 1940, from the|State of Pennsylvania into the State of New York of a quantity of Diabet Tea|that was misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted of the ground|herb Hypericum perforatum, commonly known as St. Johnswort.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements on the label,|\"\"Nature's Food Diabet-Tea for Diabetes. The contents of this package has been|carefully prepared for the use of those who suffer from diabetes,\"\" were false|and misleading since they represented that it was for the cure, mitigation, treat-|ment, or prevention of diabetes; whereas it was worthless for such purposes.|On November 5,1941, the case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict|of guilty, and the defendants were each fined $50. Imposition of jail sentences|was suspended and the defendants were placed on probation for 3 years.|485. Misbranding of Kurex Diabetie Tonic. U. S. v. Kurex Hillgrove Labora tories, Inc., Richard F. Hillgrove, and Walter P. Weihe. Pleas of nolo contendere. Corporation fined $250. Richard F. Hillgrove and Walter P. Weihe fined $250 but payment ordered suspended.ddnj00485September 1942Kurex Hillgrove Laboratories, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio, Richard F. Hillgrove, and Walter P. WeiheKurex Diabetie TonicSeptember 26, 1940OhioOhioWest VirginiaSouthern District of Ohio485F. D. C. No 2935 Sample No. 27071-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00485ddnj|485. Misbranding of Kurex Diabetie Tonic. TJ. S. v. Kurex Hillgrove Labora|tories, Inc., Richard F. Hillgrove, and \"\"Walter P. Weihe. Pleas of nolo|contendere. Corporation fined $250. Richard F. Hillgxove and Walter P.|Weihe fined $250 but payment ordered suspended. (F. D. C. No 2935|Sample No. 27071-E.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-|ing its efficacy in the conditions indicated hereinafter and failed to declare the|common or usual name of each active ingredient.|On March 19, 1911, the United States attorney for the Southern District of Ohio|filed an information against the Kurex Hillgrove Laboratories, Inc., Cincinnati,|Ohio, Richard F. Hillgrove, and Walter P. Weihe, alleging shipment on or|about September 26,1940, from the State of Ohio into the State of West Virginia|of a quantity of Kurex Diabetic Tonic which was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted ehiefly of water, alcohol, reducing|sugars, and plant extractives including emodin-bearing drugs and a trace of|unidentified alkaloids.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that it was fabricated from two|or more ingredients and its label did not bear the common or usual name of each|active ingredient, including the kind, quantity, and proportion of alcohol. It was|alleged to be misbranded further in that representations in the labeling that it|would be efficacious in the treatment of diabetes; would enable the diabetic|patient to eliminate the taking of insulin; was efficacious in the treatment of|blindness caused by diabetes; would heal feet which were open as the result|of diabetes; would heal legs which were ulcerated as the result of diabetes; would|be efficacious in the treatment of run-down conditions and other ailments con-|tracted by poor living conditions; was a systemic tonic and would be efficacious|in the treatment of many ailments common.to bad blood and other conditions|such as rheumatism and ailments caused by kidney disorders; and would restore|lost appetite and improve the nervous condition and general health.|On May 20, 1941, pleas of nolo contendere were entered on behalf of all|defendants. The court imposed a fine of $250 against each of the defendants but|ordered that payment of the fines of the individual defendants Richard F. Hill-|grove and Walter P. Weihe be suspended.|486. Misbranding of Dickson's Herb-Lax Tonic. U. S. v. Addison H. Dickson( A.H. Dickson). Plea of guilty. Fine, $100.ddnj00486September 1942Addison H. Dickson, trading as A. H. Dickson, at Memphis, Tenn.Dickson's Herb-Lax TonicMay 3, 1940TennesseeTennesseeLouisianaWestern District of Tennessee486F. D. C. No. 2837. Sample No. 9583-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00486ddnj|486. Misbranding of Dickson's Herb-Lax Tonic. U. S. v. Addison H. Dickson|(A.H.Dickson). Plea of guilty. Fine, $100. (F. D. C. No. 2837. Sample|No. 0583-E.)|This product was falsely labeled to imply that it was a laxative compound|composed entirely of, and deriving its laxative properties solely from, herbs.|Furthermore, it bore false and misleading representations regarding its efficacy|as a tonic and in the treatment of certain diseases.|On October 8, 1940, the United States attorney for the Western District of|Tennessee filed an information against Addison H. Dickson, trading as A. H.|Dickson, at Memphis, Tenn., alleging shipment on or about May 3, 1940, from|the State of Tennessee into the State of Louisiana, of a quantity of Dickson's|Herb-Lax Tonic that was misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of Epsom|salt (approximately 28 grams per 100 cc), small proportions of methenamine,|salicylic acid, sodium benzoate, plant extracts including nux vomica, and a|resinous substance such as podophyllum, a trace of iron, and water flavored with|peppermint oil.|This drug was alleged to be misbranded in that its name or designation \"\"Herb-|Lax Tonic,\"\" borne on the bottle label, was false and misleading since it repre-|sented that the drug was a laxative compound composed entirely of herbs and that|it derived its laxative properties solely from herbs; whereas it was not a laxative|compound composed entirely of herbs but did consist in part of Epsom salt, a|mineral substance; and it did not derive its laxative properties solely from herbs|but did derive its laxative properties in large part from Epsom salt. It was|alleged to-be misbranded further in that the following statements \"\"Herb-Lax|Tonic * * * Recommended for Indigestion * * * Biliousness, Nervousness,|Bad Blood, Rheumatism, Urinary Troubles and General Rundown Conditions,\"\"|borne on the bottle label, were false and misleading since it was not efficacious for|such purposes.|On October 31, 1940, the defendant entered a plea of guilty and the court|imposed a fine of $100.|487. Misbranding of Locao Belem. U. S. v. Belem Products Co. Plea of guilty. Fine, $75.ddnj00487September 1942Belem Products Co., a corporation, Houston, Tex.Locao BelemNovember 1, 1940TexasTexasCaliforniaSouthern District of Texas487F. D. C. No. 2968. Sample Nos. 32807-E, 32808-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00487ddnj|487. Misbranding of Locao Belem. U. S. v. Belem Products Co. Plea of guilty.|Fine, ?75. (F. D. C. No. 2968. Sample Nos. 32807-E, 32808-E.)|On September 11, 1941, the United States attorney for the Southern District|of Texas filed an information against Belem Products Co., a corporation, Houston,|Tex., alleging shipment on or about November 1, 1940, from the State of Texas|into the State of California of a number of 3-ounce and 6-ounce bottles of Locao|Belem that was misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted chiefly of water,|alcohol, a foam producer, a small amount of glycerin, and perfume materials.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that statements in the labeling|representing that it was efficacious in ihe treatment of baldness, falling hair,|dandruff, and irritated scalp; that ordinarily dandruff or itching scalp would|respond quickly to treatment with it and that satisfactory improvement or even?f|complete elimination of these conditions would result in from 2 to 4 weeks; that?*|it would bring about improvement in the less severe cases of falling hair in a|few weeks and would be efficacious to correct the more severe cases of falling?/|hair in from 3 to 6 months; and that it would be efficacious to develop new-|growth on bald areas, were false and misleading since it would not be efficacious|for such purposes. The article in the 3-ounce bottles was alleged to be mis-|branded further in that the statement \"\"Locao Belem has been thoroughly analyzed|by the Pure Food and Drugs Department of the United States Customs and com-|plies with rigid requirements of Pure Food and Drug Laws,\"\" appearing on the|cartons, was false and misleading since it had not been found by a Government|agency to be in strict compliance with the requirements relating to foods and|drugs and it did not comply with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.|On September 25,1941, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant|and the court imposed a fine of $75.|488. Misbranding of Neffs Glan-Tex Tonic. U. S. v. George G. Neff (Prostex Co.) . Plea of nolo contendere. Judgment of guilty. Fine, $250 and costs.ddnj00488September 1942George G. Neff, trading as the Prostex Co., Miami, Okla.Neffs Glan-Tex TonicMarch 22 and April 1, 1940OklahomaOklahomaMissouriNorthern District of Oklahoma488F. D. C. No. 2883. Sample Nos. 16614-E, 16622-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00488ddnj|488. Misbranding of Neffs Glan-Tex Tonic. U. S. v. George G. Neff (Prostex Co.).|Plea of nolo contendere. Judgment of guilty. Fine, $250 and costs.|(P. D. C. No. 2883. Sample Nos. 16614-B, 16622-B.)|On March 22, 1941, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Oklahoma filed an information against George G. Neff, trading as the Prostex|Co., Miami, Okla., alleging shipment on or about March 22 and April 1, 1940,|from the State of Oklahoma into the State of Missouri, of quantities of Neffs|Glan-Tex Tonic which was misbranded. The article was labeled in part: \"\"Neff's|Glan-Tex Tonic * * * Prostex Co. Miami, Okla.\"\"|Analysis showed that it consisted essentially of magnesium sulfate, small pro-|portions of ammonium alum, a mineral acid such as sulfuric acid, minute propor-|tions of quinine, compounds of potassium and iron, and a nitrate in water.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the name \"\"Glan-Tex-Tonic,\"\"|the word \"\"Prostex\"\" in the firm name, which appeared in the labeling, and certain|statements in an accompanying circular were false and misleading since they|represented that it was a gland tonic; that it would be efficacious in the treatment|of prostate gland cases and kindred ailments of kidneys, bladder and urinary|tract, colitis, dropsy,, rheumatism, and infected internal organs; that it would|be efficacious in the treatment of acute cases of suffering from prostatitis, irri-|tated bladder disorders, and kindred ailments; that it would be beneficial in|kidney disorders and dropsy, and would reduce the prostate gland and eliminate|infection; that it would reduce enlarged glands, inflammation and swollen pros-|tate glands in most cases; that it would be efficacious for the relief of pains and|discomfort caused by prostatitis, cystitis (bladder trouble), urethritis, difficulty|in urination, dribbling, getting up nights, congested and irritated condition of|the prostate gland and urinary tract; that it would be efficacious for the relief|of rheumatism, neuralgia, and pain occasioned by acute or chronic irritation and|congestion; that it would be valuable as an antiseptic; and that it contained|internal antiseptics; whereas it was not a gland tonic and it would not be|efficacious for the purposes for which it was so recommended.|On December 8, 1941, a plea of nolo contendere having been entered, the court|found the defendant guilty and imposed a fine of $250 on count I of the informa-|tion, together with costs, and placed the defendant qn probation for 1 year on|count II.|489. Misbranding of No-Wheez Cough Syrup and No-Wheez for Asthma. U. S. v. No-Wheez Corporation. Plea of guilty. Fine, $101.ddnj00489September 1942No-Wheez Corporation, St. Charles, Mo.No-Wheez Cough Syrup and No-Wheez for AsthmaMarch 1 and May 24, 1940MissouriMissouriIllinoisEastern District of Missouri489F. D. C. No 2878 Sample Nos. 15413-E, 15414-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00489ddnj|489. Misbranding of No-Wheez Cough Syrup and No-Wheez for Asthma. TJ. S. .|v. No-Wheez Corporation. Plea of guilty. Fine, $101. (F. D. C. No 2878|SamDleNos. 15413-E, 15414-E.)|On January 30, 1941, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Missouri filed an information against the No-Wheez Corporation, St. Charles,|Mo., alleging shipment on or about March 1 and May 24, 1940, from the State|of Missouri into the State of Illinois of quantities of No-Wheez Cough Syrup|and No-Wheez for Asthma, which were misbranded.|Analyses of samples of the articles showed that the No-Wheez Cough Syrup|consisted essentially of small proportions of pine tar, menthol, an emodin-bearicg?(|drug, chloroform, sugar, and water; and that the No-Wheez for Asthma consisted|essentially of small proportions of inorganic salts commonly found in mineral|water, pine tar, and an enlodin-bearmg drug, and water.|The articles were alleged, to be misbranded in that representations in the?v.|labeling (No-Wheez Cough Syrup) that it would be efficacious in the treatment|of bronchitis, whooping cough, sore throat, and other such irritations, and that|it would prevent wheezing in said disorders; and (No-Wheez for Asthma) that|it would be efficacious in the treatment of asthma and hay fever, that it would|bring lasting relief to asthma and hay fever sufferers, and that it would prevent|wheezing in asthma and hay fever, were false and misleading since they would|not be efficacious for such purposes.|On May 6,1941, a plea of guilty having been entered on behalf of the company,|the court imposed a fine of $101.|490. Misbranding of Pedimoll. U. S. v. Pedimoll Corporation. Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $100.ddnj00490September 1942Pedimoll Corporation, Los Angeles, CalifPedimollApril 25, 1940CaliforniaCaliforniaNew YorkSouthern District of California490F. D. C. No. 2881. Sample Nos. 7444-E, 7445-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00490ddnj|490. Misbranding of Pedimoll. U. S. v. Pedimoll Corporation. Plea of nolo|contendere. Fine, $100. (F. D. C. No. 2881. Sample Nos. 7444-E, 7445-E.)|On January 17, 1941, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|California filed an information against the Pedimoll Corporation, Los Angeles,|Calif ..^alleging delivery on or about April 25, 1940, for introduction in interstate|commerce from the State of California into the State of New York of a quantity|of Pedimoll that was misbranded. It was labeled in part: \"\"Pedimoll * * * A|Creme for the Feet.\"\"|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of a|magnesium compound and small proportions' of sulfur and cresol in an oil base.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that statements in the labeling|representing that it would be efficacious in the treatment of bunions, callouses,|corns, tired, aching, sore, swollen or sweaty feet, muscular soreness, most skin|irritations, eczema, acne; that it would be efficacious for the elimination of ath-|lete's foot, impetigo, sunburn; that the daily use of the drug would prevent|suffering with one's feet, defeat foot troubles, and make walking a pleasure; that|it was efficacious as a remedy for tired, sore, swollen, cracked, blistered, burning,|itching, irritated, infected, aching or painful feet; that it would have a swift|germicidal effect and a safe healing action; that said drug would almost instantly|relieve the burning and soreness, reduce the swelling, stimulate circulation and|normalize tired feet; that it would relieve the soreness and reduce the swelling|and inflammation of corns, callouses arid bunions, and would cause callouses and|corns to soften and gradually disappear; that when used on any part of the body,|it would relieve conditions caused by muscular soreness and strain, swelling, itch-|ing, sunburn, bruises, insect bites, sore joints, varicose veins, eczema, acne, im-|petigo, chapped hands; that children, by its use, would be spared suffering from|corns and callouses, and infections which often mean a sacrifice to the general|health of the growing child; that it would prevent infection if applied to the feet|immediately before or after exposure; that it wovild penetrate and act as a safe-|guard covering against athlete's foot; that it would reach deep into the pores|and purge the skin of impurities; that it would restore the normal elimination|through the pores of the feet and correct excessive perspiration \"\"or extreme dry-|ness, and would give almost instant relief in most forms of foot trouble; that a|small quantity of said drug, rubbed into the feet until it disappeared, would enable|the user to walk over the worst infected floors of clubs, gymnasiums or swimming|pools without fear of most infections, and that a daily treatment would prevent|reinfection from shoes and other sources; that it would keep the feet of business-|men fit and would keep the feet of salespeople in the best of condition; that it|would help nature reestablish surface skin; that it would be efficacious in the|treatment of nervous, wobbly, stiff, swollen, flabby, knotty legs, and varicose|veins; would tone the circulation, soothe the nerves, loosen the knotted adhesions|within the muscles, relieve soreness and swelling, promote healing, and foster|elasticity of hardening vein walls, and would enliven the legs and give them|pep and endurance; that its use would be beneficial and relieving after removing|surgical stocking or bandages from a leg or ankle which has suffered a strain|or break or varicose vein condition; and that its use would keep legs which are|limber and graceful in such condition, were false and misleading since it would|not be efficacious for such purposes.|On February 17, 1941, a plea of nolo contendere was entered on behalf of the|defendant and the court imposed a fine of $100.|502. Misbranding of Regol. U. S. v. 8 Bottles, 20 Bottles, and 35 Bottles of Regol. Consent decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00502September 1942Cleveland Von Co.RegolNovember 26, 1940Detroit, Mich.Cleveland, OhioDetroit, Mich.Eastern District of Michigan502F. D. C. No. 3605. Sample No. 31529-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00502ddnj|502. Misbranding of Regol. U. S. v. 8 Bottles, 20 Bottles, and 35 Bottles of Regol. /|Consent decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 3605. Sample \\|No. 31529-E.)|On December 30, 1940, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Miehigan filed a libel against 63 bottles of Regol at Detroit, Mich., alleging that?\\|the article had been shipped by the Cleveland Von Co. from Cleveland, Ohio, on|or about November 26, 1940; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted of a preparation of bile and ex-|tracts of plant drugs dissolved in.alcohol (26 percent), and water.|The article was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that statements in circulars|entitled \"\"Regol A Liver Medicine,\"\" representing that it was a rational and ef-|fective remedy for diseases of the liver, digestive disorders, fermentation and gas|in the intestines, intestinal indigestion, sick headache, chronic constipation,|chronic inflammation in the walls of the colon, commonly called colitis, catar-|rhal irritation of the intestines, disturbance of the bile secreting function of the|liver, disease of the gall bladder and gall duots, gall-bladder congestion, dis-|comfort from the gall bladder, faulty flow of bile, belching, sour eructations,|sensation of weight or oppression in the upper abdomen, symptoms of chronic|dyspepsia, biliousness, yellow, sallow, blotched and itchy skin, gas in the intes-|tines crowding the heart causing palpitation and unpleasant sensations around|the heart, yellow jaundice; catarrhal irritation, congestion and underfunction-|ing of the liver, gall bladder, and gall ducts; that it would effect improvement|in the biliary functions of the liver and gall bladder and in the drainage of bile|from these organs and the entire gall tract; would improve the functions of the|drainage of bile from weakened, sluggish organs; would improve the distress|due to catarrhal irritation and functional impairment; would relieve and pre-|vent misery caused by functional disorders of the liver glands or by irritation|of the gall bladder due to thickened bile; would tend to reduce irritation and|congestion, alleviate discomfort, and allay the catarrhal condition; would pro-|mote a more wholesome condition, increase the flow of bile, assist Nature in its|healing work; and that it would produce beneficial results in a very short time,|were false and misleading since it would not be efficacious for the purposes|recommended. (2) In that the coined word \"\"Regol,\"\" appearing on the label as a|designation for it, was a false and misleading device meaning to the purchaser|that the drug would be effective for the purposes named hereinbefore and that it|had acquired such a meaning from the above-named circulars which were|distributed to purchasers.|On January 27, 1941, the claimant having consented to the entry of a decree,|judgment of condemnation was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|617. Misbranding of Lacto-Kelpo Evitades, and chaulmoogra oil. U. S. v. 33 Bottles of Lacto-Kelpol, 10 Bottles of Evitades, and 19 Packages of Chaulmoogia Oil. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00617February, 1943Seal-Ins Laboratories, Inc.Lacto-Kelpo Evitades, and chaulmoogra oilAugust 15 and October 4, 1940, and January 4, 1941Seattle, Wash.Los Angeles, Calif.Seattle, Wash.Western District of Washington617F. D. C. Nos. 4333 to 4335, incl. Sample Nos. 55412-E, 55413-E, 55415-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00617ddnj|617. Misbranding of Laeto-Krtp?!. Evitades, and ehaalmoogra. ail. V. S. v. S3 ,- -|Bottles of Lacto-Kelpoly 10 Bottles of Evitades, and 19 Packages of Chaul- (|moogia OIL Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. v|Nos. 4333 to 4335, inel. Sample Nos. 55412-E, 55413-E, 55415-E.)|The labeling of the Lacto-Kelpol failed to bear adequate directions for use,?. -|and that of all three products contained false and misleading claims.|On April 23, 1941, the United States attorney for the Western District of|\"\"Washington filed a libel against the above-named products at Seattle, Wash.,|which had been consigned by Seal-Ins Laboratories, Inc., alleging that they|had been shipped on or about August 15 and October 4, 1940, and January 4,|1941, from Los Angeles, Calif.; and charging that they were misbranded.|Analyses of samples of the articles showed that the Lacto-Kelpol consisted|essentially of an emulsion of mineral oil, agar agar, lactic acid (approximately|1 percent), and water; that the Evitades tablets contained extracts of plant|drugs; and that the chaulmoogra oil was labeled properly as to its identity.|The Lacto-Kelpol was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that the bottle label|and carton failed to bear adequate directions for use by children, since the|directions were indefinite as to quantity; (2) in that its name, \"\"Lacto-Kelpol|Lactic Acid Emulsion,\"\" was false and misleading since it owed its therapeutic|value to ingredients other than lactic acid, and kelp was not one of its ingredi-|ents; and (3) in that representations in an accompanying circular that it|would be of value in the treatment of certain types of diarrhea, colitis, dysen-|tery, and constipation, were false and misleading since it would not be effective|for such purposes.|Evitades was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements in|an accompanying circular, \"\"Evitades is mild in sedative aetion. Useful in|treating insomnia; also, nervous disturbances of the menstrual period,\"\" were|false and misleading since it would not be efficacious for the purposes|recommended.|The chaulmoogra oil was alleged to be misbranded in that statements in an|accompanying circular representing that it was a preventive and appropriate|treatment for various types of arthritis were false and misleading since it would|not be efficacious for such purposes.|On June 17, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the products were ordered destroyed.|491. Misbranding of Robinson's for Rheumatism, Arthritis, Neuritis, and Lumbago. U. S. v. Albert J. Robinson. Plea of nolo contendere. Judgment of guilty. Fine, $25.ddnj00491September 1942Albert J. Robinson, Allentown, Pa.Robinson's for Rheumatism, Arthritis, Neuritis, and Lum bagoMay 29, 1940PennsylvaniaPennsylvaniaMarylandEastern District of Pennsylvania491F. D. C. No. 2856. Sample No. 1883-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00491ddnj|491. Misbranding of Robinson's for Rheumatism, Arthritis, Neuritis, and Lum|bago. U. S. v. Albert J. Robinson. Plea of nolo contendere. Judgment|of guilty. Fine, $25. (F. D. C. No. 2856. Sample No. 18S3-E.)|On November 18, 1940, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Pennsylvania filed an information against Albert J. Robinson, Allentown, Pa.,|alleging shipment on or about May 29, 1940, from the State of Pennsylvania into|the State of Maryland of a quantity of the above-named product which was|misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of?/|potassium iodide (44.8 grams per 100 cc.) and alcohol (5 percent).|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, (bottle label)|\"\"For Rheumatism, Arthritis, Neuritis, Lumbago * * * A Foe to Pain,\"\" and?f|statements in an accompanying circular representing that it was efficacious in|the treatment of rheumatism, arthritis, neuritis, sciatica, and lumbago; that it|would heal, would restore to normalcy helpless victims of rheumatism, arthritis,|neuritis, sciatica, and lumbago; that it would restore to health, would bring|freedom from pain and distress, and would bring perfect health regardless of|whether the condition was of recent origin or had developed to a serious stage;|and that it would relieve suffering and disability, were false and misleading since|it was not efficacious for such purposes.|On December 5, 1940, the defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere, was|Adjudged guilty, and a fine of $25 was imposed.|492. Misbranding of Vitalex Perdiz. U. S. v. Manuel Perdiz (Vitalex Laboratories). Plea of guilty. Fine, $100.ddnj00492September 1942Manuel Perdiz, trading as Vitalex Laboratories at Buffalo, N. Y.Vitalex PerdizMay 16, 1940New YorkNew YorkIndianaWestern District of New York492F. D. C. No. 2986. Sample No. 4576-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00492ddnj|492. Misbranding of Vitalex Perdiz. U. S. v. Manuel Perdiz (Vitalex Labora|tories). Plea of guilty. Fine, $100. (F. D. C. No. 2986. Sample No.|4576-E.)|The labeling of this product not only contained false and misleading state-|ments regarding its therapeutic qualities, its vitamin Bi content, and the absence|of any injurious drugs, but the glass vial containing the tablets occupied only|about one-half of the capacity of the carton in which they were packed.|On July 28, 1941, the United States attorney for the Western District of New|York filed an information against Manuel Perdiz', trading as Vitalex Labora-|tories at Buffalo, N. Y., alleging shipment on or about May 16, 1940, -from the|State of New York into the State of Indiana of a quantity, of Vitalex Perdiz which|was misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it contained glycerophosphates|of sodium and calcium, small proportions of iron phosphate, zinc phosphide,|and nux vomica, and indications of brewers' yeast and extract of cod-liver|oil, coated with calcium carbonate and colored pink. Biological examination|showed that it contained approximately 5 International Units of vitamin|Bi per tablet.|The article was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that the following state-|ments (bottle label and wrapper, English) \"\"Kecommended for Tiredness, Loss|of Weight, Irritability and Nervousness, Lack of Appetite, Lack of Energy|and Pale Complexion when due to Nutritional Anemia or Secondary Anemia,\"\"|and (translation from Spanish) \"\"It is recommended for Fatigue, Loss of|Weight, Irritability and Nervousness, Lack of Appetite, Lack of Energy and|Pallor of the Face and Anemia caused by nutritional deficiency,\"\" were false|and misleading since it would not be efficacious for such purposes. (2) In|that representations in the labeling, i. e., 'the name \"\"Vitalex\"\" and the state-|ment (wrapper) \"\"This exceptional Tonic is made of fine ingredients of recog-|nized medicinal value combined with vitamins B,\"\" and (wrapper and bottle|label) \"\"Active ingredients * * * vitamin * . * * B * * * Dose 4|tablets a day,\"\" were false and misleading since they represented and sug-|gested that the drug contained a therapeutic amount of vitamin Bi, whereas|it contained an amount of Bi which would be inconsequential for therapeutic|purposes; and its labeling failed to reveal the fact, material in the light of|such representations, that the total daily dosage recommended, i. e., 4 tablets,|would supply less than one-thirtieth of the average therapeutic dose of vitamin|Bi. (3) In that the statement (wrapper), \"\"It does not contain any injurious|* * * drugs,\"\" was false and misleading since it contained nux vomica and|zinc phosphide, drugs which might be injurious. (4) In that its containers|(cartons) were so made, formed, and filled as to be misleading.|On December 15, 1941, the defendant entered a plea of guilty and the court|imposed a fine of $100.|493. Misbranding of Dr. Shreve's Anti-Gall-Stone Remedy. U. S. v. 8 Packages of Dr. Shreve's Anti-Gall-Stone Remedy. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00493September 1942Dr. Shreve's Medicine Co.Dr. Shreve's Anti-Gall-Stone RemedyMay 11, 1940Michigan City, Ind.Newton, IowaMichigan City, Ind.Northern District of Indiana493F. D. C. No. 3161. Sample No. 30909-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00493ddnj|493. Misbranding: of Dr. Shreve's Anti-Gall-Stone Remedy. U. S. v. 8 Packages|of Dr. Shreve's Anti-Gall-Stone Remedy. Default decree of condemnation /|and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 3161. Sample No. 30909-E.) |This preparation consisted of a bottle of liquid and an envelope containing|pills labeled \"\"Dr. Shreve's S and L Pills.\"\"|On October 23, 1940, the United States attorney for the Northern District?(|of Indiana filed a libel against 8 packages of Dr. Shreve's Anti-Gall-Stone|Remedy at Michigan Gity, Ind., alleging that the article had been shipped on or|about May 11, 1940, by Dr. Shreve's Medicine Co. from Newton, Iowa; and|charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that the liquid consisted essen-|tially of limewater containing a white sediment and flavored with sassafras;|and that the pills contained plant material (including a laxative plant drug)|and metallic mercury (equivalent to 0.68 grain of mercury with chalk per|pill), and were coated with sugar and calcium carbonate.|The Anti-Gall-Stone Remedy was alleged to be misbranded in that the fol-|lowing statements on the wrapper and bottle label, \"\"Anti-Gall-Stone Remedy,\"\"|and statements in an accompanying circular representing that it would be|efficacious as a gall-stone remedy; that it would produce a chemical change in|the gall and would alter the secretions of the gall bladder, liver, kidneys, and|bladder; and that it would place the system in a better condition, were false|and misleading since it would not be efficacious for such purposes.|Dr. Shreve's S and L Pills were alleged to be misbranded in that state-|ments in the labeling representing that they would be efficacious as a treat-|ment for catarrh of the stomach or bowels, dizziness, nausea, diarrhea or|dysentery; that they would promote digestion and assimilation and would|restore tone to the system; and that they would be efficacious as a laxative|for biliousness and sour stomach, were false and misleading since they would|not be efficacious for such purposes.|On December 3, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the pioduct was ordered destroyed.|494. Misbranding of A-Z Tablets. U. S. v. 214,900 A-Z Tablets. Consent decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00494September 1942Phillips & Benjamin Co., Waterbury, Conn., and Strong, Cobb & Co., Inc.A-Z TabletsJune 8, 1940Waterbury, Conn.Cleveland, OhioWaterbury, Conn.District of Connecticut494F. D. C. No. 3089. Sample No. 33388-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00494ddnj|494. Misbranding of A-Z Tablets. U. S. v. 214,800 A-Z Tablets. Consent decree|of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 3089. Sample No. 33388-E.)|On September 26, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of Con-|necticut filed a libel against 214,900 drug tablets at Waterbury, Conn., alleging|that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce by Strong, Cobb & Co.,|Inc., from Cleveland, Ohio, on or about June 8, 1940. These tablets were shipped|in bulk; subsequently they were repacked and labeled in part: \"\"A-Z Tablets|* * * Distributed by A-Z Sales Company Waterbury, Conn.\"\"|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of|potassium acid tartrate, calcium gluconate, sulfur, podophyllum, goldenseal,|starch, and a small amount of an iron compound.|The libel alleged that the article so labeled was misbranded in that statements|on the box label and in an accompanying circular representing that it would be|efficacious in the treatment of asthma, asthmatic spasms, bronchitis, bronchial|irritations, catarrh, congestion of the upper respiratory system, h yj fever, head|colds, and nasal irritations, were false and misleading since it frould not be|efficacious for such purposes.|On April 8,1941, Phillips & Benjamin Co., Waterbury, Conn., and Strong, Cobb &|Co., Inc., claimants, having consented to the entry of a decree, judgment of|condemnation was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|495. Misbranding of Colloidal Dextro Calcium. U. S. v. 110 Bottles of Colloidal Dextro Calcium Bleything. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00495September 1942Bleything LaboratoriesColloidal Dextro CalciumOctober 17, 1940Denver, Colo.Los Angeles, Calif.Denver, Colo.District of Colorado495F. D. C. No. 3358. Sample No. 44102-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00495ddnj|495. Misbranding of Colloidal Dextro Calcium. TJ. S. v. 110 Bottles of Colloidal|Dextro Calcium Bleything. Default decree of condemnation and destruc-|tion. (F. D. C. No. 3358. Sample No. 44102-E.)|This product did not contain the amount of calcium suggested and indicated|in its labeling but did contain sodium benzoate materially in excess of the amount|declared.|On November 12,1940, the United States attorney for the District of Colorado|filed a libel against 110 bottles of the above-named product at Denver, Colo., which|had been shipped by the Bleything Laboratories, alleging that the article had been|shipped in interstate commerce on or about October 17, 1940, from Los Angeles,|Calif.; and charging that it was misbranded.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements on the label,|\"\"Colloidal Dextro Calcium Bleything * * * Dosage: One teaspoonful three|times daily before meals. May be taken in milk or fruit juices, if preferred.|In pronounced cases dosage may be doubled for two weeks. Dosage for children|is the same as for adults,\"\" were false and misleading since they created the|impression that it would supply the consumer with a significant amount of calcium|even in pronounced cases of calcium deficiency when used as directed, when, in|fact, it would supply but a negligible amount of calcium. The article was alleged|to be misbranded further in that the statement on the label, \"\"Less than 1/20 of|1? Sodium Benzoate,\"\" was false and misleading since it contained materially|more than 1/20 of 1 percent pt sodium benzoate.|The article was also alle|ged to be misbranded under the provisions of law|applicable to foods, as reported in F. N. J. No. 2096.|On November 26,1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|496. Misbranding of Enrich. U. S. v. 30 Bottles of Enrich. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00496September 1942Vita Health Food Co.Enrich\NWashington, D. C.\NWashington, D. C.District of Columbia496F. D. C. No. 3706. Sample No. 99914-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00496ddnj|&96. Misbranding of Enrich. TJ. S. v. 30 Bottles of Enrich. Default decree of|condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 3706. Sample No. 99914-E.)|On January 24, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Columbia|filed a libel against 30 bottles of Enrich, alleging that it was being offered for sale|in the District of Columbia at the Vita Health Food Co., Washington, D. C.; and|charging that it was misbranded. It was labeled in part: \"\"Each fluid-oz. contains|600 mg. Peptonized Iron, 200 U. S. P. units Vitamin Bi, 100 micrograms Vitamin B2|(riboflavin), Rice Bran Extract (which contributes other factors of the Vita-|min B complex), Manganese as the citrate, Calcium and Sodium as the glycero-|phosphates. * * * Two teaspoons of Enrich 4 times daily furnish 99 milli-|grams of iron. * * * Two teaspoons of Enrich 4 times daily, supply four-fifths,|80?, of the entire day's needs (minimum U. S. standard).\"\"|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements appearing on|a placard accompanying it were false and misleading since it was not efficacious|for the purposes recommended: \"\"New Hope For Folks Over 40. This combination|of iron and vitamin Bi has helped to restore pep and vigor to thousands. If you|suffer from low vitality, neuritis, nervousness, or other nerve disorders, stomach|distress, colitis, or constipation, loss of appetite, pale cheeks, lips, eyelids, or gums,|poor functioning, iron-poor blood, cold hands or feet, loss of vigor, you may need|more of the vital elements iron and vitamin Bi. Enrich benefits your blood, nerves,|glands, and every organ of your body if you lack iron and vitamin Bi.\"\"|On February 26, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|497. Misbranding of gelatin. U. S. S. v. 203 Cases of Gelatin. Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered released under bond for relabeling.ddnj00497September 1942Charles B. Knox Gelatine Co., Inc.gelatinMarch 20 and April 16, 3941Camden, N. J.Johnstown, N. Y.Camden, N. J.District of New Jersey497F. D. C. No. 4693. Sample Nos. 40349-E, 40350-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00497ddnj|497. Misbranding: of gelatin. XS. S. v. 203 Gases of Gelatin. Consent decree of|condemnation. Product ordered released under bond for relabeling,|(F. D. C. No. 4693. Sample Nos. 40349-E, 40350-E.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations con-|cerning its value for avoiding and reducing fatigue and increasing energy and|endurance.|On May 8, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of New Jersey|filed a libel against 203 cases of gelatin at Camden, N. J., alleging that the|article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about March 20 and|April 16, 3941, by Charles B. Knox Gelatine Co., Inc., from Johnstown, N. Y.;|and charging that it was misbranded.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the following designs,|devices, and statements appearing in the circular accompanying both shipments|and further and similar statements, designs, and devices in a booklet accom-|panying one of the shipments, concerning the value of the product for avoiding|fatigue and increasing energy and endurance, were false and misleading:|\"\"How Knox Gelatine Works For You! * * * For Endurance [vignette|of pamphlet entitled \"\"Fatigue And the New Way to Avoid It\"\" and portraying|pictures of individuals engaged in various physical activities] * * * The New|Use For Knox Gelatine * * * The Knox Gelatine diet is being adopted|by men and women all over the country who report that it really works.|Hundreds of people who have completed 28-day occupational group tests have|reported that Knox Gelatine has reduced fatigue to a significant degree. This|is not theory. It is based upon carefully collected reports of men and women|whose work makes strenuous demands on mental and physical endurance. ? If|you could use more endurance, try the Knox Gelatine endurance diet, your-|self. Have members of your family try it. * * * Ask people to try Knox|Gelatine for greater endurance * * *. How to Take Knox Gelatine For|More Endurance-Less Fatigue * * * Stock the new 32-envelope economy|package and make the Knox Endurance Routine easy for your customers.|* * * Answering Your Customers Question About Knox Gelatine * * *|The latest research development-and the most wide-spread-is the use of|Knox Gelatine in building endurance and resistance to fatigue. Booklets on|Knox Gelatine for greater endurance * * * are available on request.\"\"|The article was also alleged to be misbranded in violation of the provisions of|the law applicable to foods reported in F. N. J. No. 2548.|On August 15, 1941, the Charles B. Knox Gelatine Co,, Inc., having appeared|as claimant and having consented to the entry of a decree, judgment of con-|demnation was entered and the product was ordered released under bond con-|ditioned that the circulars and booklets be removed from the packages under|the supervision of the Food and Drug Administration.|498. Misbranding of Wiel Garlic Tablets. U. S. v. 174 Tins, 88 Bottles, and 500 Envelopes of Wiel Garlic Tablets. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00498September 1942Wiel Laboratories, Inc.Wiel Garlic TabletsMarch 2, 1940Newark, N. J.Brooklyn, N. Y.Newark, N. J.District of New Jersey498F. D. C. No. 3005. Sample Nos. 33458-E, 33459-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00498ddnj|498. Misbranding of Wiei Garlic Tablets. TJ. S. v. 174 Tins, 88 Bottles, and 500|Envelopes of Wiel Garlic Tablets. Default decree of condemnation and|destruction. (P. D. C. No. 3005. Sample Nos. S3458-E, 33459-E.)|On September 17, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of New|Jersey filed a libel against the following amounts of \"\"Wiel Garlic Tablets at|Newark, N. J.-174 tins each containing 24 tablets, 88 bottles each containing|120 tablets, and 500 envelopes each containing 4 tablets, alleging that the article|had been shipped by Wiel Laboratories, Inc., from Brooklyn, N. Y., on or|about March 2, 1940; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that the tablets contained a|small amount of garlic coated with sugar, calcium carbonate, and a starchy|material, flavored with peppermint.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that certain statements appear-|ing in the labeling were false- and misleading since they represented that it|would build better health, stimulate digestion, and reduce high blood pressure;|that garlic causes the relaxation and expansion of the tiny blood vessels and|small arteries, which have the direct and immediate effect of lowering blood|pressure; that it would act by stimulating peristaltic movement of the bowels,|and would aid in dispelling excessive flatulent gas and its disagreeable symptoms|of nervous fatigue, coated tongue, and sleeplessness; and that it would relieve|that peculiar dizziness and headache which usually accompanies high blood|pressure, and would help to overcome jumpy nerves due to ordinary constipa-|tion ; whereas it would not be efficacious for such purposes.|On January 31, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|499. Misbranding of honey. U. S. v. 36 Packages and 75 Packages of Honey. Default decrees of condemnation. Portion of product ordered destroyed; remainder ordered delivered to a charitable institution.ddnj00499September 1942Tongue River ApiarieshoneyFebruary 5, 1941Dickson, Tenn.Ranchester, Wyo.Dickson, Tenn.Middle District of Tennessee499F, D. C. Nos. 3977, 3980. Sample Nos. 44027-E, 44640-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00499ddnj|499. Misbranding of honey. TJ. S. v. 36 Packages and 75 Packages of Honey.|Default decrees of condemnation. Portion of product ordered destroyed;|remainder ordered delivered to a charitable institution. (F, D. C. Nos. 3977,|3980. Sample Nos. 44027-E, 44640-E.)|On March 15, 1941, the United States attorney for the Middle District of|Tennessee filed a libel against 36 packages of honey at Dickson, Tenn., alleging|that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about Feb-|ruary 5, 1941, by the Tongue River Apiaries (E. C. Reed & Son) from Ran-|chester, Wyo. On March 31, 1941, the United States attorney for the District|of Colorado filed libel against 75 packages of honey at Denver, Colo., which|had been shipped by Tongue River Apiaries on or about October 1, 1940, from|Ranchester, Wyo.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements on the|carton, \"\"Health Sweet,\"\" \"\"Helpful for impaired digestion, diabetes, etc.,\"\" and|\"\"A teaspoonful in warm water induces sleep and stimulates the heart,\"\" were|false and misleading since the use of the article could not be depended upon|to fulfill the promises of benefit stated and implied thereby. It was alleged|to be misbranded further in that statements in an accompanying circular en-|titled \"\"Please Pass the Honey,\"\" regarding its efficacy in the maintenance of|health, its efficacy in the treatment of heart weakness and heart failure and|in reviving heart action, its efficacy in the treatment of pneumonia and its|value for general physical repair, its efficacy to produce energy and give the|user a healthy complexion, and its efficacy as a cosmetic because of its nourish-|ing, bleaching, astringent, and antiseptic effect on the skin, were false and mis-|leading since it would not be efficacious for such purposes. It was also alleged|to be misbranded under the provisions of the law applicable to foods, as re-|ported in F. N. J. No. 2813.|On May 27 and on June 28, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgments|of condemnation were entered and the product seized at Denver was ordered|delivered to a charitable institution and that seized at Dickson was ordered|destroyed.|503. Misbranding of Remas Oil of Herbs. U. S. v. 38 Bottles of Remas Oil of Herbs. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00503September 1942Requa Manufacturing Co.Remas Oil of HerbsAugust 20, 1940Boston, Mass.Brooklyn, N. Y.Boston, Mass.District of Massachusetts503F. D. C. No. 3263. Sample No. 33065-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00503ddnj|503. Misbranding of Remas Oil of Herbs. TJ. S. v. 38 Bottles of Remas OH of|Herbs. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (P. D. C. No.|3263. Sample No. 33065-E.)|On October 21, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of Massa-|chusetts filed a libel against 38 bottles of Remas Oil of Herbs at Boston, Mass.,|alleging that the article had been shipped by the Requa Manufacturing Co. from|Brooklyn, N. Y., on or about August 20, 1940; and charging that it was mis-|branded. It was labeled in part: \"\"Remas Oil of Herbs (formerly Rheumaster).\"\"|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted of oils such as|sassafras oil and the oils of coniferous trees.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements on the bottle|label, carton, and in an enclosed circular regarding its efficacy in the treatment|of rheumatism or neuritis, were false and misleading since it would not be ef-|ficacious for such purposes.|On November 25, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|504. Misbranding of Tonico Fir-Veta. U. S. v. 68 Bottles of Tonico Fir-Veta. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00504September 1942El Modelo Medicine Co.Tonico Fir-VetaNovember 25, 1940Los Angeles, Calif.San Antonio, Tex.Los Angeles, Calif.Southern District of California504F. D. C. No. 3845. Sample No. 7617-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00504ddnj|504. Misbranding of Tonico Fir-Veta. IT. S. v. 68 Bottles of Tonico Fir-Veta.|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 3845.|Sample No. 7617-E.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations re-|garding its efficacy in the conditions indicated hereinafter and falsely repre-|sented that it complied with the law. The cartdn containing the bottle was con-|siderably larger than was necessary.|On February 21, 1941, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|California filed a libel against 68 bottles of Tonico Fir-Veta at Los Angeles,|Calif., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or|about November 25, 1940, by El Modelo Medicine Co. from San Antonio, Tex.;|and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of strychnine and qui-|nine salts, small proportions of iron, calcium, manganese, and potassium com-|pounds including hypophosphites, alcohol, and syrup.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that its labeling bore repre-|sentations that it would be efficacious to promote, retain, and insure health;?r|that it would greatly aid Nature in her work in keeping one well, and would J|restore health, thus bringing lasting happiness; that it would be efficacious to|rebuild children, increase their resistance and enable them to gain weight, would|relieve children of overtension, and cause them to sleep more restfully; that it?(|would be efficacious to tone up the system, stimulate or restore the appetite,|and enable one to gain additional energy; that it would prevent tired nerves,|disordered stomach, sluggish bowels, loss of appetite; and that it would be|efficacious to keep the nerves fit and increase the vitality of working girls,|which were false and misleading, since it would not be efficacious for such|purposes.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the following statements in|the labeling, \"\"El Modelo Medicine Co. has complied with the new Federal Food,|Drug, and Cosmetic Act. * * * The laws regulating the manufacture and|sale of Drugs and Medicines for your protection, the new Federal Food, Drug,|and Cosmetic Act, have been fully complied with, by 'El Modelo Medicine Co.',\"\"|were false and misleading since it was not marketed in compliance with the|Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. It was alleged to be misbranded further|in that its container (earton) was so made, formed, or filled as to be misleading.|On April 4, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|505. Misbranding of Torso Herb Vitamin. U. S. v. 2 Bottles of Torso Herb Vitamin. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00505September 1942John WaltersTorso Herb VitaminOctober 11, 1939Cleveland, OhioBaltimore, Md.Cleveland, OhioNorthern District of Ohio505F. D. C. No. 895. Sample No. 75468-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00505ddnj|505. Misbranding of Torso Herb Vitamin. TJ. S. v. 2 Bottles of Torso Herb|Vitamin. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No.|895. Sample No. 75468-D.)|On November 9, 1939, the United States attorney for the Northern District|of Ohio filed a libel against 2 bottles of Torso Herb Vitamin at Cleveland,|Ohio, alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or|about October 11, 1939, by John Walters from Baltimore, Md.; and charging|that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that it consisted essentially of a fatty oil, an organic sulfur|compound, turpentine oil, cade oil, methyl salicylate, and extracts of plant|drugs including aloe, ginger, alcohol, and water.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement on the label, -|\"\"used for: Nephritis, diabetes, dropsy, * * * high blood pressure, kidney|and bladder, helps stomach,\"\" was false and misleading since it would not be|efficacious for such purposes.|On January 23,1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|Was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|506. Misbranding of Kephart's for Hair and Scalp. U. S. v. 140 Bottles, 37 Bottles, and 5 Bottles of Kephart's for Hair and Scalp. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00506September 1942Kephart's (H. & E. Foor Co.), had beenKephart's for Hair and ScalpSeptember 7, 1940Denver, Colo.Los Angeles, Calif.Denver, Colo.District of Colorado506F. D. C. No. 3102. Sample No. 6543-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00506ddnj|506. Misbranding of Kephart's for Hair and Scalp. U. S. v. 140 Bottles, 37|Bottles, and 5 Bottles of Kephart's for Hair and Scalp. Default decree of|condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 3102. Sample No. 6543-E.)|On October 1, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of Colorado|filed a libel against 140 3-fluid-ounce bottles, 37 8-fluid-ounce bottles, and 5 32-|fluid-ounce bottles of Kephart's for Hair and Scalp at Denver, Colo., alleging|that the articles, which had been consigned by Kephart's (H. & E. Foor Co.),|had been shipped on or about September 7, 1940, from Los Angeles, Calif.;|and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it contained a small proportion|of methyl salicylate dissolved in a mixture of mineral oil and saponifiable oils.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements|and designs in the labeling, \"\"[Series of pictures showing children with various|amounts of hair on their heads] Before * * * After Six Weeks * * *|After Ninety Days * * * 'This case used only Kephart's (after trying|various other treatments with no improvement). The picture tells the whole|story.-Berkeley, California.' * * * Before * * * After 90 days * * *|After 12 months * * * 'After consulting physicians who were unable to|advise any beneficial treatment, our daughter's pictures show the amazing|improvement since using Kephart's.-Livingston, Montana,'\"\" were false and|misleading since it was not effective in promoting the growth of hair.|On December 5, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|507. Misbranding of Locao Belem. U. S. v. 74 Bottles and 49 Bottles of Locao Belem. Consent decree of condemnation; product ordered released under bond.ddnj00507September 1942Belem Products Co.Locao BelemNovember 1, 1940Los Angeles, Calif.Houston, Tex.Los Angeles, Calif.Southern District of California507F. D. C. No. 3447. Sample Nos. 32807-E, 32808-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00507ddnj|507. Misbranding: ,of Locao Belem. IT. S. v. 74 Bottles and 49 Bottles of Locao|Belem. Consent decree of condemnation; product ordered released under|bond. (F. D. C. No. 3447. Sample Nos. 32807-E, 32808-E.)|On December 2, 1940, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|California filed a libel against 74 3-ounce bottles and 49 6-ounce bottles of Locao|Belem at Los Angeles, Calif., alleging that the article had been shipped on or|about November 1, 1940, by the Belem Products Co. from Houston, Tex.; and|charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted chiefly of water,|alcohol, a foam producer, a small amount of glycerin, and perfume materials.|The article was alleged to be misbranded* in that statements in the labeling|representing that it was efficacious in the treatment of baldness, falling hair,|dandruff, and irritated scalp; that ordinarily dandruff or itching scalp would|respond quickly to treatment with it and that satisfactory improvement or|even complete elimination of these conditions would result in from 2 to 4|weeks; that it would bring about improvement in the less severe cases of|falling hair in a few weeks and would be efficacious to correct the more seyere|cases of falling hair in from 3.to 6 months; and that it would be efficacious|to develop new growth on bald areas, were false and misleading since it|would not be efficacious for such purposes.|On December 23, 1940, Belem Products Co., claimant, having admitted the|allegations of the libel, judgment of condemnation was entered and the product|was ordered released under bond to be brought into compliance with the law|under the supervision of the Food and Drug Administration. Subsequently, the|product was relabeled to conform to the requirements of the Food, Drug, and|Cosmetic Act.|517. Misbranding of Axine Plates. U. S. v. 50 Pairs of Axine Plates (and 3 other seizures of Axine Plates). Default decrees ordering; that the product be destroyed.ddnj00517September 1942W. Gordon PervisAxine PlatesJuly 9, 1939, and July 12 and 27, 1940Nashville, Tenn.; Pearson, Okla.; Houston, Tex.Tennille, Ga.Nashville, Tenn.; Pearson, Okla.; Houston, Tex.Middle District of Tennessee, Western District of Oklahoma, and the Southern District of Texas517F. D. C. Nos. 3430, 3615, 3799, 4085. Sample Nos. 35471-E, 37110-E, 43164-E, 57237-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00517ddnj|517. Misbranding; of Axine Plates. TT. S. v. 50 Pairs of Axine Plates (and 3 other|seizures of Axine Plates). Default decrees ordering; that the product be|destroyed. (F. D. C. Nos. 3430, 3615, 3799, 4085. Sample Nos. 35471-B,|37110-E, 43164-E, 57237-E.)|Between November 27, 1940, and March 22, 1941, the United States attorneys|for the Middle District of Tennessee, Western District of Oklahoma, and the|Southern District of Texas filed libels against 50 pairs of Axine Plates at Nash-|ville, Tenn., 18 pairs at Pearson, Okla., and 12 pairs at Houston, Tex., alleging that|the article had been shipped on or about July 9, 1939, and July 12 and 27, 1940.|by W. Gordon Pervis from Tennille, Ga.; and charging that it was misbranded.|On April 1, 1941, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Illinois|filed a libel against 79 Axine Plates at West Frankfort, 111., which had been|consigned* by W. Gordon Pervis, alleging that the article had been shipped from|Tennille, Ga., on or about December 13,1938; and charging that it was misbranded.|Examination showed that each of these devices consisted of two metal|plates, one made of copper and the other of zinc, which were to be worn in the|shoes of the user, a plate in each shoe.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the combination of letters|\"\"Axine,\"\" imprinted on each plate, was false and misleading since by reason of a|leaflet entitled \"\"Health Without Medicine,\"\" which accompanied each pair of|plates, it indicated to purchasers that wearing of these plates would bridle and|force human electricity to rid the blood of uric acid, thereby constituting an|effective and appropriate treatment for high blood pressure, low blood pressure,|headache, asthma, paralysis, kidney trouble, rheumatism, diabetes, eczema, cold|hands and feet, poor circulation, indigestion, hardening of the arteries, enlarge-|ment of the heart, blood clots on the brain, and excessive coughing, and that it|would usually relieve said troubles within 30 days, and that it would be effective|to enable one to feel young again and to relieve prostate gland involvement;|whereas the article would not be efficacious for such purposes.|Between January 17 and April 26, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judg-|ments of condemnation were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|518. Misbranding of Magnetic Ray appliances. U. S. v. 6 Magnetic Ray Appliances. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00518September 1942Magnetic Ray Co.Magnetic Ray appliancesMay 1, 1940Baton Rouge, La.Dallas, Tex.Baton Rouge, La.Eastern District of Louisiana518F. D. C. No. 1937. Sample No. 9493-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00518ddnj|518. Misbranding of Magnetic Ray appliances. U. S. v. 6 Magnetic Ray Ap|pliances. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No.|1937. Sample No. 9493-E.)|This product consisted of a coil made in the form of a belt to which was fastened|a wire to be connected with an ordinary lighting current. When so connected|it would produce a magnetic field.|On May 11,1940, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Louisi-|ana filed a libel against 6 Magnetic Ray appliances at Baton Rouge, La., alleging|that the article had been shipped on or about May 1, 1940, by the Magnetic Ray|Co. from Dallas, Tex.; and charging that it was misbranded.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that representations in the labeling that|it would be efficacious in the treatment of asthma, arthritis, anemia, Bright's|disease, bladder trouble, bronchitis, colds, constipation, catarrh, catarrhal deaf-|ness, diabetes, deafness, eczema, epilepsy, goiter, hay fever, hemorrhoids, heart|diseases, headache, high blood pressure, indigestion, insomnia, impotence, low|blood pressure, lumbago, menstrual trouble, neuralgia, neuritis, nervous trouble,|obesity, paralysis, pelvic disorders, prostate troubles, rheumatism, sciatica, sinus|trouble, tuberculosis, tumors, ulcers and varicose veins; that it would be efficacious|in the prevention of disease; that it would increase elimination, promote sound|and refreshing sleep, relieve pain, produce relaxation, remove causes which|might lead to surgical operations, stimulate various glands and organs, increase|physical and mental efficiency, clear the complexion, cause the absorption of|growths and deposits, such as tumors, goiter and blood clots; and that it would|favorably affect circulation, elimination,, digestion, nutrition and metabolism,|were false and misleading since it would not be efficacious for such purposes.|On December 20,1940, no claimant having appeared/judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|508. Misbranding of Parisian Style Sajje. U. S. v. 9 Dozen Bottles of Parisian Style Saje. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00508September 1942Gironx Manufacturing Co.Parisian Style SaMarch 29, 1940Chicago, Ill.Buffalo, N. Y.Chicago, Ill.Northern District of Illinois508F. D. C. No. 3217. Sample No. 4575-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00508ddnj|508. Misbranding of Parisian Style Sa|je. IT. S. v. 9 Dozen Bottles of Parisian|Style Saje. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C.|No. 3217. Sample No. 4575-E.) |This product contained no ingredient or combination of ingredients that|would produce the effects indicated below. It also was deceptively packaged|in that the bottle had been placed in a carton that was twice as large as would|have been necessary to hold it.|On or about October 23, 1940, the United States attorney for the Northern|District of Illinois filed a libel against 9 dozen bottles of Parisian Style Saje|at Chicago, 111., alleging that the article had been shipped by Gironx Manufac-|turing Co. from Buffalo, N. Y., on or about March 29, 1940; and charging that|it was misbranded.|Examination of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially|of water, alcohol, glycerin, and small amounts of resorcinol, volatile oil's, and|capsicum.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements|were false and misleading since it was not efficacious for the purposes recom-|mended: (Carton) \"\"To aid normal hair growth use Parisian Style Saje daily,|rubbing it well into the scalp so that it can soak into the pores and stimulate|the superficial circulation * * * For helping the natural growth of the|hair\"\"; and (bottle) \"\"Use often to help keep the scalp stimulated * * *|and aid the natural hair growth.\"\"|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that its container was so made,|formed, or filled as to be misleading.|The article was also alleged to be misbranded under the provisions of the|law applicable to cosmetics, as reported in C. N. J. No. 66.|On January 23, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|509. Misbranding of skin stimulant and texture oil. U. S. v. 114 Bottles of La Bonita Hollywood Skin Stimulant and 24. Bottles of La Bonita Hollywood Texture Oil. Decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00509September 1942House of Hollywoodskin stimulant and texture oilMay 2, 1941Denver, Colo.Los Angeles, Calif.Denver, Colo.District of Colorado509F. D. C. Nos. 4865, 4866. Sample Nos. 65607-E, 65608-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00509ddnj|509. Misbranding of skin stimulant and texture oil. IT. S. v. 114 Bottles of La|Bonita Hollywood Skin Stimulant and 24. Bottles of La Bonita Hollywood|Texture Oil. Decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos.|4865, 4866. Sample Nos. 65607-E, 65608-E.)|On June 9, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Colorado|filed a libel against the above-named products at Denver, Colo., which had|been consigned by the House of Hollywood, alleging that the articles had been|shipped in interstate commerce on or about May 2, 1941, from Los Angeles,|Calif.; and charging that they were misbranded.|Analysis showed that 'the skin stimulant consisted essentially of alcohol,|glycerin, perfume, and coloring matter; and that the texture oil was essentially?,--|a perfumed vegetable oil.|La Bonita Hollywood Skin Stimulant was alleged to be misbranded In that|the name \"\"Skin Stimulant\"\" was |false and misleading, since the article con-|tained no ingredient capable of stimulating the skin.|La Bonita Hollywood Texture Oil was alleged to be misbranded in that the|name \"\"Texture Oil,\"\" together with the statements \"\"Pat into the neck and jaw|line using a brisk slapping motion with the back of the hand. Non-fattening,\"\"|were false and misleading since tney gave the impression that it would affect|the structure of the skin; whereas it would not.|Both articles were alleged to be misbranded under the provisions of the law|applicable to cosmetics, as reported in notices of judgment on cosmetcs.|On June 27, 1941, the House of Hollywood, Los Angeles, Calif., having signed|an acceptance of service and authorization for taking of final decree, judgment|of condemnation was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|510. Misbranding of Alimentone Powder and Alimentone Tablets. U. S. v. 2 Tins of Alimentone Powder and 11 Tins of Alimentone Tablets. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00510September 1942Thomas E. Collins Co.Alimentone Powder and Alimentone TabletsJuly 15, 1940Tucson, Ariz.San Francisco, Calif.Tucson, Ariz.District of Arizona510F. D. C. No. 8555. Sample Nos. 32625-E, 32626-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00510ddnj|510. Misbranding: of Alimentone Powder and Alimentone Tablets. . U. S. v. 2 Tins|of Alimentone Powder and 11 Tins of Alimentone Tablets. . Default decree|of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 8555. Sample Nos. 32625-E,|32626-E.)|th of these products were falsely represented to be effective in the treat-|ment of overweight and of certain diseases of the mucous membranes.|On January 6, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Arizona|filed a libel against the above-named products at Tucson, Ariz., alleging that|they had been shipped by Thomas E. Collins Co., from San Francisco, Calif.,|on or about July 15, 1940; and charging that they were misbranded.|Analyses of samples of the articles showed that the Alimentone Powder con-|sisted essentially of a spray-dried product such a spray-dried skim milk,|embryonic tissues such as wheat germ, and dried green leafy and stemmy|material such as garden vegetables; and that the Alimentone Tablets consisted|essentially of embryonic tissues such as wheat germ and dried green leafy and|stemmy material such as garden vegetables.|The Alimentone Powder was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement|on the label, \"\"If overweight, take between meals on an empty stomach,\"\" was|false and misleading since it was not a suitable, appropriate, or effective treat-|ment for overweight.|The Alimentone Tablets were alleged to be misbranded in that statements|on the label, \"\"Take 5 tablets after each meal and 5 at bed time. If overweight,|take between meals on an empty stomach. In cases of asthma, start with 2|tablets after each meal for the first five days. Then take 3 tablets after meals|for the next five days. Then 4 tablets for the next five days. Then continue|with 5 tablets four times daily,\"\" were false and misleading since they did not|constitute an appropriate treatment for cases of overweight or asthma.|Both products were alleged to be misbranded in that statements in an|accompanying circular, entitled \"\"Help Nature,\"\" which represented that they|constituted treatments for overweight; that they would give relief in colds,|catarrh, asthma, bronchitis, hay fever, mucous colitis, vaginal catarrh, ana|other catarrhal conditions; that they would be effective in maintaining the|normal flow of secretions from the mucous membranes and would continually|flush away any impurities which might lodge in cell tissues; that they would|supply those nutritional elements required by the body to actively maintain|its defensive reaction against impurities and bacteria in cell tissue; that they|would keep the membranes in a healthy condition; and would eliminate toxic|deposits from tissues in bronchial asthma, were false and misleading since|they would not be efficacious for such purposes.|On February 21, 1941, no-claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the products were ordered destroyed.|511. Misbranding of Oomph candy. U. S. v. 11 Dozen Boxes of Oomph Candy. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00511September 1942Nu-Pak-Ej, Inc.Oomph candyOctober 21, 1910Milwaukee, Wis.Chicago, Ill.Milwaukee, Wis.Eastern District of Wisconsin511F. D. C. No. 8463. Sample No. 81214-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00511ddnj|611. Misbranding- of Oomph candy. U. S. v. 11 Dozen Boxes of Oomph Candy.|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 8463.|Sample No. 81214-E.)|This candy, which was offered as an aid to reduction of weight, had essentially?(|the same composition, was wrapped and packed like, and possessed approxi-|mately the same caloric value as ordinary candy.|On December 4, 1940, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of?j|Wisconsin filed a libel against 11 dozen boxes of Oomph candy at Milwaukee,|Wis., alleging that the article had been shipped on or about October 21, 1910,|by Nu-Pak-Ej, Inc., from Chicago, ILL; and charging that it was misbranded.|It was labeled in part: \"\" 'Oomph' Candy and Reducing Program.\"\"|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of sugars,|protein, fat, soybean flour, and small amounts of sodium chloride, phosphates,|and calcium compounds.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that representations in the label-|ing that it would be efficacious in the safe reduction of weight; that when used|in conjunction with the dietary program included in the labeling, it would provide|a proper method of \"\"slenderizing\"\" or losing .^excessive weight, were false and'|misleading since it would not be efficacious for such purposes.|It also was alleged to be misbranded under the provisions of the law applicable|to foods, as reported in F. N. J. No. 2537.|On January 23, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|512. Misbranding of Mineralaid. U. S. v. 48 Packages of Mineralaid. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00512September 1942W. L. JamesonMineralaidMarch 17, 1941Houston, Tex.Denver, Colo.Houston, Tex.Southern District of Texas512F. D. C. No. 4236. Sample No. 11250-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00512ddnj|512. Misbranding of Mineralaid. U. S. v. 48 Packages of Mineralaid. Default|decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 4236. Sample No.|11250-E.)|On April 7,1941, the United States attorney for the Southern District of Texas|filed a libel against 48 packages of Mineralaid at Houston, Tex., alleging that|the article had been shipped by W. L. Jameson from Denver, Colo., on or about|March 17,1941; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of|silicates, small proportions of iron and calcium compounds, sulfates, a trace of|fluorides, and nondescript organic matter.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that statements in the labeling|which represented that it would be efficacious to give the user health; that it|would afford relief in cases of hay fever, asthma, sinus trouble, nervousness,|arthritis, goiter, stomach ulcers, lumbago, anemia, prostate trouble, neuritis,|disorders of the liver, kidney and bladder, cancer, acne, acidity, bronchial affec-|tions, diabetes, rundown conditions, poor hearing, infantile paralysis, stroke,|heart leakage, partial paralysis, varicose veins, pyorrhea, colds, sciatica, rheu-|matism, hemorrhoids, cataracts, old-age ailments, ringworms and athlete's foot,|pregnancy, pneumonia, and angina pectoris; and that it would reduce weight and|correct dietary mineral deficiencies, were false and misleading since it would not|be efficacious for such purposes.|On May 26, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|513. Misbranding of Merlek Mineral Water. U. S. v. 32 1/2 Cases of Merlek Mineral Water. Trial by jury; verdict for the Government. Judgment of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00513September 1942M. E. Lee and Ned JohnsonMerlek Mineral WaterMay 18, 1940Phoenix, Ariz.Oakland, Calif.Phoenix, Ariz.District of Arizona513F. D. C. No. 2234. Sample No. 7399-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00513ddnj|513. Misbranding of Merlek Mineral Water. U. S. v. 32% Cases of Merlek|Mineral Water. Trial by jury; verdict for the Government. Judgment|of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 2234. Sample No. 7399-E.)|On June 22, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of Arizona filed|a libel against 32? cases of Merlek \"\"Mineral Water at Phoenix, Ariz., alleging|that the article \"\"had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about May 18,|1940, by X/ee Bros, from Oakland, Calif.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article had the approximate composition of sea water.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement on the bottle label,|\"\"Merlek is sold only to help supply minerals for mineral deficiencies,\"\" was false|and misleading as applied to an article that had the approximate composition of|sea water. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that representations|appearing in an accompanying circular entitled \"\"Have You Eaten Today? Did|You Get the Necessary Minerals?\"\" which recommended it for persons who were|\"\"cross, tired, misbehaving, naughty,\"\" or suffering from nervous collapse, excess|acid, run-down conditions, and many other diseases, and that it was valuable|in the maintenance of health, for proper growth, for the teeth, for the blood|and for life, were false and misleading when considered in the light of its com-|position and the dosage recommended.|It was also charged to be misbranded under the provisions of the law applicable|to foods, as reported in F. N. J. No. 2824.|On July 20, M. E. Lee and Ned Johnson, claimants, filed an answer to the|libel admitting the shipment in interstate commerce but denying that the product|was a drug or that it was misbranded when shipped in interstate commerce. On|D -cember 10, 1940, the case came up for trial before a jury.|The taking of testimony was concluded on December 19, 1940, on which date|the court delivered the following instructions to the jury:|THE COUBT: \"\"It now becomes the court's duty, gentlemen, to instruct you as|to the law that applies to this particular controversy.|r\"\"This case was brought under the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug and?[|Cosmetic Act, which is intended to prevent the movement in interstate commerce|of adulterated and misbranded food, drugs, devices, and cosmetics. The statute|provides, among other things, that 'any article of food, drug, device, or cosmetic?(|that is adulterated or misbranded when introduced into, or while in interstate|commerce, shall be liable to be proceeded against while in interstate commerce,|or at any time thereafter,' and shall be liable to seizure and condemnation.|\"\"The act also provides that interested persons may claim property so seized,|and 'that on demand of either party, any issue of fact joined in any such case|shall be tried by a jury.'|\"\"In this case, the Government has caused 12 2-quart jugs of an article known|as Merlek Mineral Water to be seized. The Government, in its libel filed in the|case, has alleged the article to be misbranded in violation of the statute, and Mr.|M. B. Lee, of Oakland, Calif., and Mr. Ned Johnson, of Phoenix, Ariz., who have|claimed the property under seizure, have denied in their answer filed in this case|that the article is misbranded in violation of the statute.|\"\"There is no dispute that the goods under seizure were shipped in interstate|commerce by Lee Bros, from Oakland, Calif., to Mr. Ned Johnson, Phoenix, Ariz.,|on or about May 18th, 1940, or that they were in the possession of Mr. Ned|Johnson, of Phoenix, Ariz., when they were seized. I, therefore, charge you that|the sole question for you to determine, from the evidence in the case, is whether|or not the article under seizure is misbranded in violation of the statute, as|alleged by the Government.|\"\"If you find from the evidence that the article is misbranded, then your verdict|should be for the Government. If you find from the evidence that the article|is not misbranded, then your verdict should be for the claimants.|\"\"This action is one of rem: that is, the Government's complaint is against the|Merlek Mineral Water that has been seized, and not against the gentlemen that|have appeared to claim it. The intent of the claimants has no bearing on this|case. Your part in this proceeding is to determine a question of fact. This ques-|tion of fact is very simple. Is this water misbranded because of false or mis-|leading statements made about it in the label and circular that has been received|in evidence? You are entitled to read and consider the statements made about|this water in the label and in the circular, and decide whether or not they are|false and misleading in any particular.|\"\"You gentlemen would have no objection to the jury taking the exhibits into|the jury room?\"\"|Mr. PERRY: \"\"No, your honor.\"\"|Mr. WOOD : \"\"No, your honor.\"\"|THE COURT : \"\"Very well. In reaching your decision, you should take into con-|sideration the nature of this water and what it is composed of. Under the law,|this water can be considered both a food and a drug. The reason for this is that|the directions for its use recommend that some of it be placed in drinking water|or in milk. Drinking water and milk are both foods under this law, and any-|thing used as a compound of a food is also declared to be a food. If you should|find that the water is also intended for use in the treatment and prevention of|mineral deficiency diseases of the human body, it would then also be a drug under|the law. So, no matter whether you believe that Merlek Mineral Water is a|food or a drug, or both a food and drug, your duty is the same, that is, to decide|whether or not it is misbranded, as alleged in the libel.|\"\"In reaching a determination as to whether or not the water is misbranded,|you should base your decision entirely on the evidence you have seen and heard|at this trial, and should be guided by no other considerations.|\"\"If you decide that this water will do all the things that are claimed for it|in the label and circular, and that the labeling is not false and misleading in any|respect, you should render a verdict for the claimants; but if you should find|from the evidence that while the water may be of help in doing some of the|things claimed for it in the label and circular, if you find that it will not do|all of the things claimed for it, and that in such respect the labeling is false or|misleading, it is your duty to find the water to be misbranded, and your verdict?^|should be for the Government. That is the libelant.|\"\"The statute under -which this case has been tried condemns every statement|in the labeling of the article Merlek Mineral Water which may mislead or deceive.?i|Deception may result from the use of statements not technically false, or which?*-_|may be literally true. The aim of this statute is to prevent that resulting from|indirection and ambiguity, as well as from statements that are false. It is not|difficult to choose statements that.will not deceive.|\"\"If yon find from the evidence that there are any false and misleading state-|ments in the labeling involved in this case, your verdict should be for the Gov-|ernment, as I have stated before.|\"\"In determining whether or not any statements made in the labeling of the|article Merlek Mineral Water are misleading, you should take into account, among|other things, not only representations made or suggested by such statements, but|also the extent to which the labeling may fail to reveal facts material in the|light of such representations.|\"\"If you find from the evidence that there is a material weight of medical and|scientific opinion contrary to any of the representations made in the labeling of|Merlek Mineral Water, and no mention is made of the existence of such contrary|opinion in said labeling, you may find that said article is misbranded.|\"\"The law casts upon the Government the burden of proving this case by what|is known as the preponderance of evidence. Preponderance of evidence simply|means the greater weight of the evidence. It is not dependent upon the number|of witnesses who have testified in the case, but it is rather the quality of the|evidence instead of the-or the quality rather than the quantity. If the evidence|should be in your minds equally divided, then the Government, of course, hasn't|sustained this burden of proof, and your verdict should be for the claimants.|\"\"Tou are the sole judges of the credibility of the witnesses; that is to say,|the extent to which you will believe the witnesses who have testified before you.|It is your duty to reconcile the conflicting testimony of various witnesses and|conflicting statements, so far as it may reasonably be done.|\"\"Witnesses, those who are supposed to know more than the ordinary person|about such subjects, such as chemists and physicians, have been permitted to give|their opinions as to various matters. Opinion evidence is not binding upon you,|but should be considered in connection with all other evidence in the case.|Should you believe it, you may accept and follow it. -By an opinion, I mean a|statement or a conclusion arrived at by the witness from experience or from|knowledge, as distinguished from testimony concerning the direct fact.|\"\"That is, I might say that this building was constructed of briek. That would|be a statement of faet. If I'd say it was worth twenty thousand or a hundred|thousand dollars, that would merely be my opinion.|\"\"You are the sole judges of the value of opinion evidence. Of course, an opin-|ion is worthless unless it is the honest opinion of the man who states it. If you|deem it is his honest opinion, then its value depends upon how much he knows|about the subject concerning which he is testifying. If he is fairly experienced,|fairly grounded in his subject, if his opinion is the result of mature reflection,|if he is a man of strong logical intellect, his opinion would be entitled to great|value. If, on the other hand, he was ineapable of logical thinking, or if he was|not well grounded in his subject, nor familiar with the facts upon which his|conclusion is assumed to be based, then, of course, his opinion would be of little|or no value; and it is for you to decide what value you will give to the opinion|evidence that you have heard.|\"\"Now, a great deal of the evidence of the witnesses who have testified eoncern-;|ing their own ailments is in the nature of opinion evidence. Those witnesses|who testified that they had well known, easily discernible diseases, or easily told|diseases, I will say, such as headaches and constipation, or something of that|sort, of course, there will be very little reason to doubt that they knew what|they had. But if one testified that he thought that he had some more obscure|disease, more difficult to diagnose, and his diagnosis of what he had depended|entirely upon his own opinion, and he was unable to make such a diagnosis, his|opinion- would be of very little value. Those are matters for you to take into|consideration in weighing the testimony of the witnesses.|<JYou may also consider the interest of the witnesses, if they have any, in the|outcome of the case, their affiliation with either of the parties, their manner of|testifying, their appearance upon the witness stand, whether their testimony|was logical or otherwise, these and any or all other subjects touching the credi-|bility of the various witnesses, you may take into consideration; and having|considered all matters, you will give the'testimony of each and every witness such|weight as you find it is entitled to receive. That is entirely within your province,|and if upon a consideration of all the evidence you find that the statements|charged in the libel are false in any substantial part, you will find the product|to be misbranded. Upon the other hand, if you do not find that the statements|charged In the libel are false, then, of course, your verdict should be for the claim-|. ants, and you will find that the article has not been misbranded.|\"\"Any suggestions, gentlemen, or any objections?\"\"|Mr. PEBBY. \"\"NO, your honor.\"\"|Mr. WOOD. \"\"No, we have none.\"\"|THE COURT. \"\"Forms of verdict have been prepared for your guidance. One?(|form reads: 'We, the jury, duly empaneled and sworn in the above entitled action,|upon our oaths do find for the libelant.' The libelant, you understand, is the|Government.|\"\"The other one: 'We, the jury, duly empaneled and sworn in the above entitled|action, upon our oaths do find for the claimants, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Lee.'|\"\"After you retire to your jury room, you will select one of your number to act as|your foreman, and proceed with your deliberations. After you have agreed upon|a verdict, you will have it signed by your foreman and returned to open court.|Any verdict agreed upon must,, as you know, be unanimous. Swear the bailiffs.\"\"|The jury, after deliberation, returned a verdict for the Government and on|January 6, 1941, judgment was entered condemning the product and ordering|that it be destroyed.|514. Misbranding of Elsaco Mineralized Water. U. S v. 100 Bottles of Elsaco Mineralized Water. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00514September 1942Electrovita Co.Elsaco Mineralized WaterDecember 3, 1940Phoenix, Ariz.Redwood City, Calif.Phoenix, Ariz.District of Arizona514F. D. C. No. 3602. Sample No. 32657-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00514ddnj|514. Misbranding: of Elsaco Mineralized Water. U. ST. 100 Bottles of Elsaco|Mineralized Water. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(V. D. C. No. 3602. Sample No. 32657-E.)|On January 2, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Arizona|filed a libel against the above-named product at Phoenix, Ariz., alleging that it|had been shipped by the Electrovita Co. from Redwood City, Calif., on or about|December 3,1940; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of lime|water containing traces of sulfates and chlorides and a small amount of potas-|sium iodide.|The article was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that the combination of|letters \"\"Elsaco,\"\" appearing on the bottle label, constituted a false and misleading|device since as a result of statements in a leaflet entitled \"\"Elsaco Mineralized|Water A Biologically Pure Mineral Water,\"\" which had been shipped by the|Electrovita Co. on or about August 10, 1940, and was distributed by one of its|agents, the said combination of letters meant to purchasers that the article|was an appropriate and effective treatment for run-down, nervous condition,|arthritis, swollen, stiff and painful joints, gall-bladder trouble, headaches, nerv-|ousness, mucous colitis, ulcer of the stomach, neuritis, stomach and kidney|trouble, sinus trouble, toxic diseases, severe intestinal trouble, nerve trouble,|rheumatism, eczema, pleurisy, varicose veins, asthma, chronic fistula, ulcerated|colitis, anemia, gallstones, tumors, weak eyes, hemorrhages, and that it was \"\"one|of the greatest means for the rebuilding of the body tissues, cell life, and blood|that has yet been discovered\"\"; whereas it was not an appropriate or effective|remedy for the disease conditions listed' nor was it a means of rebuilding the|body tissue, cell life, and blood. (2) In that statements in the aforesaid circular|were false and misleading as applied to an artificially prepared mineral water;|the labeling failed to reveal that any treatment by electrolysis to which the|water had been subjected had had any significant result on its therapeutic or|curative effects, a fact material in the light of the statement that the article|had been treated by electrolysis and that it contained electrically treated mineral|elements; and that the article contained but inconsequential proportions, if any,|of many of the elements listed.|On February 6, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|515. Misbranding of mineral water. U. S. v. 9 Bottles and 12 Bottles of McFadden 3 Sisters Springs Mineral Water. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00515September 1942\Nmineral waterAugust 8, 1940Flat River, Mo.Hot Spings, Mo.Flat River, Mo.Eastern District of Missouri515F. D. C. No. 2814. Sample No. 15891-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00515ddnj|515. Misbranding: of mineral water. U. S. v. 9 Bottles and 12 Bottles of Me-|Fadden 3 Sisters SpWng-s Mineral Water. Default decree of condemna-|tion and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 2814. Sample No. 15891-B.)|On September 13, 1940, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Missouri filed a libel against 9 1-gallon bottles and 12 5-gallon bottles of mineral|water at Flat River, Mo., alleging that the article had been shipped from McFadden|3 Sisters Springs, Hot Springs National Park, Ark., on or about August 8, 1940;?(|and charging that it was misbranded.|Examination showed that the article contained calcium bicarbonate (2.77|grains per quart) and smaller proportions of other mineral constituents|commonly found in ground waters.|The|,, article was alleged to be misbranded in that statements in the labeling|which represented and suggested that it was efficacious in the treatment or|Bright's disease, diabetes, dropsy, pus in kidney, bladder and urethra, and other|kidney, bladder, and urinary troubles, high and low blood pressure, enlarged|prostate gland, paralysis, stones in kidney, and other urinary troubles, change|of life, female irregularities, insomnia, anemia, nervous prostration, gout and *|hyperacidity; that this drug would be efficacious to maintain and restore health|in apparently hopeless cases and to rejuvenate shattered nerves and weakened|bodies; that it possessed the health giving properties implied in the statement|\"\"Fountains of Health\"\"; that it was efficacious in advanced stages of kidney|trouble, bladder and gall-stone misery, cystitis, rheumatism, arthritis, sciatica,|diabetes, chronic constipation and resulting complications; that it would bring|about renewed vitality and fitness; that it would be efficacious to help nature to|discharge toxins which frequently cause serious ills and to flush out accumulated|wastes which form poisons to attack the vital organs, the liver, kidney, and|bladder; that it would be efficacious in cases of faulty elimination and poor assim-|ilation ; that it would assist nature in the cleansing of each tissue, nerve and|muscle, thus enabling nature's recreating and rejuvenating forces to carry new|life thereto; that said drug would be efficacious to control the changes in|tissue which produce old age and infirmities and enable one to catch the rhythm|of youth again; and that this drug would supply the minerals to keep the body|tissues and fluids and organs in perfect running order, clarify the blood, promote|physical repair, and eliminate waste, were false and misleading since the article|would not be efficacious for such purposes.|On October 31, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered, and the product was ordered destroyed.|516. Misbranding of Thermo-Roller. U. S. v. 9 Retail Packages of Electrically Heated Thermo-Roller. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00516September 1942rmo-Roller CorporationThermo-RollerFebruary 24, 1940Pittsburgh, Pa.New York, N. Y.Pittsburgh, Pa.Western District of Pennsylvania516F. D. C. No. 1798. Sample No. 3021-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00516ddnj|516. Misbranding: of Thermo-Roller. V. S. v. 9 Retail Packages of Electrically|Heated Thermo-Roller. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 1798. Sample No. 3021-E.)|This product was a device made in the form of a rolling pin covered, with|corrugated rubber and was electrically heated. Its labeling bore false and mis-|leading representations regarding its efficacy as a reducing agent and in the|treatment of certain diseases.|On April 11, 1940, the United States attorney for the Western District of|Pennsylvania filed a libel against 9 packages of the above-named product at|Pittsburgh, Pa., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce|on or about February 24,1940, by the Thermo-Roller Corporation from New York,|N. T.; and charging that it was misbranded.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that representations in the labeling|that it would enable one to achieve a completely balanced figure without special|effort by concentrating on the spot or area most out of proportion; that it would|be efficacious to reduce the abdomen, hips, thighs and \"\"dowager's hump\"\" between|the shoulders and remove localized deposits of fat; that it was efficacious in|reducing excessive external fat; it would be efficacious in eliminating fat cell|elements; and that it would be beneficial in the treatment of sciatica, rheumatism,|arthritis, lumbago and other common nervous disorders were false and misleading|since the article would not be efficacious for such purposes.|On May 6, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|519. Misbranding of Electreat Mechanical Heart. U. S. v. 5 Electreat Mechanical Hearts (and 6 other seizure actions against Electreat Mechanical Hearts). Decrees of condemnation. Portion of product ordered destroyed; remainder ordered released under bond for relabeling.ddnj00519September 1942Electreat Manufacturing Co.Electreat Mechanical HeartFebruary 5 to March 14, 1941Bristol, Pa.; Washington, D. C.; Pasadena, Calif.; Lima, Ohio; Boise, IdahoPeoria, Ill.Bristol, Pa.; Washington, D. C.; Pasadena, Calif.; Lima, Ohio; Boise, IdahoEastern District of Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, Southern District of California, Northern District of Ohio, and the District of Idaho519F. D. C. Nos. 3994, 4005, 4072, 4078, 4079, 4092, 4370. Sample Nos. 5184-E, 32992-E, 32996-E, 35734-E, 40322-E, 50516-E, 60574-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00519ddnj|519. Misbranding- of Electreat Mechanical Heart. V. S. v. 5 Electreat Mechanical|Hearts (and 6 other seizure actions against Electreat Mechanical Hearts).|Decrees of condemnation. Portion of product ordered destroyed; re-|mainder ordered released under bond for relabeling. (F. D. C. Nos. 3994,|4005, 4072, 4078, 4079, 4092, 4370. Sample Nos. 5184-E, 32992-E, 32996-E,|35734-E, 40322-E, 50516-E, 60574-E.)|The labeling of this device, which consisted of flashlight batteries, a small|electrical coil equipped with a buzzer and attachments for applying electricity to|various parts of the body, bore false and misleading representations regarding|its curative and therapeutic properties.|Between March 15 and April 16, 1941, the United States attorneys for the|Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, Southern District|of California, Northern District of Ohio, and the District of Idaho filed libels|against 5 of the above-named devices at Bristol, Pa.; 3 at Washington, D. C.;|13 at Pasadena, Calif.; 6 at Lima, Ohio; 11 at Boise, Idaho, alleging that the|article had been shipped in interstate commerce within the period from on or|about February 5- to on or about March 14, 1941, by the Electreat Manufacturing|Co. from Peoria, 111. On March 29, 1941, the United States attorney for the|Northern District of Texas filed a libel against 27 of the said devices at San|Angelo, Tex., which had been shipped by the Electreat Manufacturing Co. from|Peoria, 111., on or about March 14,1941.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements in|the labeling, (molded into the device) \"\"Electreat * * * Relieves Pain,\"\"|(paper disk attached to portion) \"\"Electreat * * * Mechanical Heart,\"\" (car-|tons of portion) \"\"Elec-Treat Mechanical Heart * * * For Relief of Pain and|Muscular Soreness,\"\" (massage attachment) \"\"Electreat * * * Relieves Pain,\"\"|were false and misleading in that the said statements represented that the device|would be efficacious for the purposes recommended; whereas it would not be|efficacious for such purposes.|On April 4, 17, and 28, and May 7 and 17, 1941, no claimant having appeared|for the lots seized at Bristol, Pa.; Washington, D. 0.; San Angelo, Tex.; Lima,|Ohio; and Boise, Idaho, judgments of condemnation were entered and the product|was ordered destroyed.|On September 13,1941, Mrs. E. 0. Jones, claimant for the lot seized at Pasadena,|having admitted the allegations of the libel, judgment of condemnation was en-|tered and it was ordered that the product be released under bond conditioned|that it be brought into compliance with the law under the supervision of the|Food and Drug Administration. This lot was relabeled.|DRUGS ALSO FAILING TO BEAR THE REQUIRED INGREDIENT STATEMENT |520. Misbranding of Sto-Bo-Ki and McClintock's Formula for Diabetes. U. S. v. Robert McClintock. Plea of guilty. Fine, $120; sentence of 1 year and 1 day's imprisonment. Sentence suspended and defendant placed on probation for 3 years.ddnj00520September 1942Robert McClintock, Ann Arbor, Mich.Sto-Bo-Ki and McClintock's Formula for DiabetesMarch 21 and May 24, 1940MichiganMichiganMichiganEastern District of Michigan520F. D. C. No. 2884. Sample Nos. 4197-E, 16805-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00520ddnj|520. Misbranding of Sto-Bo-Ki and McClintock's Formula for Diabetes. U. S. v.|Robert McClintock. Plea of gruilty. Fine, $120; sentence of 1 year and 1|day's imprisonment. Sentence suspended and defendant placed on proba-|. tion for 3 years. (F. D. C. No. 2884. Sample Nos. 4197-E, 16805-E.)|On December 31, 1940, the United States attorney for the Eastern District|of Michigan filed an information against Robert McClintock, Ann Arbor, Mich.,|alleging shipment from the State of Michigan on or about March 21 and|May 24, 1940, into the States of Illinois and Kansas of a quantity of Sto-Bo-Ki|and McClintocfe's Formula for Diabetes that were misbranded.|Analyses of samples of the articles showed that Sto-Bo-Ki consisted es-|sentially of sulfuric acid, alcohol (77.5 percent by volume), and water flavored|with aromatics; and that McClintock's Formula for Diabetes consisted es-|sentially of sulfuric acid,,alcohol (75.05 percent by volume), and water flavored|with cinnamon oil.|Sto-Bo-Ki was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements \"\"The Diges-|tive Remedy * * * Use it only until ailment ceases\"\" were false and misleading|since it was not efficacious as a digestive remedy and its use would not cause|cessation of digestive ailments.|McClintock's Formula for Diabetes was alleged to be misbranded in that|the statement \"\"Formula for Diabetes,\"\" borne on the bottle label, was false|and misleading since it was not efficacious as a treatment for diabetes.|Both products were alleged to be misbranded further (1) in that the state-|ment (bottle label) \"\"Reg. With U. S. Food and Drag Administration\"\" was|false and misleading since they were not registered with the United States|Food and Drug Administration; and (2) in that they were fabricated from|two or more ingredients and their labels did not bear the common or usual|name of the active ingredient, sulfuric acid, nor the quantity, kind, and propor-|tion of alcohol that they contained.|On May 16, 1941, a plea of guilty was entered by the defendant and the|court imposed a fine of $120 and a jail sentence of 1 year and 1 day. The jail|sentence was suspended and the defendant was placed on probation for 3 years.|521. Adulteration and misbranding of Dr. Senftner's Glucocinine. U. S. v. 27 Boxes and 12 Boxes of Dr. Senftner's Glucocinine. Default decree of condemnation ordering product delivered to Food and Drug Administration for technical use.ddnj00521September 1942Glucocinine Co. of AmericaDr. Senftner's GlucocinineJanuary 20 and 30, 1941Detroit, Mich.Richmond Hill, N. Y.Detroit, Mich.Eastern District of Michigan521F. D. C. No. 4009. Sample Nos. 31575-E, 31576-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00521ddnj|521. Adulteration and misbranding of Dr. Senftner's Glucocinine. U. S. v. 27|Boxes and 12 Boxes of Dr. Senftner's Glucocinine. Default decree of|condemnation ordering product delivered to Food and Drug: Administra-|tion for technical use. (F. D. C. No. 4009. Sample Nos. 31575-E, 31576-E.)|On March 21, 1941, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Michigan filed a libel against the above-named product at Detroit. Mich., alleging|that it had been shipped by the Glucocinine Co. of America from Richmond|Hill, N. Y., on or about January 20 and 30, 1941; and charging that it was|adulterated and misbranded.|Annalysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of|powdered plant tissues including potato strach.|It was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from, or its|purity or quality fell below, that which it purported or was represented to|possess, namely: (Carton label) \"\"Ingredients-Plant Insulin substances,\"\" (cir-|cular entitled \"\"Glucocinine\"\") \"\"(Vegetable Insulin)\"\" and \"\"(Plant Insulin),\"\" and|(circular entitled \"\"Glucocinine in Diabetes Mellitus\"\") \"\"Glucocinines are ex-|tracted by a special process. The resulting preparation is * * * free from|carbohydrates.\"\"|* Except Nos. 534 and 536. See also Nos. 429, 430, 433-437, 439, 440, 442-444, 446,|450-453, 485.|It was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that the statements (carton label)|\"\"Ingredients-Plant Insulin substances,\"\" and (circular entitled \"\"Glucocinine\"\")|\"\"(Vegetable Insulin)\"\" and \"\"(Plant Insulin),\"\" were false and misleading.|,(2) In that representations in the labeling that it was a \"\"plant insulin\"\" which|would be efficacious when administered orally in the treatment of diabetes|mellitus, that it was \"\"An answer to the intelligent diabetic's prayer,\"\" that it|was \"\"positively unsurpassed,\"\" and that it would help to stimulate the pancreas|gland to produce insulin of its own, were false and misleading since it would|not be efficacious for the purposes recommended. (3) In that its label failed|to bear the common or usual name of each of the active ingredients.|On May 13,1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered delivered to the Food and Drug Adminis-|tration for technical purposes.|522. Misbranding of Chase Formula. U. S. v. 4 Gross Packages of Chase Formula. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00522September 1942Chase LaboratoryChase FormulaOctober 15, 1940Miami, Fla.Detroit, Mich.Miami, Fla.Southern District of Florida522F. D. C. No. 3606. Sample No. 37219-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00522ddnj|522. Misbranding' of Chase Formula. U. S. -v. 4 Gross Packages of Chase Formula.|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 3606.|Sample No. 37219-E.)|The label of this product not only contained false and misleading therapeutic|claims, but it failed to list the active ingredients in the manner prescribed|by law and it failed to bear an accurate statement of the amount of alcohol|present.|On January 2, 1941, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|Florida filed a libel against 4 gross packages of Chase Formula at Miami,|Fla., alleging that the article had been shipped by the Chase Laboratory|from Detroit, Mich., on or about October 15, 1940; and charging that it was|misbranded.|Examination of a sample showed that the article consisted essentially of a|fatty oil (approximately 16 percent), oleic acid (approximately 5 percent),|mineral oil (approximately 2 percent), alcohol (by volume 17.8 percent), a|small proportion of triethanolamine, and water.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that statements in the labeling|that it was efficacious for the treatment of athlete's foot, impetigo, Florida|sores, poison ivy, body lice, many types of eczema and skin afflictions caused|by external infection; that it would relieve itching and burning of hives and|shingles; that it was efficacious in the treatment of muck itch, mango poison-|ing, and other &kin afflictions including many types of eczema, were false and|misleading since it would not be efficacious for such purposes. It was alleged|to be misbranded further (1) in that the statement in the circular \"\"Chase|Formula is greaseless\"\" was false and misleading; (2) in that the list of its|active ingredients was not placed prominently on the label with such con-|spicuousness (as compared with other words and statements in the labeling)|as to render it likely to be read by the ordinary individual under customary|conditions of purchase and use; and (3) in that the package failed to bear a|statement of the quantity or proportion of alcohol contained in the prepara-'|tion since the statement on the carton and jar label, \"\"denatured alcohol|(25?),\"\" was incorrect.|On January 27, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|523. Misbranding of Savol and Savol Cream. U. S. v. 39 Packages of Savol and 20 Packages of Savol Cream. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00523September 1942Savol Chemical Co.Savol and Savol CreamSeptember 3 and October 1 and 30, 1940Buffalo, N. Y.Mercer, Pa.Buffalo, N. Y.Western District of New York523F. D. C. Nos. 3648, 3649. Sample Nos. 19670-E, 19671-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00523ddnj|523. Misbranding of Savol and Savol Cream. IT. S. v. 39 Packages of Savol and|20 Packages of Savol Cream. Default decrees of condemnation and|destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 3648, 3649. Sample Nos. 19670-E, 19671-E.)|The labels of both of these products, in addition to bearing false and mis-|leading therapeutic claims, also failed to bear the required ingredient and quan-|tity of contents statements. Furthermore, the bottles holding the Savol solu-|tion were packed in unnecessarily large cartons.|On January 9, 1941, the United States attorney for the \"\"Western District of|New York filed libels against the above-named products at Buffalo, N. Y., alleg-|ing that they had been shipped by the Savol Chemical Co. from Mercer, Pa., on|or about September 3 and October 1 and 30, 1940; and charging that they were|misbranded.|Analyses of samples showed that Savol consisted essentially of cresols, alkali|soaps, a small amount of phenoL, and water; and that Savol Cream consisted|essentially of zinc oxide, barium sulfate, and petrolatum, together with perfume|materials. Bacteriological examination showed that Savol Cream was not anti-|septic.|Savol was alleged to be misbranded in that representations in the labeling|that it would be efficacious in the treatment of nasal catarrh,, hay fever, bites|of animals, and irritation of the throat; and that it would be efficacious as a|preventive of infected sores, abscesses, boils, felons, and all complications due|to infections, were false and misleading since it would not be efficacious for|such purposes. Savol Cream was alleged to be misbranded in that representa-|tions in the labeling that it would be efficacious as an antiseptic for cuts, bites|of animals, all forms of piles, skin affections in general, sore throat, croup, en-|larged glands, boils, felons, ulcers, eczema; or as an after treatment of boils,|felons, carbuncles, and erysipelas, were false and misleading since it would|not be efficacious for such purposes.|Both products were alleged to be misbranded further (1) in that their labels|failed to bear the common or usual names of the active ingredients, and (2) in|that the label failed to bear an accurate statement of the quantity of contents.|Savol was alleged to be misbranded further in that its container was so made,|formed, or filled as to be misleading.|On February 10, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgments of condemna-|tion were entered and the products were ordered destroyed.|524. Misbranding of Waft-Surgical. U. S. v. 19 Bottles of Waft-Surgical. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00524September 1942Waft Products, Inc.Waft-SurgicalAugust 31, 1940University City, Mo.Springfield, Ill.University City, Mo.Eastern District of Missouri524F. D. C. No. 3299. Sample No. 15982-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00524ddnj|524. Misbranding: of Waft-Surgical. U. S. v. 19 Bottles of Waft-Surgical. De-|fault decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 3299. Sample|No. 15982-E.)|On October 28, 1940, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Missouri filed a libel against 6 8-ounce bottles, 6 pint bottles, 6 quart bottles,|and 1 gallon bottle of Waft-Surgical at University City, Mo., alleging that the|article had been shipped by Waft Products, Inc., from Springfield, HI., on or|about August 31, 1940; and charging that it was misbranded. It was labeled|in part: \"\"Waft-Surgical Antiseptic-Disinfectant-Deodorant-Fungicide-Germicide-|Parasiticide.\"\"|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of|water, formaldehyde, small amounts of turpineol, and a yellow-green coloring|material.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that representations in the labeling that it|would be efficacious as an antiseptic, disinfectant, fungicide, germicide or para-|siticide in the dilutions suggested; that it would be of value as a wet dressing|or irrigation in wounds in these dilutions; that it would penetrate the environ-|ment ; that it would inhibit disease-producing micro-organisms; that it would be|efficacious for the sterilization of surgical instruments and that it would be a|reliable fungicide or germicide for animals, were false and misleading since it|would not be efficacious for such purposes.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the label did not contain the|common or usual names of the active ingredients.|On December 7, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|525. Misbranding of Common-Sense Liniment. U. S. v. 22 Large and 45 Small Bottles of Common-Sense Liniment. Default decree of destruction.ddnj00525September 1942T. H. Jackson & Co.Common-Sense LinimentAugust 8, 1940Kansas City, Mo.Quincy, Ill.Kansas City, Mo.Western District of Missouri525F. D. C. No. 3144. Sample No. 16818-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00525ddnj|625. Misbranding of Common-Sense Liniment. 17. S. -v. 22 Large and 45 Small|Bottles of Common-Sense Liniment. Default decree of destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 3144. Sample No. 16818-E.)|On or about October 7, 1940, the United States attorney for the Western Dis-|trict of Missouri filed a libel against 67 bottles of Common-Sense Liniment at|Kansas City, Mo., alleging that the article had been shipped by T. H. Jackson &|Co. from Quincy, 111., on or about August 8, 1940; and charging that it was mis-|branded.|Analysis of a sample showed that the article consisted essentially of linseed|oil, pine oil, guaiacol, paraffin oil, and a small amount of ammonia.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that certain statements appear-|ing in the labeling were false and misleading since it would not be efficacious|for the purposes named in said statements. These statements represented that|it was a penetrating, common-sense treatment for ailments of man requiring|an external application; that it possessed healing and relieving properties; and|that it would be efficacious in the treatment of muscular rheumatism, sciatic|rheumatism, nervous headache, lame back, pains in the side and breast caused|by colds or injuries, earache, partial deafness caused by cold, roaring in the|ear, hardening of the wax and inflammation of the muscles and nerves of the|ear, dryness of the ear drum, sore throat and neck, stiff joints and contracted|cords, chilblains, frost-bitten and tender feet, corns, soft corns and bunions,|sprains, bruises, all cuts, sores, and bites of poisonous insects. The said state-|ments represented that the article would be efficacious in the treatment of|horses for all ailments requiring an external application; that when applied|to the belly it would assist in drawing the blood to the surface and relieve the|tendency to congestion of the bowels; that it had penetrating, healing and re-|lieving properties; that it would allay inflammation, relax the cords and|muscles, and aid the circulation of the blood to the diseased parts; that it|would be efficacious in the treatment of coffin-joint lameness, sweeny, stone|and bruised shoulder, sciatica or hip sweeny, sitfast, sore back, enlargement|of the hock, contracted feet or hoof-bound, rheumatism, corns, thrush or rot-|ten frog, scratches or grease-heel, founder, sprung knees, cocked ankles, weak|eyes, and sores.|The article was alleged to be misbranded further (1) in that its label did|not bear a list of the active ingredients; and (2) in that the label did not bear|a statement of the quantity of the contents.|On November 14, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment was entered|ordering that the product be destroyed.|526. Misbranding of Apex Special Hair Pomade and Apex Pomento. U. S. v. 158 Cans of Apex Special Hair Pomade and 26 Cans of Apex Pomento. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00526September 1942Apex News & Hair Co. Inc.Apex Special Hair Pomade and Apex PomentoJuly 1, 1940Philadelphia, Pa.Atlantic City, N. J.Philadelphia, Pa.Eastern District of Pennsylvania526F. D. C. Nos. 2345, 2346. Sample Nos. 24011-E, 24012-E, 24013-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00526ddnj|526. Misbranding ef Apex Special Hair Pomade and Apex Pomcnto. U. S. v. 158|Cans of Apex Special Hair Pomade and 2G Cans of Apex Pomento. Default|decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 2345, 2346. Sample?'| Nos. 24011-E, 24012-E, 24013-E.)|These products were both short of the declared weight, and their containers|were filled to approximately three-fourths of their capacity. The labeling of the|Pomade bore false and misleading representations regarding its efficacy, and|also failed to bear a statement of the common or usual names of the active ingre-|dients.|On July 10, 1940, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Pennsylvania filed a libel against the above-named products at Philadelphia,|Pa., alleging that the articles had been shipped on or about July 1, 1940, from|Atlantic City, N. J., by the Apex News & Hair Co. Inc.; and charging that they|were misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the Pomade showed that it consisted of a small|proportion of coal tar incorporated in petrolatum.|Both products were alleged to be misbranded in that the following state-|ments were false and misleading since they were incorrect: (Pomade) \"\"Net|Contents 3 Ozs. [or \"\"Net Contents ? Oz.\"\"]\"\"; and (Pomento) \"\"Net Contents|I-Y2 Ozs.\"\" Both products were alleged to be misbranded further in that their|containers were so made, formed, or filled, as to be misleading. The Pomade|was alleged to be misbranded further in that the following statements on the|can were false and misleading since they represented that the article was|efficacious for the purposes recommended, whereas it was not efficacious for|such purposes: (Cans, both sizes) \"\"for stubborn cases of dandruff, thin and|falling hair,\"\" (cans, 3-ounce size) \"\"It aids * *\"\" * in protecting the scalp|from minor scalp ailments. Excellent for thin temples.\"\" The Pomade was|alleged to be misbranded further in that its label failed to bear a statement|of the common or usual names of the active ingredients.|On July 29, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the products were ordered destroyed.|564. Adulteration of aromatic spirit of ammonia, sweet spirit of niter, and camphorated oil; and misbranding of Dewee's Carminative. U. S. v. Owens Minor Drug Co., Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $50.ddnj00564November 1942Owens & Minor Drug Co., Inc., of Richmond, Va.aromatic spirit of ammonia, sweet spirit of niter, and camphorated oil; Dewee's CarminativeFebruary 14 to July 31, 1940VirginiaVirginiaNorth CarolinaEastern District of Virginia564F. D. C. No. 2965. Sample Nos. 28853-E, 28855-E, 28856-E, 28858-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00564ddnj|564. Adulteration of aromatic spirit of ammonia, sweet spirit of niter, and|camphorated oil; and misbranding of Dewee's Carminative. U. S. v. Owens|& Minor Drug Co., Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $50. (P. D. C. No. 2965.|Sample Nos. 28853-E, 28855-E, 28856-E, 28858-E.)|This case involved 3 drugs which differed from the requirements of the United|States Pharmacopoeia; also a shipment of Dewee's Carminative which contained|opium and which was not labeled with the warning that it might be habit-forming.|On September 19, 1941, the United States attorney for the Eastern District|of Virginia filed an information against Owens & Minor Drug Co., Inc., of|Richmond, Va., alleging shipment within the period from on or about February|14 to on or about July 31, 1940, from the State of Virginia into the State of|North Carolina of quantities of aromatic spirit of ammonia, sweet spirit of niter,|and camphorated oil which were adulterated, and of a quantity of Dewee's|Carminative which was misbranded.|Adulteration of the aromatic spirit of ammonia, sweet spirit of niter, and|camphorated oil was alleged in that they purported to be or were represented as|drugs the names of which are recognized in the United States Pharmacopoeia,|an official compendium, but their strength differed from, or their quality or|purity fell below, the standards set forth in such compendium in the following|respects: The pharmacopoeia prescribes that aromatic spirit of ammonia shall|contain in each 100 cubic centimeters not less than 1.7 grams and not more than 2.1|grains of total ammonia (NH8), and ammonium carbonate corresponding to not|less than 3.5 grams as (NHOzCOs, whereas the said aromatic spirit of ammonia|contained total ammonia in some instances in excess of the maximum so prescribed,|namely, not less than 2,297 grams of total ammonia per 100 cubic centimeters, and|contained total ammonia in some instances less than the minimum prescribed,|namely, not more than 0.6 gram of total ammonia per 100 cubic centimeters, and it|contained less ammonium carbonate than prescribed, namely, ammonium carbonate|varying from 3.348 grams to 0.793 gram per 100 cubie centimeters; the United|States Pharmacopoeia prescribes that sweet spirit of niter shall contain not less|than 3.5 percent of CsHnONO, namely, ethyl nitrite, whereas the said sweet spirit r f|niter contained less ethyl nitrite than the minimum prescribed, namely, not more|than 3.0 percent; and the United States Pharmacopoeia prescribes that cam-|phorated oil shall contain not less than 19 percent of camphor, whereas the.said|camphorated oil contained less camphor than the minimum prescribed, namely,|not more than 17 89 percent; and the respects in which the strength, quality, or|* S. e also Nos. 550, 551.|purity of said drugs differed from the standards set forth in the said compendium|were not plainly stated on the labels.|Dewee's Carminative was alleged to be misbranded in that it was for use by man|and contained the narcotic or hypnotic substance opium and its label did not|bear the name and quantity or proportion of such substance and in juxtaposition|therewith the statement \"\"Warning-May be habit forming.\"\" It was alleged to|be misbranded further in that it was not designated solely by a name recognized|in an official compendium, and was fabricated from two or more ingredients|and its label did not bear the common|or usual name of each active ingredient,|including the quantity, kind, and proportion of alcohol.|On October 9,1941, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant and|the court imposed a fine of $50.|618. Misbranding of Real-Lax Chewing Laxative. U. S. v. 104 Dozen Packages of Real-Lax Chewing Laxative. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00618February, 1943Pennsylvania Drug Products CorporationReal-Lax Chewing LaxativeJuly 10 and August 7, 1941Los Angeles, Calif.Pittsburgh, Pa.Los Angeles, Calif.Southern District of California618F. D. C. No. 5996. Sample No. 72101-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00618ddnj|618. Misbranding of ReaMtax Chewing Laxative. IT. S.-v; 104 Dozen Packages|of Real-Lax Cbewing.. Laxative. Default: decree of condemnation and|destruction. (F. D. C. No. 5996. Sample No. 72101-E.)|This product was a peppermint-flavored gum containing phenolphthalein, and|its labeling failed to bear such adequate warnings as are necessary for the|protection of users.|On October 8, 1941, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|California filed a libel against 104 dozen packages of the above-named product|at Los Angeles, Calif., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate|commerce on or about July 10 and August 7, 1941, by the Pennsylvania Drug|Products Corporation from Pittsburgh, Pa.; and charging that it was misbranded.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that its labeling failed to bear|adequate warnings against use in those pathological conditions where-its use|might be dangerous to health or against unsafe duration of administration in|such manner and form as are necessary for the protection of users, since the|labeling failed to bear a warning against use when abdominal pain, nausea,|vomiting, or other symptoms of appendicitis are present and against frequent|or continued use which might result in dependence upon laxatives.|On October 28, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|527. Misbranding of Overnight Hair-A-Gain. U. S. v. 80 Packages of Overnight Hair-A-Gain. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00527September 1942Georgia O. GeorgeOvernight Hair-A-GainOctober 19, 1940Portland, Oreg.Los Angeles, Calif.Portland, Oreg.District of Oregon527F. D. C. No. 3364. Sample No. 45950-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00527ddnj|527. Misbranding of Overnight Hair-A-Gain. V. S. v. 80 Packages of Overnight|Halr-A-Gain. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C.|No. 3364. Sample No. 45950-E.)|On November 14, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of Oregon|filed a libel agaist 30 packages of Overnight Hair-A-Gain at Portland, Oreg.,|alleging that the article had been shipped on or about October 19, 1940, by|Georgia O. George from Los Angeles, Calif.; and charging that it was mis-|branded.|Examination of a sample showed that .the article was essentially a semi-|solid soap with tar.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements appearing|on the label created the false and misleading impression that its use would be|effective in promoting the growth of hair: \"\"Overnight Hair-A-Gain * * *|Blood Grows Hair (This product does not grow hair -The hair growing ele-|ment comes from the blood) Hair grows from blood.\"\" It was alleged to be|misbranded further in that the label did not bear the common or usual names|of the active ingredients.|On January 9, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|528. Misbranding of Pick-Me-Up Bath and Hangover Bath. U. S. v. 71 Bottles of Pick-Me-Up Bath and 60 Bottles of Hangover Bath. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00528September 1942Xandra, Ltd.Pick-Me-Up Bath and Hangover BathFebruary 7 to December 21, 1940Washington, D. C.New York, N. Y.Washington, D. C.District of Columbia528F. D. C. No. 3779. Sample Nos. 50077-E, 50078-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00528ddnj|528. Misbranding of Pick-Me-Up Batlt and Hangover Bath. IT. S. v. 71 Bottles of|Pick-Me-Up Bath and 60 Bottles of Hangover Bath. Default decree of|condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 3779. Sample Nos. 50077-E,|50078-B.)|The labeling of these products bore false and misleading representations regard-|ing their efficacy in the conditions indicated hereinafter, and also failed to bear the|common or usual names of the active ingredients and the required declaration of|alcohol.|On February 6, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Columbia|filed a libel against 65 3-fluid-ounce, 3 12-fluid-ounce, and 8 25-fluid-ounce bottles|of Pick-Me-Up Bath and 53 3-fluid-ounce, 4 12-fluid-ounce, and 3 25-fluid-ounce|bottles of Hangover Bath at Washington, D. C, alleging that the articles had been|shipped in interstate commerce within the period from on or about February 7|to on or about December 21, 1940, by Xandra, Ltd., from New York, N. Y.; and|charging that they were misbranded.|Analyses of samples of the articles showed that the Hangover Bath consisted|essentially of ammonia (15.7 percent by weight), alcohol (40 percent by volume),|water, and a green coloring matter; and that the Pick-Me-Up Bath consisted|essentially of ammonia (16.5 percent by weight), alcohol (36 percent by volume),|water and green coloring matter.|The articles were alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements|on the labels were false and misleading: \"\"Pick-Me-Up Bath\"\" and \"\"Hangover|Bath.\"\" They were alleged to be misbranded further in that the labels did not|bear the common or usual names of the active ingredients and a statement of the|quantity or proportion of alcohol contained therein.|They were also alleged to be misbranded in violation of the Federal Caustic|Poison Act, as reported in notice of judgment No. 110 published under that act.|On February 27, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the products were ordered destroyed.|VETERINARY REMEDIES|529. Misbranding of Avirem Poultry Remedy. U. S. v. Henry F. Miller, Roy B. Poppleton, and Dewey K. Cosner (Livestock Products Distributors). Pleas of guilty. Fines, $150.ddnj00529September 1942Henry F. Miller, Roy B. Poppleton, and Dewey K. Cosner, trading as Livestock Products Distributors at Kewanee, Ill.Avirem Poultry RemedyJanuary 6, 1940IllinoisIllinoisIowaSouthern District of Illinois529F. D. C. No. 2867. Sample No. 15575-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00529ddnj|529. Misbranding of Avirem Poultry Remedy. U. S. v. Henry F. Miller, Roy B.|Poppleton, and Dewey K. Cosner (Livestock Products Distributors). Pleas|of guilty. Fines, $150. (F. D. C. No. 2867. Sample No. 15575-B.)|The label of this product not only bore false and misleading therapeutic claims,|but it also failed to bear a statement of the kind and quantity or proportion of|alcohol that was contained in the article.|On April 16, 1941, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|Illinois filed an information against Henry F. Miller, Roy B. Poppleton,, and|Dewey K. Cosner, trading as Livestock Products Distributors at Kewanee, 111.,|alleging shipment by said defendants on or about January 6, 1940, from the|State of Illinois into the State of Iowa of a quantity of Avirem Poultry Remedy|that was misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of|dextrose, small proportions of magnesium sulfate, sodium hydroxide, sodium|chloride, extracts of plant drugs including emodin-bearing drugs such as cascara|sagrada, nux vomica, and alcohol (3.9 percent by volume), and water.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements \"\"Rich in Dex-|trose * * * The Food Value Poultry Remedy * * * Food value induced by|the dextrose content * * * will help your laying program. Increased produc-|tion has been noticed by users everywhere,\"\" were false and misleading since it|was not high in food value, would not increase egg production, and when used as|directed would supply only an insignificant amount of dextrose. It was alleged|to be misbranded further in that the name, \"\"Avirem The Food Value Poultry Rem-|edy,\"\" and statements in the labeling representing that it was a poultry remedy;|that it would be efficacious in the treatment of coccidiosis, cholera, typhoid and|other intestinal infections and disorders, of intestinal disturbances of baby chicks,|and of worms, respiratory diseases and blackhead; that it would be efficacious to|help prevent disease and keep poultry healthy; that it would build resistance and|minimize worm infestation; that it would be efficacious in cases of droopiness|and loss of color or appetite; and that its daily use would insure quick pick-up|and sustained resistance, were false and misleading since it would not be efficacious|for such purposes. It was alleged to be misbranded still further in that its label|failed to declare the kind and the quantity or proportion of alcohol contained|therein.|On April 22, 1941, the defendants entered pleas of guilty and the court imposed|a fine of $50 on each, totaling $150.|530. Misbranding of Pet-Eez. U. S. v. S. De Witt Lount (Pet-Eez Co.). Plea of guilty. Fine, $100.ddnj00530September 1942S. De Witt Lount, trading as the Pet-Eez Co. at Oakland, Calif.Pet-EezOctober 2, 1939, and February 1, 1940CaliforniaCaliforniaNevada and WashingtonNorthern District of California530F. D. C. No. 2876. Sample Nos. 12822-E, 18019-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00530ddnj|530. Misbranding: of Pet-Eez. V. S. jr. S. De Witt Lount (Pet-Eez Co.). Plea of|. guilty. Fine, $100. (F. D. C. No. 2876. Sample Nos. 12822-E, 18019-E.)|The labels of both shipments of this veterinary product bore faise and mis-?(|leading therapeutic claims, and that of one shipment bore a false statement|regarding its alcohol content.|On December 28, 1940, the United States attorney for the Northern District?(|of California filed an information against S. De Witt Lount, trading as the Pet-|Eez Co. at Oakland, Calif., alleging shipment on or about October 2, 1939, and|February 1, 1940, from the State of California into the States of Nevada and|Washington of quantities of Pet-Eez that was misbranded.|Analyses of samples of the article showed that the portion which was shipped|into the State of Nevada consisted essentially of volatile oils including cubeb|oil, cinnamon oil, bergamot oil, isopropyl alcohol (12.8 percent by volume), and|water; and that the portion shipped into Washington consisted essentially of|volatile oils including cubeb oil, cassia oil, isopropyl alcohol (12.4 percent by|volume), and water.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that Its labeling bore representa-|tions that it was efficacious as a treatment, preventive and cure for distemper;|that it was efficacious in relieving the discomforts of colds, coughs, and distemper|and would eliminate the danger of coughs, colds, distemper and respiratory ail-|ments in dogs; that it was efficacious in the treatment of chorea, and would re-|store to health dogs which suffer from chorea and loss of the use of hind quarters j|that one or two drops of it in each nostril two or three times a week, when|dogs are permitted to run at large or when they come in contact with other dogs,|and its administration two or three times a week to puppies up to the age of|1 year, would be an efficacious preventive of disease in dogs and puppies; ana|that it was a germicide, which representations were false and misleading since|it would not be efficacious for the purposes recommended. A portion of the|article was alleged to be misbranded further (1) in that the statement \"\"Alcohol|20 per cent,\"\" borne on the bottle label, was false and misleading since it contained|no ethyl alcohol but did contain Isopropyl alcohol; and (2) in that it was fabri-|cated from two or more ingredients and contained isopropyl altohol, but its|label did not state the quantity, kind, and proportion of alcohol, i. e., isopropyl|alcohol, that it contained.|On January 14,1941, the defendant entered a plea of guilty and was fined $100.|531. Misbranding of Harvey's Embrocation or Curb Bottle. U. S. v. 591 Packages of Harvey's Embrocation or Curb Bottle. Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered released under bond to be relabeled.ddnj00531September 1942Kopf Manufacturing Co., Inc., New York, N. Y.Harvey's Embrocation or Curb BottleNovember 22, 1940New York, N. Y.Liverpool, EnglandNew York, N. Y.Southern District of New York531F. D. C. No. 3912. Sample No. 33018-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00531ddnj|531. Misbranding: of Harvey's Embrocation or Gnrb Bottle. TJ. S. v. 591 Packages|of Harvey's Embrocation or Gnrb Bottle. Consent decree of condemna-|tion. Product ordered released under bond to be relabeled. (F. D. C. No.|3912. Sample No. 33018-E.)|On March 6, 1941, the United States attorney for the Southern District of New|York filed a libel against 591 packages of the above-named veterinary product at|New York, N. Y., alleging that the article had been shipped from Liverpool,|England, by Harvey & Co. on or about November 22, 1940; and charging that it|was misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of an|unsaturated oil such as croton oil, ethyl alcohol (63.1 percent by volume), iso-|propyl alcohol (9.1 percent by volume), and a red coloring matter.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that statements in the labeling that it|would be efficacious in the treatment of splint, spavin, and bony enlargements|or callosities, or for deep-seated lameness including shoulder lameness, sidebone.|ring-bone, bog spavin, thoroughpin, navicular disease, defective horn, ophthal-|mia, glandular swellings, abscesses, sore throat and cough; that it would pene-|trate to the bone and therefore would be successful in the treatment of chronic|lameness; and that it would go straight to the root of the malady, dissipating the|disease without pain or injury; that Harvey's Aconite Powders would be effica-|cious in the treatment of chronic cough, broken wind, and other diseases of the|organs of respiration in horses and cattle; that Harvey's Worm and Condition|Powders would eradicate all worms in horses; and that Harvey's Hair-Restoring|Ointment for Horses would restore hair in horses, were false and misleading since|it would not be efficacious for such purposes. It was alleged to be misbranded|further (1) In that the label failed to bear a statement of the quantity and pro-?(|portion of ethyl alcohol and isopropyl alcohol; and (2) in that its container was|so macle, formed, or filled as to be misleading.|On April 24, 1941, Kopf Manufacturing Co., Inc., New York, N. Y., claimant,?;|having admitted the allegations of the libel, judgment of condemnation was??*--|entered and the product was ordered released under bond conditioned that the|boxes and the enclosed circulars be destroyed and that the bottles be relabeled.|532. Misbranding of McMillan's Nomoppin and McMillan's Demytin. U. S. v. 59 Bottles of McMillan's Nomoppin and 20 Bottles of McMillan's Demytin. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00532September 1942McMillan Drug Co.McMillan's Nomoppin and McMillan's DemytinJuly 17, 1940Augusta, Ga.Columbia, S. C.Augusta, Ga.Southern District of Georgia532F. D. C. No. 3448. Sample Nos. 20924-E, 20925-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00532ddnj|532. Misbranding of McMillan's Jfomoppin and McMillan's Demytin. U. S. v. 59|Bottles of McMillan's Nomoppin and 20 Bottles of McMillan's Demytin.|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 3448.|Sample Nos. 20924-E, 20925-E.)|On or about December 11, 1940, the United States attorney for the Southern|District of Georgia filed a libel against the above-named products, at Augusta, Ga.,|alleging that the articles had been shipped by McMillan Drug Co. from Columbia,|S. C, on or about July 17,1940; and charging that they were misbranded.|Analyses of samples showed that Nomoppin consisted essentially of potassium|arsenite and water; and that Demytin consisted essentially of calcium thiosulfate,|calcium polysulfide, and water.|McMillan's Nomoppin was alleged to be misbranded in that its labeling bore|representations that it was efficacious as a treatment, preventive, and cure for|sorehead of poultry; that it was efficacious as a tonic; that it would protect and|free hens and chicks from mites; and that it would hasten moulting, brighten|plumage, increase egg production, and promote more and stronger chicks, which|representations were false and misleading since it would not be efficacious for|such purposes. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that its labeling|failed to bear an accurate statement of the quantity of contents.|McMillan's Demytin was alleged to be misbranded in that its labeling bore|representations that it was efficacious as a preventive of diarrhea of poultry,|and that it would free hens from \"\"mites, etc.,\"\" promote prompter moulting,|brighten plumage, increase egg production, and promote growth, strength and|vigor of chicks, which representations were false and misleading since it would|not be efficacious for such purposes.|Both articles were alleged to be misbranded further in that their labels failed|to bear the common or usual names of their active ingredients, and in the case|of Nomoppin the label failed to bear a statement of the quantity or proportion|of arsenic that was present.|On January 1, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the products were ordered destroyed.|3459. Misbranding of Duframe Anal Tubette. U. S. v. 5,000 Devices, etc.ddnj03459October 1951Duframe Tubette Co.Duframe Anal TubetteApril 14; October 21, 1948Chicago, Ill.Detroit, Mich.Chicago, Ill.Northern District of Illinois.3459F. D. C. No. 30250. Sample No. 58803-K.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj03459ddnj|3459. Misbranding of Duframe Anal Tubette. U. S. v. 5,000 Devices, etc (F. D. C.|No. 30250. Sample No. 58803-K.)|LIBEL FILED: November 21, 1950, Northern District of Illinois.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT: On various dates between April 14 and October 21, 1948,|from Detroit, Mich.|PBODTJCT: 5,000 devices known as Duframe Anal Tubette at Chicago, 111., in|possession of the Duframe Tubette Co. Some of the devices were unlabeled,|and others had been packed and labeled in part by the consignee. They|were accompanied by a number of copies of leaflets entitled \"\"About Gas * * *|About Constipation\"\" and \"\"Instructions,\"\" a testimonial letter signed \"\"Mrs. Anne|Schwab,\"\" and form letters starting \"\"Thank you for your inquiry\"\" and \"\"Thank|you for your letter and order.\"\"|The device consisted of a hollow rubber tube about 80 millimeters long|and 14 millimeters outside diameter. The inside diameter was about 8 milli-|meters at one end, constricted to about 3 millimeters at the other end. The|tube was bent at a right angle near the constricted end.|RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION : A copy of each leaflet and testimonial was packed|with each device, and the form letters were sent to interested persons.|LABEL, IN PAET : (Carton) \"\"Duframe Anal Tubette.\"\"|NATURE OF CHARGE: Misbranding, Section 502 (a), certain statements in the|accompanying leaflets and letters were false and misleading. The statements|represented and suggested that the device was effective in the relief of|dizziness, headache, pain in the abdomen and other parts of the body, bloat,|swelling due to gas, and chronic constipation and gas pains due to intestinal|disorders or organic complaints; that the device was effective in regulating|the bowel, normalizing the bowel, and preventing constipation; and that the|device would help release toxic poisons. The device would not be effective for|the purposes represented. The device was misbranded while held for sale after|shipment in interstate commerce.|DISPOSITION: July 6, 1951. The Duframe Tubette Co., claimant, having con-|sented to the entry of a decree, judgment of condemnation was entered and|the court ordered that the devices be released under bond for the purpose of (|bringing them into compliance with the law, by destroying the existing labeling|and advertising material and relabeling the devices, under the supervision of|the Federal Security Agency.|DRtfGS FOR VETERINARY USE|533. Misbranding of veterinary remedies. U. S. v. 69 Packages of National Hog Remedy, 45 Packages of National Horse, Cow, and Mule Remedy, and 9 Packages of National Dog Worm Powder. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00533September 1942National Hog Remedy Co.veterinary remediesMay 16, 1940Galax, Va.Raleigh, N. C.Galax, Va.Western District of Virginia533F. D. C. Nos. 2321 to 2323, incl. Sample Nos. 343-E to 345-E, incl.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00533ddnj|533. Misbranding of veterinary remedies. U. S. v. 69 Packages of National Hog|Remedy, 45 Packages of National Horse, Cow, and Mule Remedy, and 9|Packages of National Dog Worm Powder. Default decree of condemna-|tion and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 2321 to 2323, incl. Sample Nos. 343-E|to 345-E, incl.)|On July 8, 1940, the United States attorney for the Western District of Vir-|ginia filed a libel against the above-named products at Galax, Va., alleging that|they had been shipped on or about May 16, 1940, by the National Hog Remedy|Co. from Raleigh, N. C.; and charging that they were misbranded.|Analyses of samples of the articles showed that the Hog Remedy consisted|essentially of sodium thiosulfate, sodium chloride, sodium sulfate, sodium bicar-|bonate, iron sulfate, antimony sulfide, fenugreek, flaxseed meal, charcoal, and|lime; the Horse, Cow, and Mule Remedy consisted essentially of sodium chloride,|sodium thiosulfate, iron sulfate, antimony sulfide, fenugreek, flaxseed meal, a|cereal plant, charcoal, and lime; and the Dog Worm Powder consisted essentially|of sodium chloride, sodium thiosulfate, sodium bicarbonate, sodium sulfate, iron|sulfate, antimony sulfide, fenugreek, flaxseed meal, and charcoal.|The Hog Remedy was alleged to be misbranded in that representations in the|labeling that it was a powerful tonic, flesh builder, and anthelmintic, and that|it would be efficacious in the prevention and treatment of disease conditions of|swine, were false and misleading, since it would not be efficacious for such|purposes.|The Horse, Cow, and Mule Remedy was alleged to be misbranded in that rep-|resentations in the labeling that it was a medicinal tonic, conditioner, flesh|builder, blood alterative or blood purifier, and worm remover, and that it would|increase milk production and promote health, were false and misleading, since|it would not be efficacious for such purposes.|The Dog Worm Remedy was alleged to be misbranded in that representations|in the labeling that it would be efficacious in the removal of all species of worms|infesting dogs, were false and misleading, since it would not be efficacious for|such purposes.|and their labels failed to bear the common or usual name of each active ingredient.?,-|On January 14, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation?(|was entered and the products were ordered destroyed.|534. Misbranding of Red-Hed Coxol. U. S. v. 1 Drum and 1 Drum of Red-Hed Coxol. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00534September 1942Production LaboratoriesRed-Hed CoxolAugust 7 and November 5, 1940Modesto, Calif.Seattle, Wash.Modesto, Calif.Northern District of California534F. D. C. Nos. v 2828, 3836. Sample Nos. 21627-E, 26956-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00534ddnj|534. Misbranding: of Red-Hed Coxol. U. S. v. 1 Dram and 1 Drum of Red-Hed (|Coxol. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction. (E\\ D. C. Nos. v|2828,3836. Sample Nos. 21627-E, 26956-E.)|On September 26, 1940, and February 25, 1941, the United States attorney|for the Northern District of California filed libels against 2 50-gallon drums of|Red-Hed Coxol at Modesto, Calif., alleging that the article had been shipped|on or about August 7 and November 5, 1940, by Production Laboratories from|Seattle, Wash.; and charging that it wag misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of|mineral oil (61 percent), a saponifiable oil consisting in part of fish oils, turpen-|tine (3 percent), a small amount of iodine, and .a red coal-tar dye.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the labeling directly and|indirectly represented that it was effective as a preventive of and treatment for|coccidiosis and blackhead in chickens and turkeys, which representations were|false and misleading since it was not effective for such purposes.|On November 16, 1940, and March 18, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judg-|ments of condemnation were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|535. Misbranding of Tonik-Kote 4-Use Skin Conditioner and Tonik-Kote Ointment. U. S. v. 115 Cartons of Tonik-Kote 4-Use Skin Conditioner and 69 Cartons of Tonik-Kote Ointment. Consent decree of condemnation. Products ordered released under bond to be relabeled.ddnj00535September 1942Gross LaboratoriesTonik-Kote 4-Use Skin Conditioner and Tonik-Kote Oint mentFebruary 26, 1941Seattle, Wash.Portland, Oreg.Seattle, Wash.Western District of Washington535F. D. C. No. 4052. Sample Nos. 60207-E, 60208-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00535ddnj|535. Misbranding of Tonik-Kote 4-Use Skin Conditioner and Tontk-Kote Oint|ment. V. S. v. 115 Cartons of Tonik-Kote 4-TJse Skin Conditioner and 69|Cartons of Tonik-Kote Ointment. Consent decree of condemnation.|Products ordered released under bond to be relabeled. (P. D. C. No. 4052.|Sample Nos. 60207-E, 60208-E.)|On March 28,1941, the United States attorney for the Western District of Wash-|ington filed a libel against the above-named products at Seattle, Wash., alleging|that they had been shipped by Gross Laboratories from Portland, Oreg., on or|about February 26, 1941; and charging that they were misbranded.|Analyses of samples of the,articles showed that the Skin Conditioner consisted|of water, alcohol (2.8 percent by volume), and oil, together with small amounts|of pine oil, borates, and protein; and that the Ointment consisted of water, oil,|soap, protein, and borates, and contained no peroxide.|The Skin Conditioner was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that representa-|tions in its labeling that it was efficacious in the treatment of all types of skin|irritations, eczema, ear canker, sore pads, mange, ringworm, and lice on pets|and animals, and that it was efficacious as a skin conditioner, were false and|misleading since it would not be efficacious for such purposes. (2) In that the|label failed to bear a statement of the quantity or proportion of alcohol that it|contained, and the common or usual names of its active ingredients.|The Ointment was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that representations in its|labeling that it was efficacious in the treatment of mange, eczema, ringworm,|and other skin irritations on dogs and cats, and that it was made from peroxide,|were false and misleading; since it would not be efficacious for such purposes,|and it was not made from peroxide. (2) In that its label failed to bear the|common or usual names of its active ingredients.|On April 24, 1941, Gross Laboratories, claimant, having consented to the entry|of a decree, judgment of condemnation was entered and the products were ordered|released under bond conditioned that they be relabeled to comply with the law|under the supervision of the Food and Drug Administration.|536. Misbranding of Verm A Food. U. S. v. 56 1/2 Dozen Packages of Sellers Verm A Food No. 1 and 39 1/2 Dozen Packages of Sellers Verm A Food No. 2. Default tfecree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00536September 1942Hugh Sellers & Co.Verm A FoodSeptember 24, 1940New York, N. Y.Washington, D. C.New York, N. Y.Southern District of New York536F. D. C. No. 3243 Sample No. 34540-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00536ddnj|536. Misbranding of Verm A Food. U. S. v. 56% Dozen Packages of Sellers Verm|A Food Tio. 1 and 39% Dozen Packages of Sellers Verm- A Food No. 2.|Default tfecree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 3243|Sample No. 34540-E.)|On October 19, 1940, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|New York filed a libel against the above-named products at New York, N. Y.,|alleging that the articles had been shipped by Hugh Sellers & Co. from Wash-|ington, D. C, on or about September 24, 1940; and charging that they were|misbranded.|Analyses of samples of the articles showed that they consisted essentially of?(|meat, cereals, and senna.|They were alleged to be misbranded in that the labeling bore representations|that they were efficacious treatments for large roundworms and constipation of?(|dogs, cats, and foxes, which representations were false and misleading since the|articles would not be efficacious for such purposes.|On November 25,1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the products were ordered destroyed.|DRUGS PACKED IN DECEPTIVE CONTAINERS*|537. Misbranding of nasal jelly. U. S. v. 1,333 Packages of Nasal Jelly. Consent decree of condemnation. Product released under bond to be repacked.ddnj00537September 1942Norwich Pharmacal Co.nasal jellyDecember 20, 1940, and January 3, 1941Portland, Oreg.Norwich, N. Y.Portland, Oreg.District of Oregon537F. D. C. No. 3959. Sample No. 60024-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00537ddnj|537. Misbranding of nasal jelly. II. S. v. 1,333 Packages of Nasal Jelly. Consent|decree of condemnation. Product released under bond to be repacked.|(F. D. C. No. 3959. Sample No. 60024-E.)|The cartons in which this product was packed were considerably longer and|larger than was necessary to hold the tubes.|On March 14, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Oregon filed|a libel against 1,332 packages of nasal jelly at Portland, Oreg., alleging that the|article had been shipped on or about December 20, 1940, and January 3, 1941,|by the Norwich Pharmacal Co., from Norwich, N. T.; and charging that it was|misbranded in that its containers were so made, formed, and filled as to be mis-|leading. The article was labeled in part: \"\"Nasal Jelly ?* * * Distributed|by Fred Meyer * * * Portland, Oregon.\"\"|On May 9, 1941, the Norwich Pharmacal Co., claimant, having admitted the|allegation's of the libel, Judgment of condemnation was entered and it was ordered|that the product be released under bond conditioned that it be repacked under|the supervision of the Food and Drug Administration.|NONSTERILE ABSORBENT COTTON|538 Adulteration and alleged misbranding of absorbent cotton. U. S. v. 48 Dozen Packages of Absorbent Cotton. Decree of condemnation. Product ordered released under bond for reconditioning.ddnj00538September 1942Acme Cotton Products Co.absorbent cottonDecember 21, 1940Wichita, Kans.Dayville, Conn.Wichita, Kans.District of Kansas538F. D. C. No. 3823. Sample No. 43856-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00538ddnj|538* Adulteration and alleged misbranding of absorbent cotton. U. S. v. 48|Dozen Packages of Absorbent Cotton. Decree of condemnation. Product|ordered released under bond for reconditioning. (F. D. C. No. 3823. Sample|No. 43856-E.)|This product had been shipped in interstate commerce and was in interstate|commerce at the time of examination, at which time it was found to contain|viable micro-organisms.|On February 17, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Kansas|filed a libel against 48 dozen packages, each containing 3 ounces, of absorbent|cotton at Wichita, Kans., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate|commerce on or about December 21, 1940, by the Acme Cotton Products Co. from|Dayville, Conn.; and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded. It was|labeled in part: \"\"Bonita Absorbent Cotton.\"\"|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to be and was|represented as a drug the name of which is recognized in an official compendium|but its quality and purity fell below the standard set forth in that compendium|since it was not sterile; whereas the United States Pharmacopoeia requires that|the article be sterile.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that statements appearing on the carton.,|\"\"Sterilized After Packaging\"\" and \"\"For Surgical and Sanitary Uses,\"\" were false|and misleading as applied to an article which was not sterile but was contaminated|with viable aerobic and anaerobic or facultative anaerobic micro-organisms.|On April 26, 1941, the Acme Cotton Products Co., Inc., New York, N. Y., having|filed a claim, judgment was entered finding the product adulterated and ordering|its condemnation, and it was ordered further that the product be released under|bond conditioned that it be brought into compliance with the law under the super-|vision of the Food and Drug Administration.|539. Adulteration and misbranding of absorbent cotton. U. S. v. 420 2-Ounce and 267 1-Ounce Packages of Absorbent Cotton. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00539September 1942New Aseptic Laboratoriesabsorbent cottonFebruary 27, 1941New Orleans, La.Columbia, S. C.New Orleans, La.Eastern District of Louisiana539F. D. C. No. 4374. Sample No. 35863-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00539ddnj|539. Adulteration and misbranding of absorbent cotton. U. S. v. 420 2-0unce|and 267 1-Ounce Packages of Absorbent Cotton. Default decree of con-|demnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 4374. Sample No. 35863-E.)|This article had been shipped in interstate commerce and was in interstate|commerce at the time of examination at which time it was found to be contami-|nated with viable micro-organisms.|On April 17,1941, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Louisi-|ana filed a libel against 687 packages of absorbent cotton at New Orleans, La.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|8 See also Nos. 451, 477, 492, 504, 508, 523, 526. and 531 for deceptive packaging ; and Nos.|429, 433, 434, 436, 437, 439, 443, 445, 449, 451, 452, 522, 523, 525, and 526 for failure to|bear required quantity of contents statement.|February 27, 1941, by New Aseptic Laboratories from Columbia, S. 0.; and|charging that It was adulterated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that It purported to be and was?(|represented as a drug the name of which is recognized in the United States|Pharmacopoeia and its purity and quality fell below the standard set forth in|that compendium since it was not sterile; whereas the pharmacopoeia defines?(\"\"|absorbent cotton as sterilized.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements appearing|on the label \"\"Sterilized after Packaging\"\" and \"\"Absorbent Cotton for First Aid|Hospital and Home Use\"\" were false and misleading as applied to an article|which was not sterile and therefore was not suitable for first aid, hospital, and|home use.|On June 10, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|PROPHYLACTICS|540. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 41 Gross of Prophylactics (and 21 other seizure actions against prophylactics). Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00540September 1942Allied Latex CorporationprophylacticsOctober 5, 1940, to on or about February 18, 1942New York, N. Y.; Washington, D. C.; St. Louis, Mo.; Buffalo, N. Y.; Providence, R. I.; Pittsburgh, Pa.; Atlanta, Ga.; Cincinnati, Ohio; Boston, Mass.; Fall River, Mass.; Chicago, Ill.; San Juan, P. R.; Philadelphia, Pa.East Newark, N. J.New York, N. Y.; Washington, D. C.; St. Louis, Mo.; Buffalo, N. Y.; Providence, R. I.; Pittsburgh, Pa.; Atlanta, Ga.; Cincinnati, Ohio; Boston, Mass.; Fall River, Mass.; Chicago, Ill.; San Juan, P. R.; Philadelphia, Pa.Southern District of New York, District of Columbia, Eastern District of Missouri, Western District of New York, District of Rhode Island, Western District of Pennsylvania, Northern District of Georgia, Southern District of Ohio, District of Massachusetts, Northern District of Illinois, District of Puerto Rico, and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania540F. D. C. Nos. 8322, 8333, 3353, 3367, 3369, 3386, 3387, 3388, 6605, 5755, 5. 771, 5798, 5799, 5813, 5848, 5881 to 5884 incl. , 5894, 5908, 7080. Sample Nos. 5557-E, 5558-E, 10434-E to 1037-B, incl. , 19662-E, 34740-E, 36868-B, 36369-E. 39501-E, 40674-E, 42958-E, 46750-B, 48610-E to 48621-E, Incl. , 50039-E, 50041-E, 51583-E. 51587-E, 51993-E, 51994-E, 62561-E, 62565-E, 74123-E, 74124-E. 74397-E, 74398-E, 74399-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00540ddnj|540. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. V. 8. v. 41 Gross of|Prophylactics (and 21 other seizure actions against prophylactics). De-|fault decrees of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 8322, 8333,|3353, 3367, 3369, 3386, 3387. 3388, 6605, 5755, 5.771, 5798, 5799, 5813, 5848, 5881|to 5884 incl., 5894, 5908, 7080. Sample Nos. 5557-E, 5558-E, 10434-E to 10^37-B,|incl., 19662-E, 34740-E, 36868-B, 36369-E. 39501-E, 40674-E, 42958-E, 46750-B,|48610-E to 48621-E, Incl., 50039-E, 50041-E, 51583-E. 51587-E, 51993-E,|51994-E, 62561-E, 62565-E, 74123-E, 74124-E. 74397-E, 74398-E, 74399-E.)|Samples of this product were found to be defective because of the presence of|holes.|Between November 4, 1940, and March 20, 1942, the United States attorneys|for the Southern District of New York, District of Columbia, Eastern District|of Missouri, Western District of New York, District of Rhode Island, Western|District of Pennsylvania, Northern District of Georgia, Southern District of|Ohio, District of Massachusetts, Northern District of Illinois, District of Puerto|Rico, and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania filed libels against 545? gross|of prophylactics at New York, N. Y.; 80? gross at Washington, D. C.; 114 gross|at St. Louis, Mo.; 84 gross at Buffalo, N. Y.; 195 gross at Providence, R. I.; 49|gross at Pittsburgh, Pa.; 487? gross at Atlanta, Ga.; 123? gross at Cincinnati,|Ohio; 98 gross at Boston, Mass.; 48 gross at Fall River, Mass.; 98? gross at|Chicago, 111.; 11 gross at San Juan, P. R., and 20 gross at Philadelphia, Pa.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce by the Allied|Latex Corporation from East Newark, N. J., within the period from on or about|October 5, 1940, to on or about February 18, 1942; and charging that it was|adulterated and misbranded. The article was labeled variously in part: \"\"Prophy-|lactic,\"\" \"\"Smithies,\"\" \"\"Thin-Tex,\"\" \"\"Gems,\"\" \"\"Liquid Latex,\"\" \"\"Diana,\"\" \"\"Seal-Test,\"\"|\"\"Dr. Robinson Rx 333,\"\" or \"\"Kleenette.\"\"|The product in all lots was alleged to be adulterated in that its quality fell|below that which it was represented to possess.|Portions of the product were alleged to be misbranded in that representations|in the labeling that it was a prophylactic, would afford protection against disease,|and was scientifically tested, were false and misleading.|Within the period from January 9, 1940, to May 1, 1942, no claimants having|appeared, judgments of condemnation were entered and the product was ordered|destroyed.|541. Misbranding of Nature's Minerals Compound. U S. v. Perry B. Smith and Thornton B. Smith (Natures Mineral Co.). Pleas of guilty. Fines, $200.ddnj00541November 1942Perry B. Smith and Thornton B. Smith, trading as Nature's Mineral Co., Indianapolis, Ind.Nature's Minerals CompoundAugust 26 and 29 and October 4, 1940IndianaIndianaLouisiana and OregonSouthern District of Indiana541F. D. C. No. 4178. Sample Nos. 26127-E, 26128-E, 26483-E, 26484-E, 35031-E, 35032-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00541ddnj|641. Misbranding of Nature's Minerals Compound. U- S. v. Perry B. Smith and|Thornton B. Smith (Nature's Mineral Co.). Pleas of guilty. Fines, $20O.|(P. D. C. No. 4178. Sample Nos. 26127-B, 26128-E, 26483-E, 26484-^E, 35031-E,|.35032-E.) | \"\" ; ? .|This product, in addition to being dangerous to health when/used according|to directions, because of its excessive fluorine content, also contained false|and misleading claims in the labeling.|On October 27, 1941, the United States attorney for the .Southern District|of Indiana filed an information against Perry B. Smith and Thornton B. Smith,|trading as Nature's Mineral Co., Indianapolis, Ind., alleging shipment from|the State\"\" of Indiana into the States of Louisiana and Oregon, on or about|August 26 and 29 and October 4, 1940, of quantities of Nature's Mineral Com-|pound in powder and tablet form which was misbranded.|Analyses of samples of the article showed that it consisted essentially of|compounds of calcium, magnesium, iron, and sodium, phosphates, carbonates,|sulfates, chlorides, sulfur, and fluorine.|490719?-42 1 |279|Tbe article was alleged to be misbranded in that i t would be dangerous to|health when used in the dosage or with the frequency or duration prescribed,|recommended, or suggested in the labeling, since it contained a poisonous sub-|stance, fluorine. The shipment of (August 29. 1940, was alleged to be misbranded|further in that statements appearing on the carton and bottle labels and the|design in an accompanying- circular of a hotel surrounded by palm trees|undertieafh which appeared the words \"\"Instead of $200.00 or $300.00 a Month.\"\"|followed by an arrow showing a home; underneath which were the words|\"\"You spend only $3.00 or 10^ Per Day,\"\" and representations that the article|could be used safely as an aid in supplying the minerals sometimes found|deficient in the ordinary diet; that it would be efficacious in the treatment|and alleviation of conditions for which a sojourn at a health resort is cus-|tomarily prescribed; that the body normally requires the administration of|alkaline substances to supplement those supplied by the usual and ordinary|diet; that the effect of modern diet has been to modify the normal acid-alkali|balance and, in cases of unbalance of the acid-alkali ratio, that the article|would correct such unbalance; that it would restore health and prevent|weakness; that the article was necessary to render the blood stream alkaline;|that the ordinary diet is lacking in minerals and vitamins, which results in|draining the system of its alkaline reserve; that it would correct the causes|of flabby tissues and the effects of faulty elimination; that it would be effi-|cacious to insure that the user would live to an advanced age without seeming|old or losing his capacity to think or work; that it contained minerals which|must be supplied specially; that it was needed for the proper functioning of|important body processes; that the ordinary diet is deficient in minerals; that|99 percent of conditions of undernourishment are due to an acid condition|and that it would enable every organ of the body to be nourished; that sick-|ness, suffering, and shortness of life due to lack of minerals are general|menaces; and that it would be efficacious to maintain or restore health, pre-|vent loss of vitality, and remineralize the system, were false and misleading.|The remainder of the article was alleged to be misbranded further in that|the statement appearing on the cartons and bottles, \"\"Nature's Minerals' * * *|May be used as an aid in supplying in concrete form the minerals sometimes|found deficient in the ordinary diet,\"\" were false and misleading since they|represented that it could be used safely as an aid in supplying the minerals|sometimes found deficient in the ordinary diet; whereas it could not be used|safely for such purpose because of the presence of fluorine in deleterious|amounts.|The article also - was - alleged to be adulterated and misbranded under the|provisions of the law applicable to foods, as reported in F. N. J. No. 2996.|On January 31, 1942, the defendants having entered pleas of guilty, the court|imposed fines of $150 against Perry B. Smith and $50 against Thornton B.|Smith.| |542. Misbranding of Nature's Minerals Compound. U. S. v. 28 Vials of Nature's Minerals Compound Tablets and 24 Boxes of Nature's Minerals Compound (and 2 other seizures of similar products). Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00542November 1942Nature's Minerals Co.Nature's Minerals CompoundAugust 29 and; October 4, 1940Bay St. Louis, Miss.Indianapolis, Ind.Bay St. Louis, Miss.Southern District of Mississippiand the District of Oregon542F. D. C. Nos. 8121, 3122, 3379, 3386. Sample Nos. 26483-E, 264S4-E, 35031-E, 35032-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00542ddnj|642. Misbranding of Nature's Minerals Compound. U. S. v. 28 Vials of Nature's|Minerals Compound Tablets and 24 Boxes of Nature's Minerals Compound|(and 2 other seizures of similar products). Default decrees of condemna-|tion and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 8121, 3122, 3379, 3386. Sample Nos.|. 26483-E, 264S4-E, 35031-E, 35032-E.).|On October 4 and November 26, 1940, the United States attorneys for the|Southern District of Mississippi-and the District of Oregon filed libels against|28 vials of Nature's Minerals Compound Tablets and 24 boxes of Nature's Minerals|Compound (in powder form) at Bay St. Louis, Miss., and 12 bottles of Nature's|Minerals Compound Tablets and 21 cartons of Nature's Minerals Compound (in|powder form) at Portland, Oreg, alleging that the articles had been shipped|on of about August 29 and on. or. about October 4, 1940, by Nature's Minerals Co.|from Indianapolis, Ind.; and charging that theywere misbranded.|?Analyses of samples;of the articles showed that they consiste*d essentially of|cbnipounds of calcium, magnesium, iron, and sodium,, phosphates, carbonates,|sulfates, chlorides, sulfur^ and fluorine.;|The articles were alleged to be misbranded (1) in that they would be dangerous|to health when taken in accordance with the directions for use prescribed in the|labeling; and (2) in that representations in the labeling [these representations|are set forth in D. D. N. J. No. 541] were false and misleading since they would|not be efficacious for such purposes.|They also were alleged to be adulterated and misbranded under the provisions|of the law applicable to foods, as reported in F. N. J. No. 2997.|On January 7 and February 25, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgments|of condemnation were entered and the products were ordered destroyed.|602. Misbranding of cold capsules and tablets. U. S. v. 4,300 Cold Special No. 2 Capsules and 74 Packages of Swiss Capsules (and 2 other seizures of cold remedies). Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00602February, 1943Upjohn Co.cold capsules and tabletsFebruary 25 and June 23, 1941Richmond, Va.; Charleston, W. Va.; Baltimore, Md.; Portland, Oreg.Kalamazoo, Mich.; New York, N. Y.Richmond, Va.; Charleston, W. Va.; Baltimore, Md.Southern District of West Virginia, Eastern District of Virginia, District of Maryland, and the District of Oregon602F. D. C. Nos. 3866, 4695, 4909, 4913. Sample Nos. 50188-E, 50189-E, 50249-E, 50250-E, 50668-E, 60421-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00602ddnj|602. Misbranding' of cold capsules and tablets. U. S. v. 4,300 Cold Special Ko. 2|Capsules and 74 Packages of Swiss Capsules (and 2 other seizures of cold|remedies). Default decrees of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C.|Nos. 3866, 4695, 4909, 4913. Sample Nos. 50188-E, 50189-E, 50249-E, 50250-E,|50668-E, 60421-E.)|These preparations, when used according to directions, would supply acetanilid|in amounts that would be dangerous to health. Their labeling also failed to|bear adequate directions and warning statements, and they were misbranded?/|further because the name of a portion, \"\"Ccld Special,\"\" and the statement on|the label of the remainder, \"\"For Simple Colds * * * For * * * Colds,\"\"|were false and misleading since they did not constitute a treatment or preventive|for colds. A portion also failed to bear the required ingredient and quantity of|contents statements, was deceptively packaged, and failed to bear the name and|place of business of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor.|Between February 25 and June 23, 1941, the United States attorneys for the|Southern District of West Virginia, Eastern District of Virginia, District of|Maryland, and the District of Oregon filed libels against the following quantities|of cold remedies-4,870 capsules (3,500 in original bulk container labeled \"\"Cap-|sules Cold Special\"\" and 114 cartons, each containing 12 repackaged capsules,|labeled in part \"\"Upjohn Cold Special\"\") at Richmond, Va.-; 5 bottles of Cold|Special No. 2 and 74 packages of Cold Special Capsules at Charleston, W. Va.;|4,300 Cold Special No. 2 and 74 packages of Swiss Capsules at Baltimore, Md.;|and 1 bottle of Cold Special No. 2 Tablets at Portland, Oreg., alleging that the|articles had been shipped in interstate commerce within the period from on or|about September 25, 1940, to on or about February 14, 1941, by the Upjohn Co.,|in part from Kalamazoo, Mich., and in part from New York, N. Y.; and charging|that they were misbranded.|Analyses of samples of the cold preparations showed that they contained|acetanilid, a quinine salt, camphor, podophyllin, and aloin.|The articles were alleged to be misbranded in that they would be dangerous|to health when used in the dosage and with the frequency and duration pre-|scribed, recommended, and suggested in the labeling. They were alleged to be|misbranded further: (1) In that the labeling failed to bear adequate directions|for use since (in the case of those at Charleston, Baltimore, and Portland) if|used in accordance with the directions given they would have been dangerous|to health; and (in the case of those at Richmond) since the directions given|were inappropriate for articles of their composition. (2) In that the labeling|failed to bear adequate warnings against use in those pathological conditions|and by children where their use might be dangerous to health or against unsafe|dosage and duration of administration, in such manner and form, as are neces-|sary for the protection of users; and (in the case of those at Baltimore and|Portland) in that the labeling failed to bear warnings against use in cases of|nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, or other symptoms of appendicitis, against|its use by children, against frequent or continued use which might endanger the|health of users by causing serious blood disturbances, anemia, collapse, or a|dependence upon the drug, and against taking such amounts, or the continua-|tion of its use for a period of time, which might prove injurious to the user.|(3) In that the designation \"\"Cold Special,\"\" appearing on the label of a portion,|and the statements on the label of the remainder, \"\"For Simple Colds . * * *|For * * * Colds,\"\" were false and misleading since they did not constitute|a treatment for or preventive of the disease commonly known as \"\"cold.\"\"|The repackaged lot at Richmond, Va., labeled \"\"Upjohn Coid Special Capsules,\"\"|was alleged to be misbranded still further (1) in that the label failed to bear|the common or usual name of each active ingredient; (2) in that the label|failed to bear the name and address of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor|since the name \"\"Grant Drug Co., Inc.,\"\" appearing, on the label, was not qualified|to show the connection that firm had with the article, and the firm's location|was not stated; (3) in that the label failed to state the quantity of contents of|the package; and (4) in that its container was so made, formed, and filled as to|be misleading.|Within the period from June 12 to October 18, 1941, no claimant having|appeared, judgments of condemnation were entered and the products were|ordered destroyed.|543. Misbranding of Nature's Minerals. U. S. v. 64 Bottles of Nature's Minerals Tablets and 15 Cartons and 19 Cartons of Nature's Minerals Powder. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00543November 1942Nature's Minerals Food Co.Nature's MineralsSeptember 19 and 26, 1940, and April 18, 1941Los Angeles, Calif.Indianapolis, Ind.Los Angeles, Calif.Southern District of California543F. D. C. No. 4819. Sample Nos. 82694-E to 82696-E, incl.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00543ddnj|643. Misbranding of Nature's Minerals. V. S. v. 64 Bottles of Nature'* Minerals|Tablets and 15 Cartons and 19t Cartons of Nature's Minerals Powder. De-|fault decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 4819. Sample|Nos. 82694-E to 82696-E, incl.)|On May 23,1941, the United States attorney for the Southern District of Cali-|fornia filed a libel against the above-named articles at Los Angeles, Calif;,|alleging thai Ihey had been shipped on or about September 19 and 26, 1940, and|April 18, 1941, by Nature's Minerals Food Co. from Indianapolis, Ind.; and|charging that they were misbranded.|The articles were alleged to be misbranded in that-they would be daDgerous|to health when used in the dosage or with the frequency or duration prescribed|in the labeling, namely, (carton containing the powder) \"\"Directions-One round|teaspoonful three times daily,\"\" or (bottles containing the tablets) \"\"Average|Directions: Take three tablets, three times daily before or after meals, for a|reasonable time.\"\"|The articles were also alleged to be adulterated under the provisions:of the law|8pplicable to foods, as reported in F. N. J. No. 2998.|On June 17,1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|545. Misbranding of Nature's Minerals Compounds. U. S. v. 8 Bottles of Nature's Minerals Compounds Tablets, and 18 Cans and 20 Cans of Nature's Minerals Compounds Powder. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00545November 1942P. G. JurichNature's Minerals CompoundsJanuary 9 and 24, 1941Seattle, Wash.Pasadena, Calif.Seattle, Wash.Western District of Washington545F. D. C. No. 4010. Sample Nos. 55434-E to 55436-E, incl.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00545ddnj|545. Misbranding of Nature's Minerals Compounds. U. S. v. 8 Bottles of Nature's|Minerals Compounds Tablets, and 18 Cans and 20 Cans of Nature's Min-|erals Compounds Powder. Default decree of condemnation and destruc-|tion. (F. D. C. No. 4010. Sample Nos. 55434-E to 55436-E, incl.)|On March 21, 1941, the United States attorney for the Western District of|Washington filed a libel against the above-named product at Seattle, Wash., alleg-|ing that it had been shipped on or about January 9 and 24, 1941, by P. G. Jurich|from Pasadena, Calif.; and charging that it was-misbranded.|Analyses of samples of the article showed that it consisted essentially of|compounds of calcium, magnesium, iron, and sodium, phosphates, carbonates,|sulfates, chlorides, sulfur, and fluorine (3,600 parts per million in 8 bottles,|4,320 parts per million in 18 cans, and but a trace in 20 cans).|Portions of the article (8 bottles and 18 cans) were alleged to be misbranded|in that it would be dangerous to health when used in the dosage or with the|frequency or duration prescribed in the labeling, which directed that 3 tablets|or 1 teaspoonful of the powder be taken three times daily.|The article was alleged to be misbranded further: (1) In that the following|statements (8 bottles) \"\"Nature's Minerals * * * May be used as an aid in|supplying in concrete form the minerals sometimes found deficient in the ordinary|diet\"\"; (18 cans) \"\"Nature's Minerals * * * 'Nature's Minerals'is an organic|and inorganic combination representing mineral constituents which occur in the|human body. * * * Best results will be obtained by placing dry on the|tongue * * * May be used as an aid in supplying in concrete form the min-|erals sometimes found deficient in the ordinary diet\"\"; and (20 cans) \"\"Natures|Minerals * * * Best results will be obtained by placing dry on tongue,\"\" were|false and misleading. (2) In that statements in accompanying display cards and|circulars which represented that it would be efficacious in the treatment of arth-|ritis, neuritis, sciatica, indigestion, diabetes, colitis, gastritis, skin and nervous|ailments; that it would remineralize the system and rebuild the glands; that it|would insure the user that he would live to an advanced age without seeming|old or losing his capacity to think or work; that it would drain the acids from|the tissue cells; that it would enter directly into the blood and would be carried|to every gland, organ, nerve and muscular cell and supply any element lacking|or deficient; that it would banish acid conditions of the stomach and help diges-|tion; that it would have a purifying action on the blood and aid in the elimina-|tion of waste matter; that it would \"\"Bring the great health Resorts right into|your own home\"\" and would alleviate conditions for which a sojourn at such|resorts is customarily prescribed; that it would produce fine results in the treat-|ment of hives, goiter, diabetes, colitis, rheumatism, high blood pressure, and|liver, stomach, kidney and bladder troubles; that its use. would prevent the|development of goiter, skin disease, neuritis, obesity, rickets, anemia, weakness,|asthma, stomach trouble, eczema, subnormal growth, nervous exhaustion, rheu-|matism, kidney and bladder trouble, constipation, acidosis and heart disorders,|arthritis, blood disorders, high blood pressure^ stomach ulcers, diabetes, bladder|and kidney ulcers, tumors, mental and physical exhaustion, and premature old|age; and that users might reasonably expect the article to produce normal bone|development, thyroid health and vitality, improved metabolism, red blooded cells,|increased vitality, good teeth, alkalinity, normal cell activity, sturdy bones, clear|thought, good digestion, increased gastric juices, improved heart and liver action,|Improved body tissue, clear skin, steady nerves, better health and vitality and to|dissolve calcium in arthritis, purify the blood, nourish every gland and organ,|eliminate toxic poisons and acids, improve digestion and prevent fermentation,|were false and misleading since it would not be efficacious for such purposes.|It also was alleged to be adulterated and misbranded under the provisions of|the law applicable to foods, as reported in F. N. J. No. 3000.|On June 23,1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|546. Misbranding of Breatheasy kits and inhalant. U. S. v. 2 Breatheasy Kits, 12 Bottles, 2 Bottles, and 14 Bottles of Inhalant for use in Breatheasy Nebulizer. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00546November 1942Breatheasy Distributors, Inc.Breatheasy kits and inhalantNovember 27, 1940, and March 17 and April 26, 1941New Bedford, Mass.Seattle, Wash.New Bedford, Mass.District of Massachusetts546F. D. C. No. 4627. Sample Nos. 60707-E, 60708-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00546ddnj|546. Misbranding of Breatheasy kits and inhalant. 17. S. v. 2 Breatheasy Kits,|12 Bottles, 2 Bottles, and 14 Bottles of Inhalant for use in Breatheasy|Nebulizer. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C.|No. 4627. Sample Nos. 60707-B, 60708-E.)|This product would be dangerous to health when used according to directions,|and the labeling bore false and misleading therapeutic claims and also failed to|comply with other requirements of the law.|On May 5, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Massachusetts|filed a libel against 2 Breatheasy kits and 12 1-fluid-ounce bottles and 16 Vs-fluid-|ounce bottles of inhalant at New Bedford, Mass., alleging that the article had|been shipped on or about November 27, 1940, and March 17 and April 26, 1941, by|Breatheasy Distributors, Inc., from Seattle, Wash.; and charging that it was|misbranded.|Examination of the inhalant showed that it had the activity of 3 percent|synthetic racemic epinephrine hydrochloride.|The article was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that it would be dangerous to|health when used in the dosage or with the frequency and duration prescribed,|recommended, or suggested on the bottle label and in an accompanying booklet;|(2) in that statements tn the accompanying booklet which created the impression|that it was a safe, appropriate, and efficacious treatment for asthma, hay fever,|dermatitis, eczema, chronic bronchitis, and head colds, when used by the ordinary|individual under customary conditions of purchase and use, were false and mis-|leading since it was not a safe, appropriate, and effective treatment for such ail-|ments when so used; (3) in that the carton label failed to bear the common or|usual names of the active ingredients; (4) in that the carton label failed to bear|the name and place of business of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor; and|(5) in that the carton label failed to bear a statement of the quantity of contents.|On July 8, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|547. Misbranding of Special Formula Tablets and McNeal's Laxative Gold Tablets. U. S. v. 88,020 Tablets in containers labeled \"\"Special Formula Tablets Mono. 'L'\"\" and 41 Dozen Boxes of similar tablets labeled \"\"McNeal's Laxative Cold Tablets.\"\" Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered released under bond to be relabeled.ddnj00547November 1942Kent Drug Co.Special Formula Tablets and McNeal's Laxative Gold TabletsDecember 16, 1940Baltimore, Md.Buffalo, N. Y.Baltimore, Md.District of Maryland547F. D. C. No. 4037. Sample Nos. 2S397-E, 28398-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00547ddnj|i>47. Misbranding- of Special Formula Tablets and McNeal's Laxative Gold Tablets.|V. S. v. 88,020 Tablets in containers labeled \"\"Special Formula Tablets-|Mono. 'L.'\"\" and 41 Dozen Boxes of similar tablets labeled _ \"\"McNeal's|Laxative Cold Tablets.\"\" Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered|released under bond to be relabeled. (F. D. C. No. 4037. Sample Nos.|2S397-E, 28398-E.)|These tablets were of identical composition. Those in boxes labeled \"\"McNeal's|Laxative Cold Tablets\"\" would have been dangerous to health when used according|to directions on the label; they also contained false and misleading therapeutic|claims. These tablets and the loose ones in the large container failed to bear|adequate directions for use and adequate warning statements. The label for the|loose tablets also failed to bear the required ingredient statement.|On March 24,1941, the United States attorney for the District of Maryland filed|a libel against the above-named product at Baltimore, Md., alleging that it had|been shipped from Buffalo, N. Y., on or about December 16, 1940, by Arner Co.,|Inc.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that each tablet contained acetahilid|(approximately 1 grain), quinine sulfate (approximately 0.38 grain), a laxative|plant drug, and a small amount of atropine.|McNeal's Laxative Cold Tablets were alleged to be misbranded in that they|would have been dangerous to health when used in the dosage or with the fre-|quency or duration prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling, \"\"Direc-|tions ;-Usual dose. 2 tablets just after meals & at bedtime. Delicate persons|may take 1. When relieved take half dose for day or two. Children over 10,|y2 adult dose. Limit 4 doses-24 hrs.\"\" They were allfged to be misbranded|further in that the following statements appearing on the label were false and|misleading, \"\"Laxative Cold Tablets Relief for Common Colds * * * A Prepara-|tion for Colds * * * The 2nd or 3rd dose should relieve the Cold '* * *|partly as a result of bowel movement which should occur in 10 hours after taking,\"\"|since they represented that the article would be efficacious for the purposes recom-|mended ; whereas it would not be efficacious for such purposes. The product in|both types of containers was alleged to be misbranded in that the labeling did|not bear adequate directions for use, and in that the labeling did not bear such|adequate warnings against use in those pathological conditions or by children|where its use might be dangerous to health, or against unsafe dosage or methods|or duration of administration or application, in such manner and form as are|necessary for the protection of users. The Special Formula Tablets were alleged|to be misbranded further in that the label did not bear the common or usual|names of the active ingredients or a statement of the quantities or proportions of|acetanilid and atropine contained therein.|On May 12, 1941, Kent Drug Co., claimant, having consented to the entry of a|decree, judgment of condemnation was entered and the product was ordered|released under bond conditioned that it be relabeled under the supervision of the|Federal Security Agency (Food and Drug Administration).|548. Misbranding of Tabknoll Three Bromides Effervescent. U. S. v. 10 Dozen Bottles of Tabknoll Three Bromides Effervescent. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00548November 1942H. G. Knoll & Co., Inc.Tabknoll Three Bromides EffervescentJanuary 6, 1941Newark, N. J.New York, N. Y.Newark, N. J.District of New Jersey548F. D. C. No. 3918. Sample No. 34893-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00548ddnj|548. Misbranding: of Tabknoll Three Bromides Effervescent. U. S. v. 10 Dozen|Bottles of Tabknoll Three Bromides Effervescent. Default decree of con-|demnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 3918. Sample No. 34893-E.)|This product contained ammonium, potassium, and sodium bromides, and|would be dangerous to health when used as recommended in the labeling. Its|labeling also failed to bear adequate directions for use and adequate warnings|against its use where such use might be dangerous to health.|On March 6, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of New Jersey|filed a libel against 10 dozen bottles of Tabknoll Three Bromides Effervescent at|Newark, N. J., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce|on or about January 6, 1941, by H. G. Knoll & Co., Inc., from New York, N. Y.;|and charging that it was misbranded.|The article was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that it was dangerous to|health when used in the dosage and with the frequency and duration pre-|scribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling, namely, (bottle and carton)|\"\"Adults, one to two tablets, dissolved in half a glass of water; or as ordered|by the physician.\"\"; (2) in that its labeling failed to bear adequate directions|for use; and (3) in that its labeling failed to bear adequate warnings against|use where such use might be dangerous to health or against unsafe dosage or|duration of administration in such manner and form as are necessary for the|protection of users.|On September 4,1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|549. Misbranding of Dr. Whitehall's Compound Tablets. U. S. v. 642 Boxes of Dr. Whitehall's Compound Tablets. Default decree of forfeiture and destruction.ddnj00549November 1942Dr. Whitehall Megrimine Co.Dr. Whitehall's Compound TabletsNovember 27 and December 3, 1940La Crosse, Wis.South Bend, Ind.La Crosse, Wis.Western District of Wisconsin549F. D. C. No. 3681. Sample No. 38625-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00549ddnj|549. Misbranding of Dr. Whitehall's Compound Tablets. U. S. v. 642 Boxes of|Dr. \"\"Whitehall's Compound Tablets. Default decree of forfeiture and de-|struction. (F. D. C. No. 3681. Sample No. 38625-E.)|On or about January 17, 1941, the United States attorney for the Western|District of Wisconsin filed a libel against 642 boxes of. Dr. Whitehall's Com-|pound Tablets at La Crosse, Wis., alleging that the article had. been shipped|on or about November 27 and December 3, 1940, by the Dr. Whitehall Megrimine|Co. from South Bend, Ind; and charging that it was misbranded. It was labeled|in part: (Box, carton, and circular) \"\"For Mitigating the Distress and Discom-|fort of Minor Muscular. Aches and Pains,\"\" and (circular only) \"\"If you are|subject to attacks on change of weather or exposure, one tablet taken in time|will often prevent distress and discomfort.\"\"|Analysis of a sample of the'article showed that it contained acetanilid, sodium|salicylate, and plant material.|The article was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that it was dangerous to|health when used in the dosage or with the frequency or duration prescribed,|recommended, or suggested in the labeling, since when used, in the dosage and|with the frequency or duration prescribed, recommended, and suggested, such|use might cause serious blood disturbances, anemia, collapse, and a dependence|on the drug; (2) in that the labeling failed to bear adequate directions for use|since it did not provide for a limit as to the duration or frequency of admin-|istration; (3) in that the labeling failed to bear adequate warnings against use|in those pathological conditions or by children where its use might be dangerous|to health or against unsafe dosage or methods or duration of administration or|application in such manner and form as are necessary for the protection of|users; arid (4) in that the labeling was false and misleading since it created|the impression that the article constituted an appropriate treatment for the con-|ditions described therein; whereas it was not a safe and appropriate remedy|but was a dangerous drug, and the label failed to reveal the material fact that|its use in accordance with the directions might cause serious blood disturbances,|anemia, collapse, or a dependence on the drug.|On March 17, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of forfeiture was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|550. Adulteration and misbranding of Zerbst's Capsules. U. S. v. 139 Packages of Zerbst's Capsules [25-cent size] and 23 Packages of Zerbst's Capsules [50-cent size]. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00550November 1942Zerbst Pharmacal Co.Zerbst's CapsulesJanuary 20, 1941Portland, Oreg.St. Joseph, Mo.Portland, Oreg.District of Oregon550F. D. C. No. 4970. Sample No. 60418-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00550ddnj|550. Adulteration and misbranding of Zerbst's Capsules. IT. S. v. 139 Packages|of Zerbst's Capsules [25-cent size] and 23 Packages of Zerbst's Capsules|[50-cent size]. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C.|No. 4970. Sample No. 60418-E.) |These products would be potentially dangerous to health when used according|to directions and they failed to bear adequate directions for use and warning|statements. The capsules in the 25-cent-sized packages contained more acetanilid|than the amount stated on the label, and those in the 56-cent-sized packages bore|false and misleading therapeutic claims and failed to bear the required ingredient|and quantity of contents statements.|On June 24, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Oregon filed a|libel against the above-named products at Portland, Oreg., alleging that they had|been shipped on or about January 20, 1941, by the Zerbst Pharmacal Co. from|St. Joseph, Mo.; and charging that a portion were adulterated and misbranded|and that the remainder were misbranded.|Analyses of samples of the capsules showed that those in the 25-cent packages|contained acetanilid (1? grains per capsule), together with caffeine, resinous|material, camphor, capsicum, aloin, and asafoetida; and that those in the 50-cent|packages contained acetanilid (2? grains per capsule), together with a laxative|plant drug.|The capsules in the 25-cent packages were alleged to be adulterated in that their|strength differed from that which they purported or were represented to possess,|namely, \"\"Each Capsule contains as active ingredients, Acetanilid 1 Grain\"\";|whereas they contained materially more than 1 grain of acetanilid.|The capsules in the packages of both sizes were alleged to be misbranded:|(1) In that they were dangerous to health when used according to the directions|on the label. (2) In that the directions for use, namely, \"\"Adults-To allay the|discomfort in breaking up a common head cold, simple headache, or .neuralgia,|take one capsule every half hour until three are taken [25-cent size] then one|capsule in two or three hours until three more capsules are taken. Children-|12 years old, one capsule repeated in three hours [50-cent size] then one every 2|or 3 hours as may be desired. Children-5 to 10 years old, one-half to one capsule,|repeated in three hours if necessary,\"\" were inappropriate for articles of such|composition because of their indefiniteness and because they provided amounts of|acetanilid which might prove harmful to the user and were therefore inadequate.|(3) In that the labels failed to bear adequate warnings against their use by|children or in those pathological conditions where their use might be dangerous|to health and against unsafe dosage or duration of administration in such manner|and form as are necessary for the protection of users, since there was no warning|against, their use by children nor against use in the presence of symptoms of|appendicitis, nor with reference to the deleterious effects of acetanilid in causing|serious blood disturbances, nor against frequent or continued use which might|result in dependence upon the drug.|The capsules in the 50-cent-sized packages were alleged to be misbranded|further (1) in that the statements (box label) \"\"Should give a free evacuation|which is very important in breaking up a cold\"\" and (circular) \"\"For relieving|common head colds\"\" were false and misleading since,they would not break up a|cold nor otherwise favorably influence the course of a head cold; (2) in that the|label failed to bear the common or> usual name of each active ingredient since, of|the several active ingredients present, \"\"only acetanilid was mentioned on the label;|and (3) in that the label did not bear a statement of the quantity of contents of|the retail package.|On August 27, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|DRUGS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO BEAR DIRECTIONS|FOR USE OR ADEQUATE WARNING STATEMENTS1|603. Misbranding of physiological solution of sodium chloride and of dextrose in physiological solution of sodium chloride. U. S. v. 20 Bottles of Physiological Solution of Sodium Chloride; 18 Bottles, 447 Bottles, and 317 Battles of Dextrose in Physiological Solution of Sodium Chloride. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00603February, 1943Upjohn Co.physiological solution of sodium chloride and of dextrose in physiological solution of sodium chlorideMay 5, 13, 14, and 19, 1941Chicago, Ill.Kalamazoo, Mich., New York, N. Y.Chicago, Ill.Northern District of Illinois, Northern District of Ohio, and the Western District of Missouri603F. D. C. Nos. 4917 to 4919, incl. , 4935. Sample Nos. 29086-E, 29087-E, 43447-E, 43449-E, 47597-E, 49066-E, 490H7-E, 49069-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00603ddnj|603. Misbranding of physiological solution of sodium chloride and of dextrose|in physiological solution of sodium chloride. U. , S. v. 20 Bottles of|Physiological Solution of Sodium Chloride; 18 Bottles, 447 Bottles, and|317 Battles of Dextrose in Physiological Solution of Sodium Chloride.|Default decrees of condemnation-and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 4917 to|4919, inel., 4935. Sample Nos. 29086-E, 29087-E, 43447-E, 43449-E, 47597-E,|49066-E, 490H7-E, 49069-E.)|These products would have been dangerous to health when used according to|directions, because they had been contaminated with lead.|On or about June 14, 16, and 18, 1941, the United States attorneys for the|Northern District of Illinois, Northern District of Ohio, and the Western District|of Missouri filed libels against 20 bottles of physiological solution of sodium|chloride at Chicago, Til., and the following quantities of dextrose in physiological|solution of sodium chloride-18 bottles of 10 percent strength at Cleveland,|Ohio, and 276 bottles of 5 percent strength and 171 bottles of 10 percent|strength at Kansas City, Mo., alleging that the articles had been shipped in,|interstate commerce on or about May 5, 13, 14, and 19, 1941, by the Upjohn Co.,|in part from Kalamazoo, Mich., and in part from New York, N. Y.; and charging|that they were misbranded. On June 16, 1941, a libel was filed in the Northern|District of Texas against 289 bottles of 10 percent and 28 bottles of 25 percent|dextrose in physiological solution of sodium chloride at Dallas, Tex., which had|been consigned by the Upjohn Co., alleging that it liad been shipped within the|period from on or about March 7 to on or about May 23, 1941, from Kalamazoo,|Mich.; and charging that it was misbranded.|The articles were alleged to be misbranded in that they would be dangerous|to health when.used in the dosage and with the frequency and duration pre-|scribed, recommended, and suggested in the labeling, namely, \"\"For Parenteral|Injection.\"\"|On June 17, 1941, the shipper having consented to the destruction of the dex-|trose seized at Dallas, judgment of condemnation was entered and the product|was ordered destroyed. Between July 10 and November 14, 1941, no claimant|having appeared for the remaining products, judgments of condemnation were|entered and the products were ordered destroyed.|551. Adulteration and misbranding of Sunshine Brand Powders. U. S. v. Frank W. Lavoine (Lavoine Drug Co.). Plea of guilty. Fine, $25.ddnj00551November 1942Frank W. Lavoine, trading as the Lavoine Drug Co., Worcester, Mass.Sunshine Brand PowdersOctober 5, 1940MassachusettsMassachusettsMaineDistrict of Massachusetts551F. D. C. No. 4113. Sample No. 36160-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00551ddnj|551. Adulteration and misbranding of Sunshine Brand Powders. TJ. S. v. Frank|W. Lavoine (Lavoine Drug: Co.). Plea of guilty. Fine, $25. (IT. D. C.\"\"|No. 4113. Sample No. 36160-E.)|These powders contained acetanilid in excess of the amount declared on the|label. The labeling failed to bear such warnings as are necessary for the protec-|tion of users and it also failed to bear a statement of the quantity of contents.|On July 29, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Massachusetts|filed an information against Frank W. Lavoine, trading as the Lavoine Drug Co.,|Worcester, Mass., alleging shipment on or about October 5, 1940, from the State|of Massachusetts into the State of Maine of a quantity of Sunshine Brand|Powders which were adulterated and misbranded.|Adulteration was alleged in that the strength of the article differed from that|which it purported and was represented to possess since each powder purported|and was represented to contain 2 grains of acetanilid; whereas each powder|contained approximately 3.158 grains of acetanilid.|Misbranding was alleged (1) in that the labeling did not bear adequate warn-|ings against unsafe dosage or methods or duration of administration in such|manner and form as are necessary for the protection of users, since frequent or|continued use might cause serious blood disturbances, anemia, or collapse; (2)|in that it might be dangerous if administered to children, and its labeling did|not bear a warning that it should not be given to children; (3) in that the|statement \"\"Each powder contains 2 grains Acetanilid,\"\" borne on each of the boxes|and envelopes, was false and misleading; and (4) in that it was in package form|and did not bear a label containing an accurate statement 'of the quantity of the|contents in terms of weight or numerical count.|On December 15, 1941, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant|and the court imposed a fine of $25.|552. Misbranding of Floracubes. U. S. v. Eugene H. Hunter (Floracube Co.). Plea of nolo contendere. Imposition of sentence suspended and defendant placed on probation for 5 years.ddnj00552November 1942Eugene H. Hunter, trading as Floracube Co., Los Angeles, Calif.FloracubesMarch 9, 1940CaliforniaCaliforniaArizonaSouthern District of California552F. D. C. No. 2899. Sample No. 7356-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00552ddnj|552. Misbranding of Floracubes. U. S. v. Eugene H. Hunter (Floracube Co.).|Plea of nolo contendere. Imposition of sentence suspended and defendant|placed on probation for 5 years. (F. D. C. No. 2899. Sample No. 7356-E.)|This proiuct was labeled to indicate that it derived its physiological activity in|important respects by means of its lubrication, bulk, alkaline, and germicidal|? See also Nos. 547-550.|qualities; whereas it derived its physiological activity principally from the|ingredient phenolphthalein.|On March 28, 1941, the United States attorney for. the Southern District of|California filed an information against Eugene H. Hunter, trading as Floracube|Co., Los Angeles, Calif., alleging shipment on or about March 9, 1940, from the|State of California into the State of Arizona of quantities of Floracubes,-that|were misbranded.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements \"\"Floracubes|* - * ??* contain certain lubrication, bulk, alkaline, and germicidal qualities, and|are non-irritating in action. May be used over a long period of time. * * *|Floracubes * * * contain per average dose (1-6 box) less than 2 grains each|of calcium carbonate, sodium bicarbonate, chlorides, podophyllum, magnesium,|phenolphthalein, oil of juniper, boron, buchu, sodium benzoate, cascara, iron and|dextrin. ; Also mineral oil and jelly, agar and celluloses, sugar, artificial color and|flavor,, combined with free oxygen, hydrogen and Ultra Violet. The above ingre-|dients are combined with water under a special process to change their form and|action to meet the requirements of Floracubes. *??*?'* (Additional ingredients|present, less 1 Gr.) Manganese, Aloin, nitrates, florides,1 sassafras, sulphates,|calcium and silica,\"\" borne on the carton; were false and misleading since they|represented that the article derived its physiological activity in important re-|spects by reason of its lubrication, bulk, alkaline, and germicidal qualities; that|it was nonirritating in action and mjght safely be used over a long period of|time; and that it contained the ingredients listed in significant amounts a,nd that|these ingredients were combined with water under a special process which|changed their form and action; whereas it derived its physiological activity|practically, if- not entirely, from the ingredient phenolphthalein, which is irri-|tating; it was not germicidal, and could not be used Over a long period of time|without risk of injury; and it did not contain the ingredients listed in significant|amounts, since it contained no appreciable amount, if any, of the ingredients iron,|boron, manganese, fluorine, sodium bicarbonate, calcium as calcium carbonate, or|sodium benzoate, and the ingredients were not combined with water under a|special process which changed their form and action. It was alleged to be mis-|branded further in that it did not bear a label containing the name and place of|business of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor, nor an accurate statement|of the quantity of the contents prominently placed thereon with such conspicuous-|ness, as compared with other words, statements, designs, or devices in the label-|ing, as to render it likely to be read and understood by the ordinary individual|under customary conditions of purchase and use. It was alleged to be misbranded|further in that it was fabricated from two or more ingredients and its label did|not bear the common or usual name of each active ingredient, since the ingre-|dients listed in the labeling were in large part inert and the list did not indicate|that phenolphthalein was the only important active ingredient. It was alleged|to be misbranded further In that its labeling failed to bear adequate directions|for use, and such adequate warnings against use In those pathological conditions|or by children where its use might be dangerous to health, or against unsafe|dosage or methods or duration of administration, in such manner and form as|are necessary for the protection of users, since the labeling did not inform pur-|chasers that the use of the article in cases of abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting,|or other symptoms of appendicitis might result in serious injury, and that fre-|quent or continuous use might result In dependence upon laxatives.|On August 25, 1941, the defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere, and the|court ordered that imposition of sentence be suspended and that the defendant|be placed on probation for a period of 5 years.|553. Misbranding of Mackenzie Cold and Grippe Tablets. U. S. v. 100 Packages of Mackenzie Cold and Grippe Tablets. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00553November 1942C. B. Jamieson Co.Mackenzie Cold and Grippe TabletsMarch 19, 1941Seattle, Wash.Detroit. Mich.Seattle, Wash.Western District of Washington553F. D. C. No. 4876. Sample No. 60255-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00553ddnj|553. Misbranding: of Mackenzie Cold and Grippe Tablets. IT. S. v. 100 Packages|of Mackenzie Cold and Grippe Tablets. Default decree of condemnation|and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 4876. Sample No. 60255-E.)|These tablets b,ad been repackaged after shipment and after such repackaging,|in addition to failure to bear adequate warning statements, the labeling bore false|and misleading statements regarding their therapeutic efficacy and the amount|of acetanilid that they contained. The tablets also were deceptively packaged|since approximately 30 percent of the upper space in the carton was empty.|On June 10. 1941, the United States attorney for the Western District of|Washington filed a libel against the above-named product at Seattle, Wash.,|alleging that it had been shipped on or about March 19. 1941, by C. B. Jamieson|& Co. from Detroit. Mich., and that subsequently it had been repackaged by Guy,|Inc., at Seattle, Wash.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analyses of samples of the article showed that it consisted essentially of|acetanilid (0.94 grain per tablet), caffeine, aloin, atropine sulfate, and capsicum.|The article was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that its labeling failed to beaf|such adequate warnings as are necessary for the protection of users, against use|in those pathological conditions or by children, where its use might be dangerous|to health, since it might be dangerous to health when used by persons suffering|from nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, or other symptoms of appendicitis, or by|children; and in that the labeling failed to bear adequate warnings against unsafe|dosage or methods or duration of administration in such manner and form as|are necessary for the protection of users, since frequent or continued use of this|acetanilid-containing preparation might cause serious blood disturbances, anemia,|or collapse, and since its use might result in dependence on a laxative. (2) In|that the statements on the label, \"\"Cold and Grippe Tablets Excellent for a|feverish condition, coryza, hay fever, rhinitis, grippe, aching muscles, colds,|influenza * * * acetanilid 2 gr.,\"\" were false and misleading since it was not|an adequate treatment for the conditions named and since each tablet did not|contain 2 grains of acetanilid. (3) In that its package container was so filled|as to be misleading since the bottle was materially shorter than the package|[carton].|On September 29,1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|554. Misbranding of \"\"Doctor's Daughter\"\" Tablets (and Dr. Wilbur's Laxative Tablets). U. S. v. 5 1/2 Dozen Packages of \"\"Doctor's Daughter\"\" Tablets. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00554November 1942Dr. John Wilbur Daughter Co.\"\"Doctor's Daughter\"\" Tablets (and Dr. Wilbur's Laxative Tablets)April 16, 1941New York, N. Y.Westerly, R. I.New York, N. Y.Southern District of New York554F. D. C. No. 4779. Sample No. 56820-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00554ddnj|554. Misbranding- of \"\"Doctor's Daughter\"\" Tablets (and Dr. Wilbur's Laxative|Tablets). U. S. v. 5% Dozen Packages of \"\"Doctor's Daughter\"\" Tablets.|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 4779.|Sample No. 56820-E.)|Bach package of this product contained 50 white tablets wrapped in wax|paper and an envelope labeled \"\"Dr. Wilbur's Laxative Tablets,\"\" which contained|25 pink tablets. The labeling, in addition to failure to bear adequate warning|statements, also failed to bear the required ingredient and quantity of contents|statements.|On May 16, 1941, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|New York filed a libel against 5? dozen packages of \"\"Doctor's Daughter\"\" Tablets|at New York, N. Y., alleging that the article had been shipped by Dr. John Wilbur|Daughter Co. from Westerly, R. I., on or about April 16, 1941; and charging that|it was misbranded.|Analyses of samples showed that the white tablets consisted essentially of|calcium carbonate, sodium carbonate, and sodium bicarbonate; and that the pink|. tablets consisted essentially of belladonna alkaloids including atropine, and laxa-|tive plant drugs.|The article was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that the labeling failed to|bear adequate warnings against use in those pathological conditions or by children|where its use might be dangerous to health, or against unsafe dosage or methods|or duration of administration or application, in such manner and form, as are|necessary for the protection of users, since the labeling did not warn that frequent|or continued use might result in dependence upon laxatives and that the article|should not be taken when suffering from nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, or|other symptoms of appendicitis. (2) In that the carton label did not bear the|common or usual names of the active ingredients nor a statement of the quantity|or proportion of belladonna alkaloids contained in the laxative tablets. (3) In|that the envelope containing the laxative tablets did not bear a statement of the|quantity or proportion of belladonna alkaloids nor did it bear the common or|usual names of all the active ingredients, since \"\"Exl\"\" and \"\"phodophyllui\"\" did|not inform that extract and podophyllum were meant. (4) In that the carton|label did not bear an accurate statement of the quantity of contents, since no|reference was made to the envelope containing the 25 laxative tablets.|On July 3, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|555. Misbranding of Starr's Wonderful M. L. & K. Pills. U. S. v. 8 Dozen Pack ages of Starr's Wonderful M. L. & K. Pills. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00555November 1942Starr Medicine Co.Starr's Wonderful M. L. & K. PillsApril 1, 1941Chicago, Ill.San Francisco, Calif.Chicago, Ill.Northern District of Illinois555F. D. C. No. 4877. Sample No. 31996-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00555ddnj|555. Misbranding of Starr's Wonderful M. L. & K. Pills. IT. S. v. 8 Dozen Pack|ages of Starr's Wonderful M. L. & K. Pills. Default decree of condemna-|tion and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 4877. Sample No. 31996-E.)|The label of this product, in addition to failure to bear adequate directions for|use and warning statements, also failed to bear the required ingredient and quan-|tity of contents statements. Furthermore, the label bore false and misleading|therapeutic claims.|On June 10, 1941, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Illinois filed a libel against the above-named product, at Chicago, 111., alleging|490719-42 2|that it had been shipped on or about April 1,1941, by the Starr Medicine Co. from|San Francisco, Calif.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of-ex-|tracts of plant drugs including laxative plant drugs, coated with calcium car-|bonate.|The article was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that the label failed to bear|adequate directions for use since the dosage given was not appropriate for a|laxative, namely, \"\"Dose-1 to 2 at Bedtime.\"\" (2) In that the label failed to|bear adequate warnings in such manner and form as were necessary for the|protection of users, against use in those pathological conditions where its use|might be dangerous to health, and against unsafe duration of administration,|Since the labeling failed to bear warnings that it was not to be taken when suffer-|ing from nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, or other symptoms, of appendicitis,|and that continued use might result in dependence upon a laxative. (3) In that|the following statements, appearing on the label, were false and misleading since|it contained no ingredients which would constitute treatment for the conditions|quoted: \"\"Courage Manhood Nature Used In Weak Back, Liver, Kidney Complaints,|Biliousness, * * * Cold, Fever, Headaches, Indigestion.\"\" (4) In that the|label failed to bear the common or usual names of the active ingredients. (5) In|that the label did not bear an accurate statement of the quantity of contents.|On August 25, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and th'e product was ordered destroyed,|556. Misbranding of T. S. B. Saline. U. S. v. 53 Cards, to each of which were attached 12 Envelopes, 27 Dozen 2 1/2-Ounce Bottles, and 20 Dozen 8-Ounce Bottles of T. S. B. Saline. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00556November 1942T. S. Burns & Boys Co.T. S. B. SalineMarch 18, 1941Erie, Pa.Buffalo, N. Y.Erie, Pa.Western District of Pennsylvania556F. D. C. No. 4753. Sample No. 42377-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00556ddnj|556. Misbranding of T. S. B. Saline. U. S. v. 53 Cards, to each of which were|attached 12 Envelopes, 27 Dozen 2% -Ounce Bottles, and 20 Dozen 8-Onnce|Bottles of T. S. B. Saline. Def anlt decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 4753. Sample No. 42377-E.)|The labeling of this product failed to bear adequate warning statements and|directions for use, it contained false and misleading therapeutic claims, and the|quantity of contents statement \"\"3 Dram\"\" on the envelopes was inaccurate since|the contents varied from 3.97 to 4.82 drams, and on the bottle label it was incon-|spicuously placed.|On May 13, 1941, the United States attorney for the Western District of Penn-|sylvania filed a libel against the above-named product at Erie, Pa., alleging that|it had been shipped on or about March 18, 1941, by T. S. Burns & Boys Co. from|Buffalo, N. Y.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of a|mixture of partially dehydrated Epsom salt and Glauber's salt, with traces of|magnesium carbonate and sodium chloride.|The article was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that the labeling'failed to|bear adequate directions for use, since the statement appearing on the bottle|labels, \"\"Directions: Children According to age, use one-half to one teaspoonful,|dissolved in water,\"\" did not set forth the dosage for different age groups and|such statement did not indicate that the article would be dangerous to health|when used by very young children. (2) In that the labeling failed to bear ade-|quate warnings against use in those pathological conditions or by children where|its use might be dangerous to health, or against unsafe dosage or duration of|administration in such manner and form as are necessary for the protection of|users, since the envelopes carried no warning with reference to avoidance of the|article in abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and other symptoms of appendicitis,|nor against frequent or continued use when such use might result in dependence|on the use of a cathartic to move the bowels; the bottle labeling carried no|warning against frequent or continued use and the warning to avoid laxatives in|case of severe abdominal pains was not adequate to warn the purchaser that|laxatives should not be used in case of abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting,|which might be symptoms of appendicitis, (3) In that statements appearing|in the labeling, which represented that it would be efficacious as a laxative and|intestinal cleanser, that it would be efficacious in the treatment of rheumatism,|constipation, indigestion, colds, skin rash, biliousness, and many conditions aris-|ing from faulty elimination; and that it would be helpful to help Nature help|itself, were false and misleading since it would not be efficacious for such pur-|poses. (4) In that magnesium carbonate (\"\"Magnes. Carb\"\"), listed on all the|labels as an active ingredient, was not an active ingredient since it was present in|traces only. (5) In that the labels failed to bear the common or usual name of|each ingredient since \"\"Soda. Sulph.,\"\" on the envelope and 2?-ounce bottle label,|was not the common or usual namp for sodium sulfate; the term \"\"Magnes. Sulph..\"\"|appearing on the envelopes and the 2?-ounce bottle label, and the term \"\"Mag-|nesium Sulphate,\"\" appearing on the 8-ounce bottle label, were not the common or|usual name fox Epsom salt (6) In that the envelopes failed to bear an accurate|statement of the quantity of contents since the statement \"\"3 Dram\"\" was not an|accurate statement of the quantity of contents of the package. (7) In that the|declaration of quantity of contents on the bottles was not prominently placed|thereon with such conspicuousness (as compared with other words, statements,|and designs in the labeling) as to render it likely to be read and understood by|the ordinary individual under customary conditions of purchase and use, since|the statement did not appear upon the principal display panels of the labels.|On June 13,1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|557. Misbranding of Velpans Pills. U. S. v. 4 1/6 Dozen Packages of Velpaus Pills. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00557November 1942F. W. Briggs & Co.Velpans PillsJune 2, 1941Columbus, OhioBuffalo, N. Y.Columbus, OhioSouthern District of Ohio557F. D. C. No. 5106. Sample No. 29500-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00557ddnj|557. Misbranding- of Velpans Pills. TJ. S. v. 4% Dozen Packages of \"\"Velpaus Pills.|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 5106.|Sample No. 29500-E.)|This product, in addition to failure to bear adequate directions for use and|warning statements, bore false and misleading therapeutic claims.|On July 9, 1941, the United States attorney for the Southern District of Ohio|filed a libel against the above-named product at Columbus, Ohio, alleging that it|had been shipped on or about June 2,-1941, by F. W. Briggs & Co. from Buffalo,|N. Y.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of aloes,|ferrous sulfate, myrrh, and starch, together with volatile oils including savin oil,|and coated with sugar and chalk.|The article was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that it failed to bear adequate|directions for use since those given on the carton and in the circular were not|appropriate for the administration of a laxative. (2) In that the labeling failed|to bear adequate warnings against use in those pathological conditions where its|use might be dangerous to health, or against unsafe dosage or methods or dura-|tion of administration or application, in such manner and form, as are necessary|for the protection of users, since the warning which was printed on the circular|failed to convey the information that this particular article should not be taken|when suffering from nausea, abdominal pain, vomiting, or other symptoms of|appendicitis and that frequent or continued use might result in dependence upon|a laxative. (3) In that the following statements, \"\"Two days before the expected|menstruation take one pill before meals and at bedtime. Bathe the feet and|lower legs in hot mustard water. Drink freely of hot ginger tea. Cover up and|keep warm. This preparation may be dangerous and should be used under medi-|cal supervision,\"\" were false and misleading since it did not constitute a treatment|for delayed menstruation and would not be effective when used under medical|supervision. (4) In that the following statements, \"\"In constipation cases we|recommend a mild cathartic to keep the bowels open and easy. Exercise in the|open air is helpful, keeping the body and feet warm. Not for habitual use. In|case of nausea, abdominal pain, or vomiting, avoid the use of all laxatives and|cathartics,\"\" were false and misleading since they failed to reveal that it was a|laxative and they created the impression that some other product should be taken|if a laxative action were desired.|On October 10, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|558. Adulteration and misbranding of vitamin B complex tablets. U. S. v. 2,750 Special Formula No. 8558 Tablets and 717 Bottles and 65 Envelopes of Vitamin B Laxative. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00558November 1942Medical Specialty Co.vitamin B complex tabletsFebruary 1, 1941Bristol, Tenn.; San Antonio, Tex.San Antonio, Tex.Bristol, Tenn; San Antonio, Tex.Western District of Texas558F. D. C. No. 4873. Sample Nos. 11178-E to 11180-E, lncl. 11401-E to 11403-EThe National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00558ddnj|\"\"558. Adulteration and ' misbranding of vitamin B complex tablets. II. S. v.|2,750 Special Formula No. 855S Tablets and 717 Bottles and 65 Envelopes|of Vitamin B Laxative. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(P. D. C. No. 4873. Sample Nos. 11178-E to 11180-E, lncl.. 11401-E to 11403-E,|incl.)|These tablets represented a portion of a bulk shipment of tablets in 2 drums|labeled in part \"\"Special Formula No. 8558,\"\" the greater portion of which had been|repackaged and relabeled by the consignee after shipment. In addition to failure|to bear adequate directions for use and warning statements, the labeling of|these tablets bore false and misleading statements regarding their composition|and therapeutic efficacy and also failed to bear the common or usual names of|their active ingredients.|On June 5, 1941, the United States attorney for the Western District of Texas|filed a libel against 2,750 Special Formula No. 8558 Tablets, 737 bottles and 65|envelopes containing a total of 45,521 tablets at San Antonio, Tex., alleging that|the article had been introduced in interstate commerce on or about February 1,|1941, at Bristol, Tenn., and that it was then in the possession of the Medical|Specialty Co. at San Antonio, Tex.; and charging that it was adulterated and|misbranded.|The article was labeled in part: (Repackaged portion, bottles) \"\"500 [or \"\"100\"\"|or \"\"50\"\"] Compressed Tablets 'Vitalax' non habit forming. Vitamin B Laxative|from yeast concentrate with Sodium Glyco and Taurocholate. Water soluble|vitamin B complex from fresh dehydrated Brewer's yeast Stimulates liver|function. Produces abundant flow of bile necessary for normal digestion and|proper elimination without the use of habit forming cathartic drugs Suggested|Dose 1 to 3 tablets daily * * * Each Tablet Contains: Sodium Taurocholate|0.0325 Gm. Sodium Glycocholate 0.0325 Gm. Yeast Concentrate 0.026 Gm.\"\":|(portion of bottles and drum containing tablets not repackaged) \"\"12 Compressed|Tablets 'Vitalax' Each Tablet Contains Sodium Taurocholate 0.015 Gm. Sodium|Glycocholate 0.015 Gm. Yeast Concentrate 0.025 Gm. * * * Vitamin B|Laxative Concentrate with Bile Salts Compound Water soluble Vitamin B Com-|plex from Fresh Dehydrated Brewer's Yeast\"\" ; (envelopes) \"\"5 Compressed Tablets|'Vitalax' Non-Habit Forming For Faulty Elimination Vitamin B Laxative from|yeast concentrate with Sodium Glyco and Taurocholate. * * * it tends to|tone the digestive tract. Produces abundant flow of bile of physiologically|normal composition. Stimulates peristaltic action without the use of habit-|forming cathartic drugs. Suggested dosage: 1 to 3 tablets daily.\"\"|Analyses of samples of the article showed that it contained phenolphthalein|(approximately 1 grain per tablet) together with extracts of yeast and bile.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that a substance, phenolphthalein,|had been substituted in part therefor.|It was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that its labeling failed to bear ade-|quate directions for use since (in the case of the tablets in original container)|the label bore no directions for use, and (in the case of the repackaged tablets)|the statement \"\"Suggested dose 1 to 3 tablets daily\"\" was not a suitable or|appropriate direction for the use of laxative tablets of its composition. (2) In|that the labeling failed to bear adequate warnings against use by children where|its use might be dangerous to health; against unsafe dosage Or methods or dura-|tion of administration or application, in such manner and form, as are necessary|for the protection of users, since it failed to bear adequate warnings against the|potential danger of establishing dependence upon laxatives to move the bowels;|it failed to bear a warning to discontinue its use on the appearance of a skin|rash; and, in the case of the repackaged portion, it failed to bear a warning|against its use in the presence of abdominal pain, neusea, vomiting, or- other|symptoms of appendicitis. (3) In that the statements on the labels were false|and misleading with respect to its composition, since they did not reveal the|material fact that the tablets contained phenolphthalein, a coal-tax laxative drug.|(4) (Repackaged portion only) In that the designations, \"\"Vitalax\"\" and \"\"Vitamin|B Laxative,\"\" on the labels were false and misleading since they gave the impres-|sion that the laxative property of the tablets was due to their vitamin or vitamin|B content; whereas such laxative property was not due to their vitamin or vita-|min B content but to their phenolphthalein content. (5) (Portion repackaged|in bottles only except those containing 12 tablets) In that the statements on|. labels, \"\"Stimulates liver function\"\" and \"\"Produces abundant flow, of bile necessary|for normal digestion and proper elimination without the use of habit forming|cathartic drugs,\"\" were false and misleading since it was not efficacious for such-|purposes and did contain a habit-forming cathartic drug, namely, phenolphthalein.|(6) (Portion repackaged in envelopes) In that the statements on the label, \"\"It|tends to tone the digestive tract. Produces abundant flow of bile of physiologi-|cally normal composition. Stimulates peristaltic action without the use of|habit-forming cathartic drugs,\"\" were false and misleading since it would not|tone the digestive tract, would not produce an abundant flow of bile of physiologi-|cally normal composition, and would stimulate peristaltic action because of its|content of a habit-forming cathartic drug, phenolphthalein. (7) (Repackaged|portion only, except bottles containing 12 tablets) In that the statement \"\"Non|Habit Forming\"\" on the labels was false and misleading since its frequent or|continued use might result in the establishment of the laxative habit. (8) In|ihat the labeling failed to bear the common or usual name of each of its active|ingredients, since it did not mention phenolphthalein, an active ingredient. (9)|(Repackaged portion only) In that bile extract was an active ingredient but was|not specified on the label by its common or usual name, since neither \"\"Sodium|Taurocholate,\"\" \"\"Sodium Glycocholate,\"\" nor (in the case of the bottles containing|12 tablets) \"\"Bile Salts Compound,\"\" is the common or usual name of bile extract.|On August 27, 1941, the Medical Specialty Co., claimant, having admitted the|allegations of the libel, judgment of condemnation was entered and the product|was ordered released under bond to be relabeled under the supervision of the|Food and Drug Administration.|575. Misbranding of Robinson Spring Water. U. S. v. Ralph V. Bloomhuff and Charles F. Bloomhuff. Pleas of guilty; fines of $150 each.ddnj00575November 1942Ralph V. Bloomhuff and Charles F. Bloomhuff, Jackson, Miss.Robinson Spring WaterAugust 2 and July 26, 1939MississippiMississippiMichigan and FloridaSouthern District of Mississippi575F. D. C. No. 929. Sample Nos. 54577-D, 66050-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00575ddnj|575. Misbranding of Robinson Spring Water. U. S. v. Ralph V. Bloomhuff and|Charles F. Bloomhuff. Pleas of gruiltyj fines of $150 each. (F. D. C. No.|929. Sample Nos. 54577-D, 66050-D.)|On May 13,1940, the United States attorney for the Southern District of Missis-|sippi filed an information against Ralph V. Bloomhuff and Charles F. Bloomhuff,|Jackson, Miss., alleging shipment in interstate commerce on or about August 2|and July 26, 1939, from the State of Mississippi into the States of Michigan and|Florida of quantities of Robinson Spring Water which was misbranded. It was|labeled in part: \"\"A Natural Diuretic Eliminant Water.\"\"|Analysis showed that the article was a slightly mineralized water similar in|composition to Ohio River water.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement \"\"used in treat-|ing diabetes, kidney and bladder trouble,\"\" borne on the label, was false and mis-|leading since it would not be efficacious for such purposes.|On November 5,1941, pleas of guilty were entered and the court imposed fines of|$150 upon each defendant|559. Misbranding of Cravex. U. S. v. 42 Packages of Cravex. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00559November 1942Plant Products Co., Inc.CravexFebruary 21, 1941Houston, Tex.Burbank, Calif.Houston, Tex.Southern District of Texas559F. D. C. No. 472S. Sample No. 11249-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00559ddnj|559. Misbranding of Cravex. IT. S. v. 42 Packages of Cravex. Default decree of|condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 472S. Sample No. 11249-E.)|In addition to failure to bear adequate directions for use in the labeling, this|product was misbranded in that the name \"\"Cravex\"\" in the labeling would falsely|imply that it constituted an adequate treatment for alcoholism.|On May 8, 1941, the United States attorney for the Southern District of Texas|filed a libel against 42 packages of Cravex at Houston, Tex., alleging that it had|been shipped|on or about February 21, 1941, by Plant Products Co., Inc., from|Burbank, Calif.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of|calcium and manganese compounds, including phosphates, caffeine, and milk sugar.|The article was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that the labeling did not bear|adequate directions for use, since the directions appearing on the package were|not adequate for the treatment of alcoholism, a disease for which it was adver-|tised; and (2) in that the labeling was false and misleading since the name|\"\"Cravex\"\" was interpreted by advertising to mean treatment for craving for|alcohol, and it did not constitute adequate treatment for such condition.|On June 17,1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|DRUGS SEIZED BECAUSE OF CONTAMINATION WITH FILTH|560. Adulteration of bonita livers. U. S. v. 122 Cans of Bonlta Livers. Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered released under bond.ddnj00560November 1942Parke, Davis & Co.bonita liversJuly 30. 1941Seattle, Wash.San Francisco, Calif.Seattle, Wash.Western District of Washington560F. D. C. No. 5417. Sample No. 63538-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00560ddnj|560. Adulteration of bonita livers. U. S. v. 122 Cans of Bonlta Livers. Consent|decree of condemnation. Product ordered released under bond. (F. D. C.|No. 5417. Sample No. 63538-E.)|Portions of this product were found to be decomposed and putrid.|On August 20, 1941, the United States attorney for the Western District of|Washington filed a libel against 122 5-gallon cans of bonita livers at Seattle,|Wash., alleging that the article had been shipped by Parke, Davis & Co. from San|Francisco, Calif., on or about July 30. 1941 : and charging that it was adulterated|in that it consisted in whole or in part of a filthy substance.|It also was alleged to be adulterated under the provisions of the law appli-|cable to foods, as reported in F N. J. No. 2093.|On September 10, 1941, Parke, Davis & Co., claimant, having admitted the|allegations of the libel, judgment of condemnation was entered and the product|was ordered released under bond conditioned that it be brought into compliance|with the law under the supervision of the Food and Drug Administration. Subse-|quently all the cans containing the product were inspected and those found to be|unfit were destroyed.|561. Adulteration of crude drugs. U. S. v. 2 Barrels of \"\"Broken Alex Senna Lvs Pumpkin Seed American Wormseed Anise Seed.\"\" Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00561November 1942R. Hillier's Son, Corporationcrude drugsJanuary 28, 1941Atlanta, Ga.New York, N. Y.Atlanta, Ga.Northern District of Georgia561F. D. C. No. 5673. Sample No. 48086-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00561ddnj|561. Adulteration of crude drugs. V. S. v. 2 Barrels of \"\"Broken Alex Senna Lvs|Pumpkin Seed American Wormseed Anise Seed.\"\" Default decree of con-|demnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 5673. Sample No. 48086-E.)|This product was contaminated with insect fragments and excreta.|On September 11, 1941, the United States attorney for the Northern District|of Georgia filed a libel against 2 barrels of the above-named product at Atlanta,|Ga., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|January 28, 1941, by R. Hillier's Son, Corporation from New York, N. Y.; and|charging that it was adulterated in that it consisted in part of a filthy substance.|On October 7, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|562. Adulteration of ginger root. U. S. v. 47 Bags of Ginger. Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered released under bond to be converted into an inedible product.ddnj00562November 1942J. R. Watkins Co.ginger rootSeptember 6, 1940Memphis, Tenn.Newark, N. J.Memphis, Tenn.Western District of Tennessee562F. D. C. No. 6356. Sample No. 67714-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00562ddnj|562. Adulteration of ginger root. U. S. v. 47 Bags of Ginger. Consent decree of|condemnation. Product ordered released under bond to be converted into|an inedible product. (F. D. C. No. 6356. Sample No. 67714-B.)|Examination showed that this product contained worm holes and further|evidence of insect infestation.|On December 4, 1941, the United States attorney for the Western District of|Tennessee filed a libel against 47 bags containing 5,229 pounds of ginger at|Memphis, Tenn., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce|on or about September 6, 1940, by J. R. Watkins Co. from Newark, N. J.; and|charging that it was adulterated in that it consisted in whole or in part of a|filthy, putrid, or decomposed substance.|It also was alleged to be adulterated under the provisions of the law applicable|to foods, as reported in F. N. J. No. 2985.|On February 27, 1942, J. R. Watkins Go., claimant, having admitted the alle-|gations of the libel, judgment of condemnation was entered and the product was|ordered released under bond to be converted under the supervision of the Food|and Drug Administration into an inedible product. :|563. Adulteration of miscellaneous drugs. U. S. v. A Certain Quantity of Drugs. Consent decree of condemnation. Products ordered released under bond for segregation and relabeling of fit portions.ddnj00563November 1942Gibbs Peoples Drug Service Co., Harrisburg, Pa.miscellaneous drugsFebruary 26 and 28, 1941New York, N. Y.Harrisburg, Pa.New York, N. Y.Southern District of New York563F. D. C. No. 4214. Sample Nos. 56786-E to 56794-E, incl.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00563ddnj|563. Adulteration of miscellaneous drugs. U. S. v. A Certain Quantity of Drugs.|Consent decree of condemnation. Products ordered released under bond|for segregation and relabeling of fit portions. (F. D. C. No. 4214. Sample|Nos. 56786-E to 56794-E, incl.)|This case was based on a shipment of salvaged smoke- and water-damaged|goods which included various drugs such as \"\"patent medicines,\"\" pharmaceuticals|used in the filling of prescriptions, surgical dressings, and vitamin capsules.|On April 15, 1941, Jthe United States attorney for the Southern District of|New York filed a libel against 284 cartons of miscellaneous merchandise, includ-|ing a certain quantity of drugs, at New York, N. Y., alleging that the articles|had been shipped on or about February 26 and 28, 1941, by Curtis & Travis from|Harrisburg, Pa.; and charging that the drugs were adulterated in that they|consisted in whole or in part of filthy substances, and in that they had been|held under insanitary conditions whereby they might have become contaminated|with filth.|The libel also covered quantities of foods and cosmeties that were adulterated, as|reported in F. N. J. No. 2825 and in notices of judgment on cosmetics.|On April 30, 1941, Gibbs Peoples Drug Service Co., Harrisburg, Pa., claimant,|having admitted the allegations of the libel, judgment of condemnation was|entered and-the products were ordered released under bond conditioned that the|fit portions be segregated and relabeled in compliance with the law.|DRUGS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH|OFFICIAL OR OWN STANDARDS*|3816. Misbranding of Glycolator devices. U. S. v. 12 Cases, etc.ddnj03816January 1953Pittsburgh Chemical Laboratory, from Mars, Pa.Glycolator devicesMay 20, 1952Washington, D. C.Mars, Pa.Washington, D. C.District of Columbia.3816F. D. C. No. 33321. Sample No. 38743-L.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj03816ddnj|3816. Misbranding of Glycolator devices. U. S. v. 12 Cases, etc. (F. D. C. No.|33321. Sample No. 38743-L.)|LIBEL FILED : June 27, 1952, District of Columbia.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT : On or about May 20, 1952, and subsequent dates, by the|Pittsburgh Chemical Laboratory, from Mars, Pa.|PRODUCT : 12 cases, each containing 6 pints, of a liquid known as glycosol, 77|plastic contrivances providing a container for the glycosol, a movable wick,|and a heating element known as the \"\"\"\"Rex Glycolator,\"\" and 24 metal and plastic|contrivances consisting of two telescoping parts providing a container for the|glycosol, a wick, a variable heating element, and a passageway for air intended|to communicate with the air intake opening of a furnace, in possession of John|G. Webster & Sons, Inc., at Washington, D. C, together with a number of leaflets|entitled \"\"Now We Can Prevent Colds\"\" and a copy of a local newspaper ad-|vertisement headed \"\"Developed by John G. Webster Engineers! Amazing New|Air Conditioning Method Fights Colds, Viruses, Disease and Death.\"\"|The liquid and the metal and plastic contrivances were alleged to constitute|a device within the meaning of Section 201 (h).|LABEL, IN PART: (Case) \"\"Glycosol Active ingredient triethylene glycol|90? * * * Iron City Chemical Co. Valencia, Penna.\"\"; (plastic con-|trivances) \"\"The Rex Glycolator * * * Use Glycosol Only * * * Mfd.|By Iron City Chemical Co. Evans City, Pa.\"\"; (metal and plastic contriv-|ances) \"\"Glycolator * * * Use Glycosol Only * * * Mfg. by Glycola-|tor Div. Iron City Chemical Co. Valencia, Pa.\"\"|NATURE OF CHARGE: Misbranding, Section 502 (a), certain statements in the|above-mentioned leaflets accompanying the device were false and misleading.|The statements represented and suggested that the device was effective to|prevent colds, mumps, German measles, throat and ear infections, infections,|and spread of disease, and to protect against colds those persons who spend 8|hours a day in \"\"glycol-vaporized rooms\"\" and are then exposed to colds in|buses, subways, theaters, and restaurants. The device was not effective for|such purposes, and it was not capable of fulfilling the promises of benefit made|for it. The device was misbranded in the above respects when introduced into|and while in interstate commerce.|Further misbranding, Section 502 (a), certain statements in the labeling of|.the device, namely, in the above-mentioned newspaper advertisement, were|false and misleading. The statements represented and suggested that the|device would prevent colds, virus diseases, asthma, respiratory diseases, polio,|throat infections, and death due to air-borne bacteria and germs of all kinds.|The device would not fulfill the promises of benefit stated and implied. The|device was misbranded in this respect while held for sale after shipment in|interstate commerce.|DISPOSITION : August 21, 1952. Default decree of condemnation. The court|ordered that a portion of the products be delivered to the Food and Drug|Administration and that the remainder be destroyed.|DRUGS FOR VETERINARY USE|565. Adulteration of Shores Special Formula Tablets C. T., Special Formula Tablets C. C. T., and Special Formula Tablets S. C. Pink. U. S. v. The Shores Co., Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $75.ddnj00565November 1942Shores Co., Inc., Cedar Rapids, IowaiShores Special Formula Tablets G. T., Special Formula Tablets C. C. T., and Special Formula Tablets S. C. PinkDecember 12, 1939, to April 14, 1940IowaIowaMinnesota and New YorkNorthern District of Iowa565F. D. C. No. 2908. Sample Nos. 8079-E, 8122-E, 10712-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00565ddnj|565. Adulteration of Shores Special Formula Tablets G. T., Special Formula|Tablets C. C. T., and Special Formula Tablets S. C. Pink. U. S. v. The|Shores Co., Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $75. (F. D. C. No. 2908. Sample|Nos. 8079-E,-8122-E, 10712-E.)|On June 19,1S41, the United States attorney for the Northern District of Iowa|filed an information against the Shores Co., Inc., Cedar Rapids, Iowai alleging|shipment within the period from on or about December 12, 1939, to on or about|April 14, 1940, from the State of Iowa into the States of Minnesota and|New York, of quantities of the above-named products that were adulterated|and misbranded.|The Special Formula Tablets C. T. were alleged to be adulterated in that|their strength differed from or their quality fell below that which they pur-|ported or were represented to possess, since each of the tablets was represented|to contain 10 grains of calcined magnesia and 10 grains of bismuth subnitrate;|whereas each of the tablets contained not more than 8.86 grains of calcined|magnesia and not more than 8.48 grains of bismuth subnitrate.|The Special Formula Tablets C. C. T. were alleged to be adulterated in that|their strength differed from or their quality fell below that which they pur-|ported or were represented to possess, since each of the tablets represented|to contain kamala and extract of kamala equivalent to 9 grains of kamala|and to contain *4 grain of nicotine; whereas each of the tablets contained|kamala and extract of kamala equivalent to not more than 5.81 grains of|kamala and only 0.21 grain of nicotine.|The Special Formula Tablets S. C. Pink were alleged to be adulterated in that|their strength differed from or their quality fell below that which they purported|or were represented to possess, since each of the tablets was represented to|contain 1 grain of calcium iodized; whereas each of the tablets contained|not less than 1.93 grains of calcium iodized.|On June 19, 1941, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to counts 1, 3, and|5 of the information, and the court imposed a fine of $75 and costs. \\|566. Adulteration and misbranding of A. B. D. G. Capsules. U. S. v. 15,000 A. B. D. G. Capsules. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00566November 1942International Vitamin CorporationA. B. D. G. CapsulesJuly 11, 1941Los Angeles, Calif.Brooklyn, N. Y.Los Angeles, Calif.Sonthern District of California566F. D. C. No. 6068. Sample No. 53409-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00566ddnj|566. Adulteration and misbranding- of A. B. D. G. Capsules. V. S. v. 15,000|A. B. D. G. Capsules. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 6068. Sample No. 53409-E.)|These capsules, which were shipped in bulk package, were labeled \"\"A. B. D. G.|Capsules Improved,\"\" but subsequently a portion were repackaged and labeled|\"\"Hain Abedege Improved Vitamins.\"\" Bach capsule was represented to contain|200 U. S. P. units of vitamin B*, but examination showed that each one con-|tained not more than 133 International Units (U. S. P. units) of vitamin Bi.|On October 24, 1941, the United States attorney for the Sonthern District of|California filed a libel against 15,000 A. B. D. G. Capsules at Los Angeles,|Calif., allegirg that the articles had been shipped on or about July 11, 1941,|by the International Vitamin Corporation from Brooklyn, N. Y.; and charging|that it was adulterated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from|and its quality fell below that which it was represented to possess, namely,|200 U. S. P. units of vitamin Ba. It was alleged to be misbranded in that|the statement on the shipping carton, \"\"200 vitamin Bi units U. S. P.,\"\" was|false as applied to an article that contained not more than 133 International|Units of vitamin Bi per capsule.|It was also alleged to be adulterated and misbranded under the provisions|of the law applicable to foods, as reported in F. N. J. No. 3221.|On November 19, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|567. Adulteration and misbranding of Adiron. U. S. v. 20 Bottles, 16 Bottles, and 600 Sample Packages of Adiron. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00567November 1942Lawrence LaboratoriesAdironFebruary 5 and March 7, 1041Spokane, Wash.Chicago, Ill.Spokane, Wash.Eastern District of Washington567F. D. C. No. 4252. Sample Nos. 60557-E, 60558-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00567ddnj|567. Adulteration and misbranding of Adiron. U. S. v. 20 Bottles, 16 Bottles,|and 600 Sample Packages of Adiron. Default decree of condemnation and|destruction. (F. D. C. No. 4252. Sample Nos. 60557-E, 60558-E.)|On April 9, 1941, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Washington filed a libel against 20 bottles each containing 60 tablets, 16|bottles each containing 250 tablets, and 600 sample packages of Adiron at|Spokane, Wash., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate com-|merce on or about February 5 and March 7, 1041, from Chicago, 111., by the|Lawrence Laboratories; and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it contained on iron com-|pound equivalent to approximately 0.7 grain of metallic iron per tablet.|Spectrophotometry examination of a sample showed that it contained 67|U. S. P. units of vitamin A per tablet.|. The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from|and its quality-fell below that which it was represented to possess, namely,|1500 U. S. P. XI unite of vitamin A per tablet.|It was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that the statement appearing on the|label, \"\"Adiron * * * Tablets, each contain * * * 1200 U. S. P. XI Units|Vitamin 'A,'\"\" was false; (2) in that the following statements appearing in the|labeling, \"\"Adiron is guaranteed to carry these minimum potencies per average|tablets: 1,200 USP XI Units Vitamin 'A,'\"\" and \"\"This core is the concentrate of|the vitamins, equivalent in vitamins 'A' and 'D' to one-half teaspoonful of fresh|U. S. P. Standard cod liver oil,\"\" were false when applied to an article which con-|tained only 67 U. S. P. units of vitamin A per tablet; and (3) in|' that statements,|designs, and devices in the labeling which represented that it would be efficacious|in the treatment of nutritional (secondary) anemia, that it would make new|blood and improve and maintain the health, were false and misleading since it|could not be relied upon to produce the effects claimed.|It was also alleged to be adulterated and misbranded in violation of the provi-|sions of the law applicable to foods, as reported in F. N. J. No. 2986.|On May 26, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|568. Adulteration and misbranding of DPS Formula No. 54. U. S. v. 35 Bottles of DPS Formula No. 54. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00568November 1942Dartell LaboratoriesDPS Formula No. 54July 7 and August 20, 1941OregonLos Angeles, Calif.OregonDistrict of Oregon568F. D. C. No. 6025. Sample No. 61376-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00568ddnj|568. Adulteration and misbranding: of DPS Formula No. 54. V. S. v. 35 Bottles|of DPS Formula No. 54. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 6025. Sample No. 61376-E.)|Examination of this product showed that it was approximately 50 percent|deficient in vitamins A, C, and D.|On October 21, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Oregon filed|a libel against 35 bottles, each containing 80 DPS Formula No. 54 tablets, alleging|that the article had been shipped on or about July 7 and August 20, 1941, by|Dart ell Laboratories from Los Angeles, Calif.; and charging that it was adul-|terated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from and|its quality fell below that which it was represented to possess, namely, \"\"1,000|International Units of vitamin A, 700 U. S. P. XI units of vitamin D, and 100|International Units of vitamin C.\"\"|It was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that statements appearing on the|label, \"\"Each Tablet .Contains * * * Vitamin D . . . 700 USP XI Units,|Vitamin C . . . 100 International Units, Vitamin A . . . 1000 Inter-|national Units,\"\" were false and misleading since it contained less than the stated|amounts of vitamins A, C, and D. (2) In that the following words and device|appearing on the label, \"\"DPS Formula No. 54,\"\" were false and misleading since|they referred and related to the statement \"\"DPS Formula No. 54 . . . Indi-|cations: Hyperacidity, Nervousness, Low blood calcium, Moist type skin disor-|ders, Pregnancy and lactation, Soft teeth and bone, Respiratory disorders, Asthma,|Sinusitis, Tuberculosis,\"\" appearing in a certain catalog entitled \"\"Dartell For-|mulae\"\" distributed by the consignor and in the possession of the consignee,|whereby said words and device suggested and represented that the article was|an adequate and effective remedy for the conditions enumerated in the catalog;|whereas it was not an adequate and effective remedy for such conditions.|It was also alleged to be adulterated and misbranded under the provisions of|the law applicable to foods, as reported in F, N. J. No. 2988.|On December 16, 1941. no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|569. Adulteration and misbranding of McCollum's Vitamin A and D Tablets. U. S. v. 8 Bottles of McCollum's Vitamin A and D Tablets. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00569November 1942McCollum LaboratoriesMcCollum's Vitamin A and D TabletsJuly 12 and 25, 1941Portland, Oreg.Hollywood, Calif.Portland, Oreg.District of Oregon569F. D. C. No. 5694. Sample No. 61358-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00569ddnj|569. Adulteration and misbranding of McCoUum's Vitamin A and D Tablets.|U. S. v. 8 Bottles of BfcCoUum's Vitamin A and D Tablets. Default decree|of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 5694. Sample No. 61358-E.)|Examination of this product showed that it was more than 50 percent deficient|in vitamin A and more than 40 percent deficient in vitamin D.|On September 16, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Oregon|filed a libel against 8 bottles, each containing 60 tablets, of the above-named|product at Portland, Oreg., alleging that the article had been shipped on?or about|July 12 and 25, 1941, by McCollum Laboratories from Hollywood, Calif.; and|charging that it was adulterated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from and|its quality fell below that which it was represented to possess, namely: \"\"Each|tablet contains 3000 International Units of Vitamin A * * * and 300 Inter-|national Units of Vitamin D,\"\" since each tablet contained much less than 3,000|International Units of vitamin A and 300 International Units of vitamin D. It|was alleged to be misbranded in that the above-quoted statement was false and|misleading.|It was also alleged to be adulterated and misbranded under the provisions of|the law applicable to foods, as reported in F. N. J. No. 2989.|On December 21,1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|576. Misbranding of Hilltop Wor-Mor Powder, Hilltop Poultry Breathing Stimulator, and Hilltop Kure-Mor Intestinal Astringent. U. S. v. Hilltop Farm Feed Co., Frank E. Moore, and Fred H. Moore. Pleas of guilty. Fines, $150.ddnj00576November 1942Hilltop Farm Feed Co., Minneapolis, Minn., Frank B. Moore, and Fred H. MooreHilltop Wor-Mor Powder, Hilltop Poultry Breathing Stimulator, and Hilltop Kure-Mor Intestinal AstringentMarch 29 to April 25, 1940MinnesotaMinnesotaWisconsinDistrict of Minnesota576F. D. C. No. 2978. Sample Nos. 8382-E to 8384-E, incl.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00576ddnj|?76. Misbranding: of Hilltop Wor-Mor Powder, Hilltop Poultry Breathing Stimu-|lator, and Hilltop Kure-Mor Intestinal Astringent. U. S. v. Hilltop Farm /|Feed Co., Frank E. Moore, and Fred H. Moore. Pleas of guilty. Fines, \\|$150. (F. D. C. No. 2978. Sample Nos. 8382-E to 8384-E, incl.)|On June 9, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Minnesota filed|an information against Hilltop Farm Feed Co., Minneapolis, Minn., Frank B.|Moore, and Fred H. Moore, alleging delivery for introduction in interstate com-|merce within the period from on or about March 29 to on or about April 25, 1940,|from the State of Minnesota into the State of Wisconsin of quantities of poultry|remedies that were misbranded. They were labeled in part: \"\"Hilltop * * *|Worm Powder Wor-Mor Powder**; \"\"Hilltop Poultry Breathing Stimulator\"\";|or \"\"Hilltop * * * Intestinal Astringent Kure-Mor.\"\"|Analysis of a sample of the Wor-Mor Powder showed that it consisted essentially|of copper sulfate, iron sulfate, plant material including nux vomica and anise, and|nicotine sulfate. It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements appear-|ing on the cartons representing that it was efficacious in the control of worms in|poultry and that it was efficacious to eliminate and eradicate worms in poultry,|were false and misleading since it was not efficacious for such purposes. It was|alleged to be misbranded further in that the statements on the carton, \"\"Directions|Mix 8 ounces of Hilltop Wor-Mor Powder into 100 lbs. of mash. Feed for two|?days and then repeat for one day two weeks later. For control of worms repeat|this plan every month after the chicks are one month old throughout their entire|life. It pays. The cost is small. Don't feed wormy chickens. Eliminate the|Worms. Hilltop Kure-Mor should be fed in all drinking water for its heal-|ing * * * effects during the above treatment and for a few days following,\"\"|regarding another drug product sold by said defendant, i. e., Kure-Mor, were|false and misleading in that they represented that Kure-Mor if fed in drinking|water during treatment for worms would have a-healing effect; whereas it|would not.|Analysis of a sample of the Hilltop Poultry Breathing Stimulator showed that it|consisted essentially of phenolic compounds such as cresol and guaiacol, and|volatile oils such as eucalyptus, anise, and camphor, incorporated in a saponified|base. Bacteriological examination showed that it was not antiseptic. It was|alleged to be misbranded in that statements appearing on the bottle label repre-|senting that it was a poultry breathing stimulator; that it would be efficacious|as a respiratory stimulant that would tend to alleviate bronchial conditions; that|it was efficacious as an antiseptic, as a gastro-intestinal antiseptic, and as an|intestinal anti-ferment; that it would be efficacious to affect favorably the re-|spiratory tract, hinder and act against the spread of contagions such as roup,|catarrh, influenza, brooder pneumonia, chickenpox, diphtheria, and other diseases|of the respiratory tract in poultry flocks; and that it would penetrate the nostrils,|were false and misleading since it would not be efficacious for such purposes.|Analysis of a sample of the Hilltop Kure-Mor showed that it consisted essen-|tially of compounds of magnesium and potassium sulfate,\"\"nitrate, chlorate, and|dichromate. It was alleged to be misbranded in that statements appearing on the|bottle label representing that it was efficacious as an intestinal astringent; that|it had great merit for poultry of all ages and would maintain poultry in good|condition; that it was efficacious in the treatment of poultry which was out of|condition and in need of a regulator and conditioner; that it would be efficacious|as an aid in better starting of young poultry, would help the chick digest the egg|yolk the first few days, and act as a bowel regulator and conditioner at all times;|that it would be efficacious to soften and remove the caked waste, without|causing bleeding, in chicks that had become \"\"pasted up\"\" with bowel trouble;|that it would be efficacious to flush the system of chicks of poisonous deposits in|the intestines; and that it would increase the consumption of water and cause|heavier egg production, were false and misleading since it would not be efficacious|for such purposes.|On June 9, 1941, pleas of guilty having been entered by the defendants, the|court imposed a fine of $50 against each.|578. Misbranding of Enrich and Ritamine. U. S. v. 40 Bottles of Enrich and Ritamlne. Default decee of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00578November 1942American Dietaids Co., Inc.Enrich and RitamineMarch 28 to May 13, 1941Philadelphia, Pa.Yonkers, N. Y.Philadelphia, Pa.Eastern District of Pennsylvania578F. D. C. Nos. 4884, 4885. Sample Nos. 40816-E, 40821-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00578ddnj|578. Misbranding of Enrich and Ritamine. IT. S. v. 40 Bottles of Enrich and|Ritamlne. Default decee of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C.|Nos. 4884, 4885. Sample Nos. 40816-E, 40821-E.)|On June 6, 1941, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Penn-|sylvania filed a libel against 14 16-fluid-ounce bottles and 6 8-fluid-ounce bottles of|Enrich, and 8 75-day, 4 35-day, and 8 10-day packages of Ritamine at Philadelphia, .|Pa., alleging that the articles had been shipped within the period from on or|about March 28 to on or about May 13,1941, by American Dietaids Co., Inc., from|Yonkers, N. Y.; and charging that they were misbranded. .|Analysis of a sample of Enrich showed that it contained per fluid ounce-|peptonized iron (650 milligrams), soluble manganese citrate (54 milligrams),|calcium glycerophosphate (170 milligrams), and vitamin Bi (200 U. S. P. units) ;|analyses of samples of Ritamine, which consisted of black and brown capsules.|showed that the black capsules contained vitamin A (12,800 units), vitamin Bi|(200 units), vitamin C (226 units), and vitamin D (600 units) ; and that the|brown capsules contained compounds of calcium, iron, phosphorus, copper, and|iodine with small proportions of compounds of other elements, and an.oil such|as wheat-germ oil.|Enrich was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that statements on an accom-|panying placard in the window display of the consignee which suggested or im-|plied that women normally require excessive amounts of iron to prevent the|development of anemia; and which represented that its use would benefit nerves,|glands, and other organs; would promote energy, endurance, appetite, vigor,|vitality, sunny disposition, and radiant complexion; and that the product was an|adequate treatment for anemia due to lack of iron, were false and misleading|since women do not normally require excessive amounts of iron to prevent the|development of anemia, and the use of the article would not fulfill such promises|of benefits stated and implied. (2) In that the designation \"\"Enrich\"\" on the car-|ton and bottle labels constituted a false and misleading device since it suggested|and represented to purchasers that use of the article would enrich the blood,|such meaning having been acquired as the result of the following statements on|placards in the consignee's window display and in circulars on a counter in the|consignee's store, \"\"Are You Anemic due to lack of iron in your blood? New|Enrich tonic brings genuine food-iron to the blood * * * Enriched Blood|*?* * It is vital that the blood be rich in iron. Take-Enrich\"\"; whereas its|use could not be depended upon to enrich the blood. (3) In that the following|statements appearing on the carton and the bottle labels, \"\"A Dietary Supplement '|*?* * contains * * * Calcium * * * as the glycerophosphates,\"\" were|false and mis'eading in the absence of a disclosure of the material fact that the|amount of calcium glycerophosphate would furnish but a small fraction of the|normal calcium requirement when the article was taken in accordance with the|directions for use appearing on the bottle label, namely, \"\"2 teaspoonfuls 4 times|daily * * * For children, 1 tea'spoon 4 times daily.\"\"|Ritamine was alleged to be misbranded in that representations in its labeling|that its use would supply vitamins and minerals needed for various tissues,|organs, and functions, were false and misleading since it would not fulfill the|promises of benefits stated and implied.|On June 28, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the products were ordered destroyed.|570. Adulteration and misbranding of Bio Vita Vitamin Oil. U. S. v. 23 Gallon Cans of Bio Vita Vitamin Oil. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00570November 1942Bioproducts, Inc.Bio Vita Vitamin OilFebruary 11, 1941Lexington, Mass.Astoria, Oreg.Lexington, Mass.District of Massachusetts570F. D. C. No. 4378. Sample No. 60505-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00570ddnj|570. Adulteration and misbranding of Bio Vita Vitamin Oil. U. S. v. 23 Gallon|Cans of Bio Vita Vitamin Oil. Default decree of condemnation and destruc-|tion. (F. D. C. No. 4378. Sample No. 60505-E.)|This veterinary product, in addition to containing a smaller amount of vitamin|D than that represented in the labeling, also contained false and misleading|therapeutic claims.|On April 21, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Massachusetts|filed a libel against the above-named product at Lexington, Mass., alleging that|it had been shipped by Bioproducts, Inc., from Astoria, Oreg., on or about February|11,1941; and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded.|Biological examination of a sample of the article showed that it contained|not more than 175 U. S. P. units of vitamin D per gram.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from, or|its purity or quality fell below, that which it purported or was represented to|possess.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements on the label|were false and misleading since it would not be efficacious for such purposes: \"\"250|USPXI Units Vitamin D per gram * * * Vitamin A is important to good fur,|to build resistance to respiratory diseases, to insure good breeding, to promote|growth, to prevent urinary calculi. Aids in maintaining good skin condition.\"\"|The article was also alleged to be adulterated and misbranded under the provi-|sions of the law applicable to foods, as reported in F. N. J. No. 29S7.|- On July 8, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|571. Adulteration and misbranding of Codroil. U. S. v. 20 Drums of Codroil. Default decree of condemnation ordering that the product be relabeled and sold as ordinary feed.ddnj00571November 1942Pho-So- Ash Products CorporationCodroilFebruary 10, 1941Ashland, OhioKendallville, Ind.Ashland, OhioNorthern District of Ohio571F. D. C. No. 4400. Sample No. 29068-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00571ddnj|571. Adulteration and misbranding of Codroil. U. S. v. 20 Drums of Codroll.|Default decree of condemnation ordering that the product be relabeled|and sold as ordinary feed. (F. D. C. No. 4400. Sample No. 29068-E.)|This product was represented to contain 3.71 percent of cod-liver-oil extract|containing 4,833 units of vitamin A per gram, which would indicate that the|product contained 179 units of vitamin A per gram; whereas examination showed|that it contained only 88 units of vitamin A per gram. Furthermore, no statement|of contents appeared on the container.|On April 19, 1941, the United States attorney for the Northern District of Ohio|filed a libel against 20 drums, each containing 100 pounds, of Codroil at Ashland,|Ohio, alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce by Pho-So-|Ash Products Corporation from Kendallville, Ind., on or about February 10, 1941;|and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from and|its quality fell below that which it was represented to possess, namely, \"\"Ingredi-|ents-Cod liver oil extract 3.71 per cent (4833 units vitamin A per gram * * *).\"\"|It was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that the above-quoted statement on the|label was false since it was incorrect; and (2) in that the package (drum) did not|bear an accurate statement of the quantity of contents.|The article was also alleged to be adulterated and misbranded under the provi-|sions of the law applicable to foods, as reported in F. N. J. No. 2857.|490719?-42 3|On July 8, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and it was ordered that the product be relabeled and sold as ordinary|feed.|572. Adulteration of Gynantrin. U. S. v. 1525-cc. Vials of Gynantrin. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00572November 1942Difco LaboratoriesGynantrlnFebruary 7, 1941Chicago, Ill.Detroit, Mich.Chicago, Ill.Northern District of Illinois572F. D. C. No. 5600. Sample No. 62510-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00572ddnj|572. Adulteration of Gynantrln. U. S. v. 1525-cc. Vials of Gynantrln. Default|decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 5600. Sample No.|62510-E.)|This product was represented on the label to possess a potency of 100 rat units|of anterior pituitary hormone per cc.; whereas examination showed that it|possessed a potency of not more than 12 rat units per cc.|On September 8, 1941, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Illinois filed a libel against the above-named product at Chicago, 111., alleging that|it had been shipped on or about February 7, 1941, by Difco Laboratories from|Detroit, Mich.; and charging that it was adulterated. When shipped it was|labeled in part: \"\"Difco Anterior Pituitary Sex Hormone Solution 100 Rat Units|per CC.\"\" Subsequently it was relabeled in part: \"\"Gynantrin * * * Anterior|Pituitary Gonad.\"\"|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from that|which it purported or was represented to possess, namely, 100 rat units per cc.|On October 15, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|573. Adulteration and misbranding of Isopropyl alcohol compound. U. S. v. 214 1/2 Dozen 6-Fluid-Ounce Packages and 39 1/2 Dozen 16-Fluid-Ounce Packages of Paramount Brand Isopropyl Alcohol Compound. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00573November 1942Rozelle, Inc.Isopropyl alcohol compoundOctober 8, 1940Jonesboro, Ark.St. Louis, Mo.Jonesboro, Ark.Eastern District of Arkansas573F. D. C. No. 4628. Sample No. 57311-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00573ddnj|573. Adulteration and misbranding of Isopropyl alcohol compound. IT. S. v.|214% Dozen 6-Fluld-0unce Packages and 39% Dozen 16-Fluld-Ounce|Packages of Paramount Brand Isopropyl Alcohol Compound. Default|decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 4628. Sample No.|57311-E.)|Examination of samples of this product showed that it contained only 10 per-|cent by volume of isopropyl alcohol, whereas it was labeled \"\"Isopropyl Alcohol|25 Percent.\"\" Furthermore, isopropyl alcohol rubbing compounds usually con-|tain a much higher proportion of isopropyl alcohol than the amount found and|even much higher than the amount declared.|On May 7,1941, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas|filed a libel against the above-named product at Jonesboro, Ark., alleging that it|had been shipped by Rozelle, Inc., from St. Louis, Mo., on or about October 8,|1940; and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from that|which it was represented to possess, namely, \"\"Isopropyl Alcohol 25 Percent.\"\" It|was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement \"\"Isopropyl Alcohol Com-|pound\"\" was misleading for the reason that isopropyl alcohol rubbing compounds|sold on the market contain a much higher proportion of isopropyl alcohol.|On June 18,1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|DRUGS AND DEVICES ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF FALSE AND|MISLEADING CLAIMS8|574. Misbranding of New Food. U. S. v. Parke D. Brollier (Parke-Lee Food Co.). Plea of nolo contendere. Judgment of guilty. Fine, $100 and costs.ddnj00574November 1942Parke D. Brollier, trading as Parke-Lee Food Co., Lorain, OhioNew FoodFebruary 8, 1940OhioOhioIowaNorthern District of Ohio574F. D. C. No. 2912. Sample No. 15001-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00574ddnj|574. Misbranding of New Food. V. S. v. Parke D. Brollier (Parke-Lee Food Co.).|Plea of nolo contendere. Judgment of guilty. Fine, SlOO and costs.|(F. D. C. No. 2912. Sample No. 15001-E.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-|ing its constituents and its efficacy in the conditions indicated hereinafter.|On April 21, 1941, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Ohio filed an information against Parke D. Brollier, trading as Parke-Lee Food|Co., Lorain, Ohio, alleging shipment on or about February 8, 1940, from the State|of Ohio into the State of Iowa of a quantity of New Food which was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the product consisted of ground and roasted flaxseed.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, \"\"New Food * * *|The Original Natural * * * Food, * * * Newfood is, as the trade name|implies, an entirely new type of food. * * * The nutritional value of this|all-vegetable auxiliary food with its natural * * * minerals, fats, proteins,|gives * * * extra nourishment and strength. This food contains an all-vege-|table mucin (mucilage) * * * Newfood is an excellent auxiliary food,\"\" ap-|pearing in the labeling, were false and misleading in that they represented that|the article was a new food; that it possessed such nutritional value that it would|supply important amounts of minerals, fats and proteins and thus give extra|? See also Nos. 541, 542, 544-553, 555-559, 567, 568, 570.|nourishment and strength, and would furnish an appreciable amount of mucin|(mucilage) ; whereas it would not be of value for such purposes.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the statements \"\"Modern ar-|ticles of food in our everyday diet may be responsible for many distressing symp-|toms. Methods of preparation may have destroyed much of the vital constituents,|and synthetic compounds that are minus essential elements being substituted for|natural products, may also be responsible for dietary deficiencies. We live prin-|cipally ^on sugar and starches, neither of which are greatly destroyed by the|process of cooking,\"\" and \"\"This food will be a pleasant and effective addition to|the diet of any person of any age,\"\" appearing in the circular, were false and mis-|leading since they represented that it would supply vital constituents which are|lacking in modern foods or might have been destroyed by modern methods of|preparation, and which would be an effective addition to the diet; whereas it|would not be of value for such purposes.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the statements \"\"(Vitamin 'F')|* * * food consisting essentially of a natural blend of the seed coat and|embryo of the seeds of linum usitatissimum (Flax) U. S. P.,\"\" borne on the|label, and \"\"Food * * * with * * * (Vitamin 'F'), * * * Eminent|food authorities are agreed that there exists a certain fatty acid deficiency, prin-|cipally a deficiency of Linolic, Insolinolic and Linolinic or Unsaturated Fatty|Acids (Vitamin 'F'), * * * Scientifically processed and prepared from a|natural blend of the seed coat and embryo of a selected variety of seeds of linum|usitatissimum (flax) U. S. P. * * * The Linolic, Insolinic and Linolinic,|Unsaturated Fatty Acids (Vitamin 'F'),\"\" appearing in the circular, were mis-|leading in that the statement \"\"a natural blend of the seed coat and embryo of a|selected variety of seeds of linum usitatissimum (flax),\"\" was a misleading de-|scription of ground and roasted flaxseed, and authorities are not agreed that the|term \"\"Vitamin F\"\" is a proper name to be applied to the unsaturated fatty acids,|nor are they agreed that there are fatty acid deficiencies in the ordinary human|diet.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that certain statements in the label-|ing were false and misleading in that they represented that the article would be|efficacious in the treatment of symptoms of diabetes, stomach and intestinal|ulcers, high blood pressure and indigestion; that it would be beneficial to the|diabetic and would aid diabetics to reduce their sugar and would assist in keeping|diabetics sugar free, and that it would give diabetics extra nourishment and|strength; that it would be efficacious in the treatment of those who are suffering|with stomach and intestinal ulcers; that it would be efficacious in the treatment|of high blood pressure; that it would neutralize excess acid and give relief for|acid indigestion; and that it would be efficacious to correct dietary deficiencies,|whereas it would not be efficacious for such purposes.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that its label did not bear the com-|mon or usual name of the food, namely, flaxseed or linseed, prominently placed|thereon with such conspicuousness, as compared with other words, statements,|designs or devices in the labeling, and in such terms as to render it likely to be|read and understood by the ordinary individual under customary conditions of|purchase and use.|The article was also alleged to be misbranded under the provisions of the law|applicable to foods, as reported in F. N. J. No. 2820.|On May 23, 1941, the defendant having entered a plea of nolo contendere, he|was adjudged guilty and fined $100.|6461.ddnj06461January 1962Samuel J. DeFreese, M.D., Monroe, Ga.amphetamine sulfate tablets ; phenobarbital tablets8-7-57 and 8-22-57Monroe, Ga.Monroe, Ga.Monroe, Ga.M. Dist. Ga.6461F. D. C. No. 41148. S. Nos. 77-573 M, 77-576/7 M.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj06461ddnj|FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION|NOTICES OF JUDGMENT UNDER THE FEDERAL FOOD,|DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT|I Given pursuant to section 705 of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act]|6461-6480|DRUGS AND DEVICES|The cases reported herewith were instituted in the United States district|courts by United States attorneys, acting upon reports submitted by the Depart-|ment of Health, Education, and Welfare. They involve drugs which are required|at time of interstate shipment to bear a label containing the statement \"\"Caution:|Federal law prohibits dispensing without prescription,\"\" and which were dis-|pensed after such shipment without a prescription or by refilling a prescrip-|tion without authorization. This dispensing was contrary to Section 503(b) (1),|and thereby resulted in the dispensed drugs being misbranded while held for sale.|Published by direction of the Secretary of Health, Education, and \"\"Welfare.|GEO. P. LABRICK, Commissioner of Food and Drugs.|WASHINGTON, D. C, January 25,1962.|CONTENTS|Page|Violative sales of prescription drugs| 334|333|62251/T-62|VIOLATIVE SALES OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS|6461. (F.D.C. No. 41148. S. Nos. 77-573 M, 77-576/7 M.)|INFOBMATIOW FILED : 3-24-58, M. Dist. Ga., against Samuel J. DeFreese, M.D.,.|Monroe, Ga.|CHARGE : Between 8-7-57 and 8-22-57, amphetamine sulfate tablets were dis-|pensed twice and phenobarbital tablets were dispensed once without a|prescription.|PLEA: Not guilty.|DISPOSITION : The case came on for trial before the court and jury on 6-2-58,|and was concluded on 6-10-58, with the return by the jury of a verdict of|guilty. On 6-11-58, the court imposed a sentence of one years imprison-|ment on each of the 3 counts of the information for a total sentence of 3|years imprisonment. The defendant appealed the case to the United States-|Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and, on 9-30-59, the following opinion|was handed down by that court (270 F. 2d 737) :|WISDOM, Circuit Judge: \"\"The appellant, Samuel J. DeFreese, a physician,,|was indicted for violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.|21 USOA 301 et seq. He was tried before a jury and found guilty on each.|of three counts. We affirm the conviction.|\"\"Counts one and two of the information charged Dr. DeFreese with dis-|pensing, without a prescription, dl-amphetamine1 sulphate tablets in a bulk|container. The third count charged Dr. DeFreese with a sale of pheno-|barbital tablets 2 without a prescription. The information alleged that these-|drugs had been shipped in interstate commerce; that the sales were in viola-|tion of 21 USCA 353(b) (1) and331(k).|\"\"The appellant practices in Monroe, Georgia. Wilbur R. Sumrall, Jr.,|an inspector for the Food and Drug Administration approached Dr. De-|Freese on August 7, 1957 and inquired about purchasing 20,000 'bennies'|(Benzedrine tablets). Sumrall posed as a truck driver and a 'pusher' or|salesman of dl-amphetamine sulphate tablets. They drove to appellant's|office in Monroe, Georgia. Appellant weighed out approximately 20,000 tab-|lets on a scale and gave them to Sumrall. Sumrall paid him $200 for the|tablets.|\"\"Dr. DeFreese did not give Sumrall a physical examination nor did he|consider Sumrall as a patient. He told Sumrall, in case he should be caught,|to say that the tablets were 'just aspirin tablets'. Sumrall had a concealed|portable wire recorder that recorded his conversation with DeFreese.|\"\"On August 22, 1957, Sumrall, accompanied by another inspector for the|Food and Drug Administration, made a second purchase of 20,000 dl-ampheta-|mine sulphate tablets (Count two). He purchased also 1,000 phenobarbital|tablets (Count three). In each case the amphetamine tablets were packed in|a bulk container and bore labeling setting forth all the statutory information|required by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, including the name|of the manufacturer, the name of the drug, the quantity of tablets, the|strength of each tablet, dosage, the generally accepted warnings against|misuse, and the prescription legend to the effect that Federal law prohibited\"\"|its dispensing without prescription. The phenobarbital was repackaged and|did not bear a label when sold.|\"\"The appellant contends, first, that the government failed to prove that the|phenobarbital had been shipped in interstate commerce. 21 USCA 331 (k).|\"\"The government's proof of interstate shipment consisted of showing that|the tablets were manufactured in a state other than Georgia, where they were|sold. Dr. Albert H. Tillson, a microanalyst employed by the Food and Drug^|1?Dl-amphetamine Is a \"\"dangerous drug\"\" within the meaning of Section 353(b) (1) (B),2?Phenobarbital is a \"\"habit-forming drug\"\" within the meaning of Section 353(b) (1) (A),|as defined by Section 352(d) and 21 C.F.R. 165.1.|Administration, testified that on the basis of scientific examination, micro-|scopic markings, comparison with samples, and by other means, he deter-|mined that the tablets were manufactured by Excel Pharmacal Company of|New York. This company has only one laboratory and it is located in New|York City. The manager of Excel Company denied any sale to DeFreese.|\"\"After an interstate shipment, it is immaterial when or how Dr. DeFreese|obtained the drugs. United States v. Sullivan, 1948, 332 U.S. 689, 68 S. Ct.|331, 92 L. Ed. 297; Archambault v. United States, 10 Cir., 1955, 224 F. 2d 925.|Since the tablets were manufactured outside the state of Georgia and sold by|Dr. DeFreese in Georgia, the inference is inescapable that there was an|interstate shipment.|\"\"On appeal, but not during the trial, appellant makes the objection that it|is impossible to tell whether Dr. Tillson testified as an expert or as one|familiar with the facts; that his testimony was unscientific and entitled to no|weight. The record discloses that Dr. Tillson has obtained three degrees in|chemistry, belongs to an honorary scientific fraternity, and has had several|articles published on microanalysis. His duties involve microscopic examina-|tion of foods and drugs in order to identify the ingredients and the manu-|facturing source of drug tablets. Whether a witness qualifies as an expert|rests within the discretion of the trial court. Wharton, Criminal Evidence|? 968 (11th ed. 1935). Here, there is no doubt that Dr. Tillson testified as an|expert and that his testimony was admissible to show that the tablets were|manufactured outside of Georgia. Aeby v. United States, 5 dr., 1953, 206|F. 2d 296, cert. den. 346 U.S. 885, reh. den. 346 U.S. 917. No evidence was|offered to contradict Tillson's method of identification. The jury deemed it|sufficient to establish interstate shipment. There is substantial evidence to|sustain the jury's verdict.|II.|\"\"The appellant attempts to drag in the Jencks case, contending that the|government should have furnished a machine for him to play back the wire|recorder.|\"\"Sumrall testified that he had concealed on his person a Minifone electronic|wire recorder on which was recorded his conversation with DeFreese. Ap-|pellant's counsel moved for the agent's 'entire file and findings about Dr.|DeFreese' for the purpose of impeachment and questioning, including the wire|recording. Over objection of government counsel, relying on 18 USCA 3500,*|the district court ruled that appellant's counsel was entitled to hear the|recording. The recording was not played before the jury; it was played in|chambers.|\"\"Later, it was brought out on cross-examination that the original wire|recording had not been delivered. Instead, a tape recording made from the|original had been delivered to the appellant and played. Appellant's counsel|then moved for inspection of the original. The government agreed and de-|livered the original wire recording, but did not furnish the machine necessary|to play back the original. The government then placed two inspectors on the|stand to testify that the Minifone wire recorder used by Sumrall was not the|property of the United States, but had been rented by Sumrall and returned|to the firm supplying it. Neither the government nor appellant's attorney|could find a machine upon which the original wire could be played back.|However, the record is clear that whatever was on the wire was transferred|to the tape that was played back on the tape recorder. Further, the appellant|was permitted to examine reports made by Sumrall, including a typewritten|transcript of the recording. The Court afforded appellant ample time to|listen to this tape, and also an opportunity to obtain a play-back machine, if|one could be found.|\"\"Appellant moved to suppress the evidence and for a judgment of acquittal,|contending that denial of these motions constituted error and grounds for|reversal under Jencks v. United States, 1956, 353 U.S. 657, 77 S. Ct. 1007,|?In any criminal prosecution brought by the United States, Section 3500 requires the|government to produce, for the defendant's inspection, any statement in the possession|of the United States which was made by a government witness or prospective govern-|ment witness. This statement can be demanded only after the witness has testified on|direct examination, and it is limited to the subject matter as to which the witness|testified.|- 1 Ii. Edi'2d1103. The Jencks case did not concern statements made by the|defendant. It involved statements made by two undercover informants of|the Federal Bureau of Investigation. These statements, or reports based on|them, were in the possession of the government. In the instant case the gov-|ernment did not have in its possession a machine which could play the|original, wire recording.|\"\"The Jencks rule does not require the government to furnish something it|<Joes not have and cannot obtain. Here, everything the government did have|In its possession was turned over to the appellant, including a tape recording|and transcript of the full original wire recording. This is all that justice and|fairness require.|III.|\"\"Appellant's third specification of error is that he was not allowed to in-|troduce evidence showing the relative toxicity of amphetamine as compared|with drugs that are legally sold without a prescription. Full proof of his|contention would not excuse the sales by him of a drug that falls within the|application of 18 USCA 353 (b) (1) (B).|IV.|\"\"The appellant's final contention is that 18 USCA 353(b) (1) does not apply|to wholesale transactions but only to sales to individual consumers. The same|contention was answered by this Court in Sam and Martha DeFreese v. United|States, No. 17,361.|\"\"Judgment is AFFIRMED.\"\"|The defendant filed a petition of a writ of certiorari with the United States|Supreme Court on 12-30-59, and on 1 1 60 such petition was denied.|580. Misbranding of Quaker Puffed Wheat Sparkles. U. S. v. 164 Cases of Quaker Puffed Wheat Sparkles. Default decree of condemnation. Product ordered delivered to a Federal institution.ddnj00580November 1942Quaker Oats Co.Quaker Puffed Wheat SparklesMarch 18, 1941Detroit, Mich.Cedar Rapids, IowaDetroit, Mich.Eastern District of Michigan580F. D. C. No. 4966. Sample No. 47829-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00580ddnj|580. Misbranding of Quaker Puffed Wheat Sparkles. U. S. v. 164 Cases of Quaker|Puffed Wheat Sparkles. Default decree of condemnation. Product ordered|delivered to a Federal institution. (IT. D. C. No. 4966. Sample No. 47829-E.)|This product was falsely labeled regarding its vitamin content and its thera-|peutic qualities.|On June 23, 1941, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Michi-|gan filed a libel against 154 cases, each containing 24 4-ounce packages, of Quaker|Puffed Wheat Sparkies at Detroit, Mich., alleging that the article had been shipped|by the Quaker Oats Co. from Cedar Rapids, Iowa, on or about March 18, 1941;|and charging that it was misbranded. It was labeled in part: (Box label) \"\"The|'Vitamin Rain' Breakfast Food.'|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that designs, devices, and state-|ments in the labeling were false and misleading since they created the impression| that it contained vitamins A, Bi, C, D, and G in consequential amounts, and that it|would be effective in preventing colds and infections, in producing healthy nerves,|normal growth, good teeth, strong bones, and other desirable attributes|; whereas|it contained no vitamins A or C and only inconsequential amounts of vitamins|Bi and G, and it would not be effective in preventing colds and infections, nor in|producing healthy nerves, normal growth, good teeth, strong bones, and other|desirable attributes.|It was also alleged to be misbranded under the provisions of the law applicable|to foods, as reported in notices of judgment on foods.|On December 3, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered delivered to a nearby Federal insti-|tution.|581. Misbranding of thiamin chloride B1. U. S. v. 239 Bottles of Thiamin Chloride B1 with Accompanying Labeling. Default decree of condemnation. Product ordered distributed to local hospitals.ddnj00581November 1942Geo. M. Beringer, Inc.thiamin chlorideNovember 11, 1940Baltimore, Md.Camden, N. J.Baltimore, Md.District of Maryland581F. D. C. No. 4826. Sample No. 50234-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00581ddnj|581. Misbranding of thiamin chloride Bt. U. S. v. 239 Bottles of Thiamin Chloride|&L with Accompanying Labeling. Default decree of condemnation. Prod-|uct ordered distributed to local hospitals. (F. D. C. No. 4826. Sample No.|50234-E.)|On May 24,1941, the United States attorney for the District of Maryland filed a|libel against 239 bottles, each containing 100 tablets, of thiamin chloride Bi at|Baltimore, Md. (on June 4, 1941, the libel was amended to include accompanying|labeling), alleging that the article had been shipped by Geo. M. Beringer, Inc.,|from Camden, N. J., on or about November 11, 1940; and chargine that it was|misbranded in that representations in the labeling regarding its efficacy in the|correction of the alcoholic habit, nervous indigestion, nervous headaches, and|neuralgic pain, were false and misleading since it would not be efficacious for|such purposes.|Microscopic examination of a sample of the article showed that it was essen-|tially a milk sugar tablet containing crystalline thiamin chloride (vitamin Bi).|It also was alleged to be misbranded under the provisions of the law applicable|to foods, as reported in F. N. J. No. 2990.|On July 12,1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was delivered to a local hospital for clinical use.|582. Misbranding of Filto-Vapor Nasal Filter Outfit. U. S. v. 56 Dozen Packages of Filto-Vapor Nasal Filter Outfits. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00582November 1942Medical Products Institute, Inc.Filto-Vapor Nasal Filter OutfitJanuary 16, 1941Pittsburgh, Pa.Cincinnati, OhioPittsburgh, Pa.Western District of Pennsylvania582F. D. C. No. 4733. Sample No. 19200-E. .The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00582ddnj|582. Misbranding of Filto-Vapor Nasal Filter Outfit. IT. S. v. 56 Dozen Packages|of Filto-Vapor Nasal Filter Outfits. Default decree of condemnation and|destruction. (F. D. C. No. 4733. Sample No. 19200-E.).|On May 13, 1941, the United States attorney for the Western District of|Pennsylvania filed a libel against the above-named product at Pittsburgh, Pa.,|alleging that it had been shipped on or about January 16, 1941, by Medical|Products Institute, Inc., from Cincinnati, Ohio; and charging that it was|misbranded.|Examination of samples of the article showed that it consisted of a pair of|nasal filters, one detachable band, tweezers, filter pads, a bottle labeled \"\"Filto-|Vapor Cold Tablets,\"\" and a bottle labeled \"\"Filto-Vapor Nasal Filter Pad|Fluid.\"\" Analyses showed that the cold tablets consisted essentially of aceto-|phenetidin, aspirin, and caffeine; and that the nasal filter pad fluid consisted|essentially of camphor, menthol, eucalyptol, pine-needle oil, alcohol, and a|vegetable oil.|The article was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that the following state-|ments, (display carton) \"\"A new scientific continuous treatment for Colds|Sinus, Sore Throat, Coughs\"\"; (retail carton) \"\"Aids in relief of Colds, Sinus.|Sore Throat, Bronchitis and Grippe\"\"; (cold tablets, carton) \"\"Cold Tablets|Filto-Vapor Cold Tablets Aid In Relief Of Common Colds and Grippe\"\"; and|(filter pad fluid, label) \"\"Filto-Vapor Nasal Filter Pad Fluid Aids in Relief|Of Common Colds, Sinus, Sore Throat And Bronchitis,\"\" were false and mis-|leading since it would not be efficacious for such purposes. (2) In that the|label for the nasal filter pad fluid listed \"\"Olei Recinolei\"\" (castor oil) was an|active ingredient, whereas that ingredient was not an active ingredient, but|constituted a portion of the vehicle for the active ingredients. (3) In that|the retail container of the cold tablets did not bear a statement of the active|ingredients. (4) In that aspirin had not been declared by its common or|usual name on the label for the cold tablets but had been declared as acetyl-|salicylic acid. (5) In\\ that the statements of active ingredients appearing on|the labels for the cold tablets and nasal filter pad fluid were in such small|type as to be practically illegible.|On September 18, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|583. Misbranding of Pinolator inhaler and medicament. U. S. v. 83 Packages of Pinolator and \"\"Breath O' The Forest\"\" Aromatic. Default decree of destruction.ddnj00583November 1942Pinolator Co.Pinolator inhaler and medicamentJanuary 2, 1941Kansas City, Mo.Minneapolis, Minn.Kansas City, Mo.Western District of Missouri583F. D. C. No. 4006. Sample No. 43169-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00583ddnj|583. Misbranding of Pinolator inhaler and medicament. IT. S. v. 83 Packages of|Pinolator and \"\"Breath O' The Forest\"\" Aromatic. Default decree of de-|struction. (F. D. C. No. 4006. Sample No. 43169-E.)|On March 21, 1941, the United States attorney for the Western District of|Missouri filed a libel against the above-named product at Kansas City, Mo.,|alleging that it had been shipped on or about January 2, 1941, by the Pinolator|Co. from Minneapolis, Minn.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the \"\"Breath O' The Forest\"\" Aromatic showed that|it consisted essentially of menthol, camphor, pine oil, thymol, and a benzoate|dissolved in a mixture of alcohol (60 percent, or 288 minims per fluid ounce),|and water.|The article was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that statements in the|labeling representing that it would provide soothing relief and comfort in|symptoms of common colds, sinus, bronchitis, asthma, and hay fever, with such|typical claims as \"\"The blessings that will result from the first inhalation will|be like a direct answer to prayer,\"\" \"\"In daily thorough use of the Pinolator your|sinus distress may become only a bad memory,\"\" \"\"Pinolator will stop short the al]|too familiar symptoms of a fresh cold,\"\" and \"\"The Pinolator user may pass through|the worst hay fever season without serious discomfort,\"\" were false and mis-|leading since it would not be efficacious for the purposes recommended. (2) In|that the statement on the bottle label and carton, \"\"Ethyl alcohol 69? 330|minims per ounce,\"\" was false and misleading since the drug contained materially|less than the stated amount of alcohol. (3) In that the carton failed to bear a|statement of the name of each of the active ingredients, including the quantity,|kind, and proportion of alcohol. (4) In that the carton did not bear a statement|of the quantity of its contents.|On July 28, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment was entered ordering|that the product be destroyed.|584. Misbranding of Orrine No. 1. U. S. v. 138 Packages of Orrine No. 1. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00584November 1942Orrine Co.Orrine No. 1April 9 and August 20, 1940San Francisco, Calif.Washington, D. C.San Francisco, Calif.Northern District of California584F. D. C. No. 3428. Sample No. 12879-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00584ddnj|584. Misbranding of Orrine No. 1. TJ.'S. v. 138 Packages of Orrine No. 1. Default|decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 3428. Sample No.|12879-E.)|The labeling of this product falsely represented that its use would be help-|ful in relieving or lessening the desire for alcohol.|On November 25, 1940, the United States attorney for the Northern District|of California filed a libel against 138 packages of Orrine No. 1 at San Fran-|cisco, Calif. On December 20, 1940, the libel was amended to cover an addi-|tional shipment of 75 packages. The libel as amended alleged that the article|had been shipped by the Orrine Co. from Washington, D. C, on or about April|9 and August 20,1940; and charged that it was misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of|gold chloride, hyoscine hydrobromide, ammonium, chloride, and cinchona|alkaloids.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that representations in the|labeling that it would be efficacious in lessening or relieving the desire or crav-|ing for liquor, were false and misleading.|On June 21, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|604. Adulteration and misbranding of Zerbst's Capsules. U. S. v. 12 Dozen Cartons, 387 Dozen Cartons, 47 Dozen Cartons, 141 Dozen Cartons and 1,000 Sample Envelopes of Zerbst's Capsules. Consent decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00604February, 1943Zerbst Pharmacal Co.Zerbst's CapsulesJanuary 28 to February 18, 1941Oklahoma City, Okla.St. Joseph, Mo.Oklahoma City, Okla.Western District of Oklahoma604F. D. C. Nos. 4834, 4835. Sample Nos. 43426-E, 43427-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00604ddnj|604. Adulteration and misbranding of Zerbst's Capsules. V. S. v. 12 Dozen Car|tons, 387 Dozen Cartons, 47 Dozen Cartons, 141 Dozen Cartons and 1,000|Sample Envelopes of Zerbst's Capsules. Consent decree of condemnation|and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 4834, 4835. Sample Nos. 43426-E, 43427-E).|These capsules were found to consist essentially of acetanilid (4 samples|examined contained 1.132, 1.282, 1.125, and 1.289 grains, respectively), together|with caffeine, asafoetida, camphor, capsicum, and plant materials including|aloin. They would be dangerous to health when used in the dosage or with the|frequency or duration prescribed in the labeling, which failed to reveal the|consequences which might result from their use. The labeling was further|objectionable, as indicated below.|On June 11, 1941, the United States attorney for the Western District of Okla-|homa filed a libel against 528 dozen small cartons, 59 dozen large cartons and|1,000 sample envelopes of Zerbst's Capsules at Oklahoma City, Okla., alleging|that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce within the period|from on or about January 28 to on or about February IS, 1941, by Zerbst Pharma-|cal Co. from St. Joseph, Mo.; and charging that it was adulterated and|misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from|that which it purported or was represented to possess, namely, (label) \"\"Each|Capsule contains1 as active ingredients, Acetanilid 1 Grain,\"\" whereas each|capsule contained materially more than 1 grain of acetanilid in each capsule.|It was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that the directions for use, namely,|\"\"Adults-To allay the discomfort in breaking up a common bead cold, simple|headache or neuralgia, take one capsule every half hour until three are taken,|then one capsule in two or three hours until three more are taken. Children-|12 years old, one capsule, repeated in three hours,\"\" were not appropriate for an|article of the composition disclosed by the analysis, and were therefore inade-|quate; (2) in that the label failed to bear adequate warnings against its use by|children or in those pathological conditions where its use might be dangerous|to health, and against unsafe dosage or duration of administration, in such|manner and form as are necessary for the protection of users; and (3) in that|it was dangerous to health when used according to the directions appearing on|the label as set forth above.|On October 1, 1941, the claimants having withdrawn their answers and having|admitted the allegations of the libel and consented to the entry of a decree,|judgment of condemnation was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|619. Misbranding of Vinco Herb Tablets. U. S. v. 208 Small Boxes and 22 Large Boxes of Vinco Herb Tablets. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00619February, 1943Vinco Herb Co.Vinco Herb TabletsOctober 28, 1940Pittsburgh, Pa.Dayton, OhioPittsburgh, Pa.Western District of Pennsylvania619F. D. C. No. 5202. Sample Nos. 42425-E, 42426-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00619ddnj|619. Misbranding of Vinco Herb Tablets. tJ. S. v. 208 Small Boxes and 22 Large|Boxes of Vinco Herb Tablets. Default decree o* condemnation and de-|struction. (F. D. C. No. 5202. Sample Nos. 42425-E*, 42426-E.)|The labeling of this product failed to bear adequate directions for use and|such adequate warnings as are necessary for the protection of users and also|bore false and misleading curative and therapeutic claims. Both sizes of pack-|ages were substantially larger than was necessary to hold the contents. The?(|labeling of the small packages failed to bear certain mandatory labeling state-|ments in such manner that they might be read and understood under ordinary?V|conditions of purchase and use.|On July 22, 1941, the United States attorney for the Western District of|Pennsylvania filed a libel against the above-named product at Pittsburgh, Pa.;|alleging that the article had been shipped on or about October 28, 1940, by the|Vinco Herb Co. from Dayton, Ohio; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of aloe and extracts|of plant drugs including capsicum and an emodin-bearing drug. The tablets in|the small packages occupied 26 percent of their capacity and the tablets in|the large packages occupied 42? percent of their capacity.|The article in both sized packages was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that|the labeling failed to bear adequate directions for use since the directions|provided for taking the tablets over a period of 10 days, whereas a laxative|should be taken only occasionally; (2) in that the labeling failed to bear|adequate warnings against use by young children where its use might be dan-|gerous to health or against unsafe dosage or duration of administration as|are necessary for the protection of users since the product was essentially a|laxative and there was no warning that frequent or continued use might re-|sult in dependence on laxatives; (3) in that statements in the labeling repre-|senting that it was an appropriate treatment for coated tongue, flatulence,|sour stomach, simple headache, acid indigestion, listlessness, lazy feeling, bad|breath, sluggishness, dull eyes, and sallow skin and that it would make life|happy and enjoyable and would provide a clean, healthy condition of the|mind and body, were false and misleading since it was a laxative and the|various disease conditions for which it was recommended may be due to|causes other than constipation; and (4) in that its containers were so made,|formed, or filled as to be misleading.|The product in the small packages was alleged to be misbranded further|(1) in that the name and address of the manufacturer, the declaration of|the quantity cf the contents, and the statement of the ingredients required by|or under authority of law to appear on the labeling were not placed on the|label with such conspicuousness and in such terms as to make them likely to|be read by the ordinary individual under customary conditions of purchase and|use since all these statements appeared on the bottom of the box; and (2) in|that certain statements appeared in several foreign languages upon the box|and certain statements and other information required by or under authority|of law did not appear on the box in these foreign languages.|On August 22, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|585. Misbranding of hair tonic. U. S. v. 57 Dozen 8-Fluid-Ounce Bottles and 15 Dozen 16-Fluid-Ounce Bottles of West Point Hair Tonic. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00585November 1942Associated Brands, Inc.hair tonicJanuary 22, 1941Newark, N. J.Brooklyn, N. Y.Newark, N. J.District of New Jersey585F. D. C. No. 4014. Sample No. 46916-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00585ddnj|585. Misbranding of hair tonic. II. S. v. 57 Dozen 8-Fluid-Ounce Bottles and 1.%|Dozen 16-Fluid-Ounce Bottles of West Point Hair Tonic. Default decree|of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 4014. Sample No. 46916-E.)|On March 19, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of New Jersey|filed a libel against the above-named product at Newark, N. J., alleging that it|bad been shipped in interstate commerce on or about January 22, 1941, by|Associated Brands, Inc., from Brooklyn, N. Y.; and charging that it was|misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of|alcohol, water, castor oil, benzyl benzoate, and benzoin.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements|were false and misleading, (carton) \"\"Natural Vegetable Oil Hair Tonic * * *|West Point Hair Tonic wakes up tight, lazy scalps, * * * and brings new|life * * * to hair. * * * For Thinning Hair * * * Teach the chil-|dren to use West Point Hair Tonic. It will insure their having healthy, beautiful|hair when they grow older,\"\" and (label) \"\"Natural Vegetable Oil Hair Tonic,\"\"|since they represented that it would be efficacious for the purposes recommended;|whereas it would not be efficacious for such purposes.|On July 18, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|586. Misbranding of Newbro's Herpicide. U. S. v. 96 Bottles of Newbro's Herpicide and 48 Bottles of Newbro's Herpicide, Odorless. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00586November 1942Herpicide Co.Newbro's HerpicideOctober 14, 1940Jersey City, N. J.New York, N. Y.Jersey City, N. J.District of New Jersey586F. D. C. No. 3889. Sample No. 34230-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00586ddnj|586. Misbranding of PTewbro's Herpicide. U. S. v. 96 Bottles of Newbro's Hcrpi-|cide and 48 Bottles of Newbro's Herpicide, Odorless. Default decree of|condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 3889. Sample No. 34230-E.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-|ing its efficacy in the treatment of dandruff, falling hair, and hair disorders, and|failed to bear the names of the active ingredients.|On February 27, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of New|Jersey filed a libel against 96 bottles of Newbro's Herpicide and 48 bottles of|Newbro's Herpicide, Odorless, at Jersey City, N. J., alleging that the article|had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about October 14, 1940, by the|Herpicide Co. from New York, N. Y.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analyses showed that both types of the article consisted essentially of salicylic|acid, glycerin, water, alcohol, and small amounts of brucine and aromatics.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements and designs|appearing on the label were false and misleading since it would not be efficacious|for the purposes for which it was recommended. \"\"Recommended for * * *|excess loss of hair * * * [3 line drawings of heads with little or no hair|labeled \"\"Going! Herpicide may save it,\"\" \"\"Going!! Herpicide may save it,\"\" and|\"\"Gone!!! Too late for Herpicide\"\"] * * * Destroy the cause you remove|the effect * * * Especially compounded for the Scientific Treatment of|Obstinate Dandruff-Falling Hair Scalp and Hair Disorders.\"\" It was alleged|to be misbranded further in that the label did not bear the common or usual|names of the active ingredients.|On July 18, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|587. Misbranding of Bo-Go-Ha-Ma Mineral Springs Water. U. S. v. 32 Jugs of Mineral Water. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00587November 1942Stafford Mineral Springs CoBo-Go-Ha-Ma Mineral Springs WaterOctober 20, 1941New Orleans, La.Vosburg, Miss.New Orleans, La.Eastern District of Louisiana587F. D. C. No. 6191. Sample No. 49865-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00587ddnj|587. Misbranding: of Bo-Go-Ha-Ma Mineral Springs Water. II. S. v. 32 Jugs of|Mineral 'Water. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C.|No. 6191. Sample No. 49865-E.)|On November 7, 1941, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Louisiana filed a libel against 32 gallon jugs of mineral water at New Orleans,|La., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or|about October 20, 1941, by Stafford Mineral Springs Co: from Vosburg, Miss.;|and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it was a mildly alkaline water|similar to Washington tap water, except that it contained about twice the|amount of dissolved mineral matter.|It was alleged to be misbranded in.that the statement \"\"It is * * * -very|soothing and healing to the kidneys and bladder\"\" was false and misleading since|it would be neither soothing nor healing to the kidneys.|It was also alleged to be adulterated under the provisions of the law applicable|to foods, as reported in F. N. J. No. 2830.|On December 24, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|588. Misbranding of mineral oil. U. S. v. 141 Bottles of Russian Type Mineral Oil. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00588November 1942Adde, Inc.mineral oilMarch 24, 1941Richmond, Va.Baltimore, Md.Richmond, Va.Eastern District of Virginia588F. D. C. No. 4401. Sample No. 50228-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00588ddnj|588. Misbranding of mineral oil. U. S. v. 141 Bottles of Russian Type Mineral|Oil. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 4401.|Sample No. 50228-E.)|This product was mineral oil of domestic origin. It was labeled in con-|spicuous type \"\"Russian Type Mineral Oil,\"\" and in much smaller type \"\"Made|in U. S. A.\"\"|On April 19, 1941, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Virginia filed a libel against the above-named product at Richmond, Va., alleg-|ing that it had been shipped on or about March 24, 1941, by Adde, Inc., from|Baltimore, Md.; and charging that it was misbranded in that the conspicuous|statement on the label, \"\"Russian Type Mineral Oil,\"\" was misleading as applied|to a domestic mineral oil.|On October 16, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|605. Misbranding of Mrs. Moffat's Shoo Fly Powders for Drunkenness. U. S. v. 11% Dozen Packages of Mrs. Moffat's Shoo Fly Powders. Case tried to the court. Judgment for the Government. Decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00605February, 1943M. F. Groves' Son & Co.Mrs. Moffat's Shoo Fly Powders for DrunkennessNovember 2, 1940Buffalo, N. Y.Philadelphia, Pa.Buffalo, N. Y.Western District of New York605F. D. C. No. 3444. Sample No. 39574-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00605ddnj|605. Misbranding of Mrs. Moffat's Shoo Fly Powders for Drunkenness. IT. S. v.|11% Dozen Packages of Mrs. Moffat's Shoo Fly Powders. Case tried to|the court. Judgment for the Government. Decree of condemnation and|destruction. (F. D. C. No. 3444. Sample No. 39574-E.)|This product contained tartar emetic and would be dangerous to health, when|used according to directions; and it would not be an effective and appropriate|treatment for drunkenness as suggested in the labeling.|On November 27, 1940, the United States attorney for the Western District|of New York filed a libel against the above-named product at Buffalo, N. Y.,|alleging that it had been shipped on or about November 2,1940, by M.. F. Groves'|Son & Co. from Philadelphia, Pa.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted of antimony and|potassinm tartrate (tartar emetic).|The article was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that it would be dangerous|to health when used in the dosage or with the frequency or duration prescribed,|recommended, or suggested in the labeling, namely, \"\"Directions-one of the|powders may be given in beer, coffee, tea, or any other liquid\"\"; and (2) that the|statement \"\"For Drunkenness\"\" was false and misleading.|On April 28, 1941, M. F. Groves' Son & Co., claimant, having filed an answer|denying the material allegations of the libel, the case came on for trial before|the court. Evidence was introduced on behalf of the Government and the|claimant, and on June 17,1941, the court handed down the following opinion:|KNIGHT, District Judge. \"\"The libelant seeks condemnation of certain articles|of alleged drug products described as 'll-^ Dozen Packages of an article|labeled in part: \"\"Mrs. Moffat's Shoo Ely Powders for Drunkenness.\"\"' Libel|is brought under the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act|of June 25, 1938, Title 21 U. S. C, and is based upon the claim that the afore-|said articles are misbranded under subdivision (a) and (j) of Section 352 of|Title 21 U. S. C.|\"\"It is admitted that the articles in question were shipped in interstate|commerce, that is, from the State of Pennsylvania to the Ellicott Drug Co.,|at Buffalo, N. Y., on November 2, 1940, by the intervenor, M. F. Groves' Son &|Co., who concededly is the owner and manufacturer of the articles in question,|and that a representative of the libelant during said month purchased a|quantity of the articles in question from the last-named company. The articles|contained on the average 3.2 grains of potassium antimony tartrate (tartar|emetic) and no other constituents.|\"\"Section 321 (g) Title 21 U. S. C. provides, among other things, that a drug|means '(2) articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treat-|ment or prevention of disease in man or other animals'; and '(3) articles|(other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body|of man * * *'; and (k) (same section) defines a label as 'a display of|written, printed or ^graphic matters upon the immediate container of any|article.' The label on the article in question clearly purports the content to|be for use in the 'diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment'or prevention' of|drunkenness.|\"\"The label in question is as follows: (Trade Mark) 'Mrs. Moffat's Shoo Fly|Powders for Drunkenness 6 Powders-18 GM. Each Antimony & Potassium Tar-|trate In use 60 Years Use according to directions M. F. Groves' Son & Co.|Since 1832 803 South Front Street Philad'a, Pa. Sold to Druggists only Price,|50 Cents a Box 19574 E Nov 14 1940 Directions.-One of the Powders may be|given in Beer, Coffee, Tea or any other liquid. Never give more than one Powder|a day. These powders are intended to be used by adults only, and should be kept|from children.'|\"\"Section 352, Title 21, supra, provides: 'A drug or device shall be deemed|to be misbranded-(a) If its labeling is false or misleading in any particular'|and '(j) If it is dangerous to health when used in the dosage, or with the|frequency or duration prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling|thereof.' Such misbranded article is liable to condemnation 'when introduced|into or while In interstate commerce * ? * * or at any time thereafter,|*?* *.' Section 334, Title 21, supra.|\"\"The questions at issue are (1) whether the labeling of the article aforesaid|is false and misleading, and (2) whether the drug is dangerous to health when|used in the dosage prescribed on the label. The libel must be sustained on the|determination of either question in the affirmative.|\"\"On behalf of the Government five physicians testified with respect to the|effect of the use of antimony and potassium tartrate (tartar emetic) 'for drunken-|ness,' and with respect to the danger to health in its use in the dosage prescribed.|On behalf of the claimant an officer of the intervenor gave testimony as to the|amount of the article in question sold over a period of years.|\"\"The proceeding is in rem. The burden rests upon the Government to estab-|lish its case only by a fair preponderance of the evidence. 17. S. v. Five 1-P'mt|Bottles, etc., 9 F. Supp. 990; U. 8. v.-23? Dozen Bottles, etc., 44 F. (2d) 831.|\"\"A contention made by the intervenor is that it is necessary for the Govern-|ment to show intent to deceive and defraud. While this was held to be the law|under the Act of June 30, 1906, sec. 8 as amended by the Act of August 23, 1932,|such is not the law under the Act of June 25, 1938, supra. The former statutes|provided that an article should 'be deemed to be misbranded in case of drugs;|*?* * If its package or label shall bear * * * any statement * * *|regarding the curative * * * effect * * *, which is false and fraudu-|lent' Chichester Chemical Co. v. United States, 49 F. (2d) 516, held that the|Government must prove actual intent to deceive. Under the present statute a /\"\"\"\"\"\"|drug is deemed to be misbranded 'if its labeling is false or misleading in any I|particular.' Intent is not necessary to be proved. Further, the aforesaid act of|1906, sec. 8, required that the misbranding must be 'false and misleading.'|These are the words of the present statute. Under the act of 1906 numerous (|cases held that it was not necessary to show intent. In this circuit we find|U. S. v. Scaduto. S. D. N. Y. decided January 16, 1920; Von Bremem et al. v.|United States, 192 F. 904.|\"\"It is urged that merely stating that the article is 'for drunkenness' is not|sufficient to constitute offense of misbranding. The use of the words 'for drunk-|enness' is the equivalent of saying that it is a 'cure, mitigation, treatment or|prevention' of drunkenness. The necessary implication is that it is for relief|from drunkenness to at least some extent In U. S. v. Natura Co., 250 F. 925,|cited by the intervenor, the indictment charged misbranding where the label|stated that the drug was 'a natural remedy for certain specified diseases, and|that it had proved effective in the treatment of such diseases.' There it was|claimed that the word 'remedy' was synonymous with 'cure.' This was a|criminal case, and it was held that the plaintiff had not established beyond a|reasonable doubt that the statements on the label were both 'false and fraudu-|lent.' This has no controlling bearing here.|\"\"The physicians testifying on behalf of the Government were, one a pharma-|cologist, one an internist, one a neuropsychiatrist, one a specialist in therapeu-|tics. Each testified that antimony and potassium tartrate {tartar emetic) is not|a curative for drunkenness, that it is a drug not properly usable in the treatment|of drunkenness, and that its use in the dosage shown on the label herein is danger-|ous to health. Each of these physicians had had extensive practice in his'spe-|cialty. Each testified that the medical profession had long recognized that tartar|emetic was a drug dangerous to be administered through the mouth; that its use|through the mouth has been abandoned in the teaching field; and that the stand-|ard textbooks treat it as a poison. The testimony of these physicians is to the|effect that tartar emetic taken through the mouth irritates the lining of the|stomach and intestines, produces various injurious effects on various other|organs of the body; that it is cumulative in its effect; that when taken in in-|creased doses it causes nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and retching; and after|absorption affects the liver and kidneys and increases the heart rate; that|through the loss of the control of the muscles of the stomach the vomitus may|be swallowed causing pneumonia. They say the medical profession for many|years has not prescribed it to be taken through the mouth, except as it is so|used in so-called brown mixture, which contains ?o of a grain of this drug,|and that its present use is almost entirely intravenous or intramuscular as a|treatment for numerous tropical diseases. Brown mixture is used as a carrier|with other drugs to make a cough syrup. They have given many other details|pointing out the other effects from the use of this drug in the dosage prescribed.|\"\"The pharmacopeia (ed. 1936) states the average dosage when taken internally|as ^o of a grain. The National Standard Dispensary (ed. 1907) gives it as|y2 to 1 grain taken every 15 minutes until several doses are taken or till emesis|occurs. I find on reference to the edition of 1938 no reference is made to any|repetition of the dose and that the dosage 'usually is about ? grain (.03 gm.).'|The National Standard Dispensary (ed. 1907) also states that tartar emetic|at one time was largely employed as an 'expectorant, diaphoretic, emetic, seda-|tive, antiphlogistic, and counter-irritant, but at present its use has become|greatly limited.' It states it is an irritant and that continued application causes|'a pustular eruption followed by deep sloughing'; that 'antimony depresses the|sensory side of the spinal cord; *. * * lowers * * * the pulse-force';|and blood pressure; that it is an irritant to the stomach and intestines and in|toxic dose produces violent gastro-enteritis; that the purging following overdose|of the drug -is an effort made by the intestines to eliminate the poison, and is|due also to the intense intestinal inflammation'; that it is very slowly absorbed|and slowly eliminated; that as an emetic this drug causes great prostration and|muscular relaxation, it is badly borne by children, by the aged, and by those who|are enfeebled by disease; and never should be used when 'gastro-intestinal|irritation or inflammation is present'; and that chronic poison sometimes results (|from the frequent administration of this drug.|\"\"The edition of 1937 of the National Standard Dispensary further states this: V|'Its emetic action is very certain, powerful, prolonged, but accompanied by much|depression. ?* * * although because of the promptness of its emetic action|recovery may occur after very large amounts one case is on record in which 2?;|grains proved fatal.' This work gives the dosage when used intravenously or|intramuscularly at ? to 2 grains given every alternate day and as a dosage|internally 'as a diaphoretic or expectorant it may be given in quantities of from|?o to ? grain. If used as an emetic the dose usually is about ? grain.'|\"\"The conclusion here is inescapable both that the label in question is false and|misleading and that the drug is dangerous to health when used in the dosage|prescribed on the label. While it may seem that the use of this emetic in some|amount may be beneficial in cases of drunkenness because of the fact that it|clears the stomach, the fact is that alcohol is absorbed into the blood stream|within 20 minutes to half an hour after being taken into the stomach and, there-|fore, the emetic could not usually affect the action of the alcohol.|\"\"The only evidence offered by the intervenor was that given by an official of|the claimant to the effect that the powders in question have been sold for up-|wards of 60 years; that over 50,000 of the powder packages have been sold|yearly for the last 10 years and that not a single case of harm or injury has|ever been reported by an one to the manufacturers. Objection was raised to|the reception of all this testimony. It was received subject to be stricken,|if the court later so decided. It is believed that the testimony as to the number|of packages of the powder that had been sold and the period of years over which|it had been sold is competent and the ruling as made stands. However, the|testimony that no complaints had been received is incompetent. Goldstein v.|United States, 63 F. (2d) 609. It is clearly hearsay.|\"\"The intervenor urges that the testimony on behalf of the intervenor is not|outweighed by the testimony given by the experts called by the Government.|We are to bear in mind in this connection that the only testimony now in the|record offered by the intervenor is with reference to the number of|packages sold and the period of time over which they were sold.|While the intervenor cites numerous cases in which consideration had been|given to the weight of expert testimony, none of these hold that it is to be given|no weight. The weight of such testimony is for the court to determine. These|cases present somewhat comparable situations where physicians have testified|as experts: V. 8. v. Lee, 107 F. (2d) 522, cert, denied 309 U. S. 654; U. 8. v. Dr.|David Roberts Vet. Co., 104 F. \"\"(2d) 785; XI. 8. v. American Laboratories, 222 F.|104; U. S. v. W. B. Wood Mfg. Co., D. C E. D. Mo., decided May 12 1921; Eleven|Gross Packages etc. v. United States, 233 F. 71; Chichester Chemical Co. v.|United States, supra; Hall v. United States, 267 F. 795. The testimony of these|physicians is largely based on their studies as physicians but not upon the actual|use of the article in question. Certain of these physicians have testified to per-|sonal observation of the use of the drug in question. Testimony of these men|is not to be entirely disregarded because they testified as experts. As against|the testimony that a large number of packages of this drug have been sold|during many years, we have the testimony of all of the five physicians that the|drug itself is not a cure for drunkenness and that its use in the dosage prescribed|is dangerous to health. Each of these physicians went into great detail in ex-|plaining the nature of the drug and its reactions upon the human system when|taken internally.|\"\"It is not necessary to decide whether the drug when taken in the dosage of|any specific number of grains less than 3.2 may properly be taken in the treat-|ment of drunkenness or whether such dosage would be dangerous to health.|I do decide that the articles in question are misbranded, since the labels thereon|are false and misleading, because antimony and potassium tartrate in the dosage|of 3.2 grains (the average in the articles analyzed) is not a 'cure, mitigation, or|treatment' for drunkenness as purported to be and also that it is misbranded,|because the use of the drug in the dosage of 3.2 grains is dangerous to health.|\"\"Libelant is entitled to an order adjudging and decreeing that the articles of|drug product aforesaid be condemned according to the Drovisions of the statute.\"\"|On August 12,1941, judgment of condemnation was entered and it was ordered|that the product be destroyed, with the exception of 3 dozen boxes that were|ordered turned over to the Food and Drug Administration for official use.|Through inadvertence, the entire lot of seized goqds was destroyed.|589. Misbranding of Lurin. U. S. v. 296 Bottles of Lurin. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00589November 1942Lurin Co.LurinApril 8 and 19, 1941Chicago, Ill.Cleveland, OhioChicago, Ill.Northern District of Illinois589F. D. C. No. 4808. Sample No. 62133-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00589ddnj|589. Misbranding of Lurin. U. S. v. 296 Bottles of Lurin. Default decree of con|demnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 4808. Sample No. 62133-E.)|On May 22, 1941, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Illinois filed a libel against 296 bottles of Lurin at Chicago, 111., alleging that|the article had been shipped on or about April 8 and 19, 1941, by the Lurin|Co. from Cleveland, Ohio; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of|aluminum hydroxide (2.1 grams per 100 cc.) and water flavored with pepper-|mint oil.|The article was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that statements on the label,|\"\"Alcoholic Over Indulgence\"\" and \"\"Where Used in the Treatment of Active Peptic|Ulcers,\"\" were false and misleading since it was not an adequate treatment for|those conditions; (2) in that the statement on the label, \"\"Combines with at|least 12 times its volume of N/10 Hydrochloric Acid,\"\" was false and mis-|leading since the volume of aluminum hydroxide that it contained was sufficient|to combine with only 8.08 volumes of N/10 hydrochloric acid; and (3) in that|the statement on the label, \"\"Contents 8 Fl. Oz.,\"\" was false and misleading since|it contained less than 8 fluid ounces.|On September 16, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|590. Misbranding of Waft-Surgical. U. S. v. 2 1/6 Dozen Packages of Waft-Surgical. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00590November 1942Federal Cosmetic Sales CorporationWaft-SurgicalMay 30, 1941Evansville, Ind.SpringfieldEvansville, Ind.Southern District of Indiana590F. D. C. No. 5430. ample No. 27876-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00590ddnj|590. Misbranding of Waft-Surgical. U. S. v. 2% Dozen Packages of Waft-Sur-|fical. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 5430.?ample No. 27876-E.)|On August 26, 1941, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|Indiana filed a \"\"libel against the above-named product at Evansville, Ind.,|alleging that it had been shipped on or about May 30, 1941, by the Federal|Cosmetic Sales Corporation from Springfield, 111.; and charging that it was mis-|branded. It was labeled in part: \"\"Waft-Surgical Antiseptic-Disinfectant-De-|odorant-Fungicide-Germicide-Parasiticide.\"\"|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of|water, formaldehyde, small amounts of turpineol, and a yellow-green coloring|material.|It was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that representations in the labeling|that it would be efficacious as an antiseptic, disinfectant, fungicide, germicide|or parasiticide in the dilutions suggested; that it would be of Talue as a wet|dressing or irrigation in wounds in these dilutions; that it would penetrate|the environment; that it would inhibit disease-producing micro-organisms; that|it would be efficacious for the sterilization of surgical instruments and that it|would be a reliable fungicide or germicide for animals, were false and mis-|leading since it would not be efficacious for such purposes. (2) In that the|label did not contain the common or usual names of the active ingredients.|On October 2, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|591. Misbranding of Hercules Congestors. U. S. v. 5 Hercules Congestors Model Regulator #500 and 6 Hercules Congestors Model Super 900. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00591November 1942Holdfast Truss Co.Hercules CongestorsMay 26, 1941Seattle, Wash.Oakland, Calif.Seattle, Wash.Western District of Washington591F. D. C. No. 5082. Sample No. 61021-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00591ddnj|591. Misbranding of Hercules Congestors. TJ. S. v. 5 Hercules Congestors Model|Regulator #500 and 6 Hercules Congestors Model Super 900. Default|decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 5082. Sample No.|61021-E.)|On July 7, 1941, the United States attorney for the Western District of|Washington filed a libel against the above-named articles at Seattle, Wash.,|alleging that they had been shipped on or about May 26, 1941, by Holdfast|Truss Co. from Oakland, Calif.; and charging that they were misbranded.|Examination of samples showed that the articles consisted of a metal vacuum|pump and a large glass tube bearing at one end a soft rubber collar and closed|at the other end with a metal cap which was threaded to screw into the|pump.|The articles were alleged to be misbranded (1) in that the following state-|ments in a circular enclosed in each package by the dealer were false and|misleading, \"\"Organ Developer. This developer removes all obstructions in the|organ, propels the blood rapidly through the disordered channels, and a quick|and favorable result follows. * * * This simple apparatus is called upon|to increase the lost energy and remove the loss of strength. * * * In most|cases results come in a short time, while others of long standing require the|patient use of the developer for five or six weeks\"\"; and (2) in that the label|failed to bear the name and address of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor.|On September 29, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condem-|nation was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|592. Misbranding of Ayds Candy. U. S. v. 73 Packages of Ayds Easy Reducing Plan Candy (and 5 other seizure actions against Ayds Candy). Default decrees of condemnation. Portion of product ordered destroyed; remainder ordered distributed to charitable institutions.ddnj00592November 1942Carlay Co., Fuller Laboratories, or Fuller Co.Ayds CandyMay 4 to December 10, 1940Little Rock, Ark.; Cincinnati, Ohio; Mobile, Ala.Chicago, Ill.Little Rock, Ark.; Cincinnati, Ohio; Mobile, Ala.Eastern District of Arkansas, Southern District of Ohio, and the Southern District of Alabama592F. D. C. Nos. 2334, 3600. 3601, 3670, 3999, 4752. Sample Nos. 15617-E, 27514-E, 29201-E, 29202-E, 35926-E, S5935-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00592ddnj|592. Misbranding of Ayds Candy. U. S.' v. 73 Packages of Ayds Easy Reducing|Plan Candy (and 5 other seizure actions against Ayds Candy). Default|decrees of condemnation. Portion of product ordered destroyed; re-|mainder ordered distributed to charitable institutions. (F. D. C. Nos. 2334,|3600. 3601, 3670, 3999, 4752. Sample Nos. 15617-E, 27514-E, 29201-E, 29202-E,|35926-E, S5935-E.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-|ing its efficacy as a reducing agent.|Between July 11, 1940, and May 23, 1941, the United States attorneys for the|Eastern District of Arkansas, Southern District of Ohio, and the Southern|District of Alabama hied libels against 73 packages of Ayds Candy at Little|ttock, Ark., 160 various-sized boxes at Cincinnati, Ohio, and 97 various-sized|boxes at Mobile, Ala., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate|commerce within the period from on or about May 4 to on or about December|10, 1940, by the Carlay Co., Fuller Laboratories, or Fuller Co., from Chicago, 111.;|and charging that it was misbranded.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the name \"\"Ayds,\"\" the designs|of slender female figures, designs of slender female figures superimposed on obese|female figures, a picture entitled \"\"Before,\"\" showing obese woman and one entitled|\"\"After,\"\" showing, presumably, the same individual after having lost 40 pounds,|and a poster with picture of a female figure with the words underneath \"\"Now|Weighs 130 Lbs. Weighed 160 Lbs.,\"\" appearing in the labeling of the various|lots, together with statements in circulars accompanying the various shipments,|were false and misleading in that the said words, designs, pictures, and state-|ments created the impression in the mind of the reader that the article, when|-used as directed and in conjunction with and as a part of the so-called plans|referred to in the circulars as No. 1 Plan and No. 2 Plan, would because of its|composition and characteristics, be of substantial value in reducing body weight;|that it would aid the consumer to reduce pleasantly and without effort and would|aid the consumer to keep the weight down after having reduced to the desired|weight; and that it would aid the consumer to cut down on the amount of food|eaten without feeling pangs of hunger, distress, faintness or debilitation;|whereas It would not be efficacious for the purposes suggested.|It also was alleged to be misbranded in violation of. the provisions of the law|applicable to foods, as reported in notices of judgment on foods.|Within the period from September 20, 1940, to August 19, 1941, no claimant|having appeared, judgments of condemnation were entered and those lots located|at Cincinnati and Mobile were ordered distributed to various charitable institu-|tions, and the remaining lots were ordered destroyed.|593. Misbranding of Ayds Candy. U. S. v. 17 Boxes of Ayds Candy. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00593November 1942Vita Health Food Co.Ayds Candy\NWashington, District of ColumbiaWashington, District of ColumbiaWashington, District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia593F. D. C. No. 4269. Sample No. 28268-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00593ddnj|503. Misbranding: of Ayds Candy. - IT. S. v. 17 Boxes of Ayds Candy. Default|decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 4269. Sample No.|28268-E.)|On April 9, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Columbia filed|a libel against 17 boxes of Ayds Candy, alleging that the article was in interstate|commerce in the District of Columbia at the Vita Health Food Co., in the City|of Washington, District of Columbia; and charging that it was misbranded.|The article was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that representations in the|labeling regarding its efficacy in effecting reduction of body weight in the con-|sumer were false and misleading since they were incorrect; and (2) in that the|combination of letters \"\"Ayds Candy.\"\" appearing on the package label, constituted|a false and misleading device since it meant to purchasers that the article was|an appropriate and effective aid in reducing body weight-having acquired such|meaning because of statements and designs appearing in a circular bearing the|title legends \"\"Now! Many Lose Weight by New, Easy Plan. Ayds Easy Reduc-|ing Plan and Candy\"\" : whereas the candy was not an effective and appropriate aid|in reducing body weight.|It also was alleged to be misbranded under the provisions of the law applicable|to foods, as reported in F. N. J. No. 2976.|On May 1, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|594. Misbranding of Slend-R-Form Candy. U. S. v. 91 1/4 Dozen Boxes of Slend-R Form Candy (and 12 other seizure actions against Slend-R-Form Candy). Default decrees of condemnation. Portions of product ordered distributed to charitable Institutions; remainder ordered destroyed.ddnj00594November 1942Riley Products, Inc.Slend-R-Form Candy\NSt. Louis, Mo.; Seattle Wash.; San Francisco, Calif.; Portland, Oreg.; Dayton, Ohio; Appleton, Wis.; Lake Charles, La.; Tulsa, Okla.; Milwaukee, Wis.; Indianapolis, Ind.; Minneapolis, Minn.Chicago, Ill.St. Louis, Mo.; Seattle Wash.; San Francisco, Calif.; Portland, Oreg.; Dayton, Ohio; Appleton, Wis.; Lake Charles, La.; Tulsa, Okla.; Milwaukee, Wis.; Indianapolis, Ind.; Minneapolis, Minn.Eastern District of Missouri, Western District of Washington, Northern District of California, District of Oregon, Southern District of Ohio, Western District of Louisiana, Northern District of Oklahoma, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Southern District of Indiana, and the District of Minnesota594F. D. C. Nos. 3599, 3916, 3924, 3998, 4017, 4201, 4678, 4768, 5048, 5239, 5240, 5749, 5758. Sample Nos. 5181-E, 11404-E, 22302-E, 38942-E, 39706-E, 43590-E. 44652-E, 47481-E, 52318-E to 52320-E, incl. , 55422-E, 55604-E, 58291-E, 79926-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00594ddnj|594. Misbranding of Slend-R-Form Candy. U. S. v. 01% Dozen Boxes of Slend-R-|Form Candy (and 12 other seizure actions against Slend-R-Form Candy).|Default decrees of condemnation. Portions of product ordered distrib-|uted to charitable Institutions; remainder ordered destroyed. (F. D. C.|Nos. 3599, 3916, 3924, 3998, 4017, 4201, 4678, 4768, 5048, 5239, 5240, 5749, 5758.|Sample Nos. 5181-E, 11404-E, 22302-E. 38942-E, 39706-E, 43590-E. 44652-E,|47481-E, 52318-E to 52320-E, incl., 55422-E, 55604-E, 58291-E, 7992B-E.)|Between December 28,1940, and September 17,1941, the United States attorneys|for the Eastern District of Missouri, Western District of Washington, Northern|District of California, District of Oregon, Southern District of Ohio, Western|District of Louisiana, Northern District of Oklahoma, Eastern District of Wis-|consin, Southern District of Indiana, and the District of Minnesota filed libels|against 9*4 dozen boxes of Slend-R-Form at St. Louis, Mo., 451 boxes at Seattle|Wash., 140 boxes at San Francisco, Calif., 19 dozen boxes at Portland, Oreg.,|140 boxes at Dayton, Ohio, 25 boxe_s at Appleton, Wis.,. 54 boxes at Lake Charles,|La., 24 boxes at Tulsa, Okla., 126 boxes at Milwaukee,|' Wis., 16 boxes at Indian-|apolis, Ind., and 274 packages at Minneapolis, Minn., alleging that the article|had been shipped in interstate commerce within the period from on or about|October 28, 1940, to on or about August 7, 1941. by Riley Products, Inc., from|Chicago, 111. On March 10, 1941 the United States attorney for the District of|Colorado filed a libel against 8 dozen boxes of Slend-R-Form Candy at Denver,|Colo., which had been shipped by Riley Products, Inc., from Chicago, 111.,|or about December 3, 1940.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that representations in the labeling|regarding its efficacy in effecting a reduction of body weight in the consumer were|false and misleading. The article was also alleged to be misbranded under the|provisions of the law applicable to foods, as reported in F. N. J. No. 2978.|Between January 30, 1941, and March 4, 1942, no claimant having appeared,|judgments of condemnation were entered. The portions of the product located|at Denver, Dayton, and Minneapolis were ordered distributed to charitable insti-|tutions and the remaining lots were ordered destroyed.|615. Misbranding of Fernol Concentrate. U. S. v. 65 Bottles, 144 Bottles, and 237 Bottles of Fernol Concentrate. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00615February, 1943Fernol Co.Fernol ConcentrateFebruary 21 to November 15, 1941Wichita, Kans.Chicago, Ill.Wichita, Kans.District of Kansas and the Eastern District of Michigan615F. D. C. Nos. 4797, 6133, 6274. Sample Nos. 43436-E, 43904-E. 62944-E, 62997-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00615ddnj|615. Misbranding of Fernol Concentrate. TJ. S. v. 65 Bottles, 144 Bottles, and|237 Bottles of Fernol Concentrate. Default decrees of condemnation and|destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 4797, 6133, 6274. Sample Nos. 43436-E, 43904-JE.|62944-E, 62997-E.)|In addition to failure to bear adequate directions for use and warning|statements, the labeling of this product also contained false and misleading|claims.|On or about June 2 and November 1 and 22, 1941, the United States attorneys|for the District of Kansas and the Eastern District of Michigan filed libels|against 65 bottles of Fernol Concentrate at Wichita, Kans., and 381 bottles of|Fernol Concentrate at Detroit, Mich., alleging that the article had been shipped|within the period from on or about February 21 to on or about November 15,|1941, by the Fernol Co. from Chicago, 111., and from Kansas City, Mo.; and|charging that it was misbranded.|Analyses of samples of the article showed that it consisted essentially of|Epsom salt, extract of cascara sagrada, small proportions of magnesium car-|bonate, sodium phosphate, salt, iron and ammonium citrate, a sugar, saccharin,|alcohol, and water.|The portion of the product located at Detroit was alleged to be misbranded:|(1) In that the directions for use appearing on the label, \"\"Average Directions|for Taking Adults: Take two tablespoonsful before going to bed and one table-|spoonful before or after each meal. As this preparation contains laxative as|well as other ingredients, regulate the dose according to action on bowels.|You should have two thorough bowel actions a day. Above dose is average,|but decrease or increase as agreeable,\"\" were not adequate directions for use|since the article was essentially a laxative drug and the said directions for|use included no limitation on the duration of administration but suggested use|for an indefinite period by reason of the following statement appearing in an|accompanying leaflet, \"\"Valuble Coupon Read Carefully When you have|Three of these coupons, mail to Company as below and we will mail you|promptly prepaid one bottle of Fernol Free. Just go to your druggist and buy|two more bottles of Fernol and you will then have three coupons.\"\" (2) In that|the statement appearing in an accompanying leaflet, \"\"Send For \"\"The Fernol|Method' Send penny post card or letter to Fernol Co., 800 N. Clark St., Chi-|cago, Illinois for instructive information on the Fernol Method. It will be|mailed you postage paid,\"\" referred to two other leaflets entitled \"\"The Fernol|Method of Weight Reduction\"\" and \"\"Proof,\"\" and by such reference incorporated in|the labeling of the article the statement appearing in these two leaflets, and that?(|these statements, which represented that the article was a safe or appropriate|means of reducing weight, would improve the whole system, overcome arthritis,?{|enable one to do hard work without feeling worn out, prevent one from becom-|ing tired after working all day, make one feel fine, relieve stuffiness around?*|the heart, make one feel healthier or look younger, give more energy, act as|a tonic, relieve chronic constipation, help in every way, prevent headaches,|or remedy gall-bladder trouble, were false and misleading since the article|would not be efficacious for such purposes.|The portion located at Kansas City was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In|that the labeling failed to bear adequate warnings against use by children|where its use might be dangerous to health or against unsafe dosage or methods|or duration of administration in such manner and form as are necessary for|the protection of users, since the label bore no warning that frequent or con-|tinued use of the preparation might result in dependence on laxatives to move|the bowels. (2) In that the warning, on the label with reference to the avoid-|ance of use of the article in the presence of symptoms of appendicitis was not|prominently placed thereon with such conspicuousness as to render it likely to|be read by the ordinary individual under customary conditions of purchase|and use, since it appeared relatively inconspicuously on one panel of the label|attached to the package as sold and did not appear in connection with the|directions for use on the label headed \"\"Paste This Label On Your Bottle After|Making.\"\" (3) In that the name Fernol and the statements appearing in the|labeling constituted a device that was false and misleading since it suggested|and represented to purchasers that the article would be appropriate and effec-|tive in the treatment of obesity; whereas it would not be appropriate and|effective in the treatment of said disease. (4) In that the statement on the|label, \"\"Magnesium carbonate, sodium phosphate, sodium chloride (salt), cas-|cara, iron and ammonium citrate, saccharin, dextrose (grape sugar), caramel|color (burnt sugar), magnesium sulfate (Epsom salt),\"\" was misleading since|it failed to reveal the material fact that the effect of the article was due essen-|tially to its content of Epsom salt, that the other ingredients mentioned were|present in relatively inconsequential amounts, and that some of them, namely,|sodium chloride (salt), iron and ammonium citrate, saccharin, dextrose (grape|sugar), caramel color (burnt sugar), were not active ingredients.|On September 15, 1941, and January 7, 1942, no claimant having appeared,|judgments of condemnation were entered and the product was ordered|destroyed.|595. Misbranding of Slend-R-Form. U. S. v. 58 Boxes of Slend-R-Form. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00595November 1942Thomas Martindale & Co.Slend-R-FormApril 2, 1941Chicago, Ill.Philadelphia, Pa.Chicago, Ill.Northern District of Illinois595F. D. C. No. 4290. Sample Nos. 24696-E, 37283-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00595ddnj|605. Misbranding: of Slend-R-Form. U. S. -v. 58 Boxes of Slend-R-Form. Default|decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 4290. Sample Nos.|24696-E, 37283-E.)|On April 17, 1941, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Illinois filed a libel against 58 boxes of Slend-R-Form candy at Chicago, 111., alleg-|ing that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about April 2,|1941, by Thomas Martindale & Co. from Philadelphia, Pa.; and charging that it|was misbranded. This was a returned shipment and was part of a lot originally|shipped to Philadelphia by Riley Products, Inc., from Chicago, 111.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that representations in the labeling|regarding its efficacy in effecting reduction of body weight in the consumer were|false and misleading.|The article was also alleged to be misbranded under the provisions of the law|applicable to foods, as reported in F. N. J. No. 2977.|On June 30, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|596. Misbranding of Pro-Gro Poultry Supplement. U. S. v. 3 10-Pound, 3 25 Pound, and 1 335-Pound Containers of Pro-Gro. Consent decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00596November 1942Pro-Gro Co.Pro-Gro Poultry SupplementJanuary 28, 1941Ottawa, Kans.Kansas City, Mo.Ottawa, Kans.District of Kansas596F. D. C. Nos. 4379, 4380. Sample Nos. 43876-E, 43877-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00596ddnj|596. Misbranding of Pro-Gro Poultry Supplement. IT. S. v. 3 10-Pound, 3 25-|Pound, and 1 335-Pound Containers of Pro-Gro. Consent decree of con-|demnation and destruction. (F.D. C. Nos. 4379, 4380. Sample Nos. 43876-E,|43877-E.)|On April 21,1941, the United States attorney for the District of Kansas filed a|libel against the abovemamed product at Ottawa, Kans., alleging that it had been|shipped by the Pro-Gro Co. from Kansas City, Mo., on or about January 28,1941;|and charging that it was misbranded. With the exception of the portion con-|tained in one of the 10-pound containers, the article was unlabeled.|Analyses of samples of the product showed that it consisted essentially of cut.|plant material containing minute proportions of hydrochloric and sulfuric acids.|The labeled portion of the article was alleged to be misbranded in that the|statements, \"\"Pro-Produces More Eggs! Gro Grows More Meat! Poultry Sup-|plement Fertility . . . Vitality,\"\" were false and misleading since they rep-|resented that it would be efficacious for the purposes recommended, whereas it|would not be efficacious for such purposes; and in that the name \"\"Pro-Gro,\"\" a|combination of letters, was a false and misleading device which was interpreted|to mean that the article would produce more eggs and grow more meat. Both|the labeled and the unlabeled portions were allegad to be misbranded in that the|article was in package form and the label failed to bear (1) a statement of the|common or usual names of the active ingredients, and (2) an accurate statement|of the quantity of contents. The portion in the unlabeled containers was alleged|to be misbranded further in that it was in package form and did not bear a label|containing the name and place of business of the manufacturer, packer, or|distributor.|It also was alleged to be misbranded under the provisions of the law applicable|to foods, as reported in F. N. J. No. 2858.|On June 21, 1941, the claimant having admitted the allegations of the libel,|judgment of condemnation was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|597. Misbranding of Udder-Balm. U. S. v. 7 1/6 Cases of Udder-Balm. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00597November 1942Cash Davis LaboratoriesUdder-BalmJune 15, 1939Seattle, Wash.St. Helens, Oreg.Seattle, Wash.Western District of Washington597F. D. C. No. 3683. Sample No. 55386-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00597ddnj|507. Misbranding of Udder-Balm. U. S. v. 7% Cases of Udder-Balm. Default|decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 3683. Sample No.|55386-E.)|On January 23, 1941, the United States attorney for the Western District of|Washington filed a libel against the above-named product at Seattle, Wash.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|June 15, 1939, by Cash Davis Laboratories from St. Helens, Oreg.; and charging|that it was misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of free|iodine, combined iodine, petrolatum, and a fatty acid.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that representations in the labeling|that it would be efficacious for the treatment of mastitis and cowpox were false|and misleading since it would not be efficacious for such purposes.|On June 17, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|598. Misbranding of worm remedies for poultry and hogs. U. S. v. 25 Packages of Kon-Trold Kamala Flock Treatment for Poultry, 17 Packages of Kon Trold Nicotine for Poultry Round Worms, and 20 Packages of Kon-Trold Nicotine Herd Treatment for Hog Round Worms. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00598November 1942Kon-Trold Products Corporationworm remedies for poultry and hogsJuly 16, 1940Eugene, Oreg.Burbank, Calif.Eugene, Oreg.District of Oregon598F. D. C. Nos. 4239 to 4241, incl. Sample Nos. 60046-E to 60048-E, incl.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00598ddnj|598. Misbranding of worm remedies for poultry and hogs. U. S. v. 25 Packages|of Kon-Trold Kamala Flock Treatment for Poultry, 17 Packages of Kon-|Trold Nicotine for Poultry Round 'Worms, and 20 Packages of Kon-Trold|Nicotine Herd Treatment for Hog Round Worms. Default decree of con-|demnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 4239 to 4241, incl. Sample Nos|60046-E to 60048-E, incl.)|On April 10, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Oregon filed a|libel against the above-named products at Eugene, Oreg., alleging that they had|been shipped by Kon-Trold Products Corporation from Burbank, Calif., on or|about July 16, 1940; and charging that they were misbranded.|Analyses of samples of the articles showed that the Kamala Flock Treatment|for Poultry consisted essentially of kamala resins and siliceous material; that|the Nicotine for Poultry Round Worms consisted essentially of nicotine and rosin ;|and that the Nicotine Herd Treatment consisted essentially of nicotine and rosin.|The articles were alleged to be misbranded in that statements in the labeling|representing that the Flock Treatment for Poultry would be efficacious in the|treatment of poultry afflicted with tapeworms; that the Nicotine for Poultry|Round Worms would be efficacious for treatment and prevention of roundworms|in poultry; and that the Herd Treatment for Hog Round Worms would be|efficacious for treatment of hog roundworms and beneficial at any time to hogs|of all ages, were false and misleading since they would not be efficacious for such|purposes.|The Nicotine for Poultry Round Worms was alleged to be misbranded further|in that the statement of active ingredients, which appeared in type of a very|small size, was not placed on the label with such conspicuousness as to render|it likely to be read and understood by the ordinary individual under customary|conditions of purchase and use.|On May 9, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the products were ordered destroyed.|DRUGS FALSELY LABELED AS TO QUANTITY OF CONTENTS*|599. Alleged misbranding of rabbing alcohol compound. U. S. v. Adde, Inc. Plea of not guilty. Case tried to the court sitting as a jury of one; verdict of not guilty.ddnj00599November 1942Adde, Inc., a corporation, Baltimore, Md.rabbing alcohol compoundNovember 1 and 29 and December 26 and 27, 1939MarylandMarylandNorth Carolina and WashingtonDistrict of Maryland599F. D. C. No. 2092. Sample Nos. S21-E, 322-E, 13026-E. 13027-E, 64236-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00599ddnj|590. Alleged misbranding of rabbins alcohol compound. U. S. v. Adde, Inc.|Plea of not guilty. Case tried to the court sitting as a jury of one;|verdict of not guilty. (P. D. C. No. 2092. Sample Nos. S21-E, 322-E, 13026-E.|13027-E, 64236-E.)|This case was instituted on charges that the product was, short of the declared|volume.|On August 1, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of Maryland|filed an information against Adde, Inc., a corporation, Baltimore, Md., alleging|shipment on or about November 1 and 29 and December 26 and 27, 1939, from|the State of Maryland into the States of North Carolina and Washington of|quantities of rubbing alcohol compound that was misbranded.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements on|the carton and bottle labels, \"\"Contents One Pint,\"\" \"\"Contents 16 Fl. Ozs.,\"\" and|\"\"Contents 16 Fluid Ozs.,\"\" were false and misleading since each of the bottles|did not contain 1 pint or 16 fluid ounces of rubbing alcohol, but did contain a|smaller amount.|On October 20, 1941, a plea of not guilty was entered on behalf of the de-|fendant and the case was tried before the court sitting as a jury of one. At|the conclusion of testimony the court ordered the entry of a verdict of not|guilty and delivered the following oral opinion:|COLEMAN, District Judge. \"\"The court, sitting as a jury, concludes that the|defendant company is entitled to a directed verdict in its favor, for the following|reasons:|\"\"The defendant company is charged with violating Section 502 (b) (2) of|the Act of June 25, 1938, 21 U. S. C. A. Sec. 352 (b) (2), known as the Federal|Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, which provides that 'A drug or deviee shall be|deemed to be misbranded-(b) if in package form unless it bears a label con-|taining * * * (2) an accurate statement of the quantity of the contents|in terms of weight, measure, or numerical count: Provided that under clause|(2) of this paragraph reasonable variations shall be permitted, and exemptions|as to small packages shall be established, by regulations prescribed by law.'|\"\"Regulations have been prescribed under this section of the act and they|have the force of law, provided they are consistent with the statute. In other|words, rules promulgated .by an administrative body in support of the legisla-|tion which it is charged with enforcing, are always subject to judicial review.|In the present case the regulation here relied upon by the Government, namely,|subdivision (j) of the regulations prescribed by the Secretary pursuant to1|section 502 of the act, is found by the court to be a reasonable and proper|regulation. It reads as follows, insofar as its provisions relate to the present|inquiry: 'Where the statement expresses the minimum quantity, no variation|below the stated minimum shall be permitted except variations below the|stated weight or measure of a drug caused by ordinary and customary ex-|posure, after such drug is introduced into interstate commerce, to conditions|which normally occur in good distribution practice and which unavoidably|* See also Nos. 546, 551, 554-556, 571, 582, 583, 396.|result in decreased weight or measure. Variations above the stated minimum|shall not be unreasonably large. *??**.'|\"\"All of the bottles involved in the present suit contain as part of their label|the words \"\"Contents 16 fluid ounces,\"\" which this court believes must be con-|strued as expressing a minimum quantity. So the above-quoted regulation|applies.|\"\"It is contended on the part of the Government that subsection (k) of this|same section of the regulations also applies. That reads as follows: 'Where|the statement does not express the minimum quantity-|\"\"'(1) variations from the stated weight or measure of a drug shall be per-|mitted when caused by ordinary and customary exposure, after such drug is|introduced into interstate commerce, to conditions which normally occur in|good distribution practice and which unavoidably result in change of weight or|measure;|'\"\"(2) variations from the stated weight, measure, or numerical count of a|drug or device shall be permitted when caused by unavoidable deviations in|weighing, measuring, or counting the contents of individual packages which|occur in good packing practices.|\"\" 'But under subdivision (2) of this paragraph variations shall not be per-|mitted to such extent that the average of the quantities in the packages com-|prising a shipment or other delivery of the drug or device is below the quantity|stated and no unreasonable shortage in any package shall be permitted, even|though overage^ in other packages in the same shipment or delivery compensate|for such shortage.'|\"\"Even if we assume this last quoted regulation to be applicable to the|present case, the testimony introduced clearly fails to establish that 'the average|of the quantities in the packages comprising a shipment' is *below the quantity|stated.' The Government has not introduced any testimony sufficiently exten-|sive to support that contention.|\"\"The following regulation (1), prescribed under section 502, is also applicable|to the present case: 'The extent of variations from the stated quantity of the|contents permissible under paragraphs (J) and (k) of this regulation in the|case of each shipment or other delivery shall be determined by the facts in|such case.'|\"\"When we apply the rule laid down in regulations (j) and (1) just referred|to, the court is completely satisfied that the Government has failed to sustain|the burden, imposed upon it in a case of this kind, of proving beyond a|reasonable doubt that the defendant company is guilty of violating the act.|\"\"It is true that proof of intent on the part of an alleged offender to do the|forbidden act is not a condition precedent. The act prohibits doing certain things,|and if the Government proves that they have been done then the person or firm|shown to have been guilty of the violation, is liable under the act for the penalties|imposed, regardless of intent. However, it seems to the court in the present|case that the Government is taking what is, in substance, a contradictory position.|First, it says that it believes the variation or deficiency in the weights of the|samples taken is a clear violation of the law, as interpreted by the regulations|which have just been referred to. and yet, at the same time, the Government|admits that following these alleged violations, the loading facilities of the|defendant company were never inspected, but that the Government accepted|statements made by State of Maryland inspectors that such facilities were|adequate and satisfactory. And what is more important, the record in the|present case is totally devoid of any testimony tending to show what might be|the shrinkage or evaporation in samples taken promptly after the bottles are|loaded, and laid aside for a period of time approximating the time that elapsed|between the shipment and the examination of the bottles that were actually|sampled. This lack of testimony seems to the court to be very vital.|\"\"It is clear that under some conditions, merely through evaporation greater|shrinkages than those with respect to which Government witnesses have testified,|occur in alcohol preparations of this character. This is proved by the analysis,|made in the course of this trial at the court's request, of the contents of one of|the bottles taken from one of the very shipments from which the Government|took samples and made its measurements.|\"\"The Government has not itself arrived at a standard by percentages which it is|prepared to adopt. It simply says that the shrinkage here is on the average too|great, after sampling some 7(Kodd samples out of many hundreds of bottles. There|is no proof but what the deficiency complained of may just as well have been|caused by the very sort of thing which the regulations allow to be taken into|account, namely, 'ordinary and customary exposure, after such drug is introduced|into interstate commerce, to conditions which normally occur in good distribution|practice and which unavoidably result in decreased weight or measure,' as by|short loading.|\"\"To repeat, it seems to the court that if the Government desires to prosecute|defendants in a case of this kind, it should support its case with more accurate|data. The court realizes that it is not possible to lay down a rule of thumb|requirement. There is bound to be some tolerance. In the present case the|Government asserts that a proven shrinkage in the samples taken in the neigh-|borhood of 1 ounce for every 16 ounces, which is the minimum quantity each|bottle is labeled to contain, is an excessive shrinkage. Yet, as has just been|noted, the measurement in open court indicates that perhaps such a shrinkage is|due 'to ordinary and customary exposure.' There is no testimony in the present|case as to what the actual extent of the evaporation of alcohol, or water, or both,|would be over a given period of time in a preparation of this kind, under stated|temperature conditions. Perhaps any such' tests would produce variations which|would not enable one to adopt a percentage rule, in any event. But the sum|and substance of this court's conclusion is that the Government can not properly|rely solely upon samples taken long after the shipments had been made, under|variable temperature conditions, which do; not represent an average of anything|like an entire shipment, or shipment, especially since the Government has given|to this defendant a clean bill of health as to its present loading facilities, without|having its own representatives inspect such facilities and determine, and be pre-|pared to prove that there has been short loading.|\"\"At first blush it would seem that if a man says to the public, by the label on his|bottle, that he has^ put 16 ounces of his preparation in that bottle when as a|matter of fact when the bottle reaches the consumer there are only 15 or 14-|ounces in it, there is something wrong. But in the present case the evidence|shows that a considerable portion of the liquid is highly volatile, being alcohol.|It also shows that the Government has failed to determine by direct evidence|whether the shortage actually occurred in the loading or by evaporation. It|merely draws the conclusion from a relatively small number of samples that this|shortage could not have occurred except in the loading. If the Government had|investigated defendant's loading methods, and had immediately laid aside a|number of the loaded bottles under conditions similar to the conditions which|existed with respect to the samples that were tested, it could then be determined|with accuracy whether there was shrinkage after loading, and to what extent, if|any, there was short loading.|\"\"What the court has said is not to be taken as meaning that one who prepares|and sells a volatile preparation is not himself required to take that characteristic|into account in bottling his preparation. Of course he is. But he is given the|\"\"benefit of the tolerance rule contained in the regulations just referred to. And|since this is a criminal case, and the burden of proof is upon the Government to|establish to the satisfaction of the court sitting as a jury beyond a reasonable|doubt that the law has been violated, that rule must be given full force and|effect also.|. \"\"The verdict is accordingly not guilty.\"\"|600. Misbranding of Essence of Caroid. U. S. v. 10 Bottles of Essence of Caroid. Default decree of condemnation. Product ordered delivered to Food and Drug Administration for technical use.ddnj00600November 1942American Ferment Co., Inc..Essence of CaroldOctober 21, 1941Washington, D. C.Buffalo, N. Y.Washington, D. C.District of Columbia600F. D. C. No. 6258. Sample No. 87104-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00600ddnj|600. Misbranding of Essence of Carold. TJ. S. .v. 10 Bottles of Essence of Caroid.|Default decree of condemnation. Product ordered delivered to Food and|Drug Administration for technical use. (F. D. C. No. 6258. Sample No.|87104-E.)|On November 21, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Columbia|filed a libel against 101-gallon cartons of Essence of Caroid at Washington, D. C,|alleging that the article had been shipped by the American Ferment Co., Inc..|from Buffalo, N. Y., on or about October 21, 1941; and charging that it was mis-|branded.|The article was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that the statement on the label,|\"\"1 Gal.,\"\" was false and misleading since the quantity of contents of the package|was materially less than 1 gallon; and (2) in that the label failed to bear an|accurate statement of the quantity of contents.|On December 22,1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered delivered to the Food and Drug Admin-|istration for technical use.|A. B. D. G. Capsules|?566|Adiron|?567|Alcohol, rubbing, compounds?573,1?5yy|Alcoholism remedies|559,?584|Ammonia, aromatic spirit|?564|Anise seed|--.??561|Ayds Candy-|592,?593|Bekus Puddy-|?579|Bio Vita Vitamin Oil|?570|Bo-Go-Ha-Ma Mineral Springs Water__?587|Bonlta livers|?560|Breatheasy kits and inhalant??546|Bromides, three|?548|Camphorated oil|?564|Caroid, Essence of|:??600|Codroil|?571|Cold tablets?r?:|?547|and grippe tablets|?553|Cravex|?559|Crawford's Ridia|?577|Dewee's Carminative|?564|\"\"Doctor's Daughter\"\" Tablets??554|DPS Formula No. 54|?568|Enrich|?578|Filto-Vapor Nasal Filter Outfit??582|Floracubes|?552|Ginger root-|?562|Glandular preparations|?572|Gynantrin|?572|Hain Abgede Improved Vitamins?-?566|Hair and scalp remedies|585, 586|Hercules Congestors|?591|Hilltop veterinary remedies|?576|Inhalants|546,?583|Isopropyl alcohol compound??573|Kon-Trold brand veterinary remedies??598|Lishus|?579|Lurln|?589|Mackenzie Cold and Grippe Tablets??553|McCollum's Vitamin A and D Tablet|s-?569|N.J. No.|McNeal's Laxative Cold Tablets? 547|Mineral oil?-'| 588|Miscellaneous drugs, five-damaged? 56:',|Nature's Minerals?_?__?.? 541-545|Newbro's Herpicide| 586|New Food| 574|Niter, sweet spirt| 564|Orrine No. 1| 584|Pinolator inhaler and medicament? 583|Pro-Gro Poultry Supplement-? 596|Pumpkin seed?.|:? 561|Quaker Puffed Wheat Sparkies? 580|Reducing preparations| 592-595|Ritamine| 578|Robinson Spring Water| 575|Senna leaves| 561|Shores Special Formula Tablets? 565|Slend-R-Form Candy?? 594, 595|Special Formula No. 8558'Tablets? 558|Special Formula Tablets|547, 565|Starr's Wonderful M. L. & K. Pills? 555|Sunshine Brand Powders.?_.? 551|Tabknoll Three Bromides Effervescent- 548|Thiamin chloride Bt| 581|T. S. B. Saline| 556|Udder-Balm|. 597|Velpaus Pills| 557|Veterinary remedies|565. 570, 571,|576, 596-598|Vitalax-| 558|Vitamin preparations?558|~^66-571,|578, 580, 581|Waft-Surgical| 590|Water, mineral|575, 587|West Point Hair Tonic| 585|Whitehall's, Dr., Compound Tablets? 549|Wilbur's, Dr., Laxative Tablets? 554|Wormseed|_? 561|Zerbst's Capsules|.? 550|SHIPPERS, MANUFACTURERS, AND DISTRIBUTORS|Adde, Inc.:|rubbing alcohol compound-|Russian type mineral oil-|American Dietaids Co., Inc.:|Enrich and Ritamine-|American Ferment Co.. Inc.:|Caroid Dental Powder|Arner Co., Inc.:|laxative cold tablets|special formula tablets?_.|Associated Brands, Inc.:|West Point Hair Tonic|Beringer, Geo. M., Inc.:|thiamin chloride Bi|Bioproducts, Inc.:|Bio Vita Vitamin 011-|Bloomhuff, C. F., and R. V.:|Robinson Spring Water|Breatheasy Distributors, Inc.:|Breatheasy kits and inhalant|Briggs, F. W., & Co.:|Velpaus Pills|Brollier. P. D. See Parke-Lee Food Co.|Burns, T. S., & Boys Co.:|T. S. B. Saline|Carlay Co.:|Ayds Candy|J. No.|*599|588|,578|600|547|547|585|581|570|575|546|557|556|592|Cash Davis Laboratories :|Udder-Balm|Crawford Foods, Inc.:|Crawford's Ridia|Curtis & Travis:|miscellaneous drugs, fire-damaged|Dartell Laboratories:|DPS Formula No. 54|Daughter, Dr. John Wilbur, Co.:|\"\"Doctor's Daughter\"\" Tablets|Difco Laboratories:|Gynantrin|Federal Cosmetic Sales Corporation :|Waft-Surgical|Flora cube Co.:|Floracubes|Fuller Co.:|Ayds Candy|Fuller Laboratories:|Ayds Candy|Guy, Inc.:|MacKenzie Cold and Grippe Tablets _|Herpicide Co.:|Newbro's Herpicide|Hillier's, R., Son Corporation :|crude drugs|J. No.|597|577|563|568|554|572|590|552|592|592|553|586|561|1 Contains an opinion of the court.|310|601. Adulteration and misbranding of Bromo-Caps; misbranding of Rx S368957 Filled Capsules. U. S. v. 5 Drams of Rx 368957 Filled Capsules and 111 Display Cards and 214 Cartons of Bromo-Caps. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00601February, 1943Parke, Davis & Co.Bromo-Caps; Rx S36S957 r Filled CapsulesApril 11, 1941Baltimore, Md.Detroit, Mich.Baltimore, Md.District of Maryland601F. D. C. Nos. 4900 to 4902, incl. Sample Nos. 50246-E, 50247-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00601ddnj|FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION|NOTICES OF JUDGMENT UNDER THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG,|AND COSMETIC ACT|[Given pursuant to section 705 of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act]|601-655|DRUGS AND DEVICES|; .1 The cases reported herewith were instituted in the United States district|courts by the United States attorneys acting upon reports submitted by direction|of the Federal Security Administrator,|WATSON B. MUXEB, Acting Administrator, Federal Security Agency.|Washington, D. C, November 11, 1942.|Page|Drugs seized because of potential danger when|used according to directions | 313|Drugs actionable because of failure to bear|adequate directions or warning statements. 322|CONTENTS|Page|Drugs actionable because of failure to comply , . tMoleskin plaster in deceptive containers. 342|with official or own standards 329|Vitamin preparations.: | 332|Drugs actionable because of felse and mis-|leading claims in the labeling 333|Drugs also failing to bear required ingredient|statements - | 338|Veterinary remedies | 339|Nonstertle surgical dressings | 343|Prophylactics | 344|Index -_ | 345|DRUGS SEIZED BECAUSE OF POTENTIAL DANGER TO HEALTH WHEN|USED ACCORDING TO DIRECTIONS|601. Adulteration and misbranding of Bromo-Caps; misbranding of Rx S36S957 r|Filled Capsules. U. S. v. 5 Drams of Rx 368957 Filled Capsules and 111|Display Cards and 214 Cartons of Bromo-Caps. Default decree of condem-|nation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 4900 to 4902, incl. Sample Nos. -|50246-E, 50247-E.) |t t This case was based on the interstate shipment of a quantity of acetanilid,?*?\"\"aspirin, and caffeine capsules in drums, a portion of which had been repackaged ''-|and labeled \"\"Original and Genuine Bromo-Caps.\"\" The repackaged capsules|would have been dangerous to health when used according to the directions on|the carton. The labeling of the repackaged capsules also overstated the ace-|tanilid content by approximately 50 percent and it bore false and misleading|claims. The labeling of both bulk and repackaged capsules failed to bear ade-|quate directions for use and warning and satisfactory ingredient statements.|On June 13. 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Maryland '|filed a libel against 5 drums containing a total of 31,800 Rx S368957 Filled|Capsules; and 111 display cards each containing 24 4-capsule-sized cartons and|2 12-capsule-sized cartons, and 202 4-capsule-sized cartons and 12 12-capsule-|sized cartons of Bromo-Caps at Baltimore, Md., alleging that the articles had|been shipped on or about April 11, 1941, by Parke, Davis & Co. from Detroit,|Mich., and charging that a portion were adulterated and misbranded and that|the remainder were misbranded.|Analyses of samples of the article showed that it consisted essentially of|acetanilid (2.3 grains), aspirin (4.4 grains), and caffeine (? grain) per capsule.|495848*-43 1 |313|The repackaged capsules were alleged to be adulterated in that their strength C|differed from that which they purported or were represented to possess, namely,|(cartons) \"\"Each Cap contains 3? grs. acetanilid,\"\" since each capsule con-|tained materially less than 3? grains of acetanilid.|They were alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that they would be dangerous (|to health when used in the dosage or with the frequency or duration prescribed,|recommended, or suggested In the labeling, namely: (Carton) \"\"One Capsule|Usually Gives The Desired Results. If Necessary, Another May Be Taken In|One Hour\"\"; and (circular) \"\"Take one Bromo-Cap with a swallow of water and|repeat again in about an hour if not relieved, or until 3 doses have been|taken. * * * A few Bromo-Caps, taken one every 2 Or 3 hours * * *|1?Bromo-Cap every 3 or 4 hours. . * * * take 1 Bromo-Cap. Repeat in 1 or|2?hours. Then one every 3 or 4 hours. * * * Take one Bromo-Cap every 3|or 4 hours with large drinks of water. * * * Take one Bromo-Cap, another|in 1 hour, then one every 3 or 4 hours. It may be advisable to take at least 12|altogether * * * a Bromo-Cap every 2 or 3 hours for a few doses. * * *|Bromo-Cap taken with one or two large glasses of water. Thereafter take one|Bromo-Cap every three or Jour hours until well.\"\" (2) In that the name \"\"Bromo-|Cap\"\" on the carton was false and misleading since they contained no bromine|or compound of bromine. (3) In that the statements, (carton) \"\"Bromo-Caps|Contain No Narcotic Drugs\"\" and (accompanying circular) \"\"A Quick, Sure|Scientific Remedy That Takes the Place of Aspirin, Habit-Forming Headache|Powders and Liquids,\"\" were false and misleading since they created the impres-|sion that the article contained neither dangerous drugs nor aspirin. (4) In|that statements in the labeling representing that they would give relief and|constitute an adequate treatment for rheumatic pains, colds, toothache, over-|indulgence in food or drink, mental fatigue, menstrual pains, feverish conditions,|and sea or car sickness, were false and misleading since they would not be|efficacious for such purposes. (5) In that the labeling failed to bear the com-|mon or usual names of the active ingredients other than acetanilid and did|not state the quantity or proportion of acetanilid present, since the statement|on the label was incorrect.|Both the repackaged and bulk capsules were alleged to be misbranded:|(1) In that their labeling failed to bear adequate directions for use (in the|case of the repackaged capsules) since the directions given provided for the|administration of excessive quantities of acetanilid; and (in the case of the|bulk capsules) since the labeling failed to bear warnings to the effect that be-|cause of their acetanilid content, frequent or continued use might be dangerous,|causing serious blood disturbances, anemia, collapse, or dependence on the drug,|and that they should not be given to children. (2) In that the labeling did not|bear adequate warnings against use in those pathological conditions of by|children where their use might be dangerous to health or against unsafe dosage|or methods or duration of administration, in such manner and form, as are|* necessary for the protection of users, since it failed to bear warnings to the|effect that because of their acetanilid content frequent or continued use might|be dangerous, causing serious blood disturbances, anemia, collapse, or depend-|ence on the .drug, and that they should not be given to children.|The bulk capsules were alleged to be misbranded further in that the label did|not bear the common or usual names of the active ingredients, since aspirin had|been declared by its chemical name, \"\"Acetylsalicylic Acid,\"\" rather than by its|common or usual name.|On August 18, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|606. Misbranding of Alwban. U. S. v. 7 Packages of Alcoban and 8 Other seizures of Alcoban. Decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00606February, 1943Maffett Sales CorporationAlcobanJuly 10, 1940, to August 25, 1941Portland, Oreg.; Missoula, Mont.; Kansas City, Mo.; Denver, Colo.; San Francisco, Calif.Seattle, Wash.Portland, Oreg.; Missoula, Mont.; Kansas City, Mo.; Denver, Colo.; San Francisco, Calif.Districts of Oregon and Montana, and the Western District of Missouri; District of Colorado and the Northern District of California606F. D. C. Nos. 3832, 4097, 4794, 4795, 5266, 5274, 5445, 5793 to 5787. incl. , 5875. Sample Nos. 22375-E, 23106-E to 23109-E incl. , 44738-E, 44770-E, 44771-E, 55721-E, 60189-E, 60545-E, 61741-E, 65083-E, 73420-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00606ddnj|' 606.' Misbranding of Alwban. II. S. T^-Paekages of Al????aw and-&'Wther seizures|of Alcoban. Decrees of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos.|3832, 4097, 4794, 4795, 5266. 5274. 5445, 5793 to 57S7. iuel., 5875. Sample Nos.|22375-E, 23106-E to 23109-E/ incl., 44738-E, 44770-E, 44771-E, 55721-E,|60189-E, 60545-E, 61741-E, 65083-E, 73420-E.)|This product contained emetine hydrochloride and would be dangerous to|health when used as directed or suggested in the labeling. Furthermore, its|the liquor habit.|; >|Between February 19 and September 23, 1941, the United States attorneys|for the Districts of Oregon and Montana, and the Western District of Missouri,|filed libels against 119 packages of Alcoban at Portland, Oreg., 12 packages at|Missoula, Mont., and 9 packages at Kansas City, Mo., alleging that the article|had been shipped in interstate commerce within the period from on or about|July 10, 1940, to on or about August 25, 1941, by the Maffett Sales Corporation|from Seattle, Wash.; and charging that it was misbranded. On May 23, August|2, and September 23, 1941, the United States attorneys for the District of Colo-|rado and the Northern District of California filed libels against 123 boxes of|Alcoban at Denver, Colo., and 229 packages of Alcoban at San Francisco, Calif.,|which had been consigned by the Maffett Sales Corporation, alleging that the|article had been shipped in interstate commerce from Seattle, Wash., within the|period from on or about November 19, 1940, to August 20, 1941; and charging|that it was misbranded..|Analyses of samples of the article showed that it consisted of capsules|containing emetine hydrochloride in amounts varying from 0.05 to 0.18 grain of|ephedrine hydrochloride, pilocarpine hydrochloride, and.milk sugar.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that it would be dangerous to|health when used in the dosage and with the frequency and duration prescribed,|recommended, and suggested in the following labeling: \"\"Dosage A. When|Alcoban is dissolved in each Separate alcoholic drink-determination of correct|dosage: 1. The contents of 1 capsule should be given every 15 to 20 minutes until|. 3 capsules are taken. If vomiting occurs, this should be regarded as the proper|dose and the treatment may be so given at the rate of 6.capsules (6 drinks)|every third day. 2. If no vomiting occurs on the 1 capsule per drink basis|as above described, double the dosage to 2 capsules per drink. Wait one hour|and administer only 2 such additional drinks. If vomiting occurs, then the|correct dosage is 2 capsules per drink and this treatment may be given at the|rate of 6 capsules (3 drinks) every third day. * * * B. When Alcoban is|dissolved in bottles of alcoholic drink-determination of correct dosage: The|bulk liquor should be prepared on the basis of 1 capsule per full size drink i. e.,|2 capsules per pint of beer, 4 capsules per pint of wine or 6 capsules per pint|of whiskey, gin, rum or other hard liquor. 1. Administer the drink at the equiv-|alent of 1 capsule every 15 minutes until an amount of liquor containing 3 cap-|sules of Alcoban has been consumed. If vomiting occurs, this should be regarded|as the proper dose and the treatment may be so given at the rate of 6 capsules|(6 drinks) every third day. 2. If no vomiting occurs on the 1 capsule per|drink basis as above described, increase the dosage to 2 capsules per drink. Wait|one hoxir and administer only 2 such additional drinks. If vomiting occurs,|then the correct dosage is 2 capsules per drink and this treatment may be given|at the rate of 6 capsules (3 drinks) every third day.\"\"|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the statement on the carton|\"\"An aid in curbing the liquor habit\"\" and statements in the circular which rep-|resented that it would be effective to curb the liquor habit were false and mis-|leading since it would not be an appropriate or effective treatment for curb-|ing the liquor habit|. Between April 17 and November 7, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judg-|ments of condemnation were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|Nos. 607 and 608 report the seizure and disposition.of drugs which would|be dangerous to health when used in the manner recommended and suggested|in the labeling, which recommended the introduction of the drug into the|pregnant uterus.|607. Misbranding of Leunbach' Paste. U. S. v. 4 Packages of Leunbach Paste, Complete Outfit; and 4 Packages of Leunbach' Paste Refill Tube (and 5 other seizure actions against Leunbach Paste, Complete Outfit; and Leunbach' Paste Refill Tube). Default decree of condemnation and destruction with respect to one seizure. Remaining five seizure actions ordered removed and consolidated. Answers withdrawn and judgment of condemnation entered; product ordered delivered to Government.ddnj00607February, 1943Merz & Co. Chemical Works, Inc.lieunbaeh' PasteAugust 23 and December 30,1940Washington, D. C.; Cincinnati, Ohio; Scranton, Pa.; Los Angeles, Calif.; Atlanta, Ga.Newark and East Orange, N. J.Washington, D. C.; Cincinnati, Ohio; Scranton, Pa.; Los Angeles, Calif.; Atlanta, Ga.District of Columbia, the Southern District of Ohio, the Middle District of Pennsylvania, the Southern District of California, and the Northern District of Georgia607F. D. C. Nos. 2668, 2674, 2676, 2826, 2827. Sample Nos. 5032-E, 5033-E, 20127-E, 28933-E, 28934-E, 32419-E, 32420-E, 33525-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00607ddnj|607. Misbranding of lieunbaeh' Paste. IT. S. v. 4 Packages of Leunbach* Paste,|Complete Outfit; and 4 Packages of Lennbach' Paste .Refill Tube (and 5|other seizure actions against Leunbacb' Paste, Complete Outfit; and Leun-|bach' Paste Refill Tube). Default decree of condemnation and destruction|with respect to one seizure. Remaining five seizure actions ordered|removed and consolidated. Answers withdrawn and judgment of con-|demnation entered; product ordered delivered to Government. (F. D. C.|Nos. 2668, 2674, 2676, 2826, 2827. Sample Nos. 5032-E, 5033-E, 20127-E,|28933-E, 28934-E, 32419-E, 32420-E, 33525-E.)|Between August 23 and December 30,1940, the United States attorneys for|the District of Columbia, the Southern District of Ohio, the Middle District of|Pennsylvania, the Southern District of California, and the Northern District|of Georgia filed libels against the following quantities of Lennbach' Paste|Complete Outfits and Leunbach' Paste Refill Tubes; 4 packages of the outfits and|4 packages of the refill tubes at \\yashington, D. C.; 4 packages of the outfits|and 6 packages of the refill tubes at Cincinnati, Ohio; 1 package of the outfits|and 7 packages of the refill tubes at Scranton, Pa.; 10 packages of the outfits|and 16 packages of the refill tubes at Los Angeles, Calif.; and 10 packages of|the refill tubes at Atlanta, Ga., alleging that the articles had been shipped in|interstate commerce within the period from on or.about March 7 to on or about|August 16, 1940, by Merz & Co. Chemical Works, Inc., from Newark and East|Orange, N. J.; and charging that they were misbranded.|Examination showed that the outfit contained a tube of paste and.instru-|ments for its application, and that the refill tubes contained the same paste.|Analysis of the paste showed that it consisted essentially of soap, water, alcohol|(approximately 2 percent) and potassium iodide (approximately 2 percent).|The articles were alleged to be misbranded in that they were dangerous|to health when used in the dosage or with the frequency or duration prescribed,|recommended, or suggested in the following labeling: (Circular found in com-|plete outfit) \"\"Technique of Injection Now carefully introduce rounded tip of|cannula through external os. Gradually enter into canal by injecting smallest|doses of paste ahead and following through with metal tip. In this way canal|is naturally opened and small obstacles such as folds of mucosa pushed aside.|No additional dilation is required. Guide 3?\"\" metal tip through full length of|canal until internal os has been passed. In the advanced stage of pregnancy,|take special care to introduce metal tip only until internal os has been passed-|avoid puncturing of ovisac, also avoid detaching of placenta with metal tip.|If difficulty of retention of paste is anticipated in advanced cases, a firm and|high vaginal pack may be made. Some physicians have successfully used a|technique to inject Leunbach' Paste into the upper fundus by attaching to the|metal tip a piece of soft rubber tubing (catheter) long enough to reach behind|the fetus. In cases of bad cervical laceration slide cervical plug over cannula tip|far enough down to provide an effective 'stop-cock', thus preventing reflow of|paste during injection. Then plug external os with gauze or tampon as soon|as cannula is withdrawn. In cases of cervical stenosis attach a 2\"\" to 3\"\"|piece of soft rubber tubing (catheter) to metal tip which may thus be guided|through canal. In all cases, Leunbach' Paste is to be deposited at the lowest|point of the fundus. To inject Paste roll up tube with turn-key Very Very|Slowly And Carefully, and With Frequent Intermissions. Note on tube scale|the quantity being injected. During injection withdraw cannula slightly to|make such of avoiding infiltration and employing the lowest possible pressure.|Injection should be timed by the watch and should require an average of one|minute per gm. of Paste, that is ? hour should be taken to inject 15 gms. of|Paste. * * * Occasionally a Leunbach' treatment fails to produce results.|In such cases the physician should check that the paste was actually deposited|in the lower fundus with injection, and that it was not reexpelled during or|shortly after injection. Another reason for failure to respond may be unusual|inertia. Where the Leunbach' treatment has been followed by but a few|cramps with little or no bleeding and with the cervix remaining closed, a repeat|of Paste injection is suggested within one week from date of first injection.|If the date of the next estimated period is near, it is always advisable to|wait, as many cases will still respond at this time. To prepare most thoroughly|for a repeat Leunbach' treatment, inject Paste at night up to the point of|overflow while injecting as slowly as possible and avoiding high pressure;\"\"|(leaflet found both in complete outfit and refill) \"\"1. To prepare for treatment|warm tube to body temperature and sterilize cannula. Before inserting cannula,|make sure, that at least 2 Gms. of homogeneous paste have exuded from its|tip. Air must not enter with injection. Do not boil tube. To sterilize|posterior vagina any recognized antiseptic, except zephiran or related chemicals,|may be used. 2. Guide, cannula carefully and slowly through cervical canal|while injecting small doses of paste ahead. Introduce cannula until metal tip|rests in lower fundus, protruding a trifle beyond internal os. Be careful not|to puncture ovisac or detach placenta. 3. In every case paste is deposited at|the lowest point of the fundus. To inject paste, roll up tube with turn-key|very very slowly and carefully, with frequent intermissions, thereby decreasing|pressure on membranes. During injection withdraw cannula slightly. Injection|should be timed by the watch, to require an average of one minute per Gm. of|Paste, e. g. ^ hour should be taken to inject 15 Gms. of paste. 4. If strong|tension, much bleeding or a re-expulsion of paste occur during injection, treat-|495843-43?-2|ment should be stopped. Should a temperature of 100? F. persist for at least|24 hours, or in ease of hemorrhage, the outside complicating factor causing|this condition must at once be determined and treated accordingly. A temporary|rise in temperature during paste treatment is no sign of danger. 5. In those|rare cases where the first paste treatment fails to produce results, it may be|repeated a week later provided there is no bleeding. 6. For cases up to and|including six weeks of gestation the use of the modified strength of Leuhbach'|Paste (identified as package 'M') is suggested in an average dose of 15 Gms.|7. Spontaneous.and incomplete, as well as infected cases should be treated with|a dose not exceeding 5 Gms. per month of gestation, up to a maximum of 25|Gms., injecting with but the slightest pressure. At term, Leunbach' Paste is|contraindicated in the presence of placenta praevia and premature separation of|placenta\"\"; and (leaflet in both complete outfit and refill tube of lot seized at|Los Angeles) \"\"In those rare cases where the first paste treatment fails to|produce results, it may be repeated a week later provided there is no bleed-|ing. * * * For cases up to and including six weeks of gestation the use of|the modified strength of Leunbach' Paste is suggested in an average dose of|15 Gms.\"\"|On October 7, 1940, no claimant having appeared for the lot seized at Atlan-|ta, Ga., judgment of condemnation was entered and the product was ordered|destroyed. On October 10, 1940, the decree was set aside, but on October 18,|? 1940, an order was entered reinstating the original judgment of condemnation|and destruction.|Merz & Co. Chemical Works, Inc., appeared as claimant in the remaining|seizures and filed answers denying the allegations of the libels. On March 24,|1941,?the claimant filed a petition in the District Court for the District of|Columbia praying removal of the case in that district and all other pending|cases to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for consolidation and trial. On|March 25, 1941, an order was entered in the District Court for the District of|Columbia in accordance with said prayer and the clerks of the various district|courts were ordered to transmit to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania all|records and papers in the proceedings pending in their respective jurisdictions.|On December 9, 1941, the answers filed by the claimant having been withdrawn|by the receiver of the claimant corporation, which had filed a voluntary petition|in bankruptcy, judgment of condemnation was entered and the products were|ordered delivered to the Food and Drug Administration for its official use.|608. Misbranding of Leunbach' Paste. U. S. v. 1 Leunbach' Paste, Complete Outfit; and 7 Packages of Leunbach' Paste Refill Tube. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00608February, 1943Doctors PharmacyLeunbach' PasteJanuary 25, 1942Chicago, Ill.Milwaukee, Wis.Chicago, Ill.Northern District of Illinois608F. D. C. No. 7340. Sample No. 91220-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00608ddnj|60S. Misbranding: of Leunbach' Paste. IT. S. v. 1 Leunbach' Paste, Complete|Outfit; and 7 Packages of Leunbach' Paste Refill Tube. Default decree|of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 7340. Sample No. 91220-E.)|On April 30, 1942, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Illinois filed a libel against the above-named drugs at Chicago, 111., alleging that|the articles had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about January 25,|1942,?by the Doctors Pharmacy from Milwaukee, Wis.; and charging that they|were misbranded. The articles were labeled in part: \"\"Leunbach' Paste Com-|plete Outfit\"\"; or \"\"Leunbach' Paste Refill Tube * * * Made in U. S. A. By|Merz & Company Chemical Works, Inc., Newark, New Jersey.\"\"|The articles were alleged to be misbranded in that they were dangerous to|health when used in the dosage or with the frequency or duration prescribed,|recommended, or suggested in the labeling. (The labeling accompanying the|articles consisted of the circular and leaflet quoted in full in D. D. N. J. No. 607.)|On June 10, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the products were ordered destroyed.|DRUGS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO BEAR ADEQUATE|DffiECTIONS OR WARNING STATEMENTS|609. Adulteration and misbranding of Virgitalis, Rua-Balm, and Theobarb. U. S. v. Van Pelt & Brown, Inc. Plea of nolo contendere to first and second counts. Plea of guilty to remaining four counts. Total fines, $300.ddnj00609February, 1943Van Pelt & Brown, Inc., Richmond, Va.Virgitalis, Rna-Balm, and TheobarbSeptember 12 and 21, 1940, and January 9, 1941VirginiaVirginiaDistrict of ColumbiaEastern District of Virginia609F. D. C. No. 4170. Sample Nos. 50070-E, 50095-E, 50129-E, 50130-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00609ddnj|609. Adulteration and misbranding: of Virgitalis, Rna-Balm, and Theobarb.|V. S. v. Van Pelt & Brown, Inc. Plea of nolo contendere to first and second|counts. Plea of guilty to remaining four counts. Total fines, $3O0.|(F. D. C. No. 4170. Sample Nos. 50070-E, 50095-E, 50129-E, 50130-E.)|The Virgitalis possessed a potency of approximately one-third of that declared.|The Rua-Balm contained less alcohol than the amount declared and its labeling|failed to bear such adequate warnings as are necessary for the protection of users.|The Theobarb Tablets contained less phenobarbital than the amount declared.|On September 19, 1941, the United States attorney for the Eastern District|of Virginia filed an information against Van Pelt & Brown, Inc., Richmond, Va.,|alleging shipment on or about September 12 and 21, 1940, and January 9, 1941,|from the State of Virginia into the District of Columbia of quantities of the|above-named articles which were adulterated and misbranded.|The Virgitalis was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed_from|that which it purported and was represented to possess since each tablet pur-|ported and was represented to possess an activity equivalent to that possessed|by l1/^ grains of whole digitalis leaf; whereas each tablet possessed an activity|equivalent to not more than ? grain of whole digitalis leaf. It was alleged|to be misbranded in that the statement \"\"Each Tablet Assays * * * l1/^|grains Standardized Whole Digitalis Leaf (Physiologically Standardized),\"\"|appearing on the bottle label, was false and misleading.|The Rua-Balm was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from|that which it purported and was represented to possess since it was represented|to contain 25 percent of alcohol, whereas it contained not more than 14 percent|by volume of alcohol. It was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that the state-|ment \"\"Alcohol 25?,\"\" appearing on the carton and bottle label, was false and|* misleading; (2) in that it was fabricated from two or more ingredients and|its label did not bear the common or usual name of each active ingredient; and|(3) in that its labeling did not bear adequate warnings against unsafe methods|or duration of administration in such manner and form as are necessary for|the protection of users, since it consisted chiefly of methyl salicylate and might|cause excessive irritation of the skin, particularly if applied with rubbing, and|should not be permitted to get into the eyes or mucous membranes, and its label-|ing did not bear the warning that it might cause excessive irritation of the|skin, particularly if applied with rubbing, and that the user should avoid getting|it into the eyes or mucous membranes.|The Theobarb was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from|that which it purported and was represented to possess since each tablet was|represented to contain XA grain of phenobarbital, whereas each tablet contained|not more than 0.056 grain of phenobarbital. It was alleged to be misbranded|in that the statement \"\"Each Tablet Contains Phenobarbital ? Gr.,\"\" appearing|on the bottle label, was false and misleading.|On October 16, 1941, pleas of nolo contendere as to counts 1 and 2 of the|information and guilty as to counts 3, 4, 5, and 6 were entered on behalf of the|defendant and the court imposed fines totaling $300.|610. Misbranding of Atop Nerve Tonic. U. S. v. 8 Dozen Bottles of Atop. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00610February, 1943W. J. Gilmore Drug Co.Atop Nerve TonicSeptember 15 and October 20, 1941New York, N. Y.Pittsburgh, Pa.New York, N. Y.Southern District of New York610F. D. C. No. 6217. Sample No. 74150-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00610ddnj|610. Misbranding of Atop Nerve Tonic. U. S. v. 8 Dozen Bottles of Atop. Default|decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 6217. Sample No.|74150-E.)|In addition to failure to bear adequate warning statements, the labeling of|this product bore false and misleading therapeutic claims.|On November 15, 1941, the United States attorney for the Southern District|of New York filed a libel against 8 dozen bottles of Atop Nerve Tonic at New|York, N. Y., alleging that the article had been shipped on or about September 15|and October 20, 1941, by the W. J. Gilmore Drug Co. from Pittsburgh, Pa.; and|charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of|chloral hydrate (12 grains per fluid ounce) and sodium bromide (29 grains per|fluid ounce).|The article was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that the labeling contained|(a) no warning that it should not be taken by persons suffering from kidney|diseases; (b) no warning that not more than the recommended dose should be|taken; and (c) no warning that frequent or continued use might lead to mental|derangement, skin eruptions, or other harmful effects. (2) In that representa-|tions in the labeling that it was an appropriate treatment for nervous exhaustion|and that it relieved such symptoms as irritability, sleeplessness, headache,|dyspepsia, eye fatigue, etc.; that it would overcome fear; that it would be an|efficacious treatment for the delicate mental and emotional disorders of children;|that it would prevent functional disturbances of the gastro-intestinal tract,|cardiac system, and pelvic organs; that it would restore the normal impulses|to the gastro-intestinal tract and relieve auto-intoxication; that it would help|correct disorders of the endocrine glands; that it was an appropriate treatment|for the effects of alcoholic indulgence; that it was conducive to quiet recovery|from surgical shock; that it was invaluable in anginoid cases and exceedingly|.helpful in other cardiac cases; and that it was of value in convalescence by|increasing the appetite and assisting in regaining vitality, were false and mis-|leading since it would not be efficacious for such purposes..|On December 3, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|611. Misbranding of Bron-Chu-Line Emulsion. U. S. v. 21 Bottles of Bron-Chu Line Enrolsion. Default deeree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00611February, 1943Johnstone Drug Sales CorporationBron-Chu-Line EmulsionJuly 17, 1941Pittsburgh, Pa.Rochester, N. Y.Pittsburgh, Pa.Western District of Pennsylvania611F. D. C. No. 5928. Sample No. 42975-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00611ddnj|611. Misbranding of Bron-Chu-Line Emulsion. V. S. v. 21 Bottles of Bron-Chu-|Xine Enrolsion. Default deeree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C.|No. 5928. ? Sample No. 42975-E.)|In addition to failure to bear adequate warning statements, the labeling of this|product contained false and misleading claims regarding its efficacy in the condi-|tions indicated hereinafter.|On September 30, 1941, the United States attorney for the Western District of|Pennsylvania\"\" filed a libel against the above-named product at Pittsburgh, Pa.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|July 17,1941, by the Johnstone Drug Sales Corporation from Rochester, N. Y.; and|charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of creosote, calcium, so-|dium and phosphorus compounds, benzyl alcohol, methyl salicylate, and gum acacia|emulsified in a mineral oil.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements in the labeling, \"\"Bron-|Chu-Line * * * Antispasmodic * * * of rare value in the treatment o?.|irritated conditions of the respiratory passages * .* * Beechwood Creosote|possess values as an anti-pathogen, equal to if not superior to carbolic acid, and|has long been considered of. superior worth where any tubercular tendency is in-|volved. * * . * Methyl Salicylate acts as an eliminant of urea, uric acid and|other acid waste matter whose excess presence is detrimental to reeovery, such an|excess of waste acid matter being a common presence where coughs, colds and|catarrhal conditions are persistent; * * * Calcium and Sodium Hypophos-|phites are reconstructive tonics. In respiratory affections there is a constant|waste of these vital body salts through expectoration. Such waste lowers body re-|sistance and the presence of-these Hypophosphites in the prescription is to afford|resupply for body need. . * *. * We especially recommend Bron-Chu-Line Emul-|sion in such cases that the usual lozenge or home remedy has failed to relieve,\"\"|were false and misleading since they indicated that it was of value in conditions|involving the bronchi or lungs; whereas it was of no such value since it was essen-|tially an expectorant and was not an antispasmodic, and it was not of real value in|the treatment of irritated conditions of the respiratory passages; Beechwood|Creosote was not present in sufficient quantity to be an anti-pathogen, and methyl|salicylate was not present in the article in sufficient quantity to be an eliminant|of urea, uric acid, and other acid waste matter when used as directed, and urea,|uric acid, and other waste matter are not commonly present in excess where|coughs, colds, and catarrhal conditions are persistent; calcium and sodium hypo-|.phosphites are not reconstructive tonics; there is not a constant waste through|expectoration of calcium and sodium hypophosphites in respiratory affections;|calcium and sodium hypophosphites are not vital body salts; and waste of cal-|cium and sodium hypophosphites does not lower body resistance; and the|product would not be efficacious in cases in which the usual lozenge or home|remedy had failed to provide relief. It was alleged to be misbranded further in|that its labeling failed to hear adequate warnings against use in those pathological|conditions such as persistent cough or high fever where its use might be dangerous|to health, or against unsafe duration of administration, since the duration of|administration was not limited to 10 days, nor was the warning in such manner|and form as is necessary for the protection of users.|On November 2.5,1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the uroduct was ordered destroved.|612. Misbranding of Ches-O-Kol. U. S. v. 199 Pounds of a Drug and 16 Dozen Packages of the same drug labeled \"\"Ches-O-Kol.\"\" Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00612February, 1943William A. Webster Co.Ches-O-KolJanuary 21, 1941Spartanburg, S. C.Memphis, Tenn.Spartanburg, S. C.Western District of South Carolina612F. D. C. No. 4896. Sample No. 37049-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00612ddnj|612. Misbranding of Ches-O-Kol. TJ. S. v. 199 Pounds of a Drug and 16 Dozen|Packages of the same drug labeled \"\"Ches-O-Kol.\"\" Default decree of|condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 4896. Sample No. 37049-E.)|The drum in which this product was shipped failed to bear adequate directions|for use and a statement of the common or usual name of the active ingredients.|A portion had been repackaged in jars and cartons which bore on the labels false|and misleading curative and therapeutic claims.|On June 24, 1941, the United States attorney for the Western District of|South Carolina filed a libel against a drum containing 199 pounds and 16 dozen|packages of Ches-O-Kol at Spartanburg, S. C, alleging that the article originally|had been shipped on or about January 21, 1941, by the William A. Webster Co.|from Memphis, Tenn., and that a portion (16 dozen packages) had been repack-|aged in 1?-ounce bottles and was in possession of the Ches-O-Kol Co., Spartan-|burg, S. C.; and charging that both lots were misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of camphor, menthol,|eucalyptol, and turpentine in.a petrolatum base.|The article in the original drum was alleged to he misbranded in that its|labeling did not bear adequate directions for use, since there were no directions|for use on the drum; and in that it had been fabricated from two or more|ingredients and its label did not bear the common or usual name of each active|ingredient. The repackaged product was alleged to be misbranded. in that state-|ments in the labeling which represented that it would be efficacious in the treat-|ment of chest colds, head colds, sore throat, croup due to colds, pneumonia,|rheumatism, all skin diseases, dry, tickling coughs, sinus trouble, hay fever, flu,|and that it would penetrate and relieve congestion, were false and misleading|since it would not be efficacious for such purposes.|On August 7, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|613. Misbranding of Comfortt Tablets. U. S. v. 196 Boxes each containing 12 Coinfortt Tablets. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00613February, 1943College Laboratories, Inc.Comfortt TabletsMarch 30, 1940Denver, Colo.St. Louis, Mo.Denver, Colo.District of Colorado613F. D. C. No. 4895. Sample No. 65614-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00613ddnj|613. Misbranding of Comfortt Tablets. U. S. v. 196 Boxes each containing 12|Coinfortt Tablets. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 4895. Sample No. 65614-E.)|These tablets, which contained acetophenetidin, aspirin, and caffeine, originally|were shipped in bulk, but subsequently were repackaged by the consignee. After|such repackaging, the labeling in addition to failure to bear adequate directions|for use and the required warning statements, also failed to declare the aspirin|present by its common or usual name.|On June 10, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Colorado filed|a libel against the above-named product, alleging that on or about March 30,|1940, a consignment of a drug product labeled in part \"\"Special Compressed Tablets|R/2020 Bng. Comfortt\"\" had been shipped from St. Louis, Mo., to College Labora-|tories, Inc., Denver, Colo., and that thereafter the latter firm had repackaged|said product in boxes labeled in part \"\"Comfortt Tablets\"\"; and charging that as|so repackaged it was misbranded as follows:|(1) In that it failed to bear adequate directions for use since those appearing|on the box, namely, \"\"Take one tablet and repeat in 30 minutes if needed, then|one every 2 hours if needed. See your physician promptly if not relieved,\"\" did|not limit dosage; (2) in that the labeling did not bear adequate warnings against|use in those pathological conditions where its use might be dangerous to health|or against unsafe dosage or duration of administration in such manner and form|as are necessary for the protection of users, since it failed to warn that frequent|or continued use might be dangerous, causing serious blood disturbances, and that|not more than the recommended dose should be taken; and (3) in that the label|did not bear the common or usual names of the active ingredients, since aspirin|had been declared by its chemical name of acetylsalicylic acid and not by its|common or usual name.|On August 2, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|614. Misbranding of Dye's Compound Tablets and Dye's Laxative Pellets. U. S. v. 8 Dozen Packages of Dye's Compound Tablets and 2 Dozen Packages of Dye's Laxative Pellets. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00614February, 1943Dr. J. H. Dye Medical Co.Dye's Compound Tablets and Dye's Laxative PelletsMay 8 and 21 and June 10, 1941Los Angeles, Calif.Buffalo, N. Y.Los Angeles, Calif.Southern District of California614F. D. C. Nos. 5083, 5084, 5636. Sample Nos. 7678-E, 7679-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00614ddnj|614. Misbranding: of Dye's Compound Tablets and Dye's Laxative Pellets. U. S.|-v. 8 Dozen Packages of Dye's Compound Tablets and 2 Dozen Packages of|Dye's Laxative Pellets. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. Nos. 5083, 5084, 5636. Sample Nos. 7678-E, 7679-E.)|The labeling of the laxative pellets failed to bear adequate directions for|use and such adequate warnings as are necessary for the protection of users.|The labeling of both products bore false and misleading curative and thera-|peutic claims, and the containers were substantially larger than was necessary.|On July 8 and September 11, 1941, the United States attorney for the South-|ern District of California filed libels against the above-named drugs at Los|Angeles, Calif., alleging that they had been shipped in interstate commerce|on or about May. 8 and 21 and June 10, 1941 by Dr. J. H. Dye Medical Co.|from Buffalo, N. Y.; and charging that they were misbranded.|Analyses of samples showed that the compound tablets consisted of plant|extractives, including valeric acid and alkaloid-containing plant drugs; and that|the laxative pellets consisted essentially of aloin, podophyllum resin, and|hydrastis.|The laxative pellets were alleged to be misbranded (1). in. that the labeling|did not bear adequate directions for use since the directions called for the|administration of a laxative over an indefinite period of time; (2) in that the|labeling did not bear adequate warnings against use in those pathological|conditions where its use might be dangerous to health or against unsafe dura-|tion of administration in such manner and form as are necessary for the pro-|tection of users, since the labeling did not warn that frequent and continued|use might result in dependence iipon a laxative and that a laxative should not?f|be taken when suffering from nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, or other symp-?V|toms of appendicitis; and (3) in. that the following statements on the label,|\"\"To assist in relieving headaches, coated tongue, bad breath, aggravated, pimply?r|skin, lassitude, indigestion and other distressing symptoms due to temporary?(|constipation,\"\" and similar statements in Spanish, borne on the label, were false|and misleading since the article would not be efficacious for the purposes|recommended.|Dye's Compound Tablets were alleged to be misbranded in that statements|on the label which represented that it would relieve the distressing symptom of|functional dysmenorrhea, painful symptoms of certain female functional irreg-|ularities, and symptoms such as headache, nervousness, irritability, headache,|backache, nausea, -debility, rings under the eyes, melancholia, hysteria, loss|of appetite, lack of sleep, and pains in various parts of the body; that it would|build up physical resistance, improve digestion and assist one in obtaining more|nourishment; that it would promote happy life and would increase vitality|and personal magnetism, thus making every attractive woman full of animation;|and that it was an appropriate preventive and treatment for amenorrhea, dys-|menorrhea, menopause, menorrhagia, metritis, and ovaritis, were false and|misleading since it contained no ingredients capable of producing such effects.|Both products were alleged to be misbranded further in that the, containers|were so filled as to be misleading.|On August 14 and October 6, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgments|of condemnation were entered and the products were ordered destroyed.|620. Misbranding of quinine sulfate. U. S. v. 1,056 Bottles of Quinine Sulfate. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00620February, 1943Carroll Chemical Corporationquinine sulfateMarch 29, 1941Richmond, Va.Baltimore, Md.Richmond, Va.Eastern District of Virginia620F. D. C. No. 4398. Sample No. 50227-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00620ddnj|G20. Misbranding of quinine sulfate. IT. S. v. 1,056 Bottles of Quinine Sulfate.|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 4398.|Sample No. 50227-E.)|The labeling of this product failed to bear adequate directions for use, and|its containers were filled only to approximately one-half of their capacity.|On April 19, 1941, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Virginia filed a libel against 1,056 bottles of quinine sulfate at Richmond, Va.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|March 29, 1941, by the Carroll Chemical Corporation from Baltimore, Md.;|and charging that it was misbranded. It was labeled in part: \"\"National Brand|Quinine Sulphate * * * . V24 Oz.\"\"|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the labeling did not bear|adequate directions for use; and in that its container was so made, formed,|or filled as to be misleading.|On October 17, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|DRUGS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH|OFFICIAL OR OWN STANDARDS|621. Adulteration and misbranding of Russian oil and citrate of magnesia. U. S. v. James J. Kaplan (Diamond Drug & Magnesia Co.). Plea of guilty. Fine, $30.ddnj00621February, 1943James J. Kaplan, trading as the Diamond Drug & Magnesia Co.Russian oil and citrate of- magnesiaJanuary 20, February 20, and April 4, 1940MassachusettsMassachusettsRhode Island and New HampshireDistrict of Massachusetts621F. D. C. No. 2841. Sample Nos. 87000-D, 2247-E, 2261-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00621ddnj|621. Adulteration and misbranding of Russian oil and citrate of- magnesia. IT. S.|v.. James J. Kaplan (Diamond Drug & Magnesia Co.). Pica of guilty.|Fine, $30. (F. D. C. No. 2841. Sample Nos. S7000-D, 2247-E, 2261-E.)|The mineral oil was represented to be U. S. P. mineral oil, i. e., heavy mineral|oil; whereas it was light mineral oil. The citrate of magnesia contained less|magnesium citrate and less citric acid than the amounts specified by the|United States Pharmacopoeia.|On October 28, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of Massa-|chusetts filed an information against James J. Kaplan, trading as the Diamond|495843-43?8|Drug & Magnesia Co., Boston, Mass., alleging shipment on or about January|20, February 20, and April 4, 1940, from the State of Massachusetts into|the States of Rhode Island and New Hampshire of quantities of the above-|named products which were adulterated and misbranded. The articles were?(|labeled in part: \"\"Genuine * * * Russian Oil Type U. S. P. Mineral Oil|* * * General Drug & Oil Co., Inc.\"\"; and \"\"Peerless Effervescing Solution of|Citrate of Magnesia U. S. P. * * * Distributed by General Drug & Oil|Co., Boston, Mass.\"\"|The Russian oil was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to be|or was represented as a drug which is recognized in the \"\"United States Phar-|macopoeia, under the names \"\"Liquid Petrolatum\"\" and \"\"White Mineral Oil\"\, but|its strength differed from and its quality fell below the standard set forth in|such compendium, since the specific gravity of samples taken from the two|shipments was 0.8471 and 0.8479, respectively, at 25? C, and the kinematic|viscosity of said samples was 0.173 and 0.1745 at 37.8? C, whereas the phar-|macopoeia specifies that the specific gravity of liquid petrolatum or white min-|eral oil shall be not less than 0.860 at 25? C., and that its kinematic viscosity|shall be not less than 0.381 at 37.8? C, and the respect in which the strength|or quality of the article differed from the standard set forth in said compen-|dium was not plainly stated on the label. It was alleged to be misbranded (1)|in that the statements \"\"Genuine Russian Oil,\"\" \"\"U. S. P. Mineral Oil,\"\" and \"\"Pure|Russian Oil,\"\" together with the design showing a facsimile of the former Rus-|sian emblem, borne on the bottle label, were false and misleading, since they|represented that it consisted of Russian oil, namely, liquid petrolatum or white|mineral oil; whereas it did not so consist, but did consist of light liquid petro-|latum (or light white mineral oil) ; and (2) in that it was light liquid petrolatum|or light white mineral oil and was offered for sale and sold under the name of|another drug.|The citrate of magnesia was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported|to be or was represented as a drug which is recognized in the United States|Pharmacopoeia under the names \"\"Liquor \"\"Magnesia Citratis\"\" and \"\"Solution of|Citrate of Magnesia,\"\" but its strength differed from and its quality fell below|the standard set forth in that compendium, since it contained in each 100 cubic|centimeters an amount of magnesium citrate corresponding to not more than|1.53 grams of magnesium oxide and 10 cc. of the article contained citric acid|equivalent to not more than 24.18 cc. of half-normal hydrochloric acid; whereas|the pharmacopoeia specifies that solution of citrate of magnesium shall contain|in each 100 cc. an amount of magnesium citrate corresponding to not less than|1.6 grams of magnesium oxide, and that 10 cc. of the solution shall contain citric|acid equivalent to 26 cc. of half-normal hydrochloric acid, and the difference|in strength and quality from such standard was not plainly stated on the label.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements \"\"Solution of Citrate|of Magnesia U. S. P.\"\" and \"\"Liquor Magnesia Citratis,\"\" borne on the bottle label,|were false and misleading, since they represented that it consisted of solution|of magnesium citrate or liquor magnesii citratis as defined by the United|States Pharmacopoeia, whereas it did not so consist.|On April 7, 1942, the defendant entered a plea of guilty and the court im-|posed a fine of $30.|622. Adulteration and misbranding of carbon dioxide and oxygen mixture and compressed oxygen gas. U. S. v. Wall Chemicals Corporation. Plea of guilty. Fine, $120.ddnj00622February, 1943Wall Chemicals Corporation, Chicago, Ill.carbon dioxide and oxygen mixture and compressed oxygen gasApril 10, September 7, and October 22, 1940IllinoisIllinoisIndiana and MissouriNorthern District of Illinois622F. D. C. No. 5519. Sample Nos. 27568-E, 27965-E, 39616-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00622ddnj|622. Adulteration and misbranding of carbon dioxide and oxygen mixture and|compressed oxygen gas. IT. S. v. Wall Chemicals Corporation. Plea of|guilty. Fine, $120. (F. D. C. No. 5519. Sample Nos. 27568-E, 27965-E,|39616-E.)|The strength of these products differed from and their purity and quality|fell below that which they were labeled as possessing.|On December 4, 1941, the United States attorney for the Northern District|of Illinois filed an information against the Wall Chemicals Corporation, Chi-|cago, 111., alleging shipment on or about April 10, September 7, and October 22,|1940, from the State of Illinois into the States of Indiana and Missouri of|quantities of carbon dioxide and oxygen mixture and of a quantity of com-|pressed oxygen gas.|The carbon dioxide and oxygen mixture was alleged to be adulterated in?(|that its strength differed from and its quality fell below that which it was|represented to possess in that the drug in one shipment was represented to?\\|contain 10 percent of carbon dioxide and that in the other shipment was|represented to contain 5 percent of carbon dioxide; whereas the former con-|tained \"\"not more than 7 percent and the latter not more than 2.6 percent of|carbon dioxide.|The compressed oxygen gas was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength|differed from and its purity and quality fell below that which it was repre-|sented to possess in that it was represented to contain 7 percent of carbon|dioxide; whereas it contained not more than 3.4 percent of carbon dioxide.|The carbon dioxide and oxygen mixture was alleged to be misbranded in|that the statements \"\"10? Carbon Dioxide\"\" and \"\"5? Carbon Dioxide\"\, borne on|the respective labels, were false and misleading since the article contained less|carbon dioxide than so represented.|The compressed oxygen gas was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement|\"\"COa-7?,\"\" borne on the cylinder, was false and misleading since it contained|less than 7 percent, namely, not more than 3.4 percent of carbon dioxide. It was|alleged to be misbranded further in that the statement \"\"Oxygen Gas,\"\" borne|on the tags attached to the cylinder, was false and misleading since it repre-|sented and suggested that the article consisted wholly of oxygen gas, whereas it|did not consist wholly of oxygen gas but did consist of a mixture of oxygen and|carbon dioxide gases. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that it was in|package form, and its label failed to bear an accurate statement of the quantity of|the contents in terms of weight or measure.|On December 31, 1941, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant|and the court imposed a fine of $120 and costs.|623. Adulteration and misbranding of Vaxamine. U. S. v. 73 Vials of Vaxamine. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00623February, 1943Intra Products Co.VaxamineJune 6, 1941San Francisco, Calif.Denver, Colo.San Francisco, Calif.Northern District of California623F. D. C. No. 5637. Sample No. 23105-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00623ddnj|623. Adulteration and misbranding of Vaxamine. U. S. v. 73 Vials of Vaxamine.|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 5637.|Sample No. 23105-E.)|This article was contaminated with aerobic sporeforming and nonspore-|forming micro-organisms and molds.|On September 8, 1941, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|California filed a libel against 73 vials of Vaxamine at San Francisco, Calif., alleg-|ing that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about June|G, 1941, by the Intra Products Co. from Denver, Colo.; and charging that it was|adulterated and misbranded. It was labeled in part: \"\"20 cc. Intramuscular|Intravenous Intradermal Solution Vaxamine Single Strength For Non-Specific|Therapy.\"\"|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its purity or quality fell|below that which it purported or was represented to possess, since it contained|living micro-organisms and therefore was not of a sufficiently high standard of|purity or quality to be suitable for intramuscular, intravenous, and intradermal|administration. It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement, \"\"Intra-|muscular Intravenous Intradermal Solution\"\" was false and misleading as applied|to an article contaminated with living micro-organisms.|On October 3, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|624. Adulteration and misbranding of Mackenzol. U. S. v. 25 Bottles of Mackenzol. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00624February, 1943R. and F. SchweickhardtMackenzolJanuary 16, 1941San Antonio, Tex.St. Louis, Mo.San Antonio, Tex.Western District of Texas624F. D. C. No. 4976. Sample No. 11177-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00624ddnj|624. Adulteration and misbranding of Mackenzol. IT. S. v. 25 Bottles of Macken-|zol. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (P. D. C. No. 4976.|Sample No. 11177-E.)|This product was not an antiseptic and germicide as represented. Its labeling|bore false and misleading curative and therapeutic claims, and the bottle label|did not bear a declaration of the quantity of the contents.|On June 24, 1941, the United States attorney for the Western District of|Texas filed a libel against 25. bottles of Mackenzol at San Antonio, Tex., which|had been consigned by R. and F. Schweickhardt, alleging that the article had|been shipped on or about January 16, 1941, from St. Louis, Mo.; and charging|that it was adulterated and misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article was a viscous liquid containing chiefly mineral|oil and small amounts of volatile oils, including eucalyptol, thymol, methyl|salicylate, and guaiacol compound and benzoic acid compound. Bacteriological|examination showed that it was not an antiseptic.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from|that which it purported to possess, namely, \"\"Antiseptic and Germicidal Com-|pound,\"\" since it was not an antiseptic.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that representations in the labeling that|it was an antiseptic and germicide; that it was guaranteed under the Food and|Drugs Act; that it was antagonistic to all pathogenic organisms, and was healing;|th#t it was efficacious in the treatment of chronic laryngitis due to tuberculosis|in chronic bronchitis, acute and chronic nasal catarrh, especially where|there was great discharge; that it was of much value in the treatment of|ulcerations and inflammation of the nose and throat, and possessed true healing?'|virtues after the application of an aqueous alkaline or boric acid wash or douche;|and that it was the best antiseptic for consumption, catarrh, cough, sore throat,|burns, scalds, piles, leucorrhea, uterine affections, eczema, and all disorders of?(|the skin; were false and misleading since it was not an antiseptic and germicide|and would not be efficacious for the purposes recommended.|On November 18, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|625. Adulteration of ether. U. S. v. 83 Cans of Either for Anesthesia. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00625February, 1943Mallinckrodt Chemical WorksetherMarch 13, 1940Oklahoma City, Okla.St. Louis, Mo.Oklahoma City, Okla.Western District of Oklahoma625F. D. C. No. 5641. Sample No. 43555-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00625ddnj|625. Adulteration of ether. U. S. v. 83 Cans of Either for Anesthesia. Default|decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 5641. Sample No.|43555-E.)|Analysis of this product showed the presence of aldehydes and ketones in 2|of the 10 cans examined.|On September 8, 1941, the United States attorney for the \"\"Western District|of Oklahoma filed a libel against 83 cans of ether at Oklahoma City, Okla.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|March 13, 1940, by Mallinckrodt Chemical Works from St. Louis, Mo.; and|charging-that it was adulterated in that it purported to be or was represented|as a drug, the name of which is recognized in the United States Pharmacopoeia|and its quality and purity fell below the standard set forth in the pharmacopeia|since it is specified under tests for purity therein that ether shall be free from|a-dehydes and ketones.|0;i October 11, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|651. Misbranding of moleskin adhesive plaster. U. S. v. 23 Dozen and 22 1/2 Dozen Packages of Moleskin Adhesive Plaster. Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered delivered to a local hospital.ddnj00651February, 1943Kendall Co.moleskin adhesive plasterJanuary 19 to March 1, 1940New York, N. Y.Chicago, Ill.New York, N. Y.Southern District of New York651F. D. C. No. 2477. Sample Nos. 33712-E to 33716-E, incl.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00651ddnj|651. Misbranding- of moleskin adhesive plaster. IT. S. v. 23 Dozen and 22%|Dozen Packages of Moleskin Adhesive Plaster. Consent decree of condem-|nation. Product ordered delivered to a local Hospital. (F. D. C. No. 2477.|Sample Nos. 33712-E to 33716-E, incl.)|Th3se plasters were contained in packages that were much larger than was|necessary. At least twice the length of plaster could easily have been placed|in the containers.-|On August 5, 1940, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|New York filed a libel against 45 y2 dozen retail packages of Moleskin plasters|at New York, N. Y., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate|commerce within the period from on or about January 19 to on or about March|1, 1940, by Bauer & Black Division of the Kendall Company from Chicago, 111.;|and charging that it was misbranded. The articles were labeled in part: \"\"Mole-|skin Blue-Jay Zinc Oxide Adhesive 7 Inches x y2 Yard\"\"; or \"\"Adhesive Plaster|Moleskin Zinc Oxide 7 Inches x 1 Yard.\"\"|The articles were alleged to be misbranded in that their containers were so|made, formed, or filled as to he misleading.|On October 6, 1941, the Kendall Co., claimant, having filed an amended an-?/|swer admitting the allegations of the libel and consenting to the entry of the|decide, judgment of condemnation was entered and the \"\"product was ordered (|delivered to a local hospital.|NONSTERILE SURGICAL DRESSINGS|626. Adulteration and misbranding of thyroid powder. U. S. v. 15 Pounds of Thyroid Powder. Consent decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00626February, 1943H. H. Johnston Laboratoriesthyroid powderAugust 18, 1941Denver, Colo.Hollywood, Calif.Denver, Colo.District of Columbia626F. D. C. No. 5942. Sample No. 65865-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00626ddnj|(J2G. Adulteration and misbranding of thyroid powder. IT. S. v. 15 Pounds of|Thyroid Powder. Consent decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 5942. Sample No. 65865-E.)|This product fell below the minimum potency required by the United States|Pharmacopoeia, since it contained not more than 0.134 percent of iodine in|thyroid combination; whereas the pharmacopoeia provides that thyroid contain|not less than 0.17 percent of iodine in thyroid combination.|On October 4, 1941, the United States attorney for. the District of Columbia|filed a libel against 15 pounds of thyroid powder at Denver, Colo., which had|been consigned by the H. H. Johnston Laboratories, alleging that the article had|been shipped in interstate commerce on or about August 18, 1941, from Holly-|wood, Calif.; and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded. It was|labeled in part: \"\"H. H. Johnston Laboratories * * * Thyroid Powder|U. S. P. XI.\"\"|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to be or was|represented as a drug the name of which is recognized in the United States|Pharmacopoeia and its strength differed from the standard set forth in the|pharmacopoeia. It was alleged to be misbranded in that the designation|\"\"Thyroid Powder U. S. P. XI,\"\" borne on the container, was false and misleading.|On October 17, 1941, the H. H. Johnston Laboratories having filed an accept-|ance of service and authorization for taking of final decree, judgment of con-|demnation was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|VITAMIN PREPARATIONS|627. Adulteration and misbranding of Dean's Vitamin Concentrate Capsules. U. S. v. 8 Dozen Retail Cartons of Dean's Vitamin Concentrate Capsules. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00627February, 1943Purity Drug Co., Inc.Dean's Vitamin Concentrate CapsulesApril 18, 1941Pittsburgh, Pa.Passaic, N. J.Pittsburgh, Pa.Western District of Pennsylvania627F. D. C. No. 5962. Sample No. 42956-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00627ddnj|027. Adulteration and misbranding of Dean's Vitamin Concentrate Capsules.|IT. S. v. 8 Dozen Retail Cartons of Dean's Vitamin Concentrate Capsules.|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 5962.|Sample No. 42956-E.)|This product was labeled as containing 1,000 units of vitamin D per capsule|and was also labeled to indicate that, it contained a substantial amount of|vitamin G (B2) ; whereas it contained not more than 800 units of vitamin D and|but an inconsequential amount of vitamin G (B2), namely, approximately|one-eightieth of the minimum daily requirement.|On October 7, 1941, the United States attorney for the Western District of|Pennsylvania filed a libel against 8 dozen cartons, each containing 25 dozen|capsules, of the above-named product at Pittsburgh, Pa., alleging that it had?(|been shipped in interstate commerce on or about April 18, 1941, by the Purity|Drug Co., Inc., from Passaic, N. J.; and charging that it was adulterated and?(|misbranded.|. - ..?.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from|and its quality fell below that which it purported and was represented to|possess. It was alleged to be iriisbranded in that the following statements on|the label, \"\"Each Capsule Contains Not Less Than * * * Vitamin D 1,000|units * * * Vitamin Concentrate Capsules containing vitamins * * *|G (B2),\"\" were false and misleading when applied to an article containing less|than 1,000 units of vitamin D and an inconsequential amount of riboflavin|(vitamin G or B2).|The article was also alleged to be adulterated and misbranded under the|provisions of the law applicable to foods, as reported in F. N. J. No. 3642.|On November 25, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of con-|demnation was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|628. Adulteration of vitamin B complex capsules. U. S. v. 25,000 Capsules of Vitamin B Complex Improved. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00628February, 1943Miller Laboratoriesvitamin B complex capsulesMay 15, 1941Los Angeles, Calif.Cleveland, OhioLos Angeles, Calif.Southern District of California628F. D. C. No. 6039. Sample No. 53411-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00628ddnj|628. Adulteration of vitamin B complex capsules. U. S. v. 25,000 Capsules of|Vitamin B Complex Improved. Default decree of condemnation and de-|struction. (F. D. C. No. 6039. Sample No. 53411-E.)|Examination of this product showed that it contained not more than 200|U. S. P. (International) units of vitamin Bi per capsule, whereas it was repre-|sented as containing 333 International Units of vitamin Bi per capsule.|On October 20, 1941, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|California filed a libel against 25,000 capsules of vitamin B complex at Los|Angeles, Calif., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate com-|merce on or about May 15, 1941, by Miller Laboratories from Cleveland, Ohio;|and charging that it was adulterated in that its strength differed from and its|quality fell below that which it was represented to possess. The article was|invoiced as \"\"Vitamin B complex Improved, Bi-333 Units Int.\"\"|On December 30, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condem-|nation was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|629. Adulteration and misbranding of Vitagen. U. S. v. 21 Cases of Vitagen. Default decree of condemnation. Product ordered distributed to various charitable institutions.ddnj00629February, 1943College Laboratories, Inc.VitagenApril 22, 1941Denver, Colo.Denver, Colo.Seattle, Wash.District of Colorado629F. D. C. No. 5683. Sample No. 65595-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00629ddnj|629. Adulteration and misbranding' of Vitagen. IT. S. v. 21 Gases of Vitagen.|Default decree of condemnation. Product ordered distributed to various|charitable institutions. (F. D. C. No. 5683. Sample No. 65595-E.|This product was approximately 70 percent deficient in vitamin A and ap-|proximately 50 percent deficient in vitamin C.|On September 12, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Colo-|rado filed a libel against 21 cases of Vitagen at Denver, Colo., which originally|had been consigned by College Laboratories, Inc., from Denver, Colo., to Seattle,|Wash., and had been returned alleging that the article had been shipped in|interstate commerce on or about April 22,1941, from Seattle, Wash.; and charging|that it was adulterated and misbranded.|The article -was alleged to be adulterated in that- valuable constituents,|namely, vitamins A and C, had been wholly or in part omitted or abstracted|therefrom. It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, \"\"two tea-|spoons of Vitagen contains approximately: 2810 international units of A, 450|units of C,\"\" were false and misleading when applied to an article of lower|vitamin content.|On November 14, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and it was ordered that the product be distributed to various|charitable institutions.|DRUGS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF FALSE AND MISLEADING CLAIMS|IN THE LABELING|652. Misbranding of Emergency First Aid Cabinet No. 20 and refills. U. S. v. 94 Kits and 83 Refills. Default decree of forfeiture and destruction.ddnj00652February, 1943American First Aid Co.Emergency First Aid Cabinet No. 20 and refillsAugust 16, 1940, and March 31, 1941Eau Claire, Wis.Brooklyn, N. Y.Eau Claire, Wis.Western District of Wisconsin652F. D. C. No. 5849. Sample No. 58056-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00652ddnj|652. Misbranding: of Emergency First Aid Cabinet No. 20 and refills. TT. S. v.|94 Kits and 83 Refills. Default decree of forfeiture and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 5849. Sample No. 58056-E.)|On September 30, 1941, the United States attorney for the \"\"Western District|of Wisconsin filed a libel against the above-named product at Eau Claire, Wis.,|alleging that the artiele had been shipped on or about August 16, 1940, and|March 31, 1941, by the American First Aid Co. from Brooklyn, N. Y.; and|charging that it was misbranded.|Examination showed that the kits and refills contained, among other things,|absorbent cotton, gauze pads, adhesive tape, a tube of burn ointment, and a|bottle each of boric acid, mercurochrome, and aromatic spirits of ammonia.|The burn ointment was not antiseptic as claimed on the label, and the boric|acid was a solution of approximately 1.3 percent concentration.|The kits and refills were alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that the carton|containing the absorbent cotton bore the following statement, \"\"Sterilized and|Surgically Clean Highest Quality,\"\" whereas the absorbent cotton was contami-|nated with aerobic and anaerobic micro-organisms. (2) In that the carton|containing burn ointment bore the statement \"\"Antiseptic,\"\" whereas the burn|ointment was not antiseptic. (3) In that the label of the boric acid bore the|following statement, \"\"Antiseptic * * * Eye Wash (4? aqueous solution),\"\"|whereas the boric acid was not a 4 percent solution but was a solution of|approximately 1.3 percent concentration, and it was not antiseptic. (4) In|that the outside container did not hear a statement of the common or usual|names of the active ingredients in the burn ointment, boric acid, and the mer-|curochrome. (5) In that the carton and label of the burn ointment did not|contain the common or usual names of the active ingredients. (6) In that the|retail container did not bear an accurate statement of the quantity of the|contents. (7) In that the labels for the absorbent cotton, gauze pads, wood|applicators, and the carton for the burn ointment did not bear the name and|address of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor.|On October 29, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of forfeiture|was entered and the product was -ordered destroyed.|630. Misbranding of Zaleo-Septic. U. S. v. Sylvia Zalk (Zaleo Co.). Plea of guilty. Fine, $20.ddnj00630February, 1943Sylvia Zalk, trading as the Zalco Co. at St. Paul, Minn.Zaleo-SepticFebruary 1 and September 25, 1940MinnesotaMinnesotaNorth DakotaDistrict of Minnesota630F. D. C. No. 4143. Sample Nos. 8286-E, 75133-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00630ddnj|630. Misbranding of Zaleo-Septie. U. S. v. Sylvia Zalk (Zateo Co.). Plea of|guilty. Fine, $20. (F. D. C. No. 4143. Sample Nos. 8286-E, 75133-D.)|This product did not possess the antiseptic properties claimed for it.|On July 28, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Minnesota|filed an information against Sylvia Zalk, trading as the Zalco Co.' at St. Paul,|Minn., alleging shipment on or about February 1 and September 25, 1940, from|the State of Minnesota into the State of North Dakota, of quantities of Zaleo-|Septic that was misbranded. The article was labeled in part: \"\"Zalco-Septic|(Antiseptic Solution).\"\"|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of water, alcohol, and|small proportions of menthol, eucalyptol, thymol, methyl salicylate, and boric|acid. .Bacteriological examination showed that it was not antiseptic.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, \"\"Zalco-Septic|(Antiseptic Solution) * * * Nasal Douche: Add one part of Zalco-Septic|to 4 or 5 parts of warm water * * * Feminine Hygiene: Add 1 part of|Zalco-Septic to 10 parts of warm water,\"\" borne on the bottle label, were false|and misleading since they represented that when used in the dilutions reeom-|mended, it was an antiseptic within the meaning of the law; whereas it was not|an antiseptic within such meaning, and it did not purport to be and was not|represented as an antiseptic for inhibitory use as a wet dressing, ointment, dust-|ing powder, or such other use as involves prolonged contact with the body.|On November 4, 1941, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant?(|and the court imposed a fine of $20.|-?!|631. Misbranding of dextrose in physiologic sodium chloride solution. U. S. v. 7 Cases of Dextrose. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00631February, 1943Hospital Liquids, Inc.dextrose in physiologic sodium chloride solutionMarch 6 and April 19, 1941New Orleans, La.Chicago, Ill.New Orleans, La.Eastern District of Louisiana631F. D. C. No. 4818. Sample No. 49411-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00631ddnj|631. Misbranding: of dextrose in physiologic sodium chloride solution. TJ. S. v.|7 Cases of Dextrose. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 4818. Sample No. 49411-E.)|This product, which was intended for intravenous injection, was found to|contain lead.|On May 24, 1941, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Loui-|siana filed a libel against 7 cases of the above-named product at New Orleans,|La., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or|about March 6 and April 19, 1941, by Hospital Liquids, Inc., from Chicago, 111.;|and charging that it was misbranded in that the statement \"\"Dextrose 5 percent|in Physiologic Sodium Chloride Solution Sterile and Non-Pyrogenic\"\" -was false|and misleading since the label failed to reveal that the article contained lead|and was unsuitable for intravenous injection.|On July 8, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|632. Misbranding of Bleything Concentrated Vegetable Compounds. U. S. v. 34 Packages of Concentrated Vegetable Compound Bleything Formula No. 201-A and 22 Packages of Concentrated Vegetable Compound Bleything Formula No. 201-B. Decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00632February, 1943Bleything LaboratoriesBleything Concentrated Vegetable CompoundsJanuary 4 and May 4, 1941Denver, Colo.Los Angeles, Calif.Denver, Colo.District of Colorado632F. D. C. No. 5468. Sample Nos. 65836-E, 65837-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00632ddnj|632. Misbranding of Bleything Concentrated Vegetable Compounds. U. S. v.|34 Packages of Concentrated Vegetable Compound Bleything Formula Tio.|201-A and 22 Packages of Concentrated Vegetable Compound Bleything|Formula No. 201-B. Decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C;|No. 5468. Sample Nos. 65836-E, 65837-E.)|On August 29, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Colorado|filed a libel against the above-named products at Denver, Colo., which had been|consigned by Bleything Laboratories, alleging that the articles had been shipped|on or about January 4 and May 4, 1941, from Los Angeles, Calif.; and charging|that they were misbranded.|Examination of samples of the articles showed that Formula No. 201-A con-|sisted of tablets weighing approximately 8 grains each, which contained dried|plant material yielding less than 1 grain of total mineral constituents; and that|Formula No. 201-B consisted of tablets weighing approximately 8 grains each,|which contained dried plant material yielding less than 1? grains of total|mineral constituents.|The articles were alleged to be misbranded in that designations in the labeling|which constituted devices implying that Formula No. 201-A would supply some-|thing whieh would combat excessive acidity and acidosis; and that Formula|No. 201-B would supply minerals which ward off alkalinity and alkalosis, were|false and misleading since the articles could not be relied upon by physicians|and were not effective for such purposes.|They were also alleged to be misbranded under the provisions of the law|applicable to foods, as reported in F. N. J. No. 3424.|On October 17, 1941, Bleything Laboratories having signed an acceptance of|service and authorization for taking of final decree, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|633. Misbranding of Earles Vital Vim. U. S. v. 8 Cases of Wheat Germ. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00633February, 1943W. H. Earles Co.Earles Vital VimApril 25, 1941Chicago, Ill.\NChicago, Ill.Northern District of Illinois633F. D. C. No. 4770. Sample No. 47271-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00633ddnj|633. Misbranding of Earles Vital Vim. U. S. v. 8 Cases of Wheat Germ. Default|decree of condemnation and destruction. F. D. C. No. 4770. Sample No.|47271-E.)|On May 19, 1941, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|IUinois filed a libel against 8 cases, each containing 24 18-ounce packages, of|a product labeled \"\"Earles Vital Vim * * * ' Pure Wheat Germ\"\" at Chicago,|111., alleging that the article had been shipped by W. H. Earles Co. on or about|April 25, 1941; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it was essentially wheat|germ as labeled.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that statements in the labeling|which represented that it was ^efficacious to Testore and maintain health and|vigor; that it would be efficacious in the prevention and treatment of overweight,?i|underweight, fatigue, colitis, constipation, neuritis, arthritis, stomach troubles,|indigestion, high blood pressure, hardening of the arteries, and sleeplessness;?(|that it would be efficacious to strengthen the digestive organs, assist intestinal|activity, and bring about good digestion and proper assimilation; and that it?/|would be efficacious to soothe the nerves and improve the circulation, tone the.|arteries, invigorate the heart muscles and normalize blood pressure; and ward|off or prevent common colds or grip, were false and misleading since it would|not be efficacious for such purposes.|The article was alleged to be misbranded also under the provisions of the|law applicable to foods, as reported in F. N. J. No. 2994.|On October 1, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|653. Misbranding of first aid kits and gauze bandage. U. S. v. 138 First Aid Kits and 100 Boxes and 12 Gross Packages of Gauze Bandage. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00653February, 1943American White Cross Laboratoriesfirst aid kits and gauze bandageJanuary 15 and September 17, 1941Philadelphia, Pa.New Rochelle, N. Y.Philadelphia, Pa.Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the District of Massachusetts653F. D. C. Nos. 3815, 6018, 6045. Sample Nos. 24588-E, 51597-E. 51598-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00653ddnj|653. Misbranding: of first aid kits and gauze bandage. V. S. v. 138 First Aid Kits|and 100 Boxes and 12 Gross Packages of Gauze Bandage. Default decrees|of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 3815, 6018, 6045. Sample|Nos. 24588-E, 51597-E. 51598-E.)|The gauze bandage in all of these shipments was not sterile, and the metal con-|tainers of the first aid kits failed to bear a list of the various items in the kit|and the quantity of each.|On February 13 and October 14 and 20, 1941, the United States attorneys for|the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the District of Massachusetts filed|libels against 138 first aid kits at Philadelphia, Pa., and 100 boxes and 12 gross|packages of gauze bandage at Boston, Mass., alleging that the articles had been|shipped on or about January 15 and September 17,1941, by American White Cross|Laboratories from New Rochelle, N. Y.; and charging that it was misbranded.|The articles were labeled in part: \"\"White Cross All Purpose First Aid Kit\"\";|\"\"Gauze Bandage 1 in. 10 yds Hospital Bandage\"\"; and \"\"Sanitized Clinical Gauze|Bandage.\"\"|The first aid kits were alleged to be misbranded (1) in that statements on the|envelope containing the bandage strips, \"\"Ideal for bruises, cuts and Blisters\"\"|and \"\"Emergency Bandage,\"\" were false and misleading as applied to an article|which was not sterile and therefore was not ideal for use on bruises, cuts and|blisters or for emergency bandage purposes; (2.) in that the statements metal|container) \"\"All purpose First Aid Kit\"\" and \"\"Be Prepared\"\" and the designs of a|surgeon and nurse were false and misleading as applied to an article which con-|tained non-sterile bandage strips; and <3) in that the metal container of the|retail package failed to bear on its label a statement of the quantity of contents,|since it did not list the various items in the kit and the quantity of each con-|tained in the package.|A portion of the gauze bandage was alleged to be misbranded in that the|following statements on the carton, \"\"Self Sterilizing Sanitized * * * Clinical?* * * Actively Antiseptic This Gauze Bandage Has Been Protected With|The Process Sanitized ? * * * It Is Actively Antiseptic and Self Sterilizing|in its effect,\"\" were false and misleading as applied to an article that was not|self sterilizing nor antiseptic, but was contaminated with viable micro-organisms.|The remainder was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements and|designs appearing on the carton, \"\"Prepared under the most sanitary and scien-|tific conditions * * * Hospital Bandage [pictures of doctor and nurse],\"\"|which implied that it was sterile, were false and misleading as applied to an|article that was contaminated with viable micro-organisms.|On September 29, 1941, and January 19, 1942, no claimant having appeared,|judgments of condemnation were entered and the products were ordered|destroyed.|634. Misbranding of Effervescent Kruschen Salts. U. S. v. 21 Dozen Packages of Effervescent Kruschen. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00634February, 1943Johnstone Drug Sales CorporationEffervescent Kruschen SaltsApril 23, 1941Pittsburgh, Pa.Rochester, N. Y.Pittsburgh, Pa.Western District of Pennsylvania634F. D. C. No. 5214. Sample No. 42575-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00634ddnj|634. Misbranding of Effervescent Kruschen Salts. U. S. v. 21 Dozen Packages of|Effervescent Kruschen. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 5214. Sample No. 42575-E.)|On July 25, 1941, the United States attorney for the Western District of|Pennsylvania filed a libel against 21 dozen 5-ounce packages of Effervescent|Kruschen Salts at Pittsburgh, Pa., alleging that the article had been shipped|on or about April 23, 1941, by. the Johnstone Drug Sales Corporation from|Kochester, N. Y.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of|anhydrous Epsom salt, (18.7 percent), with small proportions of common salt|(sodium chloride), potassium chloride, sodium sulfate, potassium sulfate, sodium|bicarbonate, and citric acid.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that statements in an accompanying cir-|cular which created the impression that it constituted an effective agent for|reducing weight, that it had a stimulating effect on the liver and bowels, and|that it acted as a mild diuretic, were false and misleading since it would not|be efficacious for such purposes.|On November 19, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|635. Misbranding of Joint-Ease. U. S. v. 29 Tubes and 11 Tubes of Joint-Ease (and 1 other seizure of Joint-Ease). Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00635February, 1943Pope Laboratories from Hallowell, MaineJoint-EaseJuly 7 to October 23, 1940Washington, D. C.Hallowell, MaineWashington, D. C.District of Columbia635F. D. C. Nos. 6002, 6303. Sample Nos. 59034-E, 59035-E, 87120-E. 87121-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00635ddnj|C35. Misbranding of Joint-Ease. TJ. S. v. 29 Tubes and 11 Tubes of Joint-Ease|(and 1 other seizure of Joint-Ease). Default decree of condemnation|and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 6002, 6303. Sample Nos. 59034-E, 59035-E,|87120-E. 87121-E.)|On October 8 and November 28,1941, the United States attorney for the District|of Columbia filed libels against 125 1-ounce tubes and 56 2?-ounce tubes of|Joint-Ease at Washington, D. C, alleging that the article had been shipped in|interstate commerce within the period from on or about July 7 to on or about|October 23, 1940, by Pope Laboratories from Hallowell, Maine; and charg-|ing that it was misbranded.|Analyses of samples of the article showed that it consisted essentially of sali-|cylic acid and volatile oils including eucalyptol, camphor, menthol, methyl sali-|cylate, and turpentine oil incorporated in petrolatum.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that various statements in the|labeling and the designs showing portions of the human anatomy, which repre-|sented that it would be efficacious in the treatment of joint diseases, would ease|joints, relieve minor joint aches and pains, museular lameness, strained muscles,|stiff neck, and all surface muscular aches and pains, also aches and pains affect-|ing the neck, shoulders, elbows, fingers, knees, and feet, and that it would provide|a competent treatment for irritations or miseries due to common colds in nose,|throat, and chest, were false and misleading, since it would not be efficacious for|such purposes.|On October 29 and December 22,1941, no claimant having appeared, judgments'|of condemnation were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|636. Misbranding of papaya syrup. U. S. v. 243 Dozen Bottles and 46 Dozen Bottles of Tropical's Original Papaya Syrup. Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered released under bond to be relabeled.ddnj00636February, 1943C. O. Pinkardpapaya syrupFebruary 25, 1941Chicago, Ill.St. Louis, Mo.Chicago, Ill.Northern District of Illinois636F. D. C. No. 4857. Sample No. 62052-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00636ddnj|636. Misbranding: of papaya syrup. IT. S. v. 243 Dozen Bottles and 46 Dozen|Bottles of Tropical's Original Papaya Syrup. Consent decree of condem-|nation. Product ordered released under bond to be relabeled. (F. D. C. No.|4857. Sample No. 62052-E.)|On June 10, 1941, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Illinois filed a libel against 289 dozen bottles of papaya syrup at Chicago, 111.,|alleging that the article had been shipped on or about February 25, 1941, by|Tropical Fruit Products from St. Louis, Mo.; and charging that it was mis-|branded.|Analysis of a sample of the article, which was an opaque, yellow, syrupy liquid,|showed that it consisted essentially of sugars, fruit acids, and orange and lemon|oils, with the flavor of papaya. No active papain nor other proteolytic enzymes|were found.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that representations in the labeling|that it would supply energy food which could be easily absorbed; that it would|promote health and build energy, thus making one feel more alive and full of?f\"\"|pep; that it would reduce the absorption of poisonous toxins and stomach?V|distress; that it was an alkalizer and body builder; that it would prevent kidney,|liver, and stomach diseases and keep the skin clear; that it was an appropriate|treatment for anemia, gastritis, indigestion, constipation, arthritis, rheumatism,?(|ulcers, colitis, sinusitis, influenza, colds, dysentery and obesity; and that it would|increase the stature of children, were false and misleading since it would not|be efficacious for such purposes.|It also was alleged to be misbranded under the provisions of the law applica-|ble to foods, as reported in F. N. J. No. 3647.|On June 24, 1941, C. O. Pinkard, claimant, having admitted the allegations of|the libel, judgment of condemnation was entered and the product was ordered|released under bond conditioned that it be relabeled under the supervision of|ble to foods, as reported in F. N. J. No. 3647.|637. Misbranding of Magozone. U. S. v. 28 Packages of Magozone. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00637February, 1943Eastern American Association for Oxygen TherapyMagozoneApril 17, 1941Cincinnati, OhioBloomfield, N. J.Cincinnati, OhioSouthern District of Ohio637F. D. C. No. 4975. Sample No. 5176-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00637ddnj|637. Misbranding of Mag-ozone. TJ. S. v. 28 Packages of Magozone. Default|decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 4975. Sample No.|5176-E.)|On June 23, 1941, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|Ohio filed a libel against 28 packages of Magozone at Cincinnati, Ohio, alleging|that the article had been shipped on or about April 17, 1941, by the Eastern|American Association for Oxygen Therapy from Bloomfield, N. J.; and charging|that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of magnesium oxide|and peroxide, and that it neither contained nor would produce ozone.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that certain statements in the|labeling which represented and implied that it would liberate ozone; that it|would eliminate the cause of diseases, restore healthy blood, repair damage; that|it would be efficacious in all ailments due to constipation and faulty assimi-|lation, metabolism, and elimination which result in a gradual poisoning of the|system, as well as those due to other poisonings of the body; that it was a|general purifier for many ailments, gas, poisoning, etc.; that it would be of|value in the treatment of nausea, gas in stomach or intestines, headache,|dizziness, pressure upon the heart, biliousness; that it would be efficacious in|the treatment of diarrhea and ulceration of the digestive tract; that it would|purify the blood and lymph vessels and organs; that it would prevent the de-|velopment of parasites; and that it would eliminate the causes of disease and|restore lost health; and that another drug, namely, Calozone, would be effica-|cious in the correction of running bowels and in the treatment of pus or mucous|formation, were false and misleading since the articles would not be efficacious|for such purposes.|On August 7, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|638. Misbranding of rock candy crystals. U. S. v. 54 Boxes of Rock Candy Crystals. Default decree of condemnation. Product distributed to charitable institutions.ddnj00638February, 1943Martin Candy Co.rock candy crystalsOctober 30 and November 3, 1941Shreveport, La.Dallas, Tex.Shreveport, La.Western District of Louisiana638F. D. C. No. 6323. Sample No. 49823-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00638ddnj|638. Misbranding: of rock candy crystals. TJ. S. v. 54 Boxes of Rock Candy|Crystals. Default decree of condemnation. Product distributed to|charitable institutions. (F. D. C. No. 6323. Sample No. 49823-E.)|Examination showed that this product consisted of coarse sucrose crystals.|On December 2, 1941, the United States attorney for the Western District|of Louisiana filed a libel against 54 boxes, each containing 24 packages, of rock|candy crystals at Shreveport, La., alleging that the article had been shipped|in interstate commerce on or about October 30 and| November 3, 1941, by Martin|Candy Co. from Dallas, Tex.; and charging that it was misbranded.|The article was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that the following statements|on the package were false and misleading: \"\"Dissolve the Rock Candy Crystals|In This Package In a Half Pint of the Best Old Rye Whiskey Such a Cordial|Is a Cardinal Remedy for Coughs. Colds. And all Pulmonary Complaints.|* * * A Most Excellent Tonic Recommended by Physicians,\"\" since the con-|sensus of medical opinion does not support the representation that the article -|when used in the manner directed would be efficacious for the purposes|recommended, and the labeling failed to reveal that fact; and (2) in that its|container was so made and filled as to be misleading, since the packages were?,|too large for the amount of crystals they contained and the crystals did not?V|occupy a reasonable amount of the available space.|It also was alleged to be misbranded under the provisions of the law appli-?v|cable to foods, as reported in F. N. J. No. 3639.|On February 16, 1942, no claimant haying'appeared, Judgment of condem-|nation was entered and the product was ordered disposed of as provided by|law. It was distributed to charitable institutions.|639. Misbranding of Sante. U. S. v. 16 Cases of Sante. Default deeree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00639February, 1943Dr. W. B. Caldwell, Inc.SanteFebruary 12, 1941Evansville, Ind.Monticello, Ill.Evansville, Ind.Southern District of Indiana639F. D. C. No. 5089. Sample No. 29413-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00639ddnj|639. Misbranding of Sante. U. S. v. 16 Cases of Sante. Default deeree of con|demnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 5089. Sample No. 29413-E.)|On July 9, 1941, the United States attorney for the Southern District of In-|diana filed a libel against 16 cases of Sant6 at Evansville, Ind., alleging that|the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about February 12,|1941, by Dr. W. B. Caldwell, Inc., from Monticello, 111.; and charging that it|was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article was an alcoholic solution containing in each|fluid ounce an iron compound representing approximately 150 milligrams of|iron and 800 U. S. P. units of vitamin Bi per fluid ounce.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that statements in the labeling|which represented and suggested that it was an appropriate treatment for|nutritional anemia due to dietary deficiencies; that it was an eflicacious treat-|ment for pale, underweight women with poor appetite; that it would help the|system get over the conditions following colds, grippe, flu; that it would in-|crease personality and stamina, and would help develop the blood, improve|the appetite and color and quiet the nerves; would promote assimilation of|food and better sleep, and would increase weight; and that it was important|to nerves, stomach, and bowels, were false and misleading since it would not|be efficacious for such purposes.|On November 17, 1941, the claimant having withdrawn his appearance,|judgment of condemnation was entered and the product was ordered de-|stroyed.|640. Misbranding of Vigor-Tex. U. S. v. 20 Cases and 6 Packages of Vigor-Tex (and 1 other seizure against Vigor-Tex). Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00640February, 1943Kretschmer CorporationVigor-TexMay 12 and 17, 1941Chicago, Ill.Saginaw, Mich.Chicago, Ill.Northern District of Illinois640F. D. C. Nos. 4920, 4934. Sample Nos. 47447-E, 47456-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00640ddnj|640. Misbranding of \"\"Vigor-Tex. U. S. v. 20 Cases and 6 Packages of Vigor-Tex|(and 1 other seizure against Vigor-Tex). Default decree of condemnation|and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 4920, 4934. Sample Nos. 47447-E, 47456-E.)|On June 18 and 24, 1941,. the United States attorney for the Northern District|of Illinois filed libels against 29 cases, each containing 24 packages; 37 cases,|each containing 12 packages; and 6 packages of Vigor-Tex at Chicago, 111.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce by Kret-|' schmer Corporation from Saginaw, Mich., on or about May 12 and 17, 1941;|and charging that it was misbranded.|Examination of the article showed that it consisted of about 42 percent of|wheat germ, the remainder consisting essentially of wheat bran and small|amounts of starch.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that statements in the labeling which|represented and suggested that it would be efficacious to build vitality, pro-|mote better health, provide the life principle needed for the functioning of all|organs; that it would be efficacious to correct low spirits, discouragement, and|tiredness, would strengthen the heart muscle and normalize the blood pressure;|would cause children to thrive, grow in height and weight, and would improve|their appetite and general health; that it would prevent sleeplessness, tired-|ness, poor heart action, fatigue, indigestion, and gray hair; that it was a|preventive and appropriate treatment of constipation, arthritis, neuritis, colitis,|colds, simple anemia and pernicious anemia, diabetes, skin blemishes, brittle|nails, stomach ulcers, heart trouble, hardening of the arteries, high blood|pressure, glandular deficiency, acidosis, underweight and overweight conditions,|were false and misleading since it would not be efficacious for such purposes.|On October 1, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgments of condemnation|were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|641. Misbranding of Polly Rich Wheat Germ. U. S. v. 219 Cans of Wheat Germ. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00641February, 1943Colonial Milling Co.Polly Rich Wheat GermSeptember 15, 16, and 24, 1941New Orleans, La.Nashville, Tenn.New Orleans, La.Eastern District of Louisiana641F. D. C. No. 6362. Sample No. 83181-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00641ddnj|641. Misbranding of Polly Rich Wheat Germ. V. S. v. 219 Cans of Wheat Germ.|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 6362.|Sample No. 83181-E.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations re-|garding its value as a source of certain vitamins and minerals and its efficacy|in the treatment of diseases and abnormalities of the body.|On December 9, 1941, the United States attorney for the Eastern District|of Louisiana filed a libel against 219 cans of wheat germ at New Orleans, La.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|September 15, 16, and 24, 1941, by the Colonial Milling Co. from Nashville,|Term.; and charging that it was misbranded. It was labeled in part: \"\"Polly|Rich Wheat Germ.\"\"|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the following and similar?r|statements in the labeling, (label) \"\"Contains Vitamins A-B-E-G -*.**' (|Four level tablespoons of Wheat Germ contain about the average daily re-|quirement of Vitamin B,\"\" and (circular entitled \"\"Polly Rich Wheat Germ|contains vitamins A-B-E-G,\"\" attached to retail package) \"\" 'Nature's Own?r|Tonic in Its Pure Virgin Wholeness' * * * The heart or embryo of the|grain of wheat is known as 'Wheat Germ'. It is one of the best known sources|of Vitamin B (whole complex) and E and is a good source of Vitamin A. It|contains iron, phosphorus, sodium, potassium, zinc, copper, manganese, calcium|and magnesium, all of which are essential to our mineral economy, in forms|which are easily assimilated. Wheat Germ is in truth 'Nature's own health|tonic in its pure virgin wholeness,'\"\" were false and misleading since they|created the impression that wheat germ is a consequential source of vitamins|A, B, E, and G and of the minerals iron, phosphorus, sodium, potassium, zinc,|copper, manganese, calcium and magnesium; whereas, while wheat germ may be|considered as a consequential source of vitamin B and phosphorus, the con-|tribution to the dietary intake of the other vitamins and minerals contained in|wheat germ is inconsequential. It was alleged to be misbranded further in|that representations in the labeling that it was efficacious in the treatment of|a wide variety of diseases and abnormalities of the body, such as secondary|anemia, cataracts of the eye, sterility, and alcoholic diseases, were false and|misleading since it would not be efficacious for such purposes.|It was also charged to be misbranded under the provisions of the law|applicable to foods, as reported in notice of judgment F. N. J. No. 3222.|On March 25, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|DRUGS ALSO FAILING TO BEAR REQUIRED INGREDIENT STATEMENT|642. Misbranding of Diaplex. U. S. v. 97 Packages of Diaplex. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00642February, 1943Mrs. Alice PierceDiaplexJune 25, 1941Sinta Monica, Calif.Wellington, Colo.Sinta Monica, Calif.Southern District of California642F. D. C. No. 5230. Sample No. 7684-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00642ddnj|642. Misbranding of Diaplex. U. S. v. 97 Packages of Diaplex. Default decree|of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 5230. Sample No. 7684-E.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations re-|garding its efficacy in the treatment of diabetes. Furthermore, it was a drug|but its label failed to bear the common or usual name of such drug.|On July 26, 1941, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|California filed a libel against 97 packages of Diaplex at Sinta Monica, Calif.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|June 25, 1941, by Mrs. Alice Pierce from Wellington, 'Colo.; and charging that|it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted of the ground or shredded leaves|and stems of a species of saltbush such as Atriplex canescens.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements on|the label,- \"\"Directions to doctors for those whose blood-sugar count tests 125|mgs. per 100 C. C. or over. Use four heaping tablespoons of Diaplex to the|quart of water and * * * an adult should use two quarts of Diaplex tea daily|and a child, one, for a period of nine to eighteen months. Diaplex * * *.|should never lower the blood-sugar below normal. Therefore a great amount is|effective. Small doses are worthless for the diabetic. * * * Notice: Warn-|ing ! persons using Diaplex with insuiin should make -the urine test daily, and as|the pancreas increases its normal function, reduce the amount of insulin|sufficiently to avoid insulin reaction. Only use enough insulin to take care of|the surplus sugar reducing the amount of insulin from time to time sufficiently|to avoid insulin reaction: But continue the use of Diaplex until you are well|and strong,\"\" were false and misleading since they created the impression that|it would be useful for reducing abnormally high blood-sugar content and as|a treatment for diabetes; whereas it was not capable of accomplishing such|results. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that it was a drug and|its label failed to bear the common or usual name of such drug.|On September 8, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|?43. 3Ii*bEaiM&n?; -of Htelra?-Quinine Sair T-mOc U. S. v. 5 1-Gallon Bottles and|6 8-Ounce Bottles of Hicks' Quinine Hair Tonic. Default decree of con- /|deranation and destruction. <F. D. C. No. 6218. Sample No. 70127-E.) i|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations re-?<|garding its efficacy in the conditions indicated hereinafter. The label also?V|failed to bear an accurate statement of the quantity of the contents and the?/|common or usual names of the active ingredients present.|On December 1, 1941, the United States attorney for the Western District of|North Carolina filed a libel against the above-named product at Asheville, N. C,|alleging that it had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about June 2,|1941, by J. A. Hicks from Jacksonville, Fla.; and charging that it was|misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of|alcohol (approximately 61 percent by volume), salicylic acid (approximately|0.9 percent), quinine sulfate, water, and perfume materials.|The article was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that the statements on the|label, \"\"Quinine Hair Tonic, * * * for eczema, alapacia, dandruff, itching|scalp. Will promote the growth of the hair,\"\" were false and misleading as|applied to an article that does not act as a tonic for the hair and does not|constitute an adequate treatment for the disease condition for which it was|represented; (2) in that its label failed to bear an accurate statement of the|quantity of the contents; and (3) in that the label failed to bear the common|or usual names of the active ingredients.|On December 31, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condem-|nation was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|643. Misbranding of Hick's Quinine Hair Tonic. U. S. v. 5 1-Gallon Bottles and 6 8-Ounce Bottles of Hicks' Quinine Hair Tonic. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00643February, 1943J. A. HicksHick's Quinine Hair TonicJune 2, 1941Asheville, N. C.Jacksonville, Fla.Asheville, N. C.Western District of North Carolina643F. D. C. No. 6218. Sample No. 70127-EThe National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00643ddnj|?43. 3Ii*bEaiM&n?; -of Htelra?-Quinine Sair T-mOc U. S. v. 5 1-Gallon Bottles and |6 8-Ounce Bottles of Hicks' Quinine Hair Tonic. Default decree of con- / |deranation and destruction. <F. D. C. No. 6218. Sample No. 70127-E.) i |The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations re-?< |garding its efficacy in the conditions indicated hereinafter. The label also?V |failed to bear an accurate statement of the quantity of the contents and the?/ |common or usual names of the active ingredients present. |On December 1, 1941, the United States attorney for the Western District of |North Carolina filed a libel against the above-named product at Asheville, N. C, |alleging that it had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about June 2, |1941, by J. A. Hicks from Jacksonville, Fla.; and charging that it was |misbranded. |Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of |alcohol (approximately 61 percent by volume), salicylic acid (approximately |0.9 percent), quinine sulfate, water, and perfume materials. |The article was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that the statements on the |label, \"\"Quinine Hair Tonic, * * * for eczema, alapacia, dandruff, itching |scalp. Will promote the growth of the hair,\"\" were false and misleading as |applied to an article that does not act as a tonic for the hair and does not |constitute an adequate treatment for the disease condition for which it was |represented; (2) in that its label failed to bear an accurate statement of the |quantity of the contents; and (3) in that the label failed to bear the common |or usual names of the active ingredients. |On December 31, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condem- |nation was entered and the product was ordered destroyed. |644. Misbranding of Nature's Minerals. U. S. v. 40 12-Ounce Packages, 10 6 Ounce Packages, and 15 4-Ounce Packages of Nature's Minerals. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00644November 1942P. G. JurichNature's MineralsSeptember 13, 1940, and January 9, 1941Tacoma, Wash.Pasadena, Calif.Tacoma, Wash.Western District of Washington644F. D. C. No. 4268. Sample Nos. 65461-E, 55462-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00644ddnj|644. Misbranding of Nature's Minerals. V. S. v. 40 12-Ounce Packages, 10 6-|Ounce Packages, and 15 4-Ounce Packages of Nature's Minerals. Default|decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 4268. Sample Nos.|65461-E, 55462-E.)|On April 15, 1941, the United States attorney for the Western District of|Washington filed a libel against the above-named product at Tacoma, Wash.,|alleging that it had been shipped in part by P. G. Jurich from Pasadena, Calif.,|on or about September 13, 1940, and January 9, 1941, and in part by Nature's|Mineral Co. from Indianapolis, Ind., on or about September 17,1940; and charging|that it was misbranded.|Analyses of samples of the article showed that it consisted essentially of|compounds of calcium, magnesium, iron, and sodium, phosphates, carbonates,|sulfates, chlorides, sulfur, and fluorine.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that it would be dangerous to|health when used in the dosage or with the frequency or duration prescribed,|which directed that ? to 1 round teaspoonful be taken three times a day.|It was alleged to be misbranded further: (1) In that the statements, \"\"Nature's|Minerals may be used as an aid in supplying in concrete form the minerals|sometimes found deficient in the ordinary diet. * * * Recommended as a|scientific combination of minerals capable of being utilized by the different|organs of the body. * * * Best results will be obtained by placing dry on the|tongue,\"\" were false and misleading. (2) In that statements on display cards|representing that it would be efficacious in the treatment or prevention of cancer,|colds, hardening of the arteries, diabetes, stomach, blood, kidney, and bladder|trouble, colitis, rheumatism, neuritis, and gallstone, and that by its use the|purchaser would enjoy joyous and lasting health, were false and misleading|since it would not be efficacious for such purposes. (3) In that representations|in an accompanying circular [these representations are set forth in D. B. N. J. No.|541] were false and misleading since it would not be efficacious for such purposes.|It was alleged to be adulterated and misbranded under the provisions of the|law applicable to foods, as reported in F. N. J. No. 2999.|On June 30, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.-|645. Misbranding of Sea-Clo-400-D. U. S. v. 2 Cans of Sea-Clo-400-D. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00645February, 1943Seaboard Supply Co., Inc.Sea-Clo-400-DSeptember 13, 1941Middleburg, Md.Philadelphia, Pa.Middleburg, Md.District of Maryland645F. D. C. No. 6255. Sample No. 50347-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00645ddnj|645. Misbranding of Sea-Clo-400-D. TT. S. v. 2 Cans of Sea-Clo-400-D. Default|decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 6255. Sample No.|50347-E.)|This product was represented as a satisfactory substitute for poultry cod-liver|oil, which representation was misleading. Spectro-photometric examination of|a sample showed that the article contained approximately 400 U. S. P. units of|vitamin A per gram; whereas the United States Pharmacopoeia requires that|cod-liver oil contain at least 850 U. S. P. units of vitamin A per gram.|On November 21,1941, the United States attorney for the District of Maryland|filed a libel against the above-named product at Middleburg, Md., alleging that|it had been shipped on or about September 13, 1941, by Seaboard Supply Co., Inc.,|from Philadelphia, Pa.; and charging that it was misbranded.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements on|the label, \"\"Sea-Clo-400-D, Highly Fortified Cod Liver Qil in Dry Base. Direc-|tions : In place of each 4? lbs. straight 85 D oil use 1 lb. Sea-Clo-400-D. For|each 5 pints 85 D oil used replace with 1 lb.' Sea-Clo-400-D. Turkeys: Use three|times the amount recommended for poultry under average conditions. In- '|gredients: Fortified cod liver oil. When this product is packed it contains|more than 10C0 Units Vitamin 'A' per gram . . . due to uncertain stability of|Vitamin 'A' from cod liver oil when added to feeds we are making no claim (|for it,\"\" were misleading since they gave the impression that it was a substitute|for cod-liver oil and possessed essentially the same values when used in accordance|with the directions for use; whereas it was not a substitute for cod-liver oil|and did not contain essentially the same values when used in accordance with|such directions since the proportion of vitamin A to vitamin D furnished when|so used, was substantially less than that furnished by straight cod-liver oil.|The article also was alleged to be misbranded under the provisions of the law|applicable to foods, as reported in F. N. J. No. 3453.|On January 3, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|646. Misbranding of Heberling's Colic and Bloat Compound and Heberling's Veterinary Liniment. U. S. v. 110 Dozen Bottles of Heberling's Colic and Bloat Compound and 90 Dozen Bottles of Heberling's Veterinary Liniment. Consent decree of condemnation. Products ordered released under bond to be relabeled.ddnj00646February, 1943G. C. Heberling, Bloomington, Ill.Heberling's Colic and Bloat Compound and Heberling's Veterinary LinimentSeptember 2, 1939, and April 26, 1940Bloomington, Ill.Winona, Minn.Bloomington, Ill.Southern District of Illinois646F. D. C. No. 3610, 3611. Sample Nos. 39127-E, 39128-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00646ddnj|646. Misbranding of Heberling's Colic and Bloat Compound and Heberling's|Veterinary Liniment. U. S. v. 110 Dozen Bottles of Heberling's Colic and|Bloat Compound and 90 Dozen Bottles of Heberling's Veterinary Liniment.|Consent decree of condemnation. Products ordered released under bond|to be relabeled. (F. D. C. No. 3610, 3611. Sample Nos. 39127-E, 39128-E.)|On or about January 3, 1941, the United States attorney for the Southern|District of Illinois filed a libel against the above-named products at Bloomington,|111., alleging that they had been shipped on or about September 2,1939, and April|26, 1940, by the J. R. Watkins Co. from Winona, Minn.; and charging that|they were misbranded.|Analyses of samples of the articles showed that the colic and bloat compound|consisted essentially of ether, chloroform, small proportions of capsicum, and|volatile oils including clove oil, sassafras oil, camphor, and turpentine; and|that the liniment consisted essentially of small. proportions of oil of tar,|camphor, turpentine, and cresol, and crude petroleum.|The colic and bloat compound was alleged to be misbranded in that statements|appearing in the labeling representing that it would give relief in the treatment|of colic and bloat in horses and cattle were false and misleading since it would|not be efficacious for such purposes.|The liniment was alleged to be misbranded in that statements in the labeling|representing that it would be efficacious for the treatment of wounds, sores,|lameness, swellings, callous parts, poll evil, and fistula, and that use of Heber-|ling's Mineral-Tonic Supplement for Hogs, Mineral-Tonic Supplement for Stock,|and Mineral-Tonic Supplement for Poultry would insure more profitable produc-|tion of livestock, were false and misleading since the articles would not be|efficacious for the purposes recommended.|On July 14, 1941, G. C. Heberling, Bloomington, 111., claimant, having con-|sented to the entry of a decree, judgment of condemnation was entered and the|products were ordered released under bond conditioned that they be relabeled|under the supervision of the Food and Drug Administration.|647. Misbranding of Poul-Tre-Tone and Pep-O-Tone. U. S. v. Gliatta Laboratories, Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $100.ddnj00647February, 1943Gliatta Laboratories, Inc., St. Charles, Mo.Poul-Tre-Tone and Pep-O-ToneMarch 21, 1940MissouriMissouriIllinoisEastern District of Missouri647F. D. C. No. 2877. Sample Nos. 15239-E, 15240-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00647ddnj|647. Misbranding of Poul-Tre-Tone and Pep-O-Tone. TJ. S. v. Gliatta Labora|tories, Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $100. (F. D. C. No. 2877. Sample Nos.|15239-E, 15240-E.)|The labeling of these veterinary products bore false and misleading claims|regarding their efficacy in the conditions indicated hereinafter.|On January 30, 1941, the United States attorney for the Eastern District|of Missouri filed an information against Gliatta Laboratories, Inc., St. Charles,|Mo., alleging shipment on or about March 21, 1940, from the State of Missouri|into the State of Illinois of quantities of Poul-Tre-Tone and Pep-O-Tone which|were misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of Poul-Tre-Tone showed that it consisted essentially|of calcium phosphate, calcium carbonate, magnesium sulfate, compounds of iron,|sodium, and potassium, and plant material including tobacco and kamala.|Analysis of a sample of Pep-O-Tone showed that it consisted of small proportions|of copper sulfate (0.81 percent), iron sulfate, compounds of zinc, sodium and|potassium, creosote, and water, flavored with oil of cloves and colored with a /|red dye.|The Poul-Tre-Tone was alleged to be misbranded in that statements in the (|labeling which represented that it was efficacious for the treatment of all|common known poultry diseases; would be efficacious to expel worms and de- >|stroy germs; would prevent weakness, bowel trouble, and disorders like pip|or other diseases in poultry; and would be efficacious to produce the beneficial|effects implied by the expression \"\"It Builds\"\" were false and misleading, since|it would not be efficacious for such purposes.|The Pep-O-Tone was alleged to be misbranded in that statements in the|labeling which represented that it would be efficacious in the treatment .of|bronchial and pneumonic conditions, diarrhea in chicks, coccidiosis, fowl cholera,|small worms, roup, and all common diseases of baby chicks; would tone and|build up baby chicks and prevent disease; and would prevent disease if used|at all times were false and misleading, since it would not be efficacious for|such purposes. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the statement|\"\"Copper Sulphate 3?,\"\" borne on the label, was false and misleading, since it|contained not more than 0.81 percent of copper sulfate.|On May 6, 1941, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant and|the court imposed a fine of $100.|648. Misbranding of N-K Capsules. U. S. v. 2 Cases of N-K Capsules Adult Size and 4 Cases of N-K Capsules Chick and Pullet Size. Decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00648February, 1943Pratt Food Co.N-K CapsulesMay 22, June 11, and July 12 and 16, 1940Vineland, N. J.Philadelphia, Pa.Vineland, N. J.District of New Jersey648F. D. C. No. 2650. Sample Nos. 24368-E, 24369-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00648ddnj|648. Misbranding of N-K Capsules. U. S. v. 2 Cases of W-K Capsules Adult Size|and 4 Cases of N-K Capsules Chirk and Pullet Size. Decree of condemna-|tion and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 2650. Sample Nos. 24368-E, 24369-E.)|On August 22, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of New Jersey|filed a libel against the above-named products at Vineland, N. J., alleging that|they had been shipped on or about May 22, June 11, and July 12 and 16, 1940, by|Pratt Food Co. from Philadelphia, Pa.; and charging that they were misbranded.|Analyses of samples of the articles showed that they consisted essentially of|nicotine (0.8 grain per capsule in the adult size and 0.35 grain per capsule in|the chick size), sulfur, aloin, kamala, strychnine, burnt sienna, talc, sugar, car-|bon, a magnesium compound, and stearates.|The adult-sized capsules were alleged to be misbranded in that their labeling|bore representations that they were efficacious in the expulsion or removal from|chickens of the following species of tapeworms: R. Tetragona, D. cesticillus, D.|echinobothrida, and, M. lucida, which representations were false and misleading|since they would not be efficacious in the expulsion or removal of any species|of tapeworms from chickens.|The chick-sized capsules were alleged to be misbranded in that their labeling|bore representations that they were efficacious in the expulsion or removal from|chickens of the following species of tapeworms: B. tetragona, D. cesticillus,|D. echionobothrida, and M. lucida, and in the expulsion or removal of large round-|worms, which representations were false and misleading since they would not be|efficacious in the expulsion or removal of any species of tapeworms, and because of|the small amount of nicotine present they would not be efficacious in the expul-|sion or removal of large roundworms.|On October 11, 1941, Pratt Food Co., intervening defendant, having stated that|it had ceased manufacturing and marketing these or similar products and|that it had no intention of doing so in the future, and having made application|for permission to withdraw exceptions to the libel and petition for intervention|previously filed in its behalf, the court granted the application to withdraw the|exceptions to the libel, and entered a decree of condemnation and destruction.|649. Misbranding of Lipscomb's Sungold Egg Pellets. U. S. v. 17 Bags of Lipscomb's Sungold Egg Pellets. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00649February, 1943Lipscomb Grain & Feed [Seed] Co.Lipscomb's Snngold Egg PelletsMay 8, 1941Hoxie, Ark.Springfield, Mo.Hoxie, Ark.Eastern District of Arkansas649F. D. C. No. 5014. Sample No. 67195-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00649ddnj|649. Misbranding of Lipscomb's Snngold Egg Pellets. U. S. v. 17 Bags of Lips|comb's Sungold Egs Pellets. Default decree of condemnation and destruc-|tion. (F. D. C. No. 5014. Sample No. 67195-E.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations re-|garding its efficacy in the control and treatment of worms in poultry.|On June 27, 1941, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Arkansas filed a libel against 17 bags of the above-named product at Hoxie,|Ark., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or|about May 8, 1941, by the Lipscomb Grain & Feed [Seed] Co. from Springfield,|Mo.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted of brown, cylindrical pellets|containing chiefly ground plant material, together with small amounts of|nitrogenous material and mineral matter, including calcium, iron, sodium,|magnesium, manganese, sulfur, carbonate, and a minute quantity of nicotine.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that statements in the labeling|which represented that it would be efficacious in the treatment and control of|worms; that it would provide a \"\"wall of protection\"\" against worms getting|started; that it was an effective agent with which to combat all kinds of|poultry worms in all stages of their life cycle; that it was equally valuable|for chickens, turkeys, ducks, and geese; that it would protect fowls from|contracting such worms as tapeworms and many .kinds of worms that cannot|successfully be'removed once they become fixed; that it would remove round-|worms and caeca worms; that it would attack the life in the worm egg while|in the fowl's intestine; and would combat little worms just hatched or released|from intermediate hosts, were false and misleading since it would not be?(|efficacious for such purposes.|On August 4, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|650. Misbranding of Walko Tablets. U. S. v. 4,968 Boxes and 1,008 Boxes of Walko Tablets. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00650February, 1943Walker Remedy Co.Walko TabletsFebruary 21, 1941Minneapolis, Minn.Waterloo, IowaMinneapolis, Minn.District of Minnesota650F. D. C. No. 4547. Sample Nos. 58475-E, 58476-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00650ddnj|650. Misbranding of Walko Tablets. U. S. v. 4,968 Boxes and 1,008 Boxes of|W'alko Tablets. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C.|No. 4547. Sample Nos. 58475-E, 58476-E.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations re-|garding its efficacy (also the efficacy of another drug) in the treatment and|control of certain poultry diseases:|On May 2, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Minnesota|filed a libel against 4,968 boxes, each containing 100 tablets, and 1,008 boxes, each|containing 230 tablets, of Walko Tablets at Minneapolis, Minn., alleging that|the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about February 21,|1941, by the Walker Remedy Co. from Waterloo, Iowa; and charging that it|was misbranded.|Analysis showed that it consisted essentially of potassium permanganate,|boric acid, and calcium sulfate.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that statements in the labeling|which represented that it would be efficacious in the treatment of simple|catarrh, sneezing and wheezing, simple diarrhea, coccidiosis, nutritional dis-|eases, rickets, and polyneuritis; that it would keep the entire digestive tract|oi poultry in a normal and healthy condition, would prevent digestive disturb-|ances among baby chicks; that it was a control measure during infectious dis-|eases, and would be efficacious for the swellings of roup in the head and simple|catarrh among older birds; that it would prevent poultry losses; that it would|be effective to control bacillary white diarrhea (Pullorum Disease), would aid|in the control of infectious diseases among chickens, turkeys, geese, ducks,|squabs, pheasants, parrots, and canaries, and would enable chicks to develop|more quickly and feather earlier; and that another drug, namely Walko Tonix,|would promote digestion, stimulate the liver and other functions, and would|bring birds back to normal and keep them in the pink of condition, thus insur-|ing greater egg production and would make feathers smooth and glossy, combs|red, and would start hens laying, were false and misleading since the articles|would not be efficacious for such purposes.|On July 9, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|MOLESKIN PLASTER IN DECEPTIVE CONTAINERS|6462.ddnj06462January 1962Samuel J. DeFreese, M.D., and his wife, Marsha Jean Simmons DeFreese, Duluth, Ga.amphetamine sulfate tablets7-26-57 and 8-1-57Duluth, Ga.Duluth, Ga.Duluth, Ga.N. Dist. Ga.6462F. D. C. No. 41147. S. Nos. 77-570 M, 77-572 M.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj06462ddnj|6462. (F.D.C. No. 41147. S. Nos. 77-570 M, 77-572 M.)|INFORMATION FILED. 4-4-58, N. Dist. Ga., against Samuel J. DeFreese, M.D.,|and his wife, Marsha Jean Simmons DeFreese, Duluth, Ga.|CHARGE: Between 7-26-57 and 8-1-57, amphetamine sulfate tablets were dis-|pensed twice without a prescription.|PLEA : Not guilty.|'DISPOSITION : The case came on for trial before the court and jury on 7-14-58,|and was concluded on 7-16-58, with the jury's return of verdicts of guilty.|On 7-22-58, the court imposed a sentence of 1 years imprisonment against|each defendant. The defendants appealed the case to the United States Court|of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and on 9-30-59, the following opinion was|handed down by that court (270 F. 2d 730) :|WISDOM, Circuit Judge: \"\"This appeal raises a serious question as to whether|the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act,1 prohibiting dispensing of certain|potentially dangerous drugs without a prescription, applies only to sales at|the retail or pharmacist's level. We hold that it applies to bulk sales for re-|sale by a physician, in the circumstances of this case. The appellants raise|other points, all of which we consider without merit. We affirm, therefore, the|judgment of the district court.|\"\"The appellants are husband and wife, not long married. Samuel J. De-|Freese practiced medicine for twelve years in Monroe, Georgia. Marsha Jean|DeFreese owned and operated a restaurant, Jean's Fine Foods, near Duluth,|Oeorgia, on U.S. Route 23, a route well traversed by long-distance truck drivers.|\"\"About eight in the evening of July 26, 1957, Wilbur R. Sumrall, a food and|?drug inspector posing as a former truck driver, visited Jean's Fine Foods. He|asked for Dr. DeFreese. Mrs. DeFreese said that her husband was not in the|121 USCA 301-392.|restaurant. She joined Sumrall at a table and started a conversation. He-|identified himself as 'Bud,' a truck driver. During their conversation Mrs.|DeFreese spilled some coffee and blamed it on having taken three 'bennies'*|that afternoon to stay awake. Sumrall told her that a friend in Tallahassee,|Florida, had sent him to her because he was in the market for several thousand|Benzedrine tablets. He asked if she had them and what the price would be.|Aftp.r she quoted the price, Sumrall said he would buy 5,000. Mrs. DeFreese-|went upstairs. After a few minutes she came back to the table and told Sumrall|that she had placed the tablets on the third step at the other end of the dining-|room. Sumrall paid her $75. She told him that she knew of some people in|south Georgia who would take some of the tablets off his hands. Sumrall told|Mrs. DeFreese he would return when he had disposed of the tablets. She-|wrote down her name and telephone number on a slip of paper and told him.|to call her before coming again and not to bring anyone with him.|\"\"Sumrall picked up the package and left. He drove down the highway a|short distance where he met two other Food and Drug Inspectors. The pack-|age was marked and turned over to them. The package contained approxi-|mately 5,000 Benzedrine tablets.|\"\"Sumrall did not give a prescription to Mrs. DeFreese for the 5,000 tablets.|No one made a physical examination of him or asked him any questions about|his medical history. Dr. DeFreese was not present at any time during the first|meeting between Sumrall and Mrs. DeFreese. Only Mrs. DeFreese was con-|victed on the count of the information that set forth this transaction.|\"\"Both appellants were convicted on the second count for a transaction that|took place on July 31,1957. That afternoon Sumrall telephoned Mrs. DeFreese-|from Phenix City, Alabama, identifying himself as 'Bud' Sumrall from Talla-|hassee. He said he was doing a little 'selling,' and he wanted to come up that|night and buy 10,000 Benzedrine tablets. They arranged to meet at the|restaurant. When Sumrall arrived at the restaurant only Dr. DeFreese was|there. Sumrall asked if 'Jean' (Mrs. DeFreese) were there. Dr. DeFreese-|told him that the girls had gone to town. Dr. DeFreese said that Mrs.|DeFreese had mentioned that someone was coming up that night and asked|Sumrall if he were the one. They introduced themselves. Sumrall told Dr.|DeFreese that he would like to buy 'the stuff' and get on the road.|\"\"Dr. DeFreese went upstairs for the 10,000 tablets that Sumrall requested.|He returned without them because the room where they were kept was locked.|Mrs. DeFreese had the key. She returned around one in the morning. Dr.|DeFreese told her that Sumrall was in a hurry and that he had not given,|him the tablets because the room was locked. Sumrall told her he wanted.|10,000. She left the room and when she returned he paid her $150 in the|presence of Dr. DeFreese. Sumrall walked through the dining room and|picked up a package, again on the steps. He drove to his residence with the-|package where he met another Food and Drug Inspector. The package was-|marked. It contained approximately 10,000 Benzedrine tablets.|\"\"The criminal information upon which both appellants were convicted|charged that on July 26, 1957, Mrs. Marsha Jean DeFreese, and on August 1,|1957, both Mrs. DeFreese and Dr. Samuel J. DeFreese, dispensed a number|of dl-amphetamine sulphate (Benzedrine) tablets to Wilbur R. Sumrall, Jr.|without a prescription, in violation of 21 USCA 353(b)(1) and 21 USCA.|331(k).s|2 \"\"Bennies\"\" is a slang expression used to describe Benzedrine, a brand name for|amphetamine.| * 21 USCA 353(b) (1). provides :|\"\"A drug intended for use by man which-|(A)?is a habit-forming drug to which section 352(d) of this title applies; or|(B)?because of its toxicity or other potentiality for harmful effect or the method|of its use, or the collateral measures necessary to its use, is not safe for use except|under the supervision of a practitioner licensed by law to administer such drug; or|(C)?is limited by an effective application under section 355 of this title to use|under the professional supervision of a practitioner licensed by law to administer|such drug, shall be dispensed only (i) upon a written prescription of a practitioner|licensed by law to administer such drug, or (ii) upon an oral prescription of such|practitioner which is reduced promptly to writing and filed by the nharmacist, or|(ill) by refilling any such written or oral prescription if such refilling is author-|ized by the prescriber either in the original prescription or by oral order which is|reduced promptly to writing and filed by the pharmacist. The act of dispensing|\"\"Dr. DeFreese denied any sale of the drug to Sumrall. Mrs. DeFreese ad-|mitted the first sale but denied the second.|\"\"Appellants were tried together on this information before a jury. They|were found guilty and sentenced to one year on each count, the sentences for|Mrs. DeFreese to run concurrently.|II.|\"\"Appellants argue that Section 353(b) (1), for the violation of which they|were convicted, is concerned solely with sales of drugs at the retail or pharma-|cist's level.* The statute reads, in part, that certain categories of drugs|. . . shall be dispensed only (1) upon the written prescription of a prac-|titioner licensed by law to administer such drug, or (2) upon an oral|prescription of such practitioner which is reduced promptly to writing and|filed by the pharmacist, or (3) by refilling any such written or oral pre-|scription if such refilling is authorized by the prescriber either in original|prescription or by oral order which is reduced promptly to writing and|filed by the pharmacist. [Italics supplied.]|It is contended therefore that the violation arises out of the dispensing of such|drugs without a prescription. Thus, the same subsection of the statute goes|on to say:|The act of dispensing a drug contrary to the provisions of this paragraph|shall be deemed to be an act which results in the drug being misbranded|while held by sale. [Italics supplied.]|Appellants argue then that the reference to 'prescription' indicates that the|statute refers only to pharmacists' sales at the retail level to consumers.5|Otherwise manufacturers or jobbers would be guilty of violating the law if|they placed the drugs in the ordinary channels of trade by selling to a drug-|store without a prescription.|a drug contrary to the provisions of this paragraph shall be deemed to be an act|which results in the drug being misbranded while held for sale.\"\"|21 USCA 331.(k) provides :|\"\"The following acts and the causing thereof are hereby prohibited:|* * * (k) The doing ... of any other act with respect to, a food, drug, device,|or cosmetic, if such act is done while such article is held for sale (whether or not|the first sale) after shipment in interstate commerce and results in such article|being adulterated or misbranded.\"\"|21 USCA 333 provides the penalty for violation of any provision of Section 331. The|amphetamine sulphate tablets which were sold fall within the scope of 21 USCA 353|(b) (1) (B) in that it was a drug intended for the use of man which is not safe for use|except under the supervision of a practitioner licensed by law to administer such|drug.|4 There is superficial support for this position. Thus, Federal Security Administrator|Ewing, in his statement to the House Committee, supra, stated: \"\"The bill which is|hpfore you, H.R. 3298, deals with the retail sale of drugs that have previously moved in|interstate commerce and are thus subject to federal regulation.\"\" (Italics supplied)|Mr. N. E. Cook, Assistant to the Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, in an|address at Temple University School of Pharmacy, March 9, 1953 (reported in Food, Drug,|Cosmetic Law Journal, Vol. 8, No. 5 (May, 1953) p. 327) opened his remarks: \"\"The|direct application of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act to the practice of phar-|macy is principally in the provisions of the Durham-Humphrey amendment.\"\" Mr. James|F. Hoge, an industry attorney, writing in the same journal (Vol. 6, No. 2 (Feb. 1951)|p. 135), points out: \"\"The bill had its origin in a situation wherein retail druggists|perceived a need of clarification either in the law or the administration of the law, or|both, with respect to the filling and refilling of prescriptions.\"\"|. 5 Appellants quote Remington's Practice of Pharmacy, (11 ed. 1956), p. 1413, in|which the term \"\"prescription\"\" is defined as \"\"the formula which a physician writes,|specifying the substance or substances he intends to have administered to a patient with|adequate directions for use.\"\" In Brown v. United States, 1958, 5 Cir., 250 F. 2d 745,|however, holding that the Act applies to a licensed physician dispensing drugs, this|Court pointed out: \"\"The language of the statute considered alone, is certainly broad|enough to make criminal what was done here [a doctor dispensing 3,000 pills to 'pur-|chaser' who was not 'patient'] . . . The 3,000 tablets were acquired by the 'purchasers,'|who were not 'patients,' without even a written or oral prescription, no matter how|broadly the word 'prescription' is to be construed.\"\" In defining \"\"prescription\"\" under|the Harrison Narcotic Act, 26 USCA 2550 et seq.. Webb v. United States, ?, 249|U.S. 96, 39 S. Ct. 217, 63 L. Ed. 479, establishes as a criterion the requirement that|the physician's order for the drug (in that case morphine) be \"\"issued by him in the|\"\"Appellants cite a number of decisions.6 None draw a line between retail|and wholesale sales. The best appellants can say for these decisions is that|in each case a relatively small number of tablets were sold and obstensibly|the drugs were for personal use. , There is no language in any of the cases|indicating that the court regarded the provisions of the Act as applicable|only to retail sales.|\"\"In one of the cases relied on by appellants, United States v. Carlisle, 5,|Cir., 1956, 234 F. 2d 196, 199, the language of the court indicates that any|dispensing of a drug contrary to the provisions of the act is prohibited:|It [Congress] did this by setting out in 353(b) (1) the only way in which|drugs of the kind dealt with can be dispensed, and then in the same|section going on to say that the act of dispensing such a drug, contrary|to the provisions of the paragraph, shall be deemed to be an act which|results in the drug being misbranded. This established, by law in this|section, there is required only resort to 21 USCA ?331(k), which de-|nounces the offense of misbranding and to ? 333, which fixes the penalty|for that offense. When this resort is had, the conclusion is inescapable,|we think, that the sections taken together have provided as clearly as|though it had all been written out in the same section, that one dispensing|drugs of the kind dealt with here, contrary to the provisions of Sec.|353 (b) (1) shall be guilty of, and subject to the punishment provided by law|for, an act of misbranding. This necessarily results from the use in|Sec. 353(b) (1) of the language, 'the act . . . shall be deemed to be an act|which results in the drug being misbranded while held for sale.'|\"\"Brown v. United States, 5 Cir., 1958, 250 F. 2d 745, cert, den., 356 U.S.|938, 78 S. Ct. 779, 2 L. Ed. 2d 812, reh. den., 357 U.S. 933, 78 S. Ct. 1368,|2 L. Ed. 2d 1376, controls the disposition of the present case. In the Brown|case this Court held that the Act applies to a licensed physician selling|amphetamine tablets without a prescription, and not just to pharmacists.|Able counsel for appellants attempt to distinguish the Brown case on the|ground that Dr. Brown sold in the capacity of a pharmacist,7 and that no|question was raised as to the limitation of the Act to retail sales. In the|Brown case there were three separate sales, each of 1,000 tablets, on March 10,|22, and 23. It is obvious that one person would not consume 3,000 tablets over|such a short period of time; that the purchaser was not being treated as a|patient or as a consumer making a retail purchase. We rested our decision|on broad interpretation of the Act in the light of its objectives.|course of professional treatment.\"\" Perhaps, the best definition is found in one of the|most widely used standard textbooks on the science of pharmacology, entitled, \"\"The|Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics\"\" by Goodman & Gilman, 2d Ed. (1955) : A|prescription, by strict definition, is a physician's written order to a pharmacist for|medicinal substances for a patient. It includes directions to the pharmacist regarding|the preparation and to the patient regarding the use of the medicine.|In reality, however, a prescription is infinitely more than can be simply defined. It is|a summary of the physician's diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of the patient's|illness. It brings to a focus on one slip of paper the diagnostic acumen and therapeutic|proficiency of the physician. The prescription is an important practical phase in the|application of pharmacology to clinical medicine, and combines the knowledge of the|absorption, fate, excretion, action, toxicology, and dosage of drugs with the requirements|for restoration of the patient's health, (p. 1759).|8 United States v. Arnold's Pharmacy, Inc., D.C.N.J., 1953, 116 F. Supp. 310; Archam-|bault v. United States, 10 Cir., 1955, 224 F. 2d 925; United States v. Carlisle, 5 Cir.,|1956, 234 F. 2d 196; United States v. 2000 State Drugs, Inc., 7 Cir., 1956, 235 F. 2d|913, appeal denied 353 U.S. 848; Marshall v. United States, 10 Cir., 1958, 258 F. 2d 94,|reversed on other grounds 27 U.S. Law Week 4439 (June 19, 1959). In United States|v. Arnold's Pharmacy, Inc., a corporation, its treasurer and manager, and its pharmacist|were convicted for selling drugs without a prescription, but nothing in the case indi-|cates whether the sale was retail or wholesale. In Archamb'ault v. United States ; United|States v. Carlisle; and United States v. 2000 State Drugs, Inc., the quantities sold|are not stated.|7 It has always been the rule that a physician who does his own dispensing is also|acting in the capacity of a pharmacist. See Food and Drug Administration Trade Cor-|respondence 174 (Mar. 14, 1940) published in Kleinfeld and Dunn, Federal Food, Drug,|and Cosmetic Act, p. 637.|\"\"The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act was adopted in 1938.8 Section|353(b) (1), in its present form, is the result of a 1951 amendment to the Act.*|The purpose of the amendment was to accomplish two broad objectives: (1)|To protect the public from abuses in the sale of potent prescription drugs;|(2) to relieve retail pharmacists and the public from burdensome and un-|necessary restrictions on the dispensing of drugs that are sold for use without|the supervision of a physician. House Beport No. 700, July 16, 1951, 2 Cong.|Serv., 82nd Cong., First Sess. 1951, p. 2454. House Report No. 700 explains'|the amendment at page 2456: 'Its provisions are remedial in the sense that|they are intended to protect the public from abuses in the sale of potent pre-|scription medicines.' If we should adopt the appellants' argument, it would|be impossible to accomplish the objective of the amendment. The protec-|tion afforded the general public would be dangerously diminished if a person-|making small retail sales without a prescription may be prosecuted while|a person making large wholesale sales of drugs could not be prosecuted for-|selling without a prescription. We find it impossible to read such a result|in the language of the statute or in its legislative history.|\"\"The Act as a whole has been liberally construed. In United States v..|Sullivan, 332 U.S. 689, 68 S. Ct. 331, 92 L. Ed. 297, it was held that the Act|applied to any sale after interstate shipment and not just the first sale|immediately following interstate shipment. In United States v. El-O-Pathic|Pharmacy, 9 Cir., 1951, 192 F. 2d 62, 75, what the court said applies equally|well here: 'The statute is remedial and should be liberally construed so as to|carry out its beneficent purposes. . .' The appellants' contention that the|amendment applies only to wholesale sales would violate the normal rules of|statutory construction as well as the spirit of the entire Act. Other por-|tions of the Act apply to wholesale situations. Section 373 requires carriers|and persons receiving shipments to keep records. Section 374 allows inspec-|tion of warehouses, factories, or establishments where drugs are manufac-|tured, processed, packed, or held, for introduction into interstate commerce. In|United States v. Herold, D.C. N.T., 1955, 136 F. Supp. 15, the defendant, who|was charged with dispensing drugs without a prescription in violation of\"\"|Section 331 (k), contended that Section 374 allowed only Inspections of fac-|tories and warehouses. The court rejected this attempt to construe narrowly|the applicability of the Act and held that Section 374 allowed inspections of|drug stores as well. In Arner Co., Inc. v. United States, 1 Cir., 1944, 142 F..|2d 730, cert, den., 323 U.S. 730, it was contended that the labeling provisions|of the Act applied only to retail sales. The court held that it also applied|to bulk sales.|\"\"The comprehensive scope of the entire Act was pointed to in United States--|v. Devices, 10 Cir., 1949,176 F. 2d 652,654:|The purpose of the Act is to safeguard the consumer by applying its|requirements to articles from the moment of their introduction into|interstate commerce all the way to the moment of their delivery to the-|ultimate consumer . . .|\"\"Appellants' contention that the amendment applies only to retail sales is,.|in effect, predicated upon the assumption that the 1951 amendment is to be-|read alone and not in context with the rest of the Act. However, to read|the amendment alone would render it nugatory because it contains neither a|prohibitive or a penal clause. It would become meaningless unless construed|with the rest of the Act. The amendment simply states that dispensing a drug-|contrary to its provisions shall be deemed to be an act which results in the|drug being misbranded while held for sale. It is Section 331 (k) that prohibits|misbranding, and Section 333 that sets forth the penalty for misbranding.|Section 331 (k) applies to any act of misbranding. The plain language of|the Act therefore covers all sales.|\"\"Even if Section 353(b)(1) is read alone it will not support appellants'|contention that the section is inapplicable to wholesale sales. The section|lists three types of drugs and provides that they shall be dispensed in one-|? 52 Stat. 1040.|8 The Durham-Humphrey Bill (H.R. 3298) amended Section 503(b) of the original!:|Act to its present form as it now appears in 21 USCA 353(b) (!>.. Act 2T5\"\, c; 578, Sec. 1,.|65 Stat. 648.|of three stated methods, all of which require a prescription. Dispensing a|drug contrary to these provisions, is misbranding. The language is clear.|The only way that appellants' contention could be sustained would be to|interpret 'dispensing' to connote retail selling only. Such an interpretation|would not be consistent with the commonly accepted meaning of the term and|would be carving out an unwarranted exception to the statute. It is not|the duty of this court to read exceptions into a statute that is plain on its face.|\"\"In related fields of prohibitive conduct the court has rejected such a nar-|row interpretation as that offered by appellants in this case. A statute which|prohibited the sale of narcotics without a written order10 has been interpreted|to apply to all persons making such sales. Taylor v. United States, 8 Cir.,|1956, 229 F. 2d 826, cert, den., 351 U.S. 986; Nigro v. United States, 1928, 276|U.S. 332, 48 S. Ot 388, 72 L. Ed. 600.|\"\"Appellants argue that if Section 353(b)(1) applies to sales other than|retail sales pharmaceutical houses and drug companies should also be prose-|cuted for selling drugs without a prescription. We are not faced with this|issue here. However, the statute gives the Secretary of Health, Education,|and Welfare broad powers to make exemptions to the requirements of the|Act. Section 533(b) (3) empowers the Secretary to issue regulations removing|'habit-forming drugs'11 and 'new drugs'u from the requirements of Section|353(b) (1) when such requirements are not necessary for the public health.|Pursuant to this authority, the Secretary has provided exemptions from the|prescription-dispensing requirements for certain habit-forming drugs. 21|CFR 1.108(a). Exemptions have also been made for certain new drugs. 21|CFR 1.108(c). Drugs within the legitimate channels of distribution are|exempted from certain labeling requirements of the Act. 21 CFR 1.106(b) (1).|As we read the regulations, as a whole, we interpret them as properly|exempting wholesale distribution of amphetamine from the prescription re-|quirements of Section 353(b)(1), when the drug is distributed in ordinary|channels of trade, i.e. sales to physicians, pharmacists, and drug stores without|the necessity of a prescription. For example, United States v. El-O-Pathic|Pharmacy, 9 Cir., 1951, 192 F. 2d 62, 75, involved an injunctive suit to pro-|hibit violations of various sections of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic|Act. It was argued that the only power conferred upon the Administrator\"\"|was the authority to issue regulations exempting drugs from the requirement|of 'adequate directions for use,' when that requirement 'is not necessary to|the protection of the public health.' The court held that the Administrator|also had the power to issue regulations providing the drugs be exempted from|the requirement of adequate directions for use provided that the label state|that the drug be used only on the prescription of a physician. If the regu-|lations may require that a drug be sold on a prescription or contain adequate|directions for use, it is well within the scope of authority of the Secretary|to make exemptions from the prescription-dispensing requirements where the|drugs are sold within the legitimate channels of wholesale distribution.|\"\"In short, the fact that the crime in this case is wholesale, instead of retail,|gives it no special claim to immunity.|III.|\"\"We have considered carefully all of the specifications of errors in this|case.|\"\"A. We find that the trial court did not err in failing to dismiss the in-|formation against Dr. DeFreese on the ground that the evidence did not con-|nect him with the transaction charged in the information.|\"\"B. We find that the trial court did not err in refusing to grant the mo-|tion for separate trials for the defendants. There was no prejudice to|either.|*> 26 USCA 2554(a), I.R.C. of 1939.|11 \"\"Habit-forming drugs\"\" are those containing any quantity of the substances set|forth in 21 USCA 353(d).|\"\" \"\"New drugs\"\" are those described in 21 USCA 355.|13 Prior to the creation of the office of Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare,|the Federal Security Administrator was empowered to issue regulations concerning the|Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.|\"\"C. The defendants viewed a fair trial.|\"\"D. The trial court correctly held that there should not be a mistrial based|on counsel for the government characterizing Dr. DeFreese as a criminal.|The court stated that he did not understand the United States Attorney to|call Dr. DeFreese a criminal, 'but if so then I instruct the jury to disregard|it, it would be improper if he did call Dr. DeFreese [a criminal].'|\"\"Judgment is AFFIRMED.\"\"|The defendants filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United|States Supreme Court on 12-30-59, and on 4-4-60, such petition was denied. (|655. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 5 6 Gross of Prophylactics. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00655February, 1943International DistributorsprophylacticsJune 2, 1941Chicago, Ill.Memphis, Tenn.Chicago, Ill.Northern District of Illinois655F. D. C. No. 5197. Sample No. 47479-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00655ddnj|655. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 5*6 Gross of Pro|phylactics. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No.|5197. Sample No. 47479-E.)|This product was defective because it contained holes.|On July 25, 1941, the United States attorney for the Northern District of Illi-|nois filed a libel against 5? gross of prophylactics at Chicago, 111., alleging that|the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about June 2, 1941, by|the International Distributors from Memphis, Tenn.; and charging that it was|adulterated and misbranded. It was contained in unlabeled packages.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its quality fell below that|which it purported or was represented to possess. It was alleged to be mis-|branded in that it did not bear a label containing the name and address of the|manufacturer, packer, or distributor, nor did it bear a label containing an?(|accurate statement of the quantity of the contents.|On October 15, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|656. Adulteration and misbranding of sulfathiazole. U. S. v. Winthrop Chemical Co., Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $15,800.ddnj00656February 1943Winthrop Chemical Co., Inc.sulfathiazoleAugust 3, 1940, to January 2, 1941New YorkNew YorkDistrict of ColumbiaSouthern District of New York656F. D. C. No. 5502. Sample Nos. 5579-E, 14283-E. 14292-E, 29186-E, 29394-E. 36299-E, 38674-E, 39717-B, 39718-E, 39753-E, 40580-E, 40581-E. 40619-E. 40620-E. 49234-E, 50523-E, 50527-E, 50949-E, 51120-E, 51122-E, 51124-E, 51501-E, 51508-E, 57062-E to 57065-E, incl. 57581-E, 57644-E. 57727-E, 57728-E, 58427-E, 69305-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00656ddnj|FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION|NOTICES OF JUDGMENT UNDER THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG,|AND COSMETIC ACT|[Given pursuant to section 705 of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act]|656-70O|DRUGS AND DEVICES|The cases reported herewith were instituted in the United States District|Courts by the United States attorneys acting upon reports submitted by direc-|tion of the Federal Security Administrator.|WATSON B. MUXEB, Acting Administrator, Federal Security Agency.|Washington, D. 0. December 21, 191/2.|Drugs actionable because of potential danger|when used according to directions- 347|Drugs actionable because of failure to bear|adequate directions or warning statements. 351|Drugs actionable because of failure to comply|with official or own standards. 358|CONTENTS|Fags|Drugs and devices actionable because of false|and misleading statements in the labeling. 363|Drugs in deceptive containers | 370|Nonsterile surgical dressings . 371|Index | 372|DRUGS AND DEVICES ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF POTENTIAL DANGER|WHEN USED ACCORDING TO DEFECTIONS|656. Adulteration and misbranding of sulfathiazole. U. S. v. Winthrop Chemical|Co., Ine. Plea of grullty. Fine, $lS,80O. (F. D. C. No. 5502. Sample Nos.|5579-E, 14283-E. 14292-E, 29186-E, 29394-E. 36299-E, 38674-E, 39717-B,|39718-E, 39753-E, 40580-E, 40581-E. 40619-E. 40620-E. 49234-E, 50523-E,|50527-E, 50949-E, 51120-E, 51122-E, 51124-E, 51501-E, 51508-E, 57062-E to|57065-E, incl.. 57581-E, 57644-E. 57727-E, 57728-E, 58427-E, 69305-E.)|This product was represented to consist of 0.5 gram, or 7.72 grain, sulf athiazole|tablets, but in 12 of the 14 shipments there were tablets which contained little|or no sulfathiazole but which did contain phenobarbital in amounts varying|from approximately 4*4 grains to 6 grains. Two of the shipments contained|tablets containing approximately the declared amount of sulfathiazole and small|amounts of phenobarbital.|On December 17, 1941, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|New York filed an information against Winthrop Chemical Co., Inc., a corpora-|tion having its principal place of business at New York, N. Y., alleging ship-|ment within the period from on or about August 3,1940, to on or about January 2,|1941, from the State of New York into the District of Columbia and into the|States of Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Penn-|sylvania, and Virginia of quantities of sulfathiazole tablets that were adulter-|ated and misbranded.|Portions of the drug when examined by this agency were in their original|labeled bottles. The remaining lots had been removed from their original bottles|and, at the time of such examination, bore no labeling.|The article in all shipments was alleged to be adulterated: (1) In that its|strength differed from and its purity and quality fell below that which it pur-|503853?-43 1 |347|ported and was represented to possess since it purported to be and was repre| I|sented as tablets each of which contained 0.5 gram, or 7.72 grains, of sulfathiazoll|and no other physiologically active ingredient; whereas in 12 of the 14 ship-|ments there were tablets which contained inconsequential amounts of, or no,/|sulfathiazole but did contain phenobarbital in amounts varying from 4.23 grains',|to 6.03 grains per tablet, and in the remaining 2 shipments there were tablets|containing phenobarbital in amounts varying from 0.03 grain to 0.24 grain.|(2) (12 of the 14 shipments.) In that tablets which contained inconsequential|amounts of, or no, sulfathiazole but did contain phenobarbital in amounts varying|from 4.23 grains to 6.03 grains per tablet, or (remaining 2 shipments) tablets|which contained phenobarbital in amounts varying from 0.03 grain to 0.24 grain,|had been substituted in part for tablets containing y2 gram (7.72 grain) of|sulfathiazole and no other physiologically active ingredient.|Misbranding was alleged with respect to all or part of the tablets (in 6 ship-|ments), which were in their original labeled containers, in that they would be|dangerous to health when used in the dosage or with the frequency or duration|suggested in the labeling, i. e., \"\"0.5 Gm. (7.72 grains) Sulfathiazole Winthrop|(2-sulfanilamido thiazole) * * * Caution: To be used only by or under the|direct supervision of a physician,\"\" since the statement suggested administra-|tion of the drug in dosages appropriate for the administration of 0.5 gram|(7.72 grain) tablets of sulfathiazole, whereas if administered in dosages appro-|priate for the administration of sulfathiazole tablets of such strength, they would|be dangerous to health because of admixture therewith of tablets containing|phenobarbital in amounts varying from 0.274 gram (4.23 grains) to 0.391 gram|('6.03 grains) per tablet.|All shipments of the article were alleged to be misbranded in that a number|of tablets containing phenobarbital, a physiologically active ingredient, in|amounts hereinbefore stated, had been offered for sale under the name of an-|other drug, namely, \"\"Tablets 0.5 Gm. (7.72 grains) Sulfathiazole,\"\" or \"\"Sul-|fathiazole Tabs [or \"\"Tablets\"\"] 0.5 Gm.\"\"|Portions of the article, i. e., those which were in their original labeled con-|tainers were alleged to be misbranded further: (1) In that the statement on the|label, \"\"Tablets 0.5 Gm. (7.72 grains) Sulfathiazole,\"\" was false and misleading|since it represented and suggested that the drug consisted of tablets each con-|taining 0.5 gram (7.72 grains) of sulfathiazole and no other physiologically ac-|tive ingredient; whereas it consisted of tablets some of which contained an in-|consequential amount of, or no, sulfathiazoie, but did contain phenobarbital in|amounts varying from 4.23 grains to 6.03 grains per tablet. (2) In that the|labeling was misleading since it failed to reveal the fact material with|respect to the consequences which might result from its use under conditions|prescribed' in the labeling or under such conditions of use as are customary or|usual, i. e., the fact that there was present in said drug a number of tablets|that contained phenobarbital, a physiologically active ingredient, in amounts|varying from 0.274 gram (4.23 grains) to 0.391 gram (6.03 grains) per tablet,|and that when administered in dosages in which sulfathiazole is customarily ad-|ministered it would produce phenobarbital poisoning.|On January 28, 1942, the defendant entered a plea of guilty and the court|imposed a fine of $1,000 on each of the counts charging that the product was|dangerous to health, and a fine of $350 on each of the additional 28 counts,|totaling $15,800.|657. Adulteration and misbranding of interferin. U. S. v. 3 Tabes and 3 Boxes each containing 1 Tube of Interferin. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00657February 1943Keefer LaboratoriesinterferinNovember 3 and 27, 1941Philadelphia, Pa.Chicago, Ill.Philadelphia, Pa.Eastern District of Pennsylvania657F. D. C. Nos. 6320, 6741. Sample Nos. 14766-E, 54630-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00657ddnj|657. Adulteration and misbranding of Interferin. U. S. v. 3 Tabes and 3 Boxes|each containing: 1 Tube of Interferin. Default decrees of condemnation|and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 6320, 6741. Sample Nos. 14766-E, 54630-E.)|This product would be dangerous to health when use as recommended or|suggested in its labeling.|On December 1, 1941, and January 20, 1942, the United States attorney for|the Eastern District of Pennsylvania filed libels against the above-named drug|product at Philadelphia, Pa., alleging that the article had been shipped in inter-|state commerce on or about November 3 and 27, 1941, by the Keefer Laborato-|ries from Chicago, 111.: and charging that it was misbranded and that a portion|was also adulterated.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of potassium soap (ap-|proximately 11.3 percent), sodium soap (approximately 12.5 percent), potassium|iodide (approximately 6 percent), benzoic acid (0.4 percent), fats and/or oils|(0.4 percent), alcohol, and water.|The article in one of the shipments was alleged to be adulterated in that its|purity and quality fell below that which it purported to possess since it was|offered for use by injection into the uterus thereby implying that it was sterile;|whereas it was not sterile but was contaminated with viable bacteria of a|disease-producing type.|The article in the said shipment was alleged to be misbranded in that it was|dangerous to health when used in the dosage and with the frequency and|duration prescribed, recommended, and suggested in the leaflet enclosed in|the retail carton: \"\"Attach uterine canule to tube and insert through the cervi-|cal canal approximately 2 inches into the uterus so that the tip of the canule|rests in the cavum uteri. Now slowly inject Interferin, slightly moving the canule|in different directions so that the tip of the canule will not press against the|uterine tissue wall. Allow three minutes intermission if the patient is restless;|a complete instillation should require about ten minutes. Dosis inject one third|(?) of the tube in cases of pregnancy up to two months; a half {?) in three|month cases; a full tube in four month cases; still later cases, 1? tubes. Gen-|erally speaking a little more Interferin will produce a quicker expulsion of thex|fetus.\"\" The said shipment was alleged to be misbranded further in that state-|ments in the labeling which represented that the article had been successfully|on the market since 1933 and had proved its value in more than 5,000 cases with-|out a single fatality known; that it had been developed after extensive research;|that it offered very definite advantages over old methods; and that it was|efficacious and appropriate for the following therapeutic group indications, \"\"A.|Dead fetws, mole, missed abortion. B. Living fetus. 1) Ovum diseases. 2)|Pregnancy toxemias. 3) Complications at labor. 4) Genital tract diseases. 5)|Systematic diseases. T. B. of the lungs, cardiac, kidney, blood, skin, syphilis. 6)|Endocrine disorders. 7) Organic and functional nervous system diseases, in-|tractable vomiting. 8) Special organ diseases, eye, blindness, ear. 9) Unclas-|sified diseases, column fractures, caries. 10) Rape, incest. 11) Eugenic factors;|heredity diseases, insanity, epilepsy, in which in addition to abortion steriliza-|tion is indicated. 12) Social economic indications. Illegitimacy, desertion, wid-|owhood, overburdened impoverished physical depleted mothers\"\"; and that it was|effective and humane were false and misleading since they created the impression|that it was a safe and appropriate medicament for effecting abortion; whereas|it was not but was a dangerous drug. The said shipment was alleged to be|misbranded further in that the statements, \"\"The placenta is usually expelled a|few minutes after the fetus,\"\" \"\"Severe hemorrhages are very rarely observed after|the use of Interferin,\"\" \"\"the Interferin method is positively superior to dilation and|curettage in cases of gravidity from two and a half to six months,\"\" were false|and misleading since the placenta would not usually be expelled a few minutes|after the fetus, severe hemorrhages would frequently occur after use of the article,|and its use was not superior to dilation and curettage in such cases.|The article in the remaining shipment was alleged to be misbranded in that|the name \"\"Interferin\"\" which had become impregnated with the meaning that|the article was designed., for introduction into the uterine cavity for the purpose|of interfering with the normal progress of pregnancy, was false and misleading|since the name represented and suggested that the article was safe and appro-|priate for interfering with the normal progress of pregnancy; whereas it was|not safe or appropriate for such use but was unsafe and dangerous and capable|of producing serious or even fatal consequences. It was alleged to be mis-|branded further in that its label failed to bear adequate directions for use since|there were no adequate directions for the use above referred to.|On January 5 and February 16, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgments|of condemnation were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|658. Misbranding of Voltamp Battery No. 7. U. S. v. 1 Voltamp Battery No. 7. Default decree of condemnation. Product ordered delivered to Government.ddnj00658February 1943Voltamp Electric Manufacturing Co.Voltamp Battery No. 7April 25, 1941Schenectady, N. Y.Baltimore, Md.Schenectady, N. Y.Northern District of New York658F. D. C. No. 4822. Sample No. 69056-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00658ddnj|658. Misbranding of Voltamp Battery No. 7. TJ. S. v. 1 Voltamp Battery if?. 7.|Default decree of condemnation. Product ordered delivered to Govern-|ment. (F. D. C. No. 4822. Sample No. 69056-E.)|This device consisted of a case containing batteries, an electric coil, and attach-|ments for applying electric current to the body. It wasP accompanied by a cir-|cular in which it was recommended for use in conditions involving paralysis and|would be dangerous to health when used in such conditions. The circular also|bore false and misleading claims regarding its efficacy in an enormous number|of disease conditions.|On May 24, 1941, the United States attorney for the Northern District of New|York filed a libel against one Voltamp Battery No. 7 at Schenectady, N. Y., alleg-|25, 1941, by the Vol tamp Electric Manufacturing Co. from Baltimore, Md.; and|charging that it was misbranded.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that it would be dangerous to|health when used with the frequency or duration prescribed, recommended, or|suggested in the labeling for the following diseases: Amaurosis; aphasia, apo-|plexy, atrophy and non-development, muscular atrophy, backache, lame back, lame-|ness, Bell's palsy, paralysis of bladder; blindness; cramps in bowels, catalepsy,|trance; cramps, myalgia, cramps in muscles; general debility; difficulty of speech,|dysphagia; paralysis of eye muscles, facial paralysis, fainting, syncope; hemi-|plegia; infantile paralysis, poliomyelitis; soreness, tired feeling; languor, list-|lessness, ennui; lockjaw, tetanus; loss of sensation, loss of voice, aphonia; menin-|gitis, spinal meningitis; muscular contractions; neuralgia, sciatica, tic doulou-|reaux; neuralgia of scalp; neuritis; numbness, general pain, shaking palsy,|facial paralysis, paraplegia, throat paralysis, ptosis, failing of the eyelids; facial|spasm, spasm of eyelid; vertigo, dizziness.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that statements in the labeling which|represented that it would be efficacious in the treatment of the above-named and|the'following disease conditions-pendulous abdomen; abscess, boils, furuncles,|inflammation; alopecia, baldness, falling hair, dandruff, seborrhea sicca, other|troubles of the scalp, acne, blackheads, comedones, pimples, chloasma, eczema,|herpes zoster, shingles, hives, urticaria, nettle rash, itch, face wrinkles, amblyo-|pia, failing sight, blindness, cataract, conjunctivitis, inflammation of eyes, spasm|of eyelid, paralysis of eye muscles; amenorrhea, retention of the menses, dys-|menorrhea, painful menstruation, menorrhagia, excessive menstruation, falling|of the womb, prolapsus uteri, ulceration or inflammation of uterus; anemia,|poverty of the blood, chlorosis; aphonia, hoarseness, stammering; paralysis;|ascites, dropsy, asphyxia, asthma, hay fever; atrophy and non-development,|? soreness, lumbago; poor circulation of blood, cold feet, cold extremities, corns,|bunions, irritable bladder, cystitis, urinary calculus, enlarged prostate, pros-|tatitis, spasm of bladderTstone in the? blaidder, hyperaestMsia urethra, retention|of urine, incontinence of urine; brain fag, cephalalgia, headache, headache ac-|companied by distress in the region of the stomach, liver and bowels, hypochon-|driasis and melancholia, hysteria, nervousness, insomnia, sleeplessness, tired|feeling, migraine, nerves, neurasthenia; Bright's disease, kidney disorders;|catarrhal jaundice, liver spots, cirrhosis of the liver, congestion of the liver,|jaundice, hardening of the liver, torpid liver, liver troubles; cholera morbus,|colic, nausea, sea sickness, constipation, enteralgia, cramps in bowels, chronic|diarrhea, dysentery, flatulence, gastralgia, pain in the stomach, gastritis, indi-|gestion, dyspepsia, loss of appetite, hysterical vomiting, vomiting of pregnancy,|ehorea, St. Vitus' dance, dysphagia, dizziness, vertigo; cold in the head, coryza,|catarrh; consumption, coughs, croup, bronchitis, pleurisy; myalgia, cramps in|muscles, crick in the neck, wry neck, torticollis; deafness, earache; diabetes;|diphtheria; seminal emissions; spermatorrhea, functional sexual impotence, loss|of vitality of the organs; enlarged glands, glandular tumors; epilepsy, catalepsy,|trance; exophthalmic goiter; fever; frostbite, chillblains; hemorrhoids, piles,|rectal prolapsus; hernia, Tupture; persistent hiccough; -enlarged, sprained joints,|rheumatism, sprains, stiff joints, weak ankles, gout; lockjaw, tetanus; locomotor|ataxia; malaria, ague, enlarged spleen; nose bleed, epistaxis; obesity; quinsy,|sore throat, tonsillitis, enlarged tonsils; sunstroke; toothache, dontalgia; vari-|cocele, varicose veins; whooping cough, pertussis; that it possessed a wonderful|power to alleviate pain, cure disease, and save life; that it would increase the|supply of mother's milk; would relieve afterpains, remove superflous hair, and|rid one of all kinds of skin blemishes, that it would produce local anesthesia,|would develop the bust and other shrunken parts, and would relieve constipation|permanently, were false and misleading, since the device would not be efficacious|for the purposes recommended. '|On July 31, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered delivered to the Food and Drug|Administration.|659. Misbranding of No. 48511-C Tablets and Goodwin's Laxative Cold Tablets. U. S. v. 81,600 No. 48511-C Tablets in bulk containers and 6,330 Packages of Goodwin's Laxative Cold Tablets. Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered released under bond to be repackaged and relabeled.ddnj00659February 1943Read Drug & Chemical Co.No. 48511-C Tablets and Goodwin's Laxative Cold TabletsFebruary 24 and 26 and March 4 and 10, 1941Baltimore, Md.Philadelphia, Pa.Baltimore, Md.District of Maryland659F. D. C. No. 4883. Sample Nos. 50244-E, 50246-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00659ddnj|659. Misbranding of Wo. 48511-0 Tablets and Goodwin's Laxative Cold Tablets.|IT. S. v. 81,600 No. 48511-0 Tablets in bulk containers and 6,330 Packages|of Goodwin's Laxative Cold Tablets. Consent decree of condemnation.|Product ordered released under bond to be repackaged and relabeled.|(F. D. C. No. 4883. Sample Nos. 50244-E, 50246-E.)|This case covered shipments of tablets in bulk containers, a portion of which|had been repackaged and relabeled \"\"Goodwin's Laxative Cold Tablets\"\" by the con-|signee. The repackaged tablets would be dangerous to health when used accord-|ing to directions. The labeling of both lots of tablets failed to bear adequate|warning statements and satisfactory ingredient statements. Furthermore, the|labeling of the bulk tablets failed to bear directions for use, and that of the|repackaged tablets also bore false and misleading therapeutic claims.|On June 7,1941, the United States attorney for the District of Maryland filed a|libel against the above-named products at Baltimore, Md., alleging that they had|been shipped on or about February 24 and 26 and March 4 and 10,1941, by Sharp|& Dohme from Philadelphia, Pa., and that having been so shipped, they remained|in interstate commerce on the premises of the Read Drug & CMmlcal Co. at Balti-|more, Md.; and charging that they were misbranded. The bulk tablets were|labeled in part: (Container) \"\"Sharp & Dohme Philadelphia, Pa. * * * No.|48511-C Made for Read Drug & Chemical Co. Baltimore, Md.\"\"|Analyses of samples taken from the bulk containers and the retail cartons|showed that each tablet contained acetanilid (approximately 2 grains), quinine|sulfate (? grain), podophyllin, capsicum, and belladonna extract.|The repackaged tablets were alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that they would|be dangerous to health when used in the dosage and with the frequency and|duration prescribed, recommended, and suggested in the labeling, namely, \"\"Adults:|1 tablet every 4 hours until bowels move freely, then 1 tablet 2 or 3 times daily,\"\"|since if taken in accordance with such directions they might result in the patient's|ingesting amounts of acetanilid that would be dangerous to health. (2) In that|the name \"\"Goodwin's Laxative Cold Tablets\"\" and the statements \"\"Effective in the|Treatment of Colds. Relieves the Feverish Condition which Accompany Colds,\"\"|and 'Keeps the Bowels Active,\"\" appearing in the labeling, were false and mis-|leading since they gave the impression that the article,was an effective'treatment|for colds; whereas it was not an effective treatment for cdldVaftd would not ful-|fill the promises of benefit made and implied by such statements. (3) In that a|quantity of belladonna alkaloids was present in the article and the labeling did|not bear a statement of the quantity or proportion of the belladonna alkaloids|present.|Both lots of tablets were alleged to be misbranded in that the labeling did not|bear adequate warnings against use in those pathological conditions or by children|where their use might be dangerous to health and against unsafe dosage and|duration of administration, in such manner and form, as are necessary for the|protection of users, since said labeling bore no warnings that their use should be|discontinued if a skin rash appeared; that they should be used cautiously if dry-|ness of the throat occurred; that their use should be discontinued if rapid pulse|or blurring of the vision resulted; that the preparation should not be taken by|children; that frequent or continued use might be dangerous to health by causing|serious blood disturbances, anemia, collapse, or dependence on the drug; that the|preparation should not be taken by elderly people except on competent advice;|that frequent use of the preparatioa, might lead to dependence upon laxatives to|move the bowels; and (bulk tablets only) since said labeling did not carry a warn-|ing against use of the article in the presence of abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting,|or other symtoms of appendicitis.|The bulk tablets were alleged to be misbranded further (1) in that the label|failed to bear adequate directions for use since it did not bear any directions for|use; and (2) in that the labeling did not bear the common or usual name of each|active ingredient, namely, acetanilid, quinine sulfate, podophyllin, capsicum, and|belladonna extract, and in that it did not bear a statement of the quantity or|proportion of acetanilid and belladonna extracts.|On August 6, 1941, the Read Drug & Chemical Co., claimant, having admitted|the allegations of the libel, judgment of condemnation was entered and the|product was ordered released under bond conditioned that it be repackaged and|relabeled under the supervision of the Food and Drug Administration.|DRUGS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO BEAR ADEQUATE|DIRECTIONS OR WARNING STATEMENTS1|660. Misbranding of acetylsalicylic acid and colchicine compound capsules. U. S. v. Sam Frank Drug Co. Plea of guilty. Fine, $10.ddnj00660February 1943Sam Frank Drug Co.acetylsalicylic acid and colchicine compound capsulesFebruary 13 to May 8, 1941Denver, Colo.Denver, Colo.Denver, Colo.District of Colorado660F. D. C. 6430 Sample No. 65040-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00660ddnj|660. Misbranding: of acetylsalicylic acid and colchicine compound capsules.|U. S. v. Sam Frank Drug- Co. Plea of guilty. Fine, 810. (F. D. C. 6430|Sample No. 65040-E).|In addition to failure to bear adequate warning statements, the label of this|product failed to bear the required ingredient statement.|On March 13, 1942, the United States attorney for the District of Colorado|filed an information against the Sam Frank Drug Co., a corporation at Denver,|1 See also Nos. 657. 659.|Colo., alleging that within the period from on or about February 13 to on or about|May 8, 1941, the defendant had repacked and relabeled quantities of the above-|named product while it was being held for sale after shipment in interstate com-|merce, which acts by the defendant resulted in misbranding of said drug. At the|time of shipment the product was labeled: \"\"5000 Capsules Acetylsalicylic Acid|and Colchicine Compound (Formerly Called Roomatoan) Brown. Bach capsule|contains: Acetylsalicylic Acid ... 5 grs. Macrotin ... ? gr. Phyto-|laccin . . . y8 gr. Colchicine . . . ?oo gr- Caution: These capsules|are to be used only by or on the prescription of a physician.\"\" After repackaging|and relabeling it was labeled: \"\"One Capsule Every hour for 4 doses Then One|Every 4 hours Sam Frank Drug Co. Colfax at Downing-Denver Keystone 3217.\"\"|The article when repacked and relabeled was misbranded: (1) In that it con-|tained colchicine, the frequent or continued use of which might result in ab-|dominal pain (stomach ache, cramps, colic), nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, or bloody|urine, and in that the statements on the label failed to bear adequate warnings|against unsafe dosage or methods or duration of administration in such manner|and form as are necessary for the protection of users. (2) In that it was fabri-|cated from two or more ingredients and its label did not bear the common or|usual name of each active ingredient.|On March 16, 1942, the defendant entered a plea of guilty and the court imposed|a fine of |.$10.|661. Misbranding of Nichol's Long Life For Health and Dickson's Laxative Diuretic. U. S. v. James B. Nichols (J. B. Nichols & Sons and Nichols Chemical Co.). Plea of guilty. Fine of $100 and jail sentence of months. Sentences suspended and defendant placed on probation for 3 years.ddnj00661February 1943James B. Nichols, trading as J. B. Nichols & Sons, and as Nichols Chemical Co. at Memphis, Tenn.Nichol's Long- Life For Health and Dickson's Laxative DiureticNovember 12, 1940TennesseeTennesseeArkansasWestern District of Tennessee661F. D. C. No. 5475. Sample Nos. 39561-E, 39562-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00661ddnj|661. Misbranding: of Nichol's Long- Life For Health and Dickson's Laxative|Diuretic. U. S. v. James B. Nichols (J. B. Nichols & Sons and Nichols|Chemical Co.). Plea of guilty. Fine of $100 and jail sentence of -|months. Sentences suspended and defendant placed on probation for 3|years. (F. D. C. No. 5475. Sample Nos. 39561-E, 39562-E.)|The labeling of the Laxative Diuretic failed to bear adequate warning state-|ments ; that of both products bore false and misleading therapeutic claims and|inadequate ingredient and quantity of contents statements. The bottles con-|taining both products were paneled in such manner as to be deceptive.|On January 26, 1942, the United States attorney for the Western District of|Tennessee filed a libel against James B. Nichols, trading as J. B. Nichols & Sons,|and as Nichols Chemical Co. at Memphis, Tenn., alleging shipment on or about|November 12, 1940, from the State of Tennessee into the State of Arkansas of|quantities of the above-named products that were misbranded.|Analyses of samples of the products showed that Nichol's Long Life for Health|consisted of extracts of plant drugs, alcohol (13.0 percent by volume), and water;|and that Dickson's Laxative Diuretic consisted essentially of Epsom salt, small|proportions of caramel, methenamine, hysocyamine, salicyclic acid, sulfuric acid,|and benzoic acid, minute amounts of strychnine and saccharin, and water.|Dickson's Laxative Diuretic was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that its|labeling did not bear adequate warnings against use in those pathological con-|ditions where its use might be injurious to health or against unsafe dosage or|methods or duration of administration in such manner and form as are necessary|for the protection of users, since its labeling did not bear a warning that it should|not be used when abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, or other symptoms of|appendicitis are present, and that frequent or continued use might result in|dependence on laxatives. (2) In that statements appearing on the bottle label|which represented that each bottle contained 8 ounces of the drug, that it was|efficacious as an aid in eliminating and correcting disorders of the alimentary|canal and urinary organs, and that it would be efficacious in the treatment of|biliousness, headache, gas on the stomach, and backache, were false and mis-|leading since each bottle did not contain 8 ounces of the drug, but did contain a|smaller amount, it was not efficacious as an aid in eliminating or correcting|disorders of the alimentary canal or urinary organs and it would not be efficacious|in the treatment of biliousness, gas on the stomach, or backache. (3) In that|it was fabricated from two or more ingredients and its label did not bear the|common or usual name of each active ingredient, including the quantity or|proportion of hyoscyamine and strychnine, since (a) the declaration of \"\"hyeci-|amus\"\" was meaningless; (b) the label bore no statement of the quantity or pro-|portion of strychnine; and (c) it failed to bear the common or usual name of|methenamine since the designation \"\"Utropian,\"\" appearing on the label, is not the|common or usual name of methenamine. (4) In that it was in package form|and the labeling failed to bear an accurate statement of the quantity of contents|in terms of measure. (5) In that its container (bottle) was so made and formed|as to be misleading.|Nichol's Long Life for Health was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that|statements on the bottle label representing that it would be efficacious to prolong|life; to maintain health, and that it would be efficacious for colds in the chest;|nervousness, weakness, and all cold conditions of the system that cause consump-|tion, were false and misleading since it would not be efficacious for such purposes.|(2) In that it was fabricated from two or more ingredients and its label did not|bear the common or usual name of each active ingredient including the quantity,|kind, and proportion of alcohol that it contained. (3) In that it was in package|form and did not bear a label containing the name and place of business of the|manufacturer, packer, or distributor. (4) In that it was in package form and did|not bear a label containing an accurate statement of the quantity of contents in|terms of measure. (5) In that its container was so made, formed, or filled as to|be misleading.|On February 10, 1942, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant|and the court imposed a fine of $100 and a jail sentence of 6 months. Payment of|the fine and the jail sentence were suspended and the defendant was placed on|probation for 3 years.|662. Misbranding of SMH Pur-Erb Compound No. 1 and \"\"Helena\"\" Pur-Erb Special No. 3. U. S. v. James M. Odell (Home Treatment Service). Plea of guilty. Fine, $25.ddnj00662February 1943James M. Odell trading as Home Treatment Service at Chicago, Ill.SMH Pur-Erb Compound No. 1 and \"\"Helena\"\" Pur-Erb Special No. 3December 17, 1940IllinoisIllinoisIndianaNorthern District of Illinois662F. D. C. No. 5578. Sample Nos. 31963-E, 31964-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00662ddnj|662. Misbranding of SMH .Pur-Erb Compound No. 1 and \"\"Helena\"\" Pur-Erb|Special No. 3. U. S. v. James M. Odell (Home Treatment Service). Plea|of guilty. Fine, $25. (F. D. C. No. 5578. Sample Nos. 31963-E, 31964-E.)|The labels of both of these products failed to bear adequate directions for use|and did contain false and misleading therapeutic claims; and the label for \"\"Hel-|ena\"\" Pur-Erb Special No. 3 failed to bear the required quantity of contents and in-|gredient statements. The label of the SMH Pur-Erb Compound also failed to|bear adequate warning statements; it contained representations in certain foreign|languages but failed to bear the required quantity of contents and ingredient|statements in those foreign languages.|On February 27, 1912, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Illinois filed a libel against James M. Odell trading as Home Treatment Service at|Chicago, 111., alleging shipment on or about December 17, 1940, from the State of|Illinois into the State of Indiana of quantities of the above-named products that|were misbranded. The articles were labeled in part: \"\"SMH Pur-Erb Compound|No. 1 (Formerly Pur-Erb Tonic No. 1) * * * Prepared Only by Pur-Erb Prod-|ucts, Chicago, 111.\"\" and \"\" 'Helena' Pur-Erb Special No. 3 * * * Kid-Ne Herb|Compound * * * Herbal Health Products * * * Chicago.\"\"|Analyses of samples of the articles showed that SMH Pur-Erb Compound con-|sisted essentially of extracts of plant drugs including laxative drugs such as|aloes, senna, and cascara sagrada, and water; and that \"\"Helena\"\" Pur-Erb Special|consisted essentially of extracts of plant drugs, solid plant material, and water.|SMH Pur-Erb Compound was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that its label|failed to bear adequate directions for use since those on the bottle label were|indefinite as to amount. (2) In that the labeling failed to bear adequate warn-|ings against unsafe methods or duration of administration in such manner and|form as are necessary for the protection of users since it did not bear a warning|that frequent or continued use might result in dependence on laxatives. (3) In|that statements in the labeling representing and suggesting that it was efficacious|in the treatment of chronic constipation; that it was a health prescription and|would improve the general health; that it was an adequate remedy for constipa-|tion and colitis; and that it was efficacious in the treatment of serious, stubborn,|obstinate or severe cases of constipation or colitis, were false and misleading|since it would not be efficacious for such purposes. (4) In that certain informa-|tion required by the act to appear on the label or labeling was not prominently|placed thereon in such terms as to render it likely to be read and understood by|the ordinary individual under customary conditions of purchase and use since the|label contained representations in foreign languages, namely, German, Polish, and|Lithuanian, and by reason of said representations, it was labeled to appeal to|persons understanding such foreign languages, and the label did not contain in|said foreign languages an accurate statement of the quantity of the contents in|terms of measure nor did said label bear in said foreign languages the common or|usual name of each active ingredient.|\"\"Helena\"\" Pur-Erb Special was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that the label|failed to bear adequate directions for use since those given did not provide a|limitation as to frequency and duration of its use. (2) In that the designa-|tion \"\"Rx Kid-Ne Herb Compound\"\" and the statements representing or suggesting|that it was efficacious as a treatment of diseased conditions of the kidneys; that|it was efficacious to overcome sluggish conditions of the genito-urinary system;|that it was efficacious in the treatment of scant or excessive flow of urine; that|. it would be efficacious in the treatment of pains, aches, distresses and disturb-|ances of the water system; that it would alleviate the ills of humanity; and|that it would be efficacious in the relief of many ailments, were false and mis-|leading since it would not be efficacious for such purposes. (3) In that it was (|fabricated from two or more ingredients and its label failed to bear a statement|of the common or usual name of each ingredient. (4) In that the label failed|to bear an accurate statement of the quantity of contents in terms of measure.|On March 10,1942, the defendant entered a plea of guilty and the court imposed|a'fine of $25.|681. Adulteration and misbranding of Coreco Vitamins A-B1-G-D Capsules. U. S. v. 512 Boxes of Coreco Vitamins A-B1-G-D Capsules. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00681February 1943International Vitamin CorporationCoreco Vitamins A-B1-G-D CapsulesMay 25, 1940San Francisco, Calif.New York, N. Y.San Francisco, Calif.Northern District of California681F. D. C. No. 6777. Sample No. 23410-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00681ddnj|681. Adulteration and misbranding of Coreco Vitamins A-B,-G-D Capsules.|V. S. v. 512 Boxes of Coreco Vitamins A-B,-G-D Capsules. Default decree|of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 6777. Sample No. 23410-E.)|Each of these capsules was represented to contain 50 International Units pf|vitamin Bi and 1,000 U. S. P. units of vitamin D; whereas examination showed|that they contained less than 12.5 International Units of vitamin Bi and not more|than 850 U. S. P. units of vitamin D.|On January 29, 1942, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|California filed a libel against the above-named product at San Francisco, Calif.,|alleging that it had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about May 25,1940,|by the International Vitamin Corporation from New York, N. Y.; and charging|that it was adulterated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from and|its quality fell below that which it was represented to possess, namely, 50 Inter-|national Units of vitamin Bi and 1,000 U. S. P. units of vitamin D per capsule*-|since it contained smaller amounts of both vitamins.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements were false|and misleading since when taken in the dosage of 1 capsule per day as directed,|it would not furnish \"\"moderate amounts\"\" of vitamins Bi and G: \"\"Biologically|Assayed and Standardized * * * each capsule contains not less than:|* * * 1,000 U. S. P. Units of Vitamin D, 50 International Units of Vitamin B,|(approx. 100 Chase-Sherman Units) * * * Each capsule is equivalent in|U. S. P. Units of Vitamins * * * D to not less than 3 teaspoonfuls of Cod|Liver Oil U. S. P., assaying * * * 85 Vitamin D Units per gram. Each|capsule furnishes * * * moderate amounts of Vitamin Bi and G to supple-|ment the supply of these vitamins contained in the diet.\"\"|It also was alleged to be adulterated and misbranded under the provisions of|the law applicable to foods, as reported in F. N. J. No. 3425.|On March 9, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|DRUGS AND DEVICES ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF FALSE AND|MISLEADING STATEMENTS IN THE LABELING8|682. Misbranding of Castoria and Crompton's Liniment. U. S. v. Charles Crompton Sons. Inc., and George Crompton. Pleas of guilty. Fines, $20.ddnj00682February 1943Charles Crompton & Sons, Inc., Lynn, Mass., and George CromptonCastoria and Crompton's LinimentDecember 4 and 5, 1940MassachusettsMassachusettsVermontDistrict of Massachusetts682F. D. C. No. 5539. Sample Nos. 36263-E, 36861-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00682ddnj|682. Misbranding: of Castoria and Crompton's Liniment. U. S. v. Charles Crompton|& Sons. Inc., and George Crompton. Pleas of guilty. Fines, $20. (F. D. C.|No. 5539. Sample Nos. 36263-E, 36861-E.)|The labeling of these products bore false and misleading curative and thera-|peutic claims, and the labeling of Crompton's Liniment failed to bear the common|or usual names of the active ingredients.|On January 19, 1942, the United States attorney for the District of Massa-|chusetts filed an information against Charles Crompton & Sons, Inc., Lynn, Mass.,|and George Crompton, alleging shipment on or about December 4 and 5,1940, from|the State of Massachusetts into the State of Vermont of quantities of Castoria|and Crompton's Liniment which were misbranded.|? Analyses of samples of the articles showed that the Castoria consisted of sugar,|alcohol, water, methyl salicylate, oil of anise, Rochelle salt, and plant extractives|including senna; and that Crompton's Liniment consisted of a fatty oil and volatile|oils including camphor, methyl salicylate, and probably eucalyptol.|The Castoria was alleged to be misbranded in that representations in the label-|ing that it was a remedy for regulating stomach and bowels; was especially useful|in convulsions, colic, feverishness, diarrhea, sour stomach, loss of sleep, and|worms; and that it would aid digestion and promote rest, were false \"\"and mis-|leading since it would not be efficacious for such purposes.|Crompton's Liniment was alleged to be misbranded in that representations in|the labeling that it would be efficacious in the treatment of rheumatic pains,|numbness of the limbs, contraction of the muscles, pains in the side, chest, and|back, hoarseness, sore throat, quinsy, and common and severe cases of headache,|were false and misleading since it would not be efficacious for such purposes. It|was alleged to be misbranded further in that it was fabricated from two or more|* See also Nos. 657-659, 661, 662, 664, 665, 667, and 668.|B03853*-43 3|ingredient.|On February 21,1942, pleas of guilty were entered and the court imposed a fine|of $10 on each of the defendants.|663. Misbranding of Barkolyn. U. S. v. 9 2/3 Dozen Packages of Barkolyn. Decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00663February 1943Standard Medicines Co.BarkolynMay 30, 1941Lock Haven, Pa.Columbus, OhioLock Haven, Pa.Middle District of Pennsylvania663F. D. C. No. 6586. Sample No. 54362-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00663ddnj|663. Misbranding of Barkolyn. TJ. S. v. 9% Dozen Packages of Barkolyn. Decree|of condemnation and destruction. (P. D. C. No. 6586. Sample No. 54362-E.)|This product consisted essentially of extracts of plant drugs including laxa-|tives, and strychnine; and the labeling failed to bear adequate directions for|use, adequate warnings for the protection of users, and a statement of the|qauntity or proportion of strychnine that it contained.|On December 24, 1941, the United States attorney for the Middle District of|Pennsylvania filed a libel against 9? dozen packages of Barkolyn at Lock Haven,|Pa., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or|about May 30, 1941, by Standard Medicines Co. from Columbus, Ohio; and|charging that it was misbranded.|It was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that the labeling failed to bear ade-|quate directions for use since it was a laxative and the directions appearing on|the labeling, which provided for continuous use, were inadequate since, if fol-|lowed, they might lead to dependence on a laxative; and the directions for use|by children were inadequate since they were indefinite. (2) In that the labeling|failed to bear adequate warnings against use in those pathological conditions or|by children where its use might be dangerous to health, or against unsafe dosage|or duration of administration, in such manner and form, as are necessary for|the protection of users, since it failed to contain a warning that use of a prep-|aration containing strychnine by children and elderly persons might be especially|dangerous and since it also failed to contain a warning that a laxative should|not be taken when suffering from nausea, vomiting,*abdominal pains, or other|symptoms of appendicitis, and that frequent or continued use might result in|dependence on laxatives. (3) In that it contained strychnine and its label failed|to bear a statement of the quantity or proportion of strychnine that it contained.|On January 31, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|664. Misbranding of Bosak's Horke Vino. U. S. v. 4 1/2 Dozen Bottles of Bosak's Horke Vino. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00664February 1943Gold Seal Manufacturing CompanyBosak's Horke VinoSeptember 4 and December 3, 1941New York, N. Y.Scranton, Pa.New York, N. Y.Southern District of New York664F. D. C. No. 6395. Sample No. 74943-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00664ddnj|664. Misbranding of Bosak's Horke Vino. TJ. S. v. 4% Dozen Bottles of Bosak's|Horke Vino. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C.|No. 6395. Sample No. 74943-E.)|The labeling of this product failed to bear adequate directions for use and|failed to bear a statement revealing the name and quantity of strychnine present|in the article and also bore false and misleading therapeutic claims.|On December 17, 1941, the United States attorney for the Southern District|of New York filed a libel against 4? dozen bottles of Bosak's Horke Vino at|New York, N. Y., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate com-|merce on or about September 4 and December 3, 1941, by Gold Seal Manufactur-|ing Company from Scranton, Pa.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of small|proportions of aloin and strychnine, alcohol, and water.|The article was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that its labeling did not|bear adequate directions for use since it was a laxative preparation and the|directions for use were inadequate for a laxative preparation, and in that the|directions failed to place a limitation on the period of time for taking the|recommended daily dosage. (2) In that the following statements appearing|in the labeling, \"\"Nature's Tonic * * * This Tonic has been found a valuable|aid in cases of Indigestion, Dyspepsia * * * Nervousness, General Debility,|and in other derangements of the digestive organs,\"\" and also \"\"These goods are|labeled to conform to requirements of New Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic|Law, which is effective June 25th, 1989,\"\" were false and misleading since it was|not a tonic, it did not possess natural tonic properties bestowed by nature, it|was not a valuable aid in the case of indigestion, dyspepsia, nervousness, general|debility, and any other derangements of the digestive organs, and it was not|labeled to conform to the requirements of the law. (3) In that strychnine was /|one of its ingredients and its label failed to bear the name and quantity of such|ingredient.|On January 14, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|665. Misbranding of Grover Graham Remedy. U. S. v. 37 Bottles and 71 Bottles of Grover Graham Remedy. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00665February 1943S. Grover Graham Co., IncGrover Graham RemedyJanuary 20 and July 15, 1941Jersey City, N. J.Newburgh, N. Y.Jersey City, N. J.District of New Jersey665F. D. C. No. 6213. Sample No. 74151-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00665ddnj|665. Misbranding: of Grover Graham Remedy. TJ. S. v. 37 Bottles and 71 Bottles|of Grover Graham Remedy. Default decree of condemnation and destruc-|tion. (F. D. C. No. 6213. Sample No. 74151-E.)|The labeling of this product in addition to failure to bear adequate directions|and warning statements, contained false and misleading therapeutic claims.|On November 14, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of New|Jersey filed a libel against 37 6-fluid-ounce bottles and 71 12-fluid-ounce bottles|of Grover Graham Remedy at Jersey City, N. J., alleging that the article had been|shipped on or about January 20 and July 15, 1941, by S. Grover Graham Co., Inc,|from Newburgh, N. Y.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analyses of samples of the article showed that it consisted essentially of|magnesia, sodium bicarbonate, sodium bromide, extract of ginger, a small pro-|portion of chloroform, alcohol, and water flavored with peppermint oil and|colored with a violet red dye. Analysis of a sample of Graham's Pills showed|that they contained aloe, podophyllin, gamboge, and capsicum.|The article was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that the labeling did not|bear adequate directions for use since those given provided for an excessive|amount of sodium bromide, and no limitation was put on the amount of bromide|to be administered daily. (2) In that the labeling failed to bear adequate warn-|ings against use in those pathological conditions where its use might be danger-|ous to health, or against unsafe dosage or methods or duration of administration|in such manner and form as are necessary for the protection of users, since it did|not bear any warning that frequent or continued use might lead to mental de-|rangement, skin eruptions, or other serious effects; and that it should not be|taken by those suffering from kidney diseases. (3) In that statements in the|labeling representing that it would be efficacious for treatment of indigestion,|bloating, dyspepsia, gastritis, constipation, and other forms of stomach disorders|and distress due to faulty digestion; and that it was harmless, not habit-forming,|and could be taken with perfect safety, were false and misleading since it would|not be efficacious for the purposes recommended, it was not harmless, it was|habit-forming and could not be taken with perfect safety since it contained a|material proportion of sodium bromide, a habit-forming drug. (4) In that the|following statement regarding another drug (cartons) \"\"For temporary relief|from occasional constipation we recommend Graham's Pills, and intestinal|eliminant specially prepared for use with this remedy,\"\" was false and mis-|leading since it represented that Graham's Pills, when used in conjunction with|Grover Graham's Remedy, would be efficacious for the purposes for which the|latter article was recommended.|On January 8, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|666. Misbranding of Herb Doctor Compound. U. S. v. 56 Bottles of Herb Doctor Compound. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00666February 1943Strong Cobb & Co.Herb Doctor CompoundSeptember 25, 1941Lancaster, Pa.Cleveland, OhioLancaster, Pa.Eastern District of Pennsylvania666F. D C. No. 6359. Sample No. 54335-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00666ddnj|666. Misbranding of Herb Doctor Compound. IT. S. v. 56 Bottles of Herb Doctor|Compound. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D C.|No. 6359. Sample No. 54335-E.)|On December 5, 1941, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Pennsylvania filed a libel against 56 bottles of Herb Doctor Compound at Lan-|caster, Pa., alleging that the article had been shipped on or about September 25,|1941, by Strong Cobb & Co. from Cleveland, Ohio; and charging that it was mis-|branded in that its labeling failed to bear adequate directions for use, since those|given provided for its use under conditions which might have rendered it injurious|to the user by creating a dependence upon laxatives to move the bowels.|On January 5, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|667. Misbranding of laxative cold tablets. U. S. v. 172 Tins of Norwich Laxative Cold Tablets. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00667February 1943Norwich Pharmacal Co.laxative cold tabletsNovember 7, 1941Newport, R. I.Norwich, N. Y.Newport, R. I.District of Rhode Island667F. D. C. No. 6719. Sample No. 90408-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00667ddnj|667. Misbranding: of laxative cold tablets. IT. S. v. 172 Tins of Norwich Laxative|Cold Tablets. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C.|No. 6719. Sample No. 90408-E.)|The labeling of this product in addition to failure to bear adequate warning|statements, also contained false and misleading therapeutic claims.|On January 16, 1942, the United States attorney for the District of Rhode|Island filed a libel against the above-named product at Newport, R. I., alleging|603853?-43 2|Co. from Norwich, N. Y.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that the tablets each contained|acetanilid (1 grain), a coal-tar analgesic drag, podophyllin, aloin, and other drugs|of plant origin including quinine, camphor, and cayenne pepper.|The article was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that the labeling did not bear|such adequate warnings against unsafe duration of administration as are neces-|sary for the protection of users, since it failed to warn the consumer that fre-|quent or continued use might be dangerous, causing serious blood disturbances,|anemia, collapse, or dependence on the drug, and that it should be discontinued|if skin rash appears. (2) In that statements in the labeling representing that it|would affect the underlying cause of the common cold, prevent its full develop-|ment, and shorten its duration were false and misleading, since its therapeutic|efficacy was limited to that of an analgesic and laxative which might temporarily|ameliorate some of the symptoms of the common cold, but not those of feverish-|ness, tickling throat sensations, and running of the nose.|On April 1, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|668. Adulteration and misbranding of Pinee. U. S. v. 90 Bottles of Pinee. De fault decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00668February 1943Pinee Chemical Co.PineeOctober 1, 1941Emporia, Va.Kinston, N. C.Emporia, Va.Eastern District of Virginia668F. D. C. No. 6549. Sample No. 59472-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00668ddnj|668. Adulteration and misbranding of Pinee. IT. S. v. 90 Bottles of Pinee. De|fault decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 6549. Sample|No. 59472-E.)|In addition to containing smaller proportions of acetanilid and alcohol than|those stated on the label, this product failed to bear on its label adequate direc-|tions for use and warning statements. The label also contained false and mis-|leading therapeutic claims; and the statements of the active ingredients and|quantity of contents and directions for use were in type so small as to be illegible.|On December 19, 1941, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Virginia filed a libel against the above-named product at Emporia, Va., alleging|that it had been shipped on or about October 1, 1941, by the Pinee Chemical Co.|from Kinston, N. C.; and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of|acetanilid (not more than 3.6 grains per fluid ounce), alcohol (not more than 10.9|percent), small amounts of menthol, camphor, laxative plant drugs, ammonia,|ammonium chloride, licorice, and a trace of alkaloids.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from that|which it was represented to possess, namely, \"\"Acetanlid 6 grs to oz Maximum|Alcohol 20 per cent.\"\"|It was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that the labeling did not bear adequate|directions for use since those appearing on the label provided for continuous ad-|ministration and such directions were inadequate for a laxative since when|taken in such manner it might create a dependence on laxatives (2) In that|the labeling did not bear adequate warnings against use in those pathological|conditions or by children where its use might be dangerous to health, or against|unsafe dosage or duration of administration in such manner and form as are|necessary for the protection of users since the labeling failed to warn that fre-|quent or continued use might result in dependence on laxatives. (3) In that|the following statements appearing in the labeling, together with the design of|pine trees and pine cones on the bottle label, (carton) \"\"Pinee For Colds,\"\" and|(bottle label) \"\"Pinee Colds * * * Very effective In Treatment of Head &|Chest Colds * * * Contents Acetanlid 6 Grs to oz Maximum Alcohol 20 per|cent,\"\" were false and misleading since the article contained no ingredient or|combination of ingredients capable of preventing or curing either head or chest|colds or of alleviating the common symptoms characteristic of colds, and it|contained no materials derived from pine trees or pine cones, as implied by the|designs on|' the label. (4) In that the required statements of the active in-|gredients, of the quantity of contents, and the directions for use did not appear|on the label with such prominence or conspicuousness as to render them likely to|be read or understood by the ordinary individual under customary conditions of|purchase and use, since they appeared in type so small as to be illegible.|On February 18,1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|669. Misbranding of Special Formula Tablets. U. S. v. 47,800 Special Formula Tablets, Plain. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00669February 1943Arner Co., Inc.Special Formula TabletsOctober 15, 1941Charleston, W. Va.Buffalo, N. Y.Charleston, W. Va.Southern District of West Virginia669F. D. C. No. 6301. Sample Nos. 87220-E, 87221-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00669ddnj|669. Misbranding of Special Formula Tablets. U. S. v. 47,800 Special Formula|Tablets, Plain. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (P. D. C.|No. 6301. Sample Nos. 87220-E, 87221-E.)|This product consisted of tablets containing boric acid and an effervescent|mixture of soda and citric acid. Its use might produce deleterious effects and its|label failed to bear adequate directions for use, adequate warnings, and the names|of the active ingredients.|On November 28, 1941, the United States attorney for the Southern District|of West \"\"Virginia filed a libel against the above-named product at Charleston, W.|Va., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|October 15, 1941, by the Arner Co., Inc., from Buffalo, N. T.; and charging that|it was misbranded.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that its label failed to bear (1)|adequate directions for use; (2) adequate warnings against use by children where|its use might be dangerous to health, and against unsafe dosage or duration of|administration, in such manner and form as are necessary for the protection of|users, since the labeling carried no warning that repeated daily administration|would cause systemic deleterious effects and injurious gastro-intestinal dis-|turbances ; and (3) the common or usual name of each/active ingredient.|On April 20,1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|683. Misbranding of Life Line Tonic. U. S. v. John B. Kori (United States Remedy Co.). Plea of nolo contendere. Fine of $100, and sentence of 6 months' imprisonment. Sentence suspended and defendant placed on probation for 1 year.ddnj00683February 1943John B. Kori, trading as United States Remedy Co., Jacksonville, Fla.Life Line TonicOctober 17, 1940FloridaFloridaPennsylvaniaSouthern District of Florida683F. D. C. No. 5474. Sample No. 40426-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00683ddnj|683. Misbranding of Life Line Tonic. U. S. v. John B. Kori (United States|Remedy Co.). Plea of nolo contendere. Fine of $100, and sentence of|6 months' imprisonment. Sentence suspended and defendant placed on|probation for 1 year. (F. D. C. No. 5474. Sample No. 40426-E.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading claims regarding its|therapeutic efficacy and its ingredients. It also failed to declare the kind and|proportion of alcohol that it contained.|On September 15, 1941, the United States attorney for the Southern District|of Florida tiled an information against John B. Kori, trading as United States|Remedy Co., Jacksonville, Fla., alleging shipment on or about October 17, 1940,|from the State of Florida into- the State of Pennsylvania of a quantity of Life|Line Tonic which was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted of a water-glycerin solution con-|taining large amounts of Epsom salt, smaller amounts of sodium sulfate and|sodium phosphate and small amounts of quinine, iron, caffeine, saccharin and|plant extractives including emodin.|The article was alleged to be misbranded: (1) \"\"In that statements in the label-|ing which represented that it would be efficacious in the treatment of sour stomach,|biliousness, colic, cramps due to gas, and temporary listlessness; that it would be|beneficial in malarial and feverish conditions due to chills and colds; would check|chills and malarial fever; would build resistance; would be efficacious in the|treatment of colds, stuffiness of nasal passages, simple headache, neuralgia, and|malarial fever; that it would be efficacious to keep the system clean and invigo-|rated ; and would be efficacious in the treatment of simple headache due to occa-|sional constipation and neuralgia; that the distress and misery of common colds|would generally be relieved within a few hours by it; that it would not be habit-|forming; that it was a tonic and possessed value as a treatment in emergencies,|as suggested by the name \"\"Life-Line,\"\" were false and misleading since it would|not be efficacious for such purposes, and might be habit-forming, i. e., might|form the laxative habit. (2) In that it was fabricated from two or more ingredi-|ents and its label did not bear the common or usual name of each active ingredient,|including the quantity, kind, and proportion of alcohol that it contained, since|the common or usual name of each active ingredient and the quantity, kind,|and proportion of alcohol did not appear on the outside container, namely, the|carton. (3) In that the statement, \"\"Active Ingredients-Ext. of Leaves and|Flowering tops of Eupatorium Perfoliatum (Boneset), Extract Sacred tree|bark (Rhamnus Purshiana) Sodium Phosphate, Sodium Sulphate, Iron & Am-|monium Citrate, May Apple (Mandrake), Magnesium Sulphate (Epsom Salts),|Citrated Caffein, Citric Acid, Quinine Sulphate, other ingredients,\"\" represented|and suggested that it contained each of said ingredients and substances in amounts|sufficient to be of therapeutic importance; whereas it did not contain boneset,|iron and ammonium citrate, and citric acid in amounts which were therapeutically|important.|On January 5, 1942, the defendant having entered a plea of nolo contendere,|the court imposed a fine of $100 and a sentence of 6 months' imprisonment. The|jail sentence was suspended and the defendant was placed on probation for|1 year.|684. Misbranding of Venus Tablets. U. S. v. David Clarence Overpeck (Thoro Sales Service). Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $50.ddnj00684February 1943David Clarence Overpeck, trading as Thoro Sales Service at Los Angeles, Calif.Venus TabletsMay 6 and September 22, 1940CaliforniaCaliforniaIllinoisSouthern District of California684F. D. C. No. 5543. Sample Nos. 30305-E, 31965-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00684ddnj|684. Misbranding: of Venus Tablets. IT. S. v. David Clarence Ovcrpeck (Thoro|Sales Service). Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $50. (F. D. C. No. 5543.|Sample Nos. 30305-E, 31965-E.)|The label of this product bore false and misleading claims regarding its|efficacy in the control of weight, and the bottle occupied only approximately|55 percent of the capacity of the carton.|On February 26, 1942, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|California filed an information against David Clarence Overpeck, trading as|Thoro Sales Service at Los Angeles, Calif., alleging shipment on or about May 6|and September 22, 1940. from the State of California into the State of Illinois of|quantities of Venus Tablets that were misbranded.|Analyses of samples of the article showed that it was essentially a vegetable|laxative containing rhubarb root, kelp, and other vegetable tissues.|The article was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that the designation \"\"Venus|Tablets\"\" on the bottle label and carton, the design of a slender woman> and|statements in an accompanying booklet were misleading since they created|the impression that by virtue of its physiological activity when used as a part|of the Venus Method of Weight Control, it would be of substantial effect in|the control of body weight in enabling one to arrive at a satisfactory weight,|in enabling one to obtain an ideal and slender form and that when so used|it was appropriate and efficacious in the treatment of obesity; whereas it would|not be efficacious for such purposes. <2) In that its container (carton) was so|made, formed, or filled as to be misleading.|On March 30, 1942, the defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere and the|court imposed a fine of $25 on each of the two counts.|685. Misbranding of Sixty Minute Worm Expeller. U. S. v. Raymond G. Burfeind (Chemical Products Co.). Plea of guilty. Fine, $25.ddnj00685February 1943Raymond G. Burfeind, trading as Chemical Products Co., Ellsworth, Minn.Sixty Minute Worm ExpellerMay 11 to May 29, 1940MinnesotaMinnesotaOregonDistrict of Minnesota685F. D. C. No. 4111. Sample No. 26103-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00685ddnj|685. Misbranding of Sixty Minute Worm Expeller. U. S. v. Raymond G. Burf eind|(Chemical Products Co.). Plea of guilty. Fine, $25. (F. D. C. No. 4111.|Sample No. 26103-E.)|The labeling of this product, which was in capsule form, bore false and mis-|leading representations regarding its efficacy in the treatment of worms in dogs|and cats.|On June 10, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Minnesota filed|an information against Raymond G. Burfeind, trading as Chemical Products Co.,|Ellsworth, Minn., alleging shipment within the period from on or about May 11|to on or about May 29, 1940, from the State of Minnesota into the State of|Oregon of a quantity of worm expeller which was misbranded.|Analyses showed that the article consisted essentially of kamala, areca nuts,|charcoal, a small amount of sugar, iron sulfate, and a minute amount of|nicotine.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that statements in the labeling which|represented and suggested that it was a safe, sure quick-action worm expeller|and would be efficacious to expel worms from dogs, puppies, cats, and kittens|in 60 minutes; that it would be efficacious in the treatment of tapeworms and|stomach worms; that if used every 4 months, it would be efficacious to free|dogs and puppies of worms; that it would reduce the danger of distemper,|paralysis, eczema, and kindred diseases to a minimum; that it would be|efficacious to worm breeding bjlches, to worm puppies and \"\"cut losses to|practically no losses at all,\"\" and to keep older dogs free from worms; would|reduce the danger of fits, paralysis, distemper, eczema, and kindred diseases|to a minimum if used every 4 months; and would worm cats and assist in|keeping them in good health if used every 4 months were false and misleading|since it was not a safe, sure, quick-action worm expeller but was toxic and|might be harmful and would not be efficacious for the aforementioned purposes.|It was alleged to b* misbranded further in that the labeling was mis-|leading, since it failed to reveal the fact material in the light of the repre-|sentations made and suggested therein, and material with respect to the|consequences which might result from its use, under conditions prescribed in|the labeling or under such conditions of use as are customary or usual,|namely, the fact that it was toxic and might be harmful.|On January 27, 1942. the defendant having entered a plea of guilty, the|court imposed a fine of 25.|670. Misbranding of Special S. C. White Pills Rx2609. U. S. v. 96,200 Special S. C. White Pills Rx2609. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00670February 1943Charles H. Dietz, Inc.Special S. C. White Pills Rx2609November 22, 1941Detroit, Mich.St. Louis, Mo.Detroit, Mich.Eastern District of Michigan670F. D. C. No. 6744. Sample No. 30492-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00670ddnj|670. Misbranding of Special S. C. White Pills Rx2609. TJ. S. v. 96,200 Special|S. C. White Pills Rx2609. Default decree of condemnation and destruc-|tion. (F. D. C. No. 6T44. Sample No. 30492-E.)|On January 21, 1942, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Michigan filed a libel against the above-named product at Detroit, Mich., alleging|that it had been shipped on or about November 22, 1941, by Charles H. Dietz,|Inc., from St. Louis, Mo.; and charging that it was misbranded. The article was|labeled in part: \"\"Special S. C. White Pills Rx2609. Each pill contains-Aloes-|? gr. Ferrous Sulphate-1*4 gr. Oil Pennyroyal-? min.\"\"|It was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that the label did not bear adequate|directions for use; and (2) in that the labeling failed to bear adequate warnings|against use in those pathological conditions where its use might be dangerous to|health since the label failed to bear a warning that it should not be taken when|nausea, vomiting, abdominal pains, or other symptoms of appendicitis are present:|and against unsafe dosage or duration of administration since the labeling failed|to bear a warning that frequent or continued use might result in dependence on|a laxative.|On March 24, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|671. Misbranding of Sterile Solution Formula No. 3, Rx Formula No. 8, and S. G. M. a. (Oral). U. S. v. 8 Vials of Sterile Solution Formula No. 3, 12 Boxes of Rx Formula No. 8, and 4 Bottles of S. G. M. a. (Oral). Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00671February 1943Samaritan TreatmentSterile Solution Formula No. 3, Rx Formula No. 8, and S. G. M. a. (Oral)December 31, 1940Richmond, Va.Chicago, Ill.Richmond, Va.Eastern District of Virginia671F. D. C. No. 3911. Sample Nos. 50191-E, 50195-E, 50196-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00671ddnj|671. Misbranding of Sterile Solution Formula No. 3, Rx Formula No. 8, and|S. G. M. a. (Oral). V. S. v. 8 Vials of Sterile Solution Formula No. 3, 12|Boxes of Rx Formula No. 8, and 4 Bottles of S. G. M. a. (Oral). Default|decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 3911. Sample Nos.|50191-E, 50195-E, 50196-E.)|The labeling of the Sterile Solution Formula No. 3 and S. G. M. a (Oral)|failed to bear adequate directions for use and such adequate warnings as are|necessary for the protection of users and failed to bear the common or usual|names of the active ingredients including the amount of strychnine in the former|and of thyroid in the latter. The labeling of all three products failed to comply|with certain other labeling requirements, as indicated hereinafter.|On February 4, 1941, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Virginia filed a libel against the above-named products at Richmond, Va., alleging|that they had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about December 31,1940,|by The Samaritan Treatment from Chicago, 111.; and charging that they were|misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the Sterile Solution Formula No. 3 showed that it|contained a solution of strychnine, emetine, ephedrine, pilocarpine, and sparteine.|It was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that the label failed to bear adequate|directions for use; (2) in that the label failed to bear adequate warnings against|unsafe dosage or methods or duration of administration in such manner and|form as are necessary for the protection of users; and (3) in that the label|failed to bear the common or usual name of each of the active ingredients,|including the amount of strychnine that it contained.|Analysis of a sample of Rx Formula No. 8 showed that the capsules each con-|tained approximately 0.6 gram of a powder composed chiefly of iron and am-|monium citrate. They were alleged to be misbranded in that they did not bear|a label containing the name and place of business of the manufacturer, packer,|cr distributor; in that they did not bear a label containing a statement of the|quantity of contents of the package; in that the label failed to bear the common|or usual name of the drug; and in that the label failed to bear the common or|usual name of each active ingredient contained therein.|Analysis of a sample of the S. G. M. :. (Oral) showed that it consisted of|capsules containing animal materials including 0.16 grain of thyroid per capsule.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that its labeling failed to bear adequate direc-|tions for use; in that its labeling failed to bear adequate warnings against use|in those pathological conditions or by children where its use might be dangerous|to health or against unsafe dosage or methods or duration of administration in|such manner and form as are necessary for the protection of users; in that its|package failed to bear a label containing the name and place of business of the|manufacturer, packer, or-.distribgtor; in that its package failed to bear a label|containing a statement of the \"\"quantity of the contents; in that the label failed|to bear the common or usual name of the article; and in that the label failed|to bear the common or usual name of each active ingredient, including the quan-|tity of thyroid that it contained.|On January 7, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the products were ordered destroyed.|672. Adulteration and misbranding of Zerbst's Capsules. U. S. v. 84 Dozen Packages of Zerbst's Capsules. Default decree of destruction.ddnj00672February 1943J. Walker Burns & Co.Zerbst's CapsulesNovember 15, 1941Kansas City, Mo.Chicago, ill.Kansas City, Mo.Western District of Missouri672F. D. C. No. 6572. Sample No. 73122-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00672ddnj|672. Adulteration and misbranding of Zerbst's Capsules. TJ. S. v. 84 Dozen Pack|ages of Zerbst's Capsules. Default decree of destruction. (P. D. C. No.|6572. Sample No. 73122-E.)|This product contained acetanilid, aloin, and a resin such as podophyllin. In|addition to failure to bear adequate directions and warnings on the label, it|contained approximately 20 percent more acetanilid than the amount stated on|the label.|On December 24, 1941, the United States attorney for the Western District of|Missouri filed a libel against 94 dozen packages of Zerbst's Capsules at Kansas|City, Mo., alleging that the article had been shipped on or about November 15,|1941, by J. Walker Burns & Co. from Chicago, 111.; and charging that it was|adulterated and' mi^bra-nded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from|that which it purported or was represented to possess, namely, (label) \"\"Bach|Capsule contains as active ingredients, Acetanilid 1 Grain,\"\" since it contained|materially more than 1 grain of acetanilid.|It was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that the directions for use, \"\"Adults-|To allay the discomfort in breaking up a common head cold, simple headache or|neuralgia, take one capsule every half hour until three are taken, then one|capsule in two or three hours until three more capsules are taken. Children-|12 years old, one capsule, repeated in three hours,\"\" were inappropriate for an|article of its composition and were therefore inadequate. (2) In that the label|failed to bear adequate warnings against its use by children or in those pathologi-|cal conditions where its use might be dangerous to health and against unsafe|dosage or duration of administration, in such manner and form as are necessary|for the protection of users, since there was no warning against its use by chil-|dren, against use in the presence of the symptoms of appendicitis, nor with refer-|ence to the deleterious effects of acetanilid in causing serious blood disturbances,|or that frequent or continued use might result in dependence upon the drug.|On February 13, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment was entered|ordering that the product be destroyed.|DRUGS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO COMPLJ WITH|OFFICIAL OR OWN STANDARDS!|673. Adulteration of chloroform. U. S. v. City Chemical Corporation and Max Wolpert. Plea of guilty. Corporation and Max Wolpert both fined $100.ddnj00673February 1943City Chemical Corporation, Newark, N J., and Max Wolpert, an officer of corporationchloroformMay 2-7, 1941New JerseyNew JerseyIllinois and MarylandDistrict of New Jersey673F. D. C. No. 6404. Sample Nos. 47480-E, 50848-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00673ddnj|673. Adulteration of chloroform. U. S. v. City Chemical Corporation and Max|Wolpert. Plea of guilty. Corporation and Max Wolpert both fined $100.'| (F. D. C. No. 6404. Sample NOB. 47480-E, 50848-E.)|This product differed from the pharmacopoeial standard ^ because of the pres-|ence of excessive carbonizable substances in both lots and of chlorinated decompo-|sition products in one.|On February 18, 1942, the United States attorney for the District of New|Jersey filed an information against the City Chemical Corporation, Newark,|N J., and Max Wolpert, an officer of said corporation, alleging shipment on|oi about May 2-7, 1941, from the State of New Jersey into the States of Illinois|and Maryland, of a quantity of chloroform that was adulterated.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to be and was|represented as a drug the name of which is recognized in the United States|Pharmacopoeia, but its quality or purity fell below the standard set forth in|* See also'Nos. 856. 657, 688'. and 672.|such compendium since it contained carbonizable substances in excess of the|maximum provided by the pharmacopoeia, and (in one lot) chlorinated de-|composition products and its difference in quality or purity from said standard|was not plainly stated on the label.|On February 24, 1942, a plea of guilty having been entered on behalf of the|defendants, the court imposed a fine of $50 against the corporation and the|individual defendant on each of the two counts.|674. Adulteration and misbranding of magnesium carbonate. U. S. v. City Chemical Corporation and Max Wolpert. Plea of guilty. Corporation and Max Wolpert each fined $100.ddnj00674February 1943City Chemical Corporation, Jersey City, N. J., and Max Wolpert, an officer of corporationmagnesium carbonateNovember 12, 1940New JerseyNew JerseyDistrict of ColumbiaDistrict of New Jersey674F. D. C. No. 2973. Sample No. 99913-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00674ddnj|674. Adulteration and misbranding of magnesium carbonate. U. S. v. City Oem-|ieal Corporation and Max Wolpert. Plea of guilty. Corporation and|. Max Wolpert each fined $100. (F. D. C. No. 2973. Sample No. 99913-E.)|This product was labeled as magnesium carbonate, but consisted of approxi-|mately 96 percent of calcium carbonate.|On November 7, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of New|Jersey filed an information against the City Chemical Corporation, Jersey City,|N. J., and Max Wolpert, an officer of said corporation, alleging shipment on or|about November 12, 1940, from the State of New Jersey into the District of|Columbia, of a quantity of magnesium carbonate that was adulterated and|misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated (1) in that a product consisting of|approximately 96 percent of calcium carbonate had been substituted in whole or|in part for magnesium carbonate; and (2) in that it purported to be or was|represented as a drug the name of which is recognized in the United States|Pharmacopoeia, but its strength differed from or its quality or purity fell below|the standard set forth in the pharmacopoeia and its difference in strength, quality,|or purity from such standard was not plainly stated on the label.|It was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that the statement on the label, \"\"Mag-|nesium Carbonate * * * U. S. P.,\"\" was false ?nd misleading; and (2) in|that it consisted essentially of calcium carbonate and was offered for sale under|the name of another drug. \"\"Magnesium Carbonate U. S. P.\"\"|On February 24, 1942, a plea of guilty having been entered on behalf of the|defendants, the court imposed a fine of $50 on count 1 and $25 each on counts|2 and 3 against both the corporation and the individual defendant.|717. Adulteration and misbranding of Endocrine Extract Formula Nos. 2, 131, and 157; misbranding of Colloidal Dextro Calcium Bleything. U. S. v. The Bleything Laboratories. Plea of guilty. Fine, $520.ddnj00717April 1948Bleything Laboratories, a corporation at Los Angeles, Calif.Endocrine Extract Formula Nos. 2, 131, and 157; Colloidal Dextro Calcium BleythingOctober 17, 1940, to July 2, 1941CaliforniaCaliforniaColoradoSouthern District of California717F. D. C. No. 4150. Sample Nos. 44102-E, 44425-E, 65833-E to 65835-E, incl.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00717ddnj|717. Adulteration and misbranding of Endocrine Extract Formula Tios. 2, 131,|and 157; misbranding of Colloidal Dextro Calcium Bleytbing. U. S. v.|The Bleything Laboratories. Plea of guilty. Fine, $520. (F. D. C. No.|4150. Sample Nos. 44102-E, 44425-E, 65833-E to 65835-E, incl.)|This case involved three shipments of endocrine extracts that were deficient|in potency, and one of colloidal dextro calcium that contained a smaller amount|of calcium than that indicated and implied in the labeling.|On April 28, 1942, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|California filed an information against the Bleything Laboratories, a corporation|at Los Angeles, Calif., alleging shipment within the period from on or about|October 17, 1940, to on or about July 2, 1941, from the State of California into|the State of Colorado of quantities of endocrine extracts that were adulterated|and misbranded, and of colloidal dextro calcium that was misbranded.|Endocrine Extract Formula No. 2 was alleged to be adulterated in that its|strength differed from and its quality fell below that which it purported and|was represented to possess since it was represented to contain in each 33 cc,|3 milligrams of the crystalline principle of thyroid and 20 milligrams of the|crystalline principle of entire ovary; whereas it contained no detectable amount|of the crystalline principle of thyroid or of entire ovary. It was alleged to be|misbranded in that the statements in the labeling, \"\"Endocrine Extract * * *|For Sublingual Use * * * Extracted principles of glands from government|inspected animals and distilled water. * * * Extracted Crystalline Prin-|ciples of the following glands: Thyroid ... 3 mgm. * * * Entire Ovary|... 20 mgm.,\"\" were false and misleading.|Formula No. 131 was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed|from and its quality fell below that which it purported and was represented|to possess since it was represented to contain in each 33 cc, 3 milligrams of the|crystalline principle of thyroid and 10 milligrams of the crystalline principle|of the male orchic gland; whereas it contained no detectable amount of the|crystalline principle of the thyroid or of the male orchic gland. It was alleged to|be misbranded in that the statements in the labeling, \"\"Endocrine Extract * * *|For Sublingual Use * * * Extracted principles of glands from government|inspected animals and distilled water. -* * * Extracted Crystalline Principles|of the following glands: Thyroid ... 3 mgm. * * * Male Orchic ... 10|mgm.,\"\" were false and misleading.|Formula No. 157 was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed|from and its quality fell below that which it purported and was represented to|possess, since it was represented to contain in each 33 cc, 3 milligrams of the|crystalline principle of thyroid, 10 milligrams of the crystalline principle of the|pineal gland, and 5 milligrams of the crystalline principle of the male orchic|gland; whereas it contained no detectable amounts of the crystalline principles|of the thyroid, pineal, or male orchic glands. It was alleged to be misbranded|in that the statements in the labeling, \"\"Endocrine Extract * * * For Sub-|lingual Use * * * Extracted principles of glands from government inspected|animals and distilled water. * * * Extracted Crystalline Principles of the|following glands: Thyroid ... 3 mgm. Pineal ... 10 mgm. * * * Male|Orchic ... 5 mgm.,\"\" were false and misleading.|The colloidal dextro calcium was alleged to be misbranded; (1) In that the|statements, (bottle label) \"\"Colloidal Dextro Calcium Bleything * * * Dos-|age: One teaspoonful three times daily before meals. May be taken in milk or|513868?-43?2|fruit juices, if preferred. In pronounced cases dosage may be doubled for two|weeks. Dosage for children is the same as for adults,\"\" were false and misleading (~~|since they represented and suggested that in the dosages recommended, it would <|supply the user with sufficient calcium to be of therapeutic value in cases of|ordinary calcium deficiency and even in cases of pronounced calcium deficiency;|whereas in the maximum daily dosage recommended, namely, 6 teaspoonfuls, it|would supply not more than V750 of the amount of calcium required daily by an|adult human being, which would be inconsequential for therapeutic purposes.|(2) In that the statement on the label, \"\"1-20 of 1? Sodium Benzoate,\"\" was false|and misleading since it represented that the article contained not more than ?o|of 1 percent of sodium benzoate; whereas the two shipments of the product|contained *4 and ? of 1 percent, respectively, of sodium benzoate.|On May 21, 1942, a plea of guilty having been entered on behalf of the|defendant, the court imposed a fine of $65 on each of the 8 counts of the|information, totaling $520.|1276. Misbranding of \"\"For Blood and Kidneys\"\" medicine. U. S. v. Charles Scheuerman (G. Scheuerman). Plea of guilty. Fine, $100.ddnj01276October 1945Charles Scheuerman, trading as C. Scheuerman, Cincinnati, Ohio\"\"For Blood and Kidneys\"\" medicineMay 4, 1943KentuckyOhioKentuckySouthern District of Ohio1276F. D. C. No. 11333. Sample No. 48310-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01276ddnj|1376. Misbranding: of \"\"For Blood and Kidneys\"\" medicine. U. S. v. Charles|Schenerman (G. Schenennan). Plea of groilty. Fine, $100. (F. D. C.|No. 11333. Sample No. 48310-F.)|On February 7, 1944, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|Ohio filed an information against Charles Scheuerman, trading as C. Scheuerman,|Cincinnati, Ohio, alleging shipment of a quantity of a liver, blood, and kidney|remedy on or about May 4,1943, from the State of Ohio into the State of Kentucky.|The article was labeled in part: (Bottle) \"\"For Blood and Kidneys * * * C.|Scheuerman\"\"; (circular) \"\"Vegetable Liver Medicine * * * Blood Remedy|? * * * For Blood and Kidneys.\"\"|Analysis of a sample showed that the article was an aqueous solution of plant|extractives containing, chiefly, aloe and emodin-bearing drugs.|The article was alleged to be misbranded because of false and misleading|statements in its labeling which represented and suggested that it would be|efficacious in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of diseased conditions|of the blood and kidneys in general, all diseases of the liver, stomach, bowels,|skin, and blood, rheumatism, lumbago, stiffness and soreness of the joints, soreness|of the muscles, palpitation of the heart, dizziness, numbness of the limbs, sickness|at the stomach, cold hands and feet, bad taste in the mouth, flashes of heat,|yellow skin, loss of appetite, sick headache, irregularities of the bowels, diarrhea,|dysentery, flux, catarrh, debility, shortness of breath, stagnation of blood, bad|circulation, scrofulous sores, tetter, old sores, and acrid humors in the blood;|and that it would be efficacious to start the bile from the liver and remove it|from the stomach. It was alleged to be further misbranded in that it failed|to bear a label containing an accurate statement of the quantity of the contents|and the common or usual name of each active ingredient.|On February 29,1944, the defendant entered a plea of guilty and was sentenced|to pay a fine of $100.|675. Adulteration and misbranding of oxygen and carbon dioxide mixture, U. S. v. Stuart Oxygen Co. Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $200.ddnj00675February 1943Stuart Oxygen Co., a corporation, San Francisco, Calif.oxygen and carbon dioxide mixtureSeptember 21, 1940CaliforniaCaliforniaWashingtonNorthern District of California675F. D. C No. 5536. Sample No. 55252-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00675ddnj|675. Adulteration and misbranding' of oxygen and carbon dioxide mixture,|U. S. v. Stuart Oxygen Co. Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $200. (F. D. C|No. 5536. Sample No. 55252-E.)|This product was represented to contain 7 percent of carbon dioxide, whereas it|contained 9 percent of carbon dioxide.|On December 22, 1941, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|California filed an information against Stuart Oxygen Co., a corporation, San|Francisco, Calif., alleging shipment on or about September 21, 1940, from the|State of California into the State of Washington of a quantity of oxygen and|carbon dioxide mixture which was adulterated and misbranded. It was labeled|in part: \"\"Stuart Medical Oxygen-Carbon Dioxide Mixture * * * 93? Oxy-|gen-T'? Carbon Dioxide.\"\"|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from|that which it purported and was represented to possess since it was represented|to contain not more than 7 percent of carbon dioxide, but did contain not less|than 9 percent of carbon dioxide.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, (cylinders) \"\"Carbon|Dioxide, not more than 7?,\"\" (wrappers) \"\"7? Carbon Dioxide,\"\" and (tags)|\"\"CO. * * * 7? Carbon Dioxide,\"\" were false and misleading.|On January 2. 1942, the defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere and the|court imposed a fine of $200.|676. Adulteration and misbranding of Camphor Liniment, Anthelmintic Tablets, and Kamala Compound Tio. 1 Tablets; and misbranding of Marnecro Concentrate, Marespy Tablets, and Fowl Enteric Tablets. U. S. v. Marrinan Supply Co., Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $45.ddnj00676February 1943\NCamphor Liniment, Anthelmintic Tablets, and Kamala Compound TioSeptember 9 to on or about October 18,1940MinnesotaMinnesotaWisconsin, Iowa, North DakotaDistrict of Minnesota676F. D. C. Nos. 4137 5480. Sample Nos. 38116-E, 38404-E, 3867-E, 38659-E, 3860E, 38661-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00676ddnj|676. Adulteration and misbranding of Camphor Liniment, Anthelmintic Tablets,|and Kamala Compound Tio. 1 Tablets; and misbranding of Marnecro Con-|centrate, Marespy Tablets, and Fowl Enteric Tablets. TJ. S. v. Marrinan|Supply Co., Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $45. (F. D. C. Nos. 4137 5480.|Sample Nos. 38116-E, 38404-E, 386^7-E, 38659-E, 38?60^E, 38661-E.)|The Camphor L'niment differed from the pharmacopoeial requirements. The|Anthelmintic Tablets and Kamala Compound No. 1 fell below their declared|standards and they and the remaining products bore on their labeling false and|misleading claims regarding their efficacy in the treatment of diseases of animals|and poultry. The Marnecro Concentrate was falsely represented to contain|copper arsenite and its label failed to bear an accurate statement of the quantity|of the contents.|On October 27, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Minnesota|filed an information against the Marrinan Supply Co., Inc., St. Paul. Minn., al-|leging shipment within the period from on or about September 9 to on or about|October 18,1940, from the State of Minnesota into the States of Wisconsin, Iowa,|North Dakota^ and South Dakota of quantities of the above-named products|which were misbranded and portions of which were also adulterated.|The Camphor Liniment was alleged to be adulterated: (1) In that it pur-|ported to be or was represented as a drug the name of which is recognized in the|United States Pharmacopoeia but its strength differed from or its quality or|purity fell below the standard set forth in such compendium since it contained not|more than 1.7 percent of camphor, and did contain small proportions of ammonium|chloride, ammonia water, and aromatics, whereas the pharmacopoeia provides|that camphor liniment shall contain not less than 19 percent of camphor, and|does not mention ammonium chloride, ammonia water, or aromatics as con-|stituents of camphor liniment; and the difference in strength, quality, or|purity from such standard was not plainly stated on the label. (2) In that a|substance containing not more than 1.7 percent of camphor, small proportions of|ammonium chloride, ammonia water, and aromatics had been substituted wholly|or in part for camphor liniment, which it purported to be. It was alleged to be|misbranded in that the statement \"\"Camphor Liniment,\"\" appearing on the label,|was false and misleading.|Analysis of the Marnecro Concentrate showed that it consisted essentially of|charcoal, sulfur, copper sulfate, sodium sulfate, iron sulfate, and sodium chloride,|but no copper arsenite or other arsenic-bearing substances. It was alleged to|be misbranded (1) in that representations in the labeling that it was effica-|cious in the prevention and cure of necrotic enteritis in pigs; and as an antiseptic,|vermifuge, and febrifuge; that it would absorb and hold deleterious gases, increase|gastric juices, aid digestion, eliminate waste from the body, and purify the|blood; and would be efficacious in the treatment of scours, were false and mis-|leading since it would not be efficacious for such purposes; (2) in that the|statement \"\"Copper Arsenite\"\" on the label was false and misleading since it|contained no copper arsenite; and (3) in that it was in package form and its|label did not bear an accurate statement of the quantity of the contents in terms|of weight.|Analysis of the Anthelmintic Tablets showed that they contained not more|than 5.23 grains of kamala and not more than 8.62 grains of copper sulfate per|tablet. They were alleged to be adulterated in that their strength differed from|or their quality or purity fell below that which they purported and were repre-|sented to possess, since each of the tablets purported and was represented to|contain 10 grains of kamala and 10 grains of copper sulfate; whereas the tablets|each contained not more than 5.23 grains of kamala\"\" and not more than 8.62|grains of copper sulfate. They were alleged to be misbranded (1) in that state-|ments in the labeling which represented that they were efficacious as an anthel-|mintic, for the control of \"\"tapeworm infection,\"\" to remove stomach worms, and|as a general anthelmintic agent for sheep and goats, were false and misleading|since they were not efficacious for such purposes; and (2) in that the statement|\"\"Each Tablet Contains: Kamala 10 grs. Copper Sulphate 10 grs.,\"\" borne on the|box, was false and misleading since the tablets contained less kamala and|copper sulfate than the amounts represented.|Analysis of the Marespy Tablets showed that they consisted essentially of|eucalyptol, small proportions of guaiacol, potassium chlorate, and a chromium|compound, with inert ingredients such as calcium carbonate and magnesium|carbonate. They were alleged to be misbranded in that the statement \"\"Roup\"\"|appearing on the boxes was false and misleading since they were not efficacious in|the treatment of roup in poultry.|Analysis showed that the Kamala Compound No. 1 Tablets contained not|more than 7.12 grains of kamala and not less than 1.20 grains of nicotine sulfate|per tablet. They also contained calomel, a mercurial derivative, in the amount|of approximately ? grain per tablet. They were alleged to be adulterated in|that their strength differed from that which they purported and were repre-|sented to possess since each of the tablets was represented to contain 9 grains|of kamala and ^4 grain of nicotine sulfate; whereas the tablets contained not more|than 7.12 grains of kamala and not less than 1.20 grains of nicotine sulfate.|They were alleged to be misbranded (1) in that the statement in the labeling|which represented that they were efficacious for the treatment of poultry in-|fested with roundworms or tapeworms was false and misleading since they|would not be efficacious for such purposes; (2) in that the statement \"\"Tablets|* * * Kamala 9 grs. Nicotine Sulphate ? gr.,\"\" appearing on the boxes, was|false and misleading since the tablets contained not more than 7.12 grains of|kamala and not less than 1.20 grains of nicotine sulfate; and (3) in that they|were fabricated from two or more ingredients and contained the ingredient|calomel, a derivative or preparation of mercury, and the label did not show that|said ingredient was a derivative or preparation of mercury.|Analysis showed that the Fowl Enteric Tablets consisted essentially of com-|pounds of calcium, sodium, and copper, sulfates, phenolsulfates, and approxi-|mately 1/10 grain of copper arsenite per tablet.|They were alleged to be misbranded (1) in that the statements in the labeling|which represented that they were efficacious in the treatment of enteritis, black-|head, and various intestinal infections in fowls were false and misleading since|they were not efficacious for such purposes; and (2) in that they were fabricated|from two or more ingredients and contained arsenic, but the label did not bear|the common or usual name of each active ingredient, including the quantity or|proportion of arsenic that they contained.|On November 12, 1941, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant|and a fine of $45 was imposed by the court.|677. Misbranding of Crawford's Ridia. U. S. v. 20 Bottles of Crawford's Ridia. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00677November 1942Crawford Foods, Inc.Crawford's RidiaJanuary 10, 1941Portland, Oreg.San Jose, Calif.Portland, Oreg.District of Oregon677F. D. C. No. 3826. Sample No. 55743-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00677ddnj|677. Misbranding; of Crawford's Ridia. U. S. v. 20 Bottles of Crawford's Ridia.|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 3826. Sample|No. 55743-E.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regarding (|its efficacy in the treatment of diabetes.|On February 20, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Oregon <|filed a libel against 20 bottles of Crawford's Ridia at Portland, Oreg., alleging|that the article had been shipped on or about January 10,1941, by Crawford Foods,|Inc., from San Jose, Calif.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of|alfalfa with smaller proportions of mint.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that representations in an accompanying|circular entitled \"\"Health Chronicle\"\" that it was a substitute for the secretions of|the pancreas and would be efficacious for the relief of suffering diabetics; that|each tablet contained a potency equal to 2 insulin units; that by its use insulin|sickness would vanish; that insulin stiffness or muscular pains that grow on the|patient after a prolonged use of insulin would slowly leave the body; that the|blurred vision and partial blindness induced by insulin would gradually be cleared;|and that it was a natural remedy and health food adjuvant, were false and mis-|leading since it would not be efficacious for such purposes.|It was also alleged to be misbranded under the provisions of the law applicable|to foods, as reported in F. N. J. No. 2823.|- '|On April 17, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of|\"\" condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|678. Adulteration of tincture of digitalis. U. S. v. 5 Bottles of Tincture Digitalis. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00678February 1943Standard Pharmaceutical Corporationtincture of digitalisDecember 9, 1940Atlanta, Ga.Baltimore, Md.Atlanta, Ga.Northern District of Georgia678F. D. C. No. 3871. Sample No. 37766-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00678ddnj|678. Adnlteration of tincture of digitalis. V. S. v. 5 Bottles of Tincture Digitalis.|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 3S71. Sample|No. 37766-E.)|The potency of this article exceeded by approximately 50 percent the maximum|potency for tincture of digitalis as specified in the United States Pharmacopoeia.|On February 27, 1941, the United States attorney for the Northern District|of Georgia filed a libel against 5 bottles of tincture of digitalis at Atlanta, Ga.t|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or labout|December 9, 1940, by the Standard Pharmaceutical Corporation from Baltimore,|Md.; and charging that it was adulterated in that it purported to be and was|represented- as a drug the name of which is recognized in the United States|Pharmacopoeia, an official compendium, but its strength differed from the stand-|ard set forth in such compendium. It was labeled in part: \"\"Tincture Digitalis|U. S. P.\"\"|On January 5, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|679. Adulteration and misbranding of Individual Quinine Hair Treatment; misbranding of Daigneault's Eau de Quinine Hair Tonic U. S. v. 66 Bottles of Daigneault's Eau de Quinine Hair Tonic and 488 Packages of Individual Quinine Hair Treatment. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00679February 1943Joseph DaigneaultIndividual Quinine Hair Treatment; Daigneault's Eau de Quinine Hair TonicJune 3, 1940Philadelphia, Pa.Malone, N. Y.Philadelphia, Pa.Eastern District of Pennsylvania679F. D. C. Nos. 2644, 2645. Sample Nos. 24241-E, 24242-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00679ddnj|679. Adulteration and misbranding of Individual Quinine Hair Treatment; mis|branding of Dalgneault's Eau de Quinine Hair Tonic U. S. v. 66 Bottles|of Daigrneault's Eau de Quinine Hair Tonic and 488 Packages of Individual|Quinine Hair Treatment. Default decree of condemnation and destruc-|tion. (F. D. C. Nos. 2644, 2645. Sample Nos. 24241-E, 24242-E.)|The labeling of these products bore false and misleading representations re-|garding their efficacy in the treatment,of the conditions indicated hereinafter,|and also failed to comply with certain mandatory labeling requirements of the|law. The hair tonic contained less alcohol than the amount declared, and the|hair treatment was not antiseptic as claimed in the labeling.|On August 21, 1940, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Pennsylvania filed a libel against the above-named products at Philadelphia,|Pa., which had been consigned by Joseph Daigneault, alleging that the articles|had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about June 3, 1940, from Malone,|N. Y.; and charging that they were misbranded and that the hair treatment was|also adulterated.|Analysis of the hair tonic showed that it consisted essentially of alcohol (59|percent), water, a small proportion of quinine, perfume, and coloring matter.|Examination of the hair treatment showed that each package contained tubes|labeled No. 1 and No. 2. The product in tube No. 1 consisted essentially of|mineral oil, a small proportion of a fatty oil, and carbolic acid; and that in|tube No. 2 consisted essentially of soap and water. Bacteriological tests showed|that the hair treatment was not antiseptic.|The hair treatment was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed|from and its purity or quality fell below that which it purported or was repre-|sented to possess, namely, \"\"antiseptic.\"\" It was alleged to be misbranded (1)|in that the statements \"\"Antiseptic * * * Quinine Hair Treatment Joseph|Daigneault New York Chicago * * * Removing Dandruff in one application.|Promotes growth of the Hair in the worst cases and in which other treatments|have failed. * * * puts it in a permanently healthy condition,\"\" represented|that it was efficacious for the purposes recommended, whereas it was npt|efficacious for such purposes; (2) in that the label did not bear an accurate|statement of the quantity of contents; and (3) in that it did not bear the common|or usual names of the active ingredients.|The hair tonic was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that the following state-|ments in the labeling, \"\"Compounded with 68? Alcohol * * * prevents fall-|ing out and promotes growth of the Hair,\"\" were false and misleading, since it|would not be efficacious for the purposes recommended; and (2) in that the|label did not bear an accurate statement of the quantity of the contents. Both|products were alleged to be misbranded further in that the labels did not bear|the name and address of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor, since the|address of the manufacturer borne on the labels was incorrect.|On February 16,1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the products were ordered destroyed.|680. Adulteration and misbranding of Bevimin. U. S. v. 43 Vials of Bevimin Vitamin B1 Hydrochloride. Decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00680February 1943Loeser Laboratory, Inc.BeviminJune 29, 1939Richmond, Va.New York, N. Y.Richmond, Va.Eastern District of Virginia680F. D. C. No. 2365. Sample No. 1977-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00680ddnj|680. Adulteration and misbranding of Bevlmin. IT. S. v. 43 Vials of Bevimin|Vitamin B, Hydrochloride. Decree of condemnation and destruction. (F.|D. C. No. 2365. Sample No. 1977-E.)|This product was labeled as containing 10 milligrams of vitamin Bi per cubic|centimeter, whereas it contained not more than 7 milligrams of vitamin Bi per|cubic centimeter.|On July 15, 1940, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Virginia filed a libel against 43 vials of the above-named product at Richmond,|Va., alleging that it had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about June 29,|1939, by the Loeser Laboratory, Inc., from New York, N. Y.; and charging that it|was adulterated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from|and its quality fell below that which it was represented to possess, namely,|(label) \"\"Each c.c.=10 MG.=3000 I.U,\"\" and (carton) \"\"Each cc. contains 10 Mg.|(3,000 I.U.),\"\" since it did not contain 10 milligrams of vitamin Bi per cubic|centimeter, but did contain a smaller amount. It was alleged to be misbranded|in that the statements on the label and carton quoted hereinbefore were false|and misleading since they were incorrect.|On January 7, 1942, the sole intervenor having withdrawn its appearance,|judgment of condemnation was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|686. Misbranding of Dr. Gordshell's Salve. U. S. v. 16 Dozen Jars and 53 Jars of Dr. Gordshell's Salve.ddnj00686February 1943Gordshell Chemical Co.Dr. Gordshell's SalveSeptember 23, October 17, and November 28, 1941Washington, D. C.Baltimore, Md.Washington, D. C.District of Columbia686F. D. C. No. 6650. Sample Nos. 59078-E, 59079-E, 59088-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00686ddnj|686. Misbranding of Dr. Gordshell's Salve. U. S. v. 16 Dozen Jars and 53 Jars of|Dr. Go-dshell's Salve. (F. D. C. No. 6650. Sample Nos. 59078-E, 59079-B,|59088-E.)|On January 2, 1942. the United States attorney for the District of Columbia|filed a libel against 16 dozen 1-ounce jars and 53 2-ounce jars of Dr. Gordshell's|Salve at Washington, D. C, alleging that the article had been shipped on or about|September 23, October 17, and November 28, 1941, by the Gordshell Chemical Oo.|from Baltimore, Md.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analyses of samples showed that the article consisted of fatty, waxy, and|lesinous materials containing volatile oils and a trace of alkaloid (not more than|0.002 percent).|The article was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that the statement on the jar|labels and cartons, \"\"Contains: Stramonium Alk. .05?,\"\" was false and misleading|since it contained not more than 0.002 percent, if any, stramonium alkaloids. (2)|In that statements appearing in the labeling which suggested and represented|that it was efficacious for skin|' irritations and boils and that its ingredients pos-|sessed unusual properties for promoting health were false and misleading since|when used as directed, it would not be efficacious for treatment of many types of|skin irritation, it would not be efficacious for boils, and its ingredients did not|possess unusual qualities for promoting healing. (3) In that the labeling failed te|bear the common or usual name of each active ingredient since the statement on|the jar labels and the individual carton labels, \"\"Contains: Stramonium Alk. .05?,|Oil of Sassafras, Elder Flowers, Bayberry, Rosin, Beeswax, in a Suitable Base,\"\" ,|was not a statement of the active ingredients.|On February 27, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|687. Misbranding of Savol and Savol Cream. U. S. v. 2 1/3 Dozen Packages of Savol and 2 1/6 Dozen Packages of Savol Cream. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00687February 1943Savol Chemical Co.Savol and Savol CreamJune 23 to August 13, 1941Youngstown, OhioMercer, Pa.Youngstown, OhioNorthern District of Ohio687F. D. C. Nos. 5901. 5902. Sample Nos. 64167-E, 64168-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00687ddnj|687. Misbranding: of Savol and Savol Cream. U. S. v. 2% Dozen Packages of Savol|and 2VH Dozen Packages of Savol Cream. Default decree of condemnation|and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 5901. 5902. Sample Nos. 64167-E, 64168-E.)|The labels of both of these products, in addition to bearing false and misleading|claims, failed to bear the required ingredient and accurate quantity of contents|statements. Furthermore, the cartons containing the bottles of Savol were un-|necessarily large.|On September 29, 1941, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Ohio filed libels against the above-named products at Youngstown, Ohio, alleg-|ing that they had been shipped within the period from on or about June 23 to on|or about August 13, 1941, by the Savol Chemical Co. from Mercer, Pa.; and|charging that they were misbranded.|Analyses of samples of the articles showed that Savol consisted essentially of|cresols, alkali soaps and water; and that the Savol Cream consisted essentially|of zinc oxide, barium sulfate, petrolatum, and perfume materials.|The Savol was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that statements in the labeling|which represented that it would be efficacious to protect against and prevent|serious infection; that it would be efficacious in the treatment of bites of ani-|mals, open sores, irritation of the throat or nasal passages arising from catarrh,|hay fever, or kindred ills; that it would minimize the possibility of infected sores,|abscesses, boils, felons, and all complications due to infections, and that it would|always be helpful and often curative, were false and misleading since it would|not be efficacious for such purposes; and (2) in that its container was so made,|formed, or filled as to be misleading.|The Savol Cream was alleged to be misbrande 1 in that statements in the label-|ing which represented that it was an antiseptic and would be efficacious in the|treatment of cuts, boils, felons, sores, ulcers, itchfhg and all forms of piles, eczema,|skin affections in general, and bites of animals; that it would be efficacious for the|after treatment of carbuncles and erysipelas and in the treatment of sore throat,|croup, and enlarged glands when used on the neck, were false and misleading|since it would not be efficacious for such purposes.|Both products were alleged to be misbranded (1) in that their labels failed to|bear the common or usual names of the active ingredients; and (2) in that their|labels failed to bear an accurate statement of the quantity of contents.|On November 26,1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|688. Misbranding of Waft-Surgical. U. S. v. 11 Gallon Bottles of Waft-Surgical. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00688February 1943Waft Products, Inc.Waft-SurgicalApril 20, 1940, June 13, 1941Rusk, Tex.Springfield, Ill.Rusk, Tex.Eastern District of Texas688F. D. C. No. 5810. Sample No. 49661-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00688ddnj|688. Misbranding of Waft-Surgical. V. S. v. 11 Gallon Bottles of Waft-Surgical.|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (P. D. C. No. 5810. Sample|No. 49661-E.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading antiseptic and thera-|peutic claims and also failed to bear the common or usual names of the active|ingredients.|On September 22, 1941, the United States attorney for the Eastern District|of Texas filed a libel against the above-named product at Rusk, Tex., alleging that|the article had been shipped in interstate commerce from Springfield, 111.; a|portion on or about April 20, 1940, by Waft Products, Inc., and the remainder|on ?r about June 13, 1941, by the Federal Cosmetic Sales Corporation; and|charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of water and formalde-|hyde, with small amounts of terpineol and a yellow-green coloring material.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that representations in the labeling|that it had a phenol coefficient of 70, that it would be efficacious as an antiseptic,|disinfectant, fungicide, germicide, parasiticide, in the dilutions suggested; that|it would be of value as a wet dressing or application on wounds in the dilutions|suggested; that it would inhibit disease producing micro-organisms and would|be efficacious for sterilization of surgical instruments; that it would be efficacious|for general prophylactic treatment; that it would be efficacious in the treatment|of wounds and infections, would neutralize fetid odors; would control obnoxious|odors incident to tissue breakdown due to cancer, gangrene, \"\"infected amputa-|tions,\"\" pus drainage, fistulae, urinary fecal, etc.; that when used as a wet dress-|ing it would trap emanating odors; that it was efficacious as a douche for cancer|and infections of the cervix and vagina; that because of its high phenol coefficiency|it might be diluted 300 to 400 times and still retain its antiseptic properties; and|that it would be efficacious as a safeguard against fungi and \"\"parasitical infec-|tions\"\" of animals, were false and misleading, since its phenol coefficient was less|than 1 and it would not be efficacious for the purposes claimed. It was alleged|to be misbranded further in that its label did not contain the common or usual|names of the active ingredients.|On October 25, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|689. Misbranding of Lash's Bitters. U. S. v. 28 Bottles of Lash's Bitters. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00689February 1943Lash, Inc.Lash's BittersOctober 27, 1941Portland, Oreg.Anaheim, Calif.Portland, Oreg.District of Oregon689F. D. C. No. 6772. Sample No. 85438-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00689ddnj|689. Misbranding of Lash's'Bitters. V. S. v. 28 Bottles of Lash's Bitters. Default|decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 6772. Sample No.|85438-E.)|On January 31, 1942, the United States attorney for the District of Oregon|filed a libel against the above-named product at Portland, Oreg., alleging that it|had been shipped on or about October 27, 1941, by Lash, Inc., from Anaheim,|Calif.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it was essentially a water-|alcohol extract of laxative plant drugs such a cascara sagrada and senna.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that statements oh the label which repre-|sented that it was a regulator, that it would exert a beneficial influence upon the|?digestive organs, that it was an adequate remedy for indigestion, headaches, and|loss of appetite arising from imperfect digestion, and that its was an adequate|treatment for chronic constipation were false and misleading since it would not|be efficacious for such purposes. It was alleged to be misbranded further in|that the following statements were false and misleading since frequent or|?continued use would be likely to result in a state of dependence upon laxatives|to move the bowels: \"\"The system does not become habituated to its use. Its|properties do not cause the harsh after effects which may accompany cathartics.\"\"|On March 25, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|690. Misbranding of Todd's Capsules. U. S. v. 28 Packages and 11 Packages of Todd's Capsules. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00690February 1943J. E. Todd, Inc.Todd's CapsulesAugust 16 to November 21, 1941Canton, OhioKenmore, N. Y.Canton, OhioNorthern District of Ohio690F. D. C. No. 6307. Sample Nos. 79317-E, 79328-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00690ddnj|.690. Misbranding of Todd's Capsules. TJ. S. v. 28 Packages and 11 Packages of|Todd's Capsules. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C.|No. 6307. Sample Nos. 79317-E, 79328-E.)|On December 1, 1941, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Ohio filed a libel against 28 packages each containing 6 yellow boxes of 50 cap-|sules each; and 11 packages each containing 1 orange box\"\, 2 green boxes, and 3|yellow boxes of 50 capsules each, at Canton, Ohio, alleging that the article had|been shipped within the period from on or about August 16 to on or about|November 21, 1941, by J. E. Todd, Inc., from Kenmore, N. Y.; and charging|that it was misbranded.|Examination of samples of the article showed that the capsules consisted|essentially of magnesium oxide (approximately 0.16 grains), calcium carbonate|(approximately 2 grains), sodium bicarbonate varying in the different colored|boxes from 2.1 to 3.8 grains, a gum resin such as olibanum, small proportions|of an iron compound and sulfur, and sand varying from 2.5 to 4.3 grains per|capsule.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements on|the label, \"\"For relief of conditions of excessive acidity in the human body and|the gradual alleviation in that way of aches and pains that may be symptoms|of or associated with those conditions, which symptoms may be popularly re-|ferred to as 'rheumatic' * * * Caution: No immediate relief may be ex-|pected from these capsules and they should be allowed a reasonable time, accord-|ing to particular conditions in each indicated case, for the best possible results,\"\"|were false and misleading since it was not an adequate treatment for cordl-|tions and symptoms popularly referred to as \"\"Rheumatic\"\" and would not effect|relief from such conditions after a reasonable, or after any other, time.|On February 26, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|691. Misbranding of Hi-V Vitamins capsules. U. S. v. 48 Dozen and 24 Dozen Cartons of Hi-V Vitamins. Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered released under bond to be relabeled.ddnj00691February 1943Hi-V Vitamin CorporationHi-V Vitamins capsulesJanuary 19, 1942Baltimore, Md.New York, N. Y.Baltimore, Md.District of Maryland691F. D. C. No. 6927. Sample No. 87506-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00691ddnj|691. Misbranding of Hi-V Vitamins capsules. IT. S. v. 48 Dozen and 24 Dozen|Cartons of Hi-V Vitamins. Consent decree of condemnation. Product|ordered released under bond to be relabeled. (F. D. C. No. 6927. Sample|No. 87506-E.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading claims regarding its|efficacy to restore and maintain health and prevent or correct disease conditions,|and represented that it contained all the vitamins essential in normal nutrition;|but it did not contain riboflavin or nicotinic acid, two substances whose absence|from the diet may be the cause of vitamin deficiency diseases.|On February 25, 1942, tfie United States attorney for the District of Maryland,|filed a libel against 72 dozen cartons of Hi-V Vitamins at Baltimore, Md., alleging|that the article had been shipped on or about January 19, 1942, by the Hi-V|Vitamin Corporation from New York, N. Y.; and charging that it was mis-|branded. It was labeled in part: \"\"6250 U. S. P. Units Vitamin A (from fish liver|oils) 350 Int. Units Vitamin Bi (Thiamin chloride) 300 U. S. P. Units Vitamin C|(Ascorbic acid) 625 U. S. P. Units Vitamin D (Irradiated Ergosterol).\"\"|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that statements in an accompany-|ing circular entitled \"\"What You should know about Vitamins,\"\" representing,|suggesting, and creating in the mind of the reader the impression that health|could be assured by its consumption; that the average individual requires vita-|min supplements of the type that it supplied in order to obtain maximum health;|that the average individual is likely to be suffering from lack of vitality, lack of|energy, poor appetite, and impaired digestion because of inadequate vitamin|intake from his food; that its consumption as drected, in the majority of cases,|would prevent or correct the disease conditions resulting from inadequate vita-|min intake; and that it contained all the vitamins essential in normal nutrition,|were false and misleading since it would not fulfill the promises implied and it|did not contain riboflavin or nicotinic acid, two vitamins essential in normal|nutrition.|It also w;as alleged to be misbranded under the provisions of the law applicable|to foods, as reported in F. N. J. No. 3644.|On March 26, 1942, the Hi-V Vitamin Corporation having admitted the allega- >|tions of the libel, judgment of condemnation was entered and the product was|ordered released under bond to be relabeled. On the same date the product was|relabeled by removal from the carton of the circular entitled \"\"What You should|know about Vitamins.\"\"|692. Misbranding of Tu-Way Massagers. U. S. v. 15 Tu-Way Massagers. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00692February 1943Edw. W. Arnold Co.Tu-Way MassagersAugust 21, 1941Chicago, Ill.Logansport, Ind.Chicago, Ill.Northern District of Illinois692F. D. C. No. 6268. Sample No. 66325-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00692ddnj|602. Misbranding of Tu-Way Massagers. U. S. v. IS Tn-Way Massagers. Default|decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 6268. Sample No.|66325-E.)|This massaging device consisted of a series of rubber-covered disks, attached|to a handle, which were to be rolled over portions of the body. It would not be|efficacious to reduce weight or to stimulate the activity of the liver, as claimed in|the labeling.|On December 2, 1941, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Illinois filed a libel against 15 Tu-Way Massagers at Chicago, 111., alleging that|the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about August 21, 1941,|by the Edw. W. Arnold Co. from Logansport, Ind.; and charging that it was|misbranded.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that statements appearing in the|accompanying circular which represented that it was founded on an exact|scientific principle and would positively reduce the fat spots and beautify the|body and figure; that it would bring about a gradual fat reduction and cause|flabby fat to disappear; would break down the fat in a natural and healthful way;|would break down the fatty deposits so that they would be oxidized (burned up)|within the body, with the result that the residue would be carried away by the|blood stream and eliminated through the organs of elimination, leaving the flesh|more firm and solid; that it would be wonderfully soothing and strengthening to|tired, aching neck, and shoulders and would stimulate the circulation and relieve|congested or tight feeling often felt between the shoulders; that it would be|efficacious in correcting fleshy, corpulent, and pendulous abdomens; and would|stimulate activity of the liver; were false and misleading since it. would not be|efficacious for such purposes.|On January 21, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|693. Misbranding of Ultrasol. U. S. v. 2 Kits and 6 Kits of Ultrasol. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00693February 1943Post Institute Sales CorporationUltrasolSeptember 30, 1941East Orange, N. J.Newburgh, N. Y.East Orange, N. J.District of New Jersey693F. D. C. No. 6062. Sample No. 74710-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00693ddnj|693. Misbranding of Ultrasol. IT. S. v. 2 Kits and 6 Kits of Ultrasol. Default|decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 6062. Sample No.|74710-E.).|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-|ing its efficacy to promote hair growth and to prevent hair loss and premature|graying.|On or about October 25, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of I|New Jersey filed a libel against 8 kits of Ultrasol at East Orange, N. J., alleging|that the article had been shipped in Interstate commerce on or about September|30,1941, by Post Institute Sales Corporation from Newburgh, N. Y.; and charging|that it was misbranded.|Examination showed that the kits contained, among other items, a bottle of|Ultrasol Fluid, cartons of Ultrasol Hair Bath, and a leaflet entitled \"\"How to|apply the Ultrasol Standard Treatment.\"\" Analysis of the Ultrasol Fluid showed|that it consisted essentially of light mineral oil, oxyquinoline (0.12 gram per|100 cubic centimeters), organic substances including cholesterol and perfume.|Analysis of the Ultrasol Hair Bath showed that it consisted essentially of a|wetting agent, such as sodium lauryl sulfate, a small proportion of cholesterol.|and other organic material.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that statements on the kit label,|the bottle label of the Ultrasol Fluid, upon the carton label of the Hair Bath, in|the aforesaid leaflet, and in a booklet entitled \"\"The Cultivation of Luxuriant Hair,\"\"|which had been incorporated into the leaflet by the legend \"\"For exposition of|theory see our booklet 'The Cultivation of Luxuriant Hair',\"\" which represented|and suggested that it would promote luxurious hair and scalp hygiene; that it|would remove dandruff and neo-keratin, and help check excessive hair loss and|combat premature graying; that it would bring about a condition under which the|natural hair-growing process would be unimpeded and natural hair growth would|become possible; that it would clear away the neo-keratin, enabling the dormant|hair within the scalp to become free to resume normal growth and the fuzz to|develop into full-size hair; that it would remove obstruction to the development|of fuzz or thin short hair; would stop abnormal hair loss; free the scalp from|dandruff; make dull, dry, faded hair become brilliant; that new hair would be|produced on gray heads, which frequently would be of the original shade, thus|indicating that it would prevent graying; would revive limp, dull, scanty \"\"impos-|sible\"\" hair without strong rinses, scalp manipulation, or tiring massage; would|strengthen the hair for lasting, artistic permanent waving; would normalize dry|or oily scalp; would give dyed hair an even, \"\"refined\"\" luster; and would keep the|scalp clean and free from dandruff, were false and misleading since it would not|be efficacious for such purposes.|On January 29, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|694. Misbranding of Beacon's Stokade, Beacon's Cam-Pho-Spray, Beacon's Poultry Liquid, Beacon's Chexal, Beacon's Fowl-Ade, and Beacon's Swinade. U. S. v. 12 Packages of Beacon's Stokade (and 5 other seizures of Beacon's veterinary preparations). Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00694February 1943Beacon LaboratoriesBeacon's Stokade, Beacon's Cam-Pho-Spray, Beacon's Poultry Liquid, Beacon's Chexal, Beacon's Fowl-Ade, and Beacon's SwinadeApril 21 and 28, 1941St. Cloud, Minn.Fond du Lac, Wis.St. Cloud, Minn.District of Minnesota694F. D. C. Nos. 6118 to 6123, incl. Sample Nos. 58221-K, 58222-E, 58223-K, 58656-E, 58657-E, 58658-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00694ddnj|694. Misbranding of Beacon's Stokade, Beacon's Cam-Pho-Spray, Beacon's Poultry|Liquid, Beacon's Chexal, Beacon's Fowl-Ade, and Beacon's Swinade. U. S.|v. 12 Packages of Beacon's Stokade (and 5 other seizures of Beacon's|veterinary preparations). Default decrees of condemnation and destruc-|tion. (F. D. C. Nos. 6118 to 6123, incl. Sample Nos. 58221-K, 58222-E, 58223-K,|58656-E, 5865T-E, 58658-E.)|On November 4,1941, the United States attorney for the District of Minnesota|filed libels against 12 packages of Beacon's Stokade, 24 bottles of Beacon's|Cam-Pho Spray, 16 bottles of B3acon's Poultry Liquid, 32 cans of Beacon's|Chexal, 30 cans of Beacon's Fowl-Ade, and 43 cans of Beacon's Swinade at St.|Cloud, Minn., alleging that the articles had been shipped in interstate commerce|on or about April 21 and 28, 1941, by the Beacon Laboratories from Fond du|Lac, Wis.; and charging that they were misbranded.|Analysis of Beacon's Stokade showed that it consisted essentially of plant|materials including nux vomica, gentian, pokeroot, quassia bark, tamarack bark,|caraway seed, ginger and fenugreek, iron oxide, ferric citrate, calcium lactate,|and charcoal. It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements in the|labeling which represented that it was a stimulant and would assist in the di-|gestion and assimilation of feed by exciting the flow of digestive juices, that|it was effective as a general tonic, would be of value at freshening time and that|another drug, namely, Chexal, would be an efficacious treatment for scours in|livestock, were false and misleading since the articles when used as directed|would not be efficacious for such purposes.|Analysis of the Cam-Pho-Spray showed that it consisted essentially of volatile|oils including camphor and eucalyptus oil, soap, creosote, and pine oil. It was|alleged to be misbranded in that statements in the labeling which represented|that it was an antiseptic when used as an inhalant were false and misleading|since when used as directed, it was not an antiseptic.|Analysis of the Poultry Liquid showed that it consisted essentially of potas-|sium salts including dichromate, chlorate, and nitrate, Epsom salt, and sugar|dissolved in water. It was alleged to be misbranded in that statements in the|labeling which represented that it was an intestinal antiseptic for all fowl were|false and misleading since when used as directed in the labeling, it would not be|efficacious for such purposes.|tannic acid, bismuth subnitrate and subcarbonate (approximately 7.7 percent),|sodium bicarbonate (15.5 percent, calcium carbonate (66.9 percent), and mag-|nesium carbonate (5.79 percent). It was alleged to be misbranded in that|statements in the labeling which represented that it would help retard scour|losses in all livestock, that it was an excellent tonic and stimulant, were false|and misleading since when used as directed in the labeling, it would not be|efficacious for such purposes.|Analysis of Beacon's Fowl-Ade showed that it consisted essentially of copper|sulfate (41.84 percent), kamala resins (15.6 percent), nicotine sulfate, nux|vomica, iron sulfate, and anise. Its package was materially larger than was|necessary to hold its contents. It was alleged to be misbranded in that state-|ments in the labeling which represented that it was a \"\"fowl-ade\"\" for chickens,|turkeys, ducks, and geese of all ages, were false and misleading since when used|as directed in the labeling, it would not be efficacious for such purposes. It was|alleged to be misbranded further in that its container was so made, formed, and|filled as to be misleading.|Analysis of Beacon's Swinade showed that it consisted essentially of hydrated|lime, sulfur (10.8 percent), iron sulfate, and plant material including nux|vomica, American wormseed, and corn meal. .It was alleged to be misbranded|in that statements in the labeling which represented that it was efficacious in the|treatment of large roundworms and that another drug, namely, Chexal, would|be efficacious in the treatment of scours in livestock, were false and misleading|since the articles when used as directed would not be efficacious for such|purposes.|On March 4, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgments of condemnation|were entered and the products were ordered destroyed.|695. Misbranding of Formula A-1. U. S. v. 42 Gallon Cans of Formula A-1. Default decree of condemnation. Product destroyed.ddnj00695February 1943Stanley S. SteinharterFormula A-lSeptember and October, 1941Sioux Falls, S. Dak.Cincinnati, OhioSioux Falls, S. Dak.District of South Dakota695F. D. C. No. 6314. Sample No. 76456-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00695ddnj|695. Misbranding of Formula A-l. U. S. v. 42 Gallon Cans of Formula A-l.|Default decree of condemnation. Product destroyed. (F. D. C. No. 6314.|Sample No. 76456-E.)|On December 2, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of South Da-|kota filed a libel against the above-named product at Sioux Falls, S. Dak., alleging|that in the months of September and October, 1941, the article had been shipped|by Stanley S. Steinharter from Cincinnati, Ohio; and charging that it was mis-|branded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of cre-|osote, sodium salts of cresols, a small proportion of sodium hydroxide, a trace of|an arsenic compound, extracts of plant drugs, sugar, and water.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that statements in the labeling representing|that it would be efficacious in the treatment of enteritis or dysentery due to|bacterial infection of swine, cattle, and poultry, were false and misleading since|it would not be efficacious for such purposes.|On January 5, 1942, no claimant.having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was subsequently destroyed.|DRUGS IN DECEPTIVE CONTAINERS|696. Misbranding of Caulk Mercitan Lotion. U. S. v. 66 Packages of Caulk Mercitan Lotion. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00696February 1943L. D. Caulk Co.Caulk Mercitan LotionNovember 17 and December 23, 1941Philadelphia, Pa.Milford, Del.Philadelphia, Pa.Eastern District of Pennsylvania696F. D. C. No. 6754. Sample No. 54182-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00696ddnj|696. Misbranding of Caulk Mercitan Lotion. V. S. v. 66 Packages of Caulk Merei-|tan Lotion. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C.|No. 6754. Sample No. 54182-E.)|This product was packed in triangular-shaped bottles, each of which was|placed in a square cardboard container. The 8-ounce bottles occupied approxi-|mately 43 percent of the capacity of the containers and the 3?-ounce bottles|occupied approximately 44 percent of the capacity of the containers.|On January 24, 1942, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Pennsylvania filed a libel against 24 8-ounce packages and 42 3?-ounce packages|of the above-named product at Philadelphia, Pa., alleging that it had been shipped|on or about November 17 and December 23, 1941, by the L. D. Caulk Co. from|Milford, Del.; and charging that it was misbranded in that its container was so|made, formed, or filled as to be misleading.|On February 16,1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|723. Adulteration and misbranding of Russian mineral oil. U. S. v. 477 Bottles, 113 Dozen Bottles, 487 Dozen Bottles, and 17 Drums of Russian Mineral Oil. Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered released under bond to be relabeled.ddnj00723April 1948McKesson & Robbins, Inc., New York, N. Y.Russian mineral oilMay 2 and 3, 1940Bridgeport, Conn.New York, N. Y.Bridgeport, Conn.District of Connecticut723F. D. C. No. 4817. Sample Nos. 56027-E, 56054-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00723ddnj|723. Adulteration and misbranding of Russian mineral oil. TJ. S. v. 477 Bottles,|113 Dozen Bottles, 487 Dozen Bottles, and 17 Drums of Russian Mineral|Oil. Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered released under|bond to be relabeled. (F. D. C. No. 4817. Sample Nos. 56027-E, 56054-E.)|This product had been shipped in interstate commerce in drums and had been|in part bottled and labeled by the consignee.|On or about May 26, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Con-|necticut filed a libel against the above-named product at Bridgeport, Conn.,|in possession of McKesson & Bobbins, Inc., alleging that it had been shipped on|or about May 2 and 3, 1940, by Kuhne-Libby Co. from New York, N. Y.; and|charging that it was adulterated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to be and was|represented as a drug the name of which is recognized in the United States|Pharmacopoeia, i. e., white mineral oil, but its quality fell below the standard|set forth in the pharmacopoeia with respect to viscosity, and the difference in|quality from such standard was not plainly stated on the label since the des-|ignation appearing on the bottles, \"\"Light Russian Mineral Oil\"\" and that on the|drums, \"\"Bussian Mineral Oil U. S. P. Light,\"\" did not serve to warn the pur-|chaser that it was not white mineral oil as that term is defined in the|pharmacopoeia.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the designation \"\"light\"\" (in compara-|tively small type) and \"\"Russian Mineral Oil\"\" (in comparatively large type)|on the bottle labels, and the designation \"\"Russian Mineral Oil U. S. P. Light\"\"|on the drums, were misleading since the term \"\"Russian Mineral Oil\"\" is asso-|ciated in the minds of purchasers with an oil having a kinematic viscosity which|is substantially higher than that of said article.|On April 9,1942, McKesson & Robbins, Inc., New York, N. Y., claimant, having|admitted the allegations of the libel, judgment of condemnation was entered|and the product was ordered released under bond to be relabeled under the|supervision of the Food and Drug Administration.|1645. Misbranding of Wecro Tonic For Swine. U. S. v. John R. MacDonald (Vltamlzed Feed Co.). Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $400 and costs.ddnj01645August 1946John R. MacDonald, trading-as the Vitamized Feed Co., Fort Dodge, Iowa.Wecro Tonic For SwineAugust 11, 1943IowaIowaMinnesota.Northern District of Iowa1645F. D. C. No. 12557. Sample No. 8418-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01645ddnj|1645. Misbranding: of Wecro Tonic For Swine. U. S. v. John R. MacDonald|(Vltamlzed Feed Co.). Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $400 and costs.|(P. D. C. No. 12557. Sample No. 8418-F.)|INFORMATION FILED: December 14, 1944, Northern District of Iowa, against|John R. MacDonald, trading-as the Vitamized Feed Co., Fort Dodge, Iowa.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT: On or about August 11, 1943, from the State of Iowa into|the State of Minnesota.|PRODUCT: Analysis disclosed that the product contained essentially sodium|thiosulfate, iron sulfate, copper sulfate, copper sulfide, sulfur, and potassium|iodide, and water flavored with oil of anise.|NATURE OF CHARGE: Misbranding, Section 502 (a), the label statement, \"\"Necro|Tonic For Swine,\"\" and certain statements in an accompanying circular entitled|\"\"Directions for Administering Doctor MacDonald's Swine Tonic,\"\" were false|and misleading since they represented and suggested that the article would|be efficacious in the cure, mitigation, treatment, and prevention of necro in|swine, whereas the article would not be efficacious for such purposes; and,|Section 502 (e) (2), the label of the article failed to bear a statement of each|active ingredient by its common or usual name.|It was also alleged that certain other articles, Dr. MacDonald's Vitamized|Egg Mash Maker, Chick and Growing Mash Maker, and Vitamized Metabolators|For Dairy Cattle, SJveep, Beef Cattle, Calves, and Surine, were misbranded|under the provisions of the law applicable to foods, as reported in the notices|of judgment on foods.|DISPOSITION : June 12, 1945. A plea of nolo contendere was entered by the|defendant, and the court imposed a fine of $400 and costs.|697. Misbranding of Wemett's Salve. U. S. v. 115 Packages of Wemett's Salve. Default decree of condemnation. Product ordered destroyed or delivered to a charitable Institution.ddnj00697February 1943F. J. WemettWemett's SalveAugust 28 and October 1, 1941Portland, Oreg.Los Angeles, Calif.Portland, Oreg.District of Oregon697F. D. C. No. 6692. Sample No. 85427-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00697ddnj|697. Misbranding of Wemett's Salve. U. S. v. 115 Packages of Wemett's Salve.|Default decree of condemnation. Product ordered destroyed or delivered|to a charitable Institution. (F. D. C. No. 6692. Sample No. 85427-E.)|The tube in which this product was packed occupied only about 14 percent of|the capacity of the carton.|On January 13, 1942, the United States attorney for the District of Oregon|filed a libel against 115 ?-ounce packages of Wemett's Salve at Portland, Oreg.,|alleging that the article had been shipped on or about August 28 and October 1,|1941, by F. J. Wemett from Los Angeles, Calif.; and charging that it was mis-|branded in that its container was so made, formed, and filled as to be misleading.|On March 25, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed, or delivered to a charitable|institution.|NONSTERILE SURGICAL DRESSINGS|698. Adulteration and misbranding of sutures. U. S. v. 32 Packages of Sutures. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00698February 1943Davis Sutures, Inc.suturesSeptember 17, 1941Des Moines, IowaChicago, Ill.Des Moines, IowaSouthern District of Iowa698F. D. C. No. 6762. Sample No. 71511-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00698ddnj|698. Adulteration and misbranding of sutures. TJ. S. v. 32 Packages of Sutures.|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 6762. Sam-|ple No. 71511-B.)|On January 26, 1942, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|Iowa filed a libel against the above-named product at Des Moines, Iowa, alleging|that it had been shipped on or about September 17, 1941, by Davis Sutures, Inc.,|from Chicago, 111.; and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to be and was|represented as a drug the name of which is recognized in the United States Phar-|macopoeia, but its purity fell below the standard set forth in the pharmacopoeia|since it was not sterile. It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement|in the labeling, \"\"Guaranty Davis Sutures are guaranteed to be sterile,\"\" was false|and misleading since it was not sterile but was contaminated with viable aerobic|and anaerobic or facultative anaerobic micro-organisms, including spore-bearing|and gas-producing micro-organisms.|On February 28,1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|699. Misbranding of finger compresses. U. S. v. 1,344 Packages of Quick Strips Finger Compresses. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00699February 1943Quick Manufacturing Co.finger compressesJanuary 23, 1942Los Angeles, Calif.Chicago, Ill.Los Angeles, Calif.Southern District of California699F. D. C. No. 6901. Sample Nos. 92009-E, 92010-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00699ddnj|699. Misbranding of finger compresses. U. S. v. 1,344 Packages of Quick Strips|Finger Compresses. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 6901. Sample Nos. 92009-E, 92010-E.)|On February 20, 1942, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|California filed a libel against the above-named product at Los Angeles, Calif.,|alleging that it had been shipped on or about January 23, 1942, by the Quick|Manufacturing Co. from Chicago, 111.; and charging that it was misbranded.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that designs showing application|of the strips to the finger and the statements, \"\"Place Medicated Pad over In-|jury,\"\" \"\"Press Edges Together,\"\" \"\"Wrap Around Finger,\"\" and \"\"Medicated With|Boric Acid or Iodochrome,\"\" were misleading when applied to a bandage which|was contaminated with viable micro-organisms; and in that such designs and|statements suggested that it would be suitable for first aid purposes; whereas|it was not.|On March 19, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|700. Adulteration and misbranding of Hill's Swabbed Applicators with Tongue Blade. U. S. v. 76 Cartons of Hill's Swabbed Applicators with Tongue Blade.ddnj00700February 1943Wetmore-Century CorporationHill's Swabbed Applicators with Tongue BladeNovember 27, 1941Jacksonville, Fla.New York, N. Y.Jacksonville, Fla.Southern District of Florida700F. D. C. No. 6849. Sample No. 70098-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00700ddnj|700. Adulteration and misbranding of Hill's Swabbed Applicators with Tongue|Blade. 17. S. v. 76 Cartons of Hill's Swabbed Applicators with Tongue|Blade. (F. D. C. No. 6849. Sample No. 70098-E.)|On or about March 2, 1942, the United States attorney for the Southern|District of Florida filed a libel against 76 cartons of the above-named product|at Jacksonville, Fla., alleging that it had been shipped on or about November|27, 1941, by the Wetmore-Century Corporation from New YOrk, N. Y.; and|charging that it was adulterated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its purity and quality fell|below that which it purported or was represented to possess, namely, (glass ine|envelope) \"\"sterilized,\"\" since it was not sterile but was contaminated with|aerobic, anaerobic, or facultative anaerobic micro-organisms.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements in the|labeling, (envelope) \"\"Sterilized Applicators * * * Sterilized After Packing,\"\"|and (carton) \"\"The Modern Way of Treating sore throats, cuts, wounds, ear and|nose ailments. The Ideal Way of safeguarding your health * * * For eye,|ear and nose treatment * * * especially useful to mothers treating infants|* * * specially made for Throat Treatment,\"\" were false and misleading when|applied to an article that was not sterile but was contaminated with viable|micro-organisms.|On March 21, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|Acetyisalrcylic acid and colchicine|compound' capsules|Anthelmintic tablets|Barkolyn|Beacon's Cam-Pho-Spray. Chexal,|Fowl-Ade, Poultry Liquid, Stokade,|and Swinade|Bevimin|.Bosak's Horke Vino|Cal-Par|Camphor liniment|Castoria|Caulk Mercitan Lotion|Chloroform|Cold tablets|659,|Compresses, finger|Coreco Vitamins A-Bi-G-D Capsules.|Cotton swabs?.|Crompton's Liniment|Daigneault's Eau de Quinine Hair|Tonic|Dickson's Laxative Diuretic|Digitalis, tincture of?;|Formula A-1|Fowl Enteric\"\" Tablets-|Goodwin's Laxative Cold Tablets|Gordshell's Dr., Salve|(trover Graham Remedy|Hair and scalp remedies|679,|\"\"Helena\"\" Pur-Erb Special No. 3|Herb Doctor Compound|Hi-V Vitamins Capsules|Hill's Swabbed Applicators with|Tongue Blades|Individual Quinine Hair Treatment-|Interferin|660|676|663|694|680|664|677|676|682|696|?73|667|699|681|700|682|679|661|678|695|076|659|086|665|693|682|666|691|700|<i79|657|N. J. No.|Kamala Compound *No. 1 Tablets|Lash's Bitters|Life Line Tonic|Magnesium carbonate|Marespy Tablets|Marnecro Concentrate|Nichol's Long Life for Health|Norwich Laxative Cold Tablets|No. 48511-C Tablets|Oxygen and carbon dioxide mixture-|Pinee|Pur-Erb Tonic No. 1. See SMH Pur-|Erb Compound No. 1.|Reducing preparations and devices|684|Savol|Cream|S. G. M. a (Oral)|Sixty Minute Worm Expeller|SMH Pur-Erb Compound No. 1|Special Formula Tablets|Special S. C. White Pills Rx 2609|Sterile Solution Formula No. 3|Sulfathiazole tablets|Surgical dressings|698|Sutures|Todd's Capsules|Tu-Way Massagers|Ultrasol|Venus Tablets|Veterinary remedies|685. 694|Vitamin preparations|681|Voltamp Battery No. 7|Waft-Surgical|Wemett's Salve|Zsrbst's Capsules|676|689|688|674|676|676|661|667|659|675|668|677,|692|687|687|671|685|662|669|670|671|656|-700|698|690|692|693|684|676.|695|691|658|688|697|672|SHIPPERS AND MANUFACTURERS|Arner Co., Inc.:|N. J. So.|Special Formula Tablets? 669|Arnold, Edw. W., Co.:|Tu-Way Massagers| 692|Bsacon Laboratories:|Beacon's veterinary remedies? C94|Burfeind, R. G. See Chemical Prod-|ucts Co.|Burns, J. Walker, & Co.:|Z'rbst's Capsules|^ 672|Caulk, L. D., Co.:|Caulk Mercitan Lotion| 696|Chemical Products Co.:|Sixtv Minute Worm Expeller?__ 685|City Chemical Corporation:|cMoroform| 673|macrnesium carbonate| 674|Crompton, George. See Crompton,|Charles, & Sons, Inc.|? Crompton, Charles, & Sons, Inc.:|Castoria and Crompton's Liniment- 682|Da'gneault, Joseph:|Daigneault's Eau De Quinine Hair|Tonic and Quinine Hair Treat-|ment| 679|Davis Sutures, Inc.:|sutures| 69S|Dietz, Charles H.. Inc.:|Special S. C. White Pills Rx 2609- 670|Federal Cosmetic Sales Corporation :|Waft-Surgical-| 688|Gold Seal Manufacturing Co.:|Bosak's Horke Vino| 664|372|Gordshell Chemical Co.:|Gordshell's, Dr., Salve|Graham, Grover S., Co., Inc.:|Grover Graham Remedy|Herbal Health Products:|\"\"Helena\"\" Pur-Erb Special No. 3|Hi-V Vitamin Corporation:|Hi-V Vitamins-|Home Treatment Service:|\"\"Helena\"\" Pur-Erb Special No. 3 and|SMH Pur-Erb Compound No. 1|Hood Products Corporation:|Cal-Par|International Vitamin Corporation:|Coreco Vitamins A-Bi-G-D Cap-|sules|Keefer Laboratories:|Interferin|Kori, J. B. See United States Remedy|Co.|Lash, Inc.:|Lash's Bitters|Loeser Laboratory, Inc.:|Bevimin|Marrinan Supply Co., Inc.:|anthelmintic tablets and other veter-|inary remedies|Nichols Chemical Co. See Nichols,|J. B.|Nichols, J. B.:|Dickson's Laxative Diuretic and|Nichol's Long Life for Health|Nichols, J. B. & Co. Bee Nichols, J. B.|J. No.|686|665|662|691|661|677|681|657|689|680|676|661|701. Action to restrain interstate shipment of Alcoban, a misbranded drug. U. S. v. Maffett Sales Corporation, Frank L. Wilson, Nell B. Wilson, and Reuel K. Yount. Temporary restraining order entered. Default order granting permanent injunction.ddnj00701April 1948Maffet Sales Corporation and Frank L. Wilson, Nell B. Wilson, and Reuel K. YountAlcoban\NSeattle, Wash.\NSeattle, Wash.Western District of Washington701Inj. No. 17The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00701ddnj|f'01. Action to restrain Interstate shipment of Alcoban, a misbranded clru.g. U.S. |v. Maffett Sales Corporation, Frank L. Wilson, Nell B. Wllsoa, and Reuel |K. Yount. Temporary restraining order entered. Default order granting |permanent injunction. (Inj. No. 17.) |On October 20, 1941, the United States attorney for the Western District o:f |Washington filed a complaint against the Ma:ffet Sales Corporation and Frank |L. Wilson, Nell B. Wilson, and Reuel K. 'Yount, Seattle, Wash., alleging that the |defendants for many years past, had been engaged in the sale and distribution |of an article of drugs called Alcoban ; that the article was sold by the defendants |in cartons which bore the printed statement, \"\"An Aid in Curbing the Liquor |Habit,\"\" and was accompanied by a circular which contained, among others, the |representation that it was an aid in curing the liquor habit, and directions that_ |the contents of 1 capsule should be given every 15 to 20 minutes until 3 capsules |were taken; that, if vomiting occurred, this should be regarded as a proper |dosage; that, if no Tomiting occurred on the 1-capsule per drink basis, the |dosage should be doubled, and if vomiting then occurred this should be considered |the correct dosage ; and that, if no vomiting occurred after the consumption of |three single-dose drinks and two double-dose drinks, the treatment should be |discontinued. The complaint alleged further that the statements in the labeling |were false and misleading since the article did not constitute an appropriate |remedy for the purposes stated and recommended; that the use and administration |of the drug in the dosage and with the frequency and duration prescribed~ |recommended, and suggested in the labeling was dangerous to health, and that |consequently the product was misbranded. The complaint alleged further that |513868?-43 1 |875 |the defendants at that time were introducing and delivering the said drug foi |introduction into interstate commerce and prayed that judgment and decree |be entered permanently restraining and enjoining them and all acting upon their |behalf from continuing to do so; and prayed that a preliminary injunction be |granted restraining the defendants during the pendency of the action. |On November 10, 1941, the court granted a temporary restraining order in |accordance with the prayer of the complaint. On June 9, 1942, the defendants |then being in default, judgment was entered permanently and forever enjoining |and restraining them from directly or indirectly introducing or delivering for |Introduction said drug into interstate commerce.702. Misbranding of Lambert's Powders. U. S. v. Claude M. Stanley (Stanley Drug Co.). Plea of guilty. Fine, $50.ddnj00702April 1948Claude M. Stanley, trading as the Stanley Drug Co. at Minneapolis, Minn.Lambert's PowdersJuly 19, 1940MinnesotaMinnesotaWisconsinDistrict of Minnesota702F. D. C. No. 4161. Sample No. 38881-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00702ddnj|FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION|NOTICES OF JUDGMENT UNDER THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG,|AND COSMETIC ACT|[Given pursuant to section 705 of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act]|701-750|DRUGS AND DEVICES|The cases reported herewith were instituted in the United States district|courts by the United States attorneys acting upon reports submitted by direction-|of the Federal Security Administrator.|WATSON B. MILLER, Acting Administrator, Federal Security Agency.|WASHINGTON, D. C, February 12, 1948.|CONTENTS|Page|Drugs actionable because of potential danger|when used according to directions 375|Drugs actionable because of failure to' bear|adequate directions or warning statements. 377|Drugs actionable because of failure to comply|with official or own standards | 383|Page|Drugs and devices actionable because of false|and misleading statements in the labeling- 387|Veterinary remedies | 398|Nonsterile surgical dressings 399|Prophylactics | 400|Index | 400|DRUGS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF POTENTIAL DANGER WHEN USED|ACCORDING TO DIRECTIONS|TOl. Action to restrain interstate shipment of Aleoban, a misbranded drug. U. S.|v. Maffett Sales Corporation, Frank L. Wilson, NeU B. 'Wilson, and Reuel|K. Yonnt. Temporary restraining: order entered. Default order granting|permanent injunction. (Inj. No. 17.)|On October 20, 1941, the United States attorney for the Western District of|Washington filed a complaint against the Maffet Sales Corporation and Frank|L. Wilson, Nell B. Wilson, and Reuel K. \"\"Xount, Seattle, Wash., alleging that the|defendants for many years past, had been engaged in the sale and distribution|of an article of drugs called Aleoban; that the article was sold by the defend-|ants in cartons which bore the printed statement, \"\"An Aid in Curbing the Liquor|Habit,\"\" and was accompanied by a circular which contained, among others, the|representation that it was an aid in curing the liquor habit, and directions that|the contents of 1 capsule should be given every 15 to 20 minutes until 3 capsules|were taken; that, if vomiting occurred, this should be regarded as a proper|dosage; that, if no vomiting occurred on the 1-capsule per drink basis, the|dosage should be doubled, and if vomiting then occurred this should be considered!|the correct dosage; and that, if no vomiting occurred after the consumption of|three single-dose drinks and two double-dose drinks, the treatment should be|discontinued. The complaint alleged further that the statements in the labeling|were false and misleading since the article did not constitute an appropriate|remedy for the purposes stated and recommended; that the use and administra-|tion of the drug in the dosage and with the frequency and duration prescribed,|recommended, and suggested in the labeling was dangerous to health, and that|consequently the product was misbranded. The complaint alleged further that|513868?-43 1 |875|the defendants at that time were introducing and delivering the said drug foi|introduction into interstate commerce and prayed that judgment and decree|be entered permanently restraining and enjoining them and all acting upon their|behalf from continuing to do so; and prayed that a preliminary injunction be|granted restraining the defendants during the pendency of the action.|On November 10, 1941, the court granted a temporary restraining order in|accordance with the prayer of the complaint. On June 9, 1942, the defendants|then being in default, judgment was entered permanently and forever enjoining|and restraining them from directly or indirectly introducing or delivering for|Introduction said drug into interstate commerce.|702. Misbranding of Lambert's Powders. U. S. v. Claude M. Stanley (Stanley|Drug Co.). Plea of guilty. Fine, $50. (F. D. C. No. 4161. Sample No.|38881-B.)|This product when used according to directions on the label, would be dan-|gerous to health, the label failed to bear adequate warning statements, and it|also contained false and misleading claims.|On November 10, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Minnesota|filed an information against Claude M. Stanley, trading as the Stanley Drug Co.|at Minneapolis, Minn., alleging shipment on or about July 19, 1940, from the|State of Minnesota into the State of Wisconsin of a quantity of Lambert's|Powders that were misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that each powder contained|?acetanilid (2^ grains), aspirin (5 grains), and salol (2? grains).|The article was alleged to be misbranded; (1) In that it was dangerous to|health when used in the dosage or with the frequency or duration prescribed,|recommended, or suggested in the labeling, i. e., \"\"Directions * * * Adult|Dose: One before each meal and one at bedtime.\"\" (2) In that its labeling failed|to bear adequate warnings against use by children where its use might be|dangerous to health, or against unsafe dosage or methods or duration of admin-|istration in such manner and form as are necessary for the protection of users|since each powder contained approximately 2? grains of acetanilid, and the|labeling did not bear a warning that frequent or continuous use might cause|serious blood disturbances, anemia, collapse, or a dependence on the drug, and|that it should not be given to children. (3) In that the statement (carton)|\"\"muscular aches and body pains, lumbago,\"\" was false and misleading since it|represented that the drug was efficacious in the treatment of muscular aches,|body pains, and lumbago; whereas it was not efficacious for such purposes.|On March 3, 1942, the defendant entered a plea of guilty and the court|imposed a fine of $50.|703. Misbranding of a.m. Solution. U. S. v. 7 1/2 Dozen Packages of a.m. Solution. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00703April 1948Kenton Pharmacal Co., Inc.a.m. SolutionNovember 13, 1941, and Januaiy 14, 1942Nashville, Tenn.Covington, Ky.Nashville, Tenn.Middle District of Tennessee703F. D. C. No. 6839. Sample No. 79171-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00703ddnj|703. Misbranding of a.m. Solution. U. S. v. 7% Dozen Packages of a.m. Solution.|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 6839. Sam-|ple No. 79171-E.)|This product contained chrysarobin and would be dangerous to health when|used according to directions. Its label also contained false and misleading|therapeutic claims.|On February 13, 1942, the United States attorney for the Middle District of|Tennessee filed a libel against the above-named product at NasTiville, Tenn.,|alleging that it had been shipped on or about November 13, 1941, and Januaiy|14, 1942, by the Kenton Pharmacal Co., Inc., from Covington, Ky.; and charging|that it was misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of|chrysarobin (approximately 0.66 grain per fluid ounce), salicylic acid, benzole|acid, alcohol, and a volatile oil.|The article was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that it was dangerous to|health when used in the dosage or with the frequency or duration prescribed|or recommended in the labeling. (2) In that the following statements, \"\"For|the relief of itching and discomfoi't of Athlete's Foot (Dermatophytosis), Ring-|worm! Insect Bites, Impetigo, externally caused Eczema, Rashes and Pimples,|and other forms of local skin irritations,\"\" were false and misleading since they|represented and suggested that when used as directed it constituted a safe and|efficacious treatment for the relief of the itching torment and discomfort of|athlete's foot and other skin irritations named above; whereas it was not safe|when used as directed and was not an efficacious treatment for such conditions.|On April 9, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|DRUGS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO BEAR ADEQUATE|DIRECTIONS OR WARNING STATEMENTS'|704. Misbranding of Dickson's Laxative Rheumatic Diruatica. U. S. v. 15 Bottles of Dickson's Laxative Rheumatic Diruatica. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00704April 1948A. H. DicksonDickson's Laxative Rheumatic DlruaticaNovember 7, 1941Blytheville, Ark.Memphis, Tenn.Blytheville, Ark.Eastern District of Arkansas704F. D. C. No. 6899. Sample No. 71670-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00704ddnj|704. Misbranding of Dickson's Laxative Rheumatic Dlruatica. U. S. v. 15 Bottles|of Dickson's Laxative Rheumatic Dlrnatlca. Default decree of condemna-|tion and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 6899. Sample No. 71670-E.)|The labeling of this product, in addition to failure to bear adequate directions|for use and such adequate warnings as are necessary for the protection of|users, also bore false and misleading curative and therapeutic claims.|On February 27, 1942, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Arkansas filed a libel against the above-named drug product at Blytheville,|Ark., alleging that it had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|November 7, 1941, by A. H. Dickson from Memphis, Tenn.; and charging that|it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of Epsom salt, methena-|mine, sodium salicylate, sodium benzoate, salicylic acid, methyl salicylate, and|was colored with caramel.|The article was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that the labeling did not|bear adequate directions for use since there was no limitation as to duration|?of use and the statement \"\"Dose-Tablespoonful four times a day in a glass of|water\"\" implied that it was to be taken continuously; whereas a laxative should|he taken only occasionally. (2) In that the labeling failed to bear adequate warn-|ings against use in those pathological conditions or by children where its use|might be dangerous to health or adequate warnings against duration of admin-|istration, in such manner and form as are necessary for the protection of users|since it failed to bear a warning that the drug should not be used when abdom-|inal pain, nausea, vomiting, or other symptoms of appendicitis are present and|that frequent or continued use might result in dependence upon laxatives.|(3) In that statements on the label, \"\"Rheumatic Diruatica * * * Recom-|mended for Rheumatic Urinary and Constipated Conditions,\"\" were false and|misleading since they represented and suggested that it would be efficacious for|rheumatic, urinary, and all constipated conditions; whereas it would not be|efficacious for such conditions.|On May 4, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|?entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|705. Misbranding of Dromgooles Bitters. U. S. v. 13 Bottles and 7 Bottles of Dromgooles Bitters. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00705April 1948McCullough Drug Co.Dromgooles BittersJanuary 2, 1942Oklahoma City, Okla.Lawrenceburg, Ind.Oklahoma City, Okla.Western District of Oklahoma705F. D. C. No. 7011. Sample Nos. 73185-E, 73186-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00705ddnj|T05. Misbranding: of Dromgooles Bitters. V. S. v. 13 Bottles and 7 Bottles of|Dromgooles Bitters. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 7011. Sample Nos. 73185-E, 73186-E.)|The labeling of this product bore no directions for use and bore false and|misleading representations regarding its curative and therapeutic, efficacy.|Furthermore, the designation J'Bitters\"\" was not appropriate for a drug of this|type.|On March 16, 1942 the United States attorney for the Western District of|Oklahoma filed a libel against 20 bottles of Dromgooles Bitters at Oklahoma|City, Okla., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce|on or about January 2, 1942, by the McCullough Drug Co. from Lawrenceburg,|Ind.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of extracts of plant|drugs including an alkaloid-bearing drug and a laxative drug, iron and am-|monium citrate, alcohol, and water. It had an aromatic and astringent but not|a bitter taste.|The article was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that its labeling failed to|bear any directions for use; and (2) in that the statements on the labels, (both|lots) \"\"Bitters * * * Uterine Tonic, Sedative and Antispasmodic Aid in|the relief of Periodic Pain and Distress\"\" and (13 bottles) \"\"Discontinue treat-|ment when acute symptoms have subsided,\"\" were false and misleading since it|was not a bitters, was not efficacious as a uterine tonic or sedative nor as an|antispasmodic aid in the relief of periodic pain and distress, and (13 bottles)|it would not be efficacious in the treatment of acute symptoms of such conditions.|On April 29, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|1 See also No. 702 and soda in No. 720.|706. Misbranding of Greenawalt's Compound Dandelion Liver Disks. U. S. v. 164 Packages of Greenawalt's Compound Dandelion Liver Disks. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00706April 1948William 6. GreenawaltGreenawalt's Compound Dandelion Liver DisksMarch 26, 1941Chambersburg, Pa.Norwich, N. Y.Chambersburg, Pa.Middle District of Pennsylvania706F. D. C. No. 4937. Sample No. f 50252-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00706ddnj|706. Misbranding: of Greenawalt's Compound Dandelion Liver Disks. U. S. v.|164 Packages of Greenawalt's Compound Dandelion Liver Disks. Default|decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 4937. Sample No. f|50252-E.) |The labeling of this product, a laxative, failed to bear adequate directions|for use and adequate warnings, and bore false and misleading claims regarding|its therapeutic and curative efficacy. The labeling also falsely implied that the|physiological activity of the article was derived from dandelion, and failed to|bear the ingredients statement, including the quantity or proportion of strych-|nine and belladonna alkaloids.|On June 14, 1941, the United States attorney for the Middle District of Penn-|sylvania filed a libel against the above-named product at Chambersburg, Pa.,|alleging that it had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about March|26, 1941, from Norwich, N. Y., to Chambersburg, Pa., and that it had been|removed from the original container and repacked and relabeled-the labeling|including a circular by William 6. Greenawalt; and charging that as so repacked|and relabeled it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of laxative plant drugs,|such as podophyllum and aloes, together with small amounts of belladonna and|nux vomica (strychnine) alkaloids. *|The article was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that its labeling did not|bear adequate directions for use, since the directions, (label) \"\"Dose-1 or 2 at|night. When 1 is too active on the bowels, divide a disk and take half,\"\" and|(circular) \"\"Usual Dose: One or two at bedtime. Should one be too active on|the bowels, take half a disk. They can easily be cut in half. For children,|usually half a Disk is sufficient,\"\" provided for an indefinite and continued use|of a laxative which was inappropriate. (2) In that the label failed to bear|adequate warnings against use in those pathological conditions or by children|where its use might be dangerous to health, or against unsafe dosage or|methods or duration of administration or application, in such manner and form|as are necessary for the protection of users, since the labeling failed to warn|that a laxative should not be taken when suffering from nausea, vomiting,|abdominal pain, or other symptoms of appendicitis; that frequent or continued|use might result in dependence upon laxatives; and that the use of an article|containing strychnine might be especially dangerous to children and elderly|persons and that not more than the recommended dosage should be taken.|(3) In that the label did not bear the common or usual names of the active|ingredients or a statement of the quantity or proportion of strychnine and bella-|donna alkaloids contained in the article. (4) In that statements in the labeling|which implied that its therapeutic activity was derived from dandelion and|which represented that it would relieve biliousness, clear the complexion, clear|sallow skin, tone the liver and stomach and clean coated tongue, prevent dizzi-|ness and vertigo, stimulate the liver, remove pimples and blotches, improve the|condition of the blood, tone up the whole system, relieve liver trouble, and|that it was an excellent vegetable remedy for biliousness, dizziness, and stomach|trouble caused by inactivity of the liver, were false and misleading since it|did not depend upon dandelion for its therapeutic activity and it would not be|efficacious for the purposes claimed.|On September 23, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|707. Misbranding of Kails Capsules. U. S. v. 2 3/4 Dozen Packages and 9 3/4 Dozen Packages of Kalis Capsules. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00707April 1948Kalis ProductsKails CapsulesNovember 6 and December 5, 1941St. Louis, Mo.Ottumwa, IowaSt. Louis, Mo.Eastern District of Missouri707F. D. C. No. 7005. Sample No. 71403-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00707ddnj|707. Misbranding; of Kails Capsules. U. S. v. 2% Dozen Packages and 9% Dozen|Packages of Kalis Capsules. Default decree of condemnation and destruc-|tion. (P. D. C. No. 7005. Sample No. 71403-E.)|This product consisted essentially of acetanilid, and laxative plant drugs|including podophyllin and cascara sagrada, but the labeling failed to bear|adequate warning statements required for a drug of this type.|On March 6, 1942, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Missouri filed a libel against the above-named product at St. Louis, Mo.,|alleging that it had been shipped on or about November 6 and December 5,|1941, by Kalis Products from Ottumwa, Iowa; and charging that it was|misbranded.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the labeling failed to bear|adequate warnings against use in those pathological conditions where its use|might be dangerous to health, since it failed to warn that the drug should|not be taken when nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, or other symptoms of|appendicitis are present; and it also failed to bear warnings against unsafe (|methods or duration of administration, since it failed to warn that frequent ^|or continued use might be dangerous, causing serious blood diseases, anemia,|collapse, or dependence on the drug.|On April 7, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|708. Misbranding of Lanoton for Women, U. S. v. 53 Packages of Lanoton for Women. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00708April 1948National Medicine Co.Lanoton for WomenJanuary 10, 1942Marshall, Tex.Nashville, Tenn.Marshall, Tex.Eastern District of Texas708F. D. C. 6930. Sample No. 83608-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00708ddnj|708. Misbranding: of Lanoton for Women, U. S. v. 53 Packages of Lanoton for|Women. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. 6930.|Sample No. 83608-E.)|The labeling of this product failed to bear adequate directions for use and|such adequate warnings as are necessary for the protection of users. The|labeling also created the misleading impression that the article was of par-|ticular value to women.|On March 7, 1942, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Texas filed a libel against 53 packages of the above-named product at Marshall,|Tex., alleging that it had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|January 10, 1942, by the National Medicine Co. from Nashville, Tenn.; and|charging that it was misbranded.|The article was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that it did not bear ade-|quate directions for use since the labeling provided for frequent and continual|administration, whereas the directions for a laxative should provide that it|be taken only occasionally and when needed; (2) in that the labeling failed|to bear adequate warnings against use in those pathological conditions where|its use might be dangerous to health, and failed to bear adequate warnings|against unsafe duration of administration; and (3) in that its label was mis-|leading since it represented and suggested that the article was especially|adaptable for use by women, whereas its effect would be the same on both|men and women.|On May 5, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|709. Misbranding of solution of citrate of magnesia. U. S. v. 1,434 Bottles of Citrate of Magnesia. Default decree of condemnation. Product ordered delivered to a charitable institution.ddnj00709April 1948S. D. C. Laboratories, Inc.solution of citrate of magnesiaMarch 2, 1942Pittsburgh, Pa.Buffalo, N. Y.Pittsburgh, Pa.Western District of Pennsylvania709F. D. C. No. 7421. Sample No. 78814-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00709ddnj|709. Misbranding: of solution of citrate of magmesia. U. S. v. 1,434 Bottles of|Citrate of Magnesia. Default decree of condemnation. Product ordered|delivered to a charitable institution. (P. D. C. No. 7421. Sample No.|78814-E.)|The labeling of this product failed to bear adequate warnings; to give the|name and place of business of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor; and|to bear an accurate statement of the quantity of contents.|On April 30, 1942, the United States attorney for the Western District of Penn-|sylvania filed a libel against 1,434 bottles of citrate of magnesia at Pittsburgh,|Pa., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|March 2, 1942, by S. D. C. Laboratories, Inc., from Buffalo, N. Y.; and charging|that it was misbranded.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that (1) its labeling failed to bear|adequate warnings against use in those pathological conditions where its use|might be dangerous to health or against unsafe duration of administration in|such manner and form as are necessary for the protection of users, since there|was no warning that it should not be used when abdominal pain, nausea, vomit-|ing, or other symptoms of appendicitis are present, or that frequent or continued|use might result in dependence on laxatives to move the bowels; (2) it failed|to bear a label containing the name and place of business of the manufacturer,|packer, or distributor; and (3) in that it was in package form and its label failed|to bear an accurate statement of the quantity of the contents.|On May 19,1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered delivered to a charitable institution.|710. Misbranding of Nurito. U. S. v. 75 Packages of Nurito. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00710April 1948Nurito Co.NuritoSeptember 27, 1941, and January 23, 1942New Orleans, La.Chicago, Ill.New Orleans, La.Eastern District of Louisiana710F. D. C. No. 6994. Sample No. 83387-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00710ddnj|710. Misbranding: of Nurito. V. S. v. 75 Packages of Nurito. Default decree of|condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 6994. Sample No. 83387-B.)|This product contained ? gram of phenolphthalein, a laxative drug, per|powder; and its labeling failed to bear adequate directions for use and such|adequate warnings as are necessary for the protection of the user.|On March 14, 1942, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Louisiana filed a libel against 75 packages of Nurito at New Orleans, La., alleg-|ing that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about Septem-|ber 27, 1941, and January 23, 1942, by the Nurito Co. from Chicago, 111.; and|charging that it was misbranded.|The article was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that the labeling did not|bear adequate directions for use since the directions appearing in the labeling,|\"\"Take one powder, followed by full glass of water every three hours in indicated|conditions. Gradually reduce to two powders a day, one in morning and one at|night, and then discontinue, according to conditions,\"\" provided for frequent use ; (\"\"|whereas adequate directions for use of a laxative should provide that it be|taken only occasionally, when needed. (2) In that the labeling failed to bear|adequate warnings against use in those pathological conditions where its use|might be dangerous to health and adequate warnings against unsafe duration of|administration in such manner and form as are necessary for the protection of|users since it failed to adequately warn the user that it should not be used when|abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting or other symptoms of appendicitis are present|and to warn that frequent or continued use might result in dependence upon|laxatives.|On May 4, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment Of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|711. Misbranding of Pon-Tam-Pon and Glycerant. U. S. v. 57 Packages of Pon Tam-Pon Medication A and 8 Packages of Pon-Tam-Pon Medication C. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00711April 1948Pond Manufacturing Co.Pon-Tam-Pon and GlycerantJanuary 2, 1942San Francisco, Calif.Rutland, Vt.San Francisco, Calif.Northern District of California711F. D. C. No. 7152. Sample No. 23118-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00711ddnj|711. Misbranding; of Pon-Tam-Pon and Glycerant. U. S. v. 57 Packages of Pon-|Tam-Pon Medication A and 8 Packages of Pon-Tam-Pon Medication C|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 7152. Sam-|ple No. 23118-E.)|These products would be dangerous to health under certain pathological|conditions and their labels failed to bear warnings of such danger. The labeling|also contained false and misleading therapeutic claims.|On April 8, 1942, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|California filed a libel against the above-named products at San Francisco,|Calif., alleging that they had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|January 2,1942, by the Pond Manufacturing Co. from Rutland, Vt.; and charging|that they were misbranded.|Examination showed that each package contained a number of tampons and|a tube of a product labeled \"\"Glycerant.\"\" Examination of the Medication A|tampon showed that it consisted essentially of a gelatin shell containing a jelly|composed of glycerinated gelatin, boric acid, ichthyol, iodine, and a bundle of|wool fibers. Examination of the Medication C tampon showed that it consisted|essentially of a gelatin shell containing a jelly composed of glycerinated gelatin,|boric acid, iodine, silver nitrate, and a bundle of wool fibers. Analysis of the-|Glycerant showed that it consisted essentially of boric acid in a jelly base.|The articles were alleged to be misbranded in that their labels failed to bear|adequate warnings against use in those pathological conditions where their use|might be dangerous to health, in such manner and form as are necessary for|the protection of users, since the labeling failed to bear a warning that they|should not be used in case of gonorrhea. They were alleged to be misbranded|further in that the following statements in the labeling, \"\"A tampon should be|worn continuously and changed every 24 hours to obtain best results, although|It gives support and is not offensive if worn 48 hours; but if profuse discharge|is present tampon should be changed every 12 hours until discharge is relieved.|* * * In case of prolapse and backward displacement of uterus the knee-|chest position must be taken for the tampon's introduction,\"\" were false and|misleading since they represented and suggested that the articles constituted|effective treatments for discharge from the vagina and prolapse and backward|displacement of the uterus; whereas they were not effective treatments for|such conditions.|On May 22, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|and destruction was entered and the products were ordered destroyed.|712. Misbranding of Shapley's Medicine for Acid or Sour Stomach. U. S. v. 21 Bottles of Shapley's Medicine for Acid or Sour Stomach. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00712April 1948Shapley Drug Co., Inc.Shapley's Medicine for Acid or Sour StomachMarch 17, 1942Davenport, IowaDecatur, Ill.Davenport, IowaSouthern District of Iowa712F. D. C. No. 7325. Sample No. 71267-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00712ddnj|712. Misbranding of Shapley's Medicine for Acid or Sour Stomach. V. S. v. 21|Bottles of Shapley's Medicine for Acid or Sour Stomach. Default decree of|condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 7325. Sample No. 71267-E.)|On April 15,1942, the United States attorney for the Southern District of Iowa|filed a libel against the above-named product at Davenport, Iowa, alleging that|it had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about March 17, 1942, by the|Shapley Drug Co., Inc., from Decatur, HI.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of extracts of plant drugs|including rhubarb, alcohol, sugar, potassium carbonate, and water.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that its labeling failed to bear|adequate directions for use, since the directions on the label provided for con-|tinuous administration of an article which was a laxative and should therefore|be taken only occasionally when needed. It was alleged to be misbranded further|in that the labeling failed to bear adequate warnings against use in those patho-|logical conditions where its use might be dangerous to health, since it failed to <|warn that the article was not to be taken when abdominal pains, nausea, vomit- v-|tag, or other symptoms of appendicitis were present; and the labeling failed to|warn against unsafe methods or duration of administration since it failed to|warn that frequent or continued use of the article might result in dependence|on laxatives.|On May 15,1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|713. Misbranding of Special Formula Tablets S. C. Purple. U. S. v. 51,000 Special Formula Tablets S. C. Purple. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00713April 1948Purity Drug Co.Special Formula Tablets S. C. PurpleOctober 20, 1941Philadelphia, Pa.Passaic, N. J.Philadelphia, Pa.Eastern District of Pennsylvania713F. D. C. No. 6902. Sample No. 40889-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00713ddnj|713. Misbranding of Special Formula Tablets S. C. Purple. V. S. v. 51,000 Special|Formula Tablets S. G. Purple. Default decree of condemnation and de-|struction. (P. D. C. No. 6902. Sample No. 40889-E.)|These tablets contained strychnine and the labeling failed to bear adequate|directions for use and such adequate warnings as are necessary for the protection|of users.|On February 20, 1942, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Pennsylvania filed a libel against the above-named product at Philadelphia, Pa.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|October 20, 1941, by the Purity Drug Co. from Passaic, N. J.; and charging that|It was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article contained yohimbe bark, a strychnine com-|pound, a magnesium compound, zinc phosphide, and extracts of plant drugs,|such as damiana.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that its labeling failed to bear|adequate directions for use since the statement on the drum label, \"\"Dose: To be|taken as directed by physician,\"\" did not constitute adequate directions for use.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that its labeling failed to bear such|adequate warnings against use by children where its use might be dangerous to|health, or against unsafe dosage or duration of administration, in such manner|and form as are necessary for the protection of users since there were no warnings|against frequent or long continued use under circumstances which might result|in strychnine poisoning, nor was there any warning that the use of the article,|because of its strychnine content, might be particularly dangerous to children|and aged persons.|On May 1, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|714. Misbranding of Spicer's Compound, U. S. v. 117 Bottles of Spicer's Compound. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00714April 1948Charles B. Spicer Co.Spicer's CompoundOctober 22, 1941, and January 21, 1942St. Louis, Mo.Memphis, Tenn.St. Louis, Mo.Eastern District of Missouri714F. D. C. No. 6966. Sample No. 71519-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00714ddnj|714. Misbranding of Spicer's Compound, TJ. S. v. 117 Bottles of Spicer's Com-|pound. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No.|6966. Sample No. 71519-E.)|This product was a laxative and its labeling failed to bear the required laxa-|tive warnings, failed to declare the strychnine and belladonna alkaloids present,|failed to name the principal physiologically active ingredient under its common|or usual name, and also bore false and misleading curative and therapeutic|claims.|On March 2, 1942, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Missouri filed a libel against 117 bottles of Spicer's Compound at St. Louis, Mo.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|October 22, 1941, and January 21, 1942, by the Charles B. Spicer Co. from|Memphis, Tenn.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of a solution of Epsom|salt (approximately 25 percent) with relatively small proportions of extracts|of plant drugs including laxative plant drugs, and a small proportion of an|iron salt, sweetened with saccharin and preserved with sodium benzoate.|The article was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that its labeling failed to|bear adequate warnings against use in those pathological conditions where its|use might be dangerous to health and against unsafe duration of administration|in such manner and form as are necessary for the protection of users, since the|statement on the label, \"\"Caution-In case of severe abdominal pain, do not take|a laxative\"\" was not adequate to warn the purchaser against the use of the|article in case of abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, or other symptoms of|appendicitis and did not warn the purchaser that frequent or continual use of|the article might result in dependence upon laxatives to move the bowels; (2)|in that the following statements in the labeling \"\"Spicer's Compound * * *|to aid in the relief of simple headache, heartburn, biliousness, sour stomach, gas|in stomach and intestines due to occasional constipation\"\" were misleading since|they failed to reveal the material fact that the conditions mentioned are usually|due to causes other than occasional constipation and that the article was not a|treatment for such conditions when due to such other causes; (3) in that the|statements, \"\"Contains: Nux-Vomica 1.8 min. to ounce. Belladonna .45 min. to|ounce Herbs-including Senna, Buchu, Juniper Berries, Rhubarb, Jalap; Mag-|nesium Sulphate, Cascara, & Iron (Ferric Chloride),\"\" were misleading since (\"\"-|they failed to reveal the fact that the physiological effects of the article were|due essentially to its content of Epsom salt (magnesium sulfate), senna, and|cascara sagrada; (4) in that the label failed to bear the common or usual name|of each active ingredient, since magnesium sulfate is not the common or usual|name of Epsom salt; and (5) in that its label failed to bear the name and|quantities or proportions of strychnine, atropine, hyoscine, and hyoscyamine that|were present.|On March 28, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|715. Misbranding of Starr's Wonderful M. L. & K. Pills. U. S. v. Fred Marion Starr (Starr Medicine Co.). Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $100.ddnj00715April 1948Fred Marion Starr, trading as the Starr Medicine Co. at San Francisco, Calif.Starr's Wonderful M. L. & K. PillsFebruary 18, 1941CaliforniaCaliforniaIllinoisNorthern District of California715F. D. C. No. 6415. Sample No. 30265-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00715ddnj|716. Misbranding of Starr's Wonderful M. L. & K. Pills. U. S. v. Fred Marion|Starr (Starr Medicine Co.). Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $100. (F. D. C.|No. 6415. Sample No. 30265-E.)|The labeling of this product, in addition to failure to bear adequate warn-|ing statements, contained false and misleading claims and failed to bear|the required ingredient and accurate quantity of contents statements.|On March 24, 1942, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|California filed an information against Fred Marion Starr, trading as the|Starr Medicine Co. at San Francisco, Calif., alleging shipment on or about|February 18, 1941, from the State of California into the State of Illinois of a|quantity of the above-named product that wax miabranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of|extracts of plant drugs, including a laxative drug, coated with calcium|carbonate.|It-was alleged tp be misbranded: (1) In that its labeling failed to bear|adequate warnings against use in those pathological conditions where its use|might be dangerous to health, or against unsafe dosage or methods or duration|of administration, in such manner and form as are necessary for the protec-|tion of users, since it was a cathartic or laxative drug, and the labeling|failed to bear a warning that it should not be used when abdominal pain,|nausea, vomiting, or other symptoms of appendicitis are present, and that fre-|quent or continued use might result in dependence on laxatives. (2) In that|statements on the label, representing that it would be efficacious in the treatment|of weak back, liver and kidney complaints, biliousness, fever, headaches, and|indigestion were false and misleading since it would not be efficacious for|such purposes. (S) In that it was fabricated from two or more ingredients|and its label did not bear a statement of the common or usual name of each|active ingredient. (4) In that it was in \"\"package form and did not bear a label|containing an accurate statement of the quaAtity of contents in terms of|numerical count.|On April 6, 1942, the defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere and the|court imposed a fine of $100.|716. Misbranding of Weltone. U. S. v. 4 Cartons of Weltone and Accompanying Circulars. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00716April 1948Standard Chemical, Inc.WeltoneJanuary 10, 1942North CarolinaBrooklyn, N. Y.North CarolinaMiddle District of North Carolina716F. D. C. No. 6792. Sample No. 70631-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00716ddnj|716. Misbranding of Weltone. U. S. v. 4 Cartons of Weltone and Accompanying|Circulars. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No.|6792. Sample No. 70631-E.)|The labeling of this product failed to bear adequate directions for use and|also bore false and misleading curative and therapeutic claims.|On January 31, 1942, the United States attorney for the Middle District|of North Carolina filed a libel against 4 cartons (144 bottles) of Weltone and|accompanying circulars, alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate|commerce on or about January 10, 1942, by Standard Chemical, Inc., from|Brooklyn, N. Y.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted of a water solution of Epsom|salt (28 percent) with inconsequential amounts of other salts, flavored with|cassia and clove oils and sweetened with saccharin.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that its labeling failed to bear|adequate directions for use, since the following directions \"\"Adults, about one|to two tablespoonfuls twice daily in water before meals. Children (7 years or|older) : One teaspoonful in water before meals,\"\" provided for continued use,|which might result in dependence upon laxatives. (2) In that the syllable|\"\"tone\"\" forming a part of its name and the statements in an accompanying|circular which represented that it would increase the appetite, prevent or cure|headaches or run-down feeling, establish regularity in elimination, correct|sluggish digestion, remedy incomplete elimination or sour stomach, prevent v.|weakening run-down feeling due to constipation; that a periodic dose would|always help one; that it would eliminate any clanger to general health or assist|in digestive processes, would help one to feel his best, would not cause shock or|strain or weakening aftereffects and would be good for every member of the|family; and that unusual benefits would be derived from its use, were false and|misleading since it possessed no tonic properties but was merely a laxative;|it would not accomplish the results claimed, it might cause shock, strain, and|weakening aftereffects; it would not necessarily be good for every member of|the family; and there was nothing unusual about any benefits it might give.|(3) In that the statement \"\"Weltone Laxative is labeled in compliance with the|Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act\"\" was false and misleading.|On April 17, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|DRUGS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH|OFFICIAL OR OWN STANDARDS|718. Adulteration and misbranding of elixir iron, quinine, and strychnine. U. S. v. Richard G. Dunwody (R. G. Dunwody & Sons, Inc.). Plea of guilty. Fine, $200.ddnj00718April 1948Richard G. Dunwody, trading as R. G. Dunwody & Sons, Inc., at Atlanta, Ga.elixir iron, quinine, and strychnineApril 14, 1941GeorgiaGeorgiaFloridaNorthern District of Georgia718F. D. C. No. 6455. Sample No. 48135-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00718ddnj|718. Adulteration and misbranding of elixir iron, quinine, and strychnine. V. S.|v. Richard G. Dnnwody (R. G. Dunwody & Sons, Inc.). Plea of guilty.|Fine, $200. (F. D. C. No. 6455. Sample No. 48135-E.)|This product contained smaller amounts of tincture of iron citrochloride and|quinine sulfate per fluid ounce than those declared on the label.|On May 1,1942, the United States attorney for the Northern District of Georgia|filed an information against Richard G. Dunwody, trading as R. G. Dunwody &|Sons, Inc., at Atlanta, Ga., alleging shipment on or about April 14, 1941, from|the State of Georgia into the State of Florida of a quantity of elixir iron, quinine,|and strychnine which was adulterated and misbranded. It was labeled in part:|\"\"Tincture of Ferric Citrochloride 60 Minims Quinine Sulphate 4 grains.\"\"|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from and|its quality fell below that which it purported and was represented to possess,|since the label represented that it contained not less than 60 minims of tincture|of ferric citrochloride and 4 grains of quinine sulfate per fluid ounce; whereas it|contained not more than 23.8 minims of tincture of ferric citrochloride and not|more than 3.08 grains of quinine sulfate per fluid ounce. It was alleged to be|misbranded in that the statements in the labeling which represented that it|contained 60 minims of tincture of ferric citrochloride and 4 grains of quinine|sulfate per fluid ounce were false and misleading.|On May 9, 1942, the defendant entered a plea of guilty; and on May 29, 1942,|the court imposed a fine of $200.|719. Adulteration of Estromone. U. S. v. Endo Products, Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $250.ddnj00719April 1948Endo Products, Inc., Richmond Hill, N. Y.EstromoneDecember 28, 1939, to November 20, 1940New YorkNew TorkNorth Carolina, Pennsylvania, MarylandEastern District of New York719F. D. C. No. 2967. Sample Nos. 20916-E, 24259-E, 28450-E, 34073-E, 46129-E to 46131-E, incl. , 46133-E, 46134-E, 86212-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00719ddnj|719. Adulteration of Estromone. U. S. v. Endo Products, Inc. Plea of guilty.|Fine, $250. (F. D. C. No. 2967. Sample Nos. 20916-E, 24259-E, 28450-E,|34073-E, 46129-E to 46131-E, incl., 46133-E, 46134-E, 86212-E.)|On February 20, 1942, the United States attorney for the Eastern District|of New York filed an information against Endo Products, Inc., Richmond Hill,|N. Y., alleging shipment within the period from on or about December 28, 1939,|to on or about November 20, 1940, from the State of New Tork into the|States of North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and New Jersey of quan-|tities of Estromone which was adulterated.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from|or its quality fell below that which it purported or was represented to possess|since (1) six of the shipments consisted of tablets which were represented to|possess a biological, activity equivalent to that of 2,000 International Units of|estrogenic hormone; whereas the tablets in five shipments were found to|possess a biological activity equivalent to that of not more than 600 International|Units of estrogenic hormone and those in the sixth shipment possessed a bio-|logical activity equivalent to that of not more than 900 International Units|per tablet. (2) One shipment consisted of tablets which were represented|to possess a biological activity equivalent to that of 4,000 International Units of|estrogenic hormone per tablet; whereas they possessed a biological activity|equivalent to that of not more than 1,800 International. Units of estrogenic|hormone. (3) The remaining shipments were represented to consist of estro-|genic substances in oil possessing in each cubic centimeter a biological activity|equivalent to that of 5,000, 10,000, and 2,000 International Units, respectively,|of estrogenic substance; whereas they possessed a biological activity equiva-|lent to the activity of not more than 1,990, 1,740, and 1,325 International Units,|-respectively, of estrogenic substance.|On April 29, 1942, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of defendant and|the court imposed a fine of $250.|720. Adulteration and misbranding of hydrogen peroxide; misbranding of isopropyl alcohol, mineral oil, soda, and olive oil. U. S. v. Raymond Thomason and Clyde Rutledge (Southwest Products Co.). Pleas of guilty, Fines, $200.ddnj00720April 1948Raymond Thomason and Clyde Rutledge, trading as Southwest Products Co. at Lubbock, Tex.hydrogen peroxide; isopropyl alcohol, mineral oil, soda, and olive oilSeptember 16 to November 22, 1940TexasTexasNew MexicoNorthern District of Texas720F. D. C. No. 5565. Sample Nos. 6982-E, 6987-E, 6988-E, 6995-E, 65397-E, 65398-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00720ddnj|720. Adulteration and misbranding of hydrogen peroxide; misbranding of|isopropyl alcohol, mineral oil, soda, and olive oil. U. S. v. Raymond|Thomason and Clyde Rutledge (Southwest Products Co.). Pleas of guilty,|Fines, $200. (F. D. C. No. 5565. Sample Nos. 6982-E, 6987-E, 6988-E,|6995-E, 65397-E, 65398-B.)|This case involved hydrogen peroxide which failed to conform to the phar-|macopoeial specifications; mineral oil and soda the labeling of which bore false|and misleading curative claims; and mineral oil, isopropyl alcohol, and olive|oil which were short of the declared volume. The labeling of the soda also|failed to bear adequate directions for use.|On March 2, 1942, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Texas filed an information against Raymond Thomason and Clyde Rutledge,|trading as Southwest Products Co. at Lubbock, Tex., alleging shipment within|the period from on or about September 16 to on or about November 22, 1940,|from the State of Texas into the State of New Mexico of quantities of the above-|named drugs which were adulterated and/or misbranded.|The hydrogen peroxide was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported|to be and was represented as a drug the name of which is recognized in the|United States Pharmacopoeia but its strength differed from and its quality fell|below the standard set forth therein, since in each 100 cubic centimeters it|contained less than 2.5 grams of hydrogen peroxide (H2Oj), namely, not more|than 1.90 grams of hydrogen peroxide; whereas the United States Pharma-|copoeia specifies that hydrogen peroxide shall contain in each 100 cc. not less|than 2.5 grams of H202, and its difference in strength and quality from such|standard was not plainly stated on the label. It was alleged to be misbranded|in that the statement on the bottle label, \"\"Hydrogen Peroxide U. S. P. * \"\" * *|3? * * * Active Ingredients H2Oa 3?,\"\" was false and misleading since it|represented that the article complied with the specifications of the United States|Pharmacopoeia for solution of hydrogen peroxide and contained 3 percent of|hydrogen peroxide; whereas it did not comply with such specifications and it|contained not more than 1.9 percent of hydrogen peroxide.|One shipment of mineral oil was alleged to be misbranded in that the state-|ment on the bottle label, \"\"This oil is used for the treatment of chronic constipa-|tion and * * * for the relief of intestinal indigestion,\"\" was false and mislead-|ing since it represented and suggested that the oil would be efficacious for the|treatment of chronic constipation and for the relief of intestinal indigestion;|whereas it would not be efficacious for such purposes. The other shipment of|mineral oil was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement on the bottle label,|\"\"Contents 1 Pint,\"\" was false and misleading since the bottles contained less than|1 pint, namely, amounts varying from 14.2 to 15.38 fluid ounces.|The soda was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that the statement, (display|cards) \"\"For Relief of Indigestion, Heartburn, Acid Stomach, Common Colds,\"\" was|false and misleading since it represented and suggested that soda was an effica-|cious treatment for indigestion, heartburn, acid stomach, and common colds;|whereas it would not be efficacious for such purposes. (2) In that its labeling|failed to bear adequate directions for use. (3) In that it was in package form and|the package, i. e., envelope, did not bear a label containing the name and place|of business of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor. (4) In that it did not|bear a label containing its common or usual name, i. e., sodium bicarbonate.|The olive oil was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement on the bottle|label, \"\"1? Fl. Oz.,\"\" was false and misleading since the bottles contained less|than 1? fluid ounces of olive oil, namely, amounts varying from 1,39 to 1.48|fluid ounces.|The isopropyl alcohol was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement on|the bottle label. \"\"Contents 1 Pint,\"\" was false and misleading since the bottles|contained less than 1 pint of the article, namely, amounts varying from 15.2 to|15.85 fluid ounces.|The soda, one shipment of the mineral oil, the isopropyl alcohol, and the olive|oil were alleged to be misbranded further in that they were in package form|and did not bear labels containing accurate statements of the quantity of the|contents.|On April 18, 1942, pleas of guilty were entered by the defendants and the|court imposed a fine of $100 against each.|721. Adulteration of Antiseptic Medicated Skin Cream. U. S. v. 28 Jars of Antiseptic Medicated Skin Cream. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00721April 1948I. L. PalmerAntiseptic Medicated Skin CreamFebruary 25 and March 12, 1942Buffalo, N. Y.Philadelphia, Pa.Buffalo, N. Y.Western District of New York721F. D. C. No. 7323. Sample No. 64944-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00721ddnj|721. Adulteration of Antiseptic Medicated Skin Cream. U. S. v. 28 Jars of Anti|septic Medicated Skin Cream. Default decree of condemnation and de-|struction. (F. D. C. No. 7323. Sample No. 64944-E.)|On April 10, 1942, the United States attorney for the \"\"Western District of New|York filed a libel against the above-named product at Buffalo, N. T., alleging that|it. had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about February 25 and March|12,1942, by I. L. Palmer from Philadelphia, Pa.; and charging that it was adulter- r*|ated in that its strength differed from that which it purported and was represented (|to possess, namely \"\"Antiseptic.\"\"|On May 11, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|722. Adulteration and misbranding of citrate of magnesia. U. S. v. 36 1/2 Dozen Bottles of Citrate of Magnesia. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00722April 1948William Bettles Co.citrate of magnesiaFebruary 9, 1942Youngstown, OhioPittsburgh, Pa.Youngstown, OhioNorthern District of Ohio722F. D. C. No. 7189. Sample No. 64840-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00722ddnj|722. Adulteration and misbranding of citrate of magnesia. U. S. v. 36% Dozen|Bottles of Citrate of Magnesia. Default decree of condemnation and de-|struction. (F. D. C. No. 7189. Sample No. 64840-E.)|This product contained a smaller amount of magnesium citrate than that|specified in the United States Pharmacopeia and it also contained sulfates in|excess of the amount permitted in the pharmacopoeial product.|On April 11, 1942, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Ohio filed a libel against 36? dozen bottles of citrate of magnesia at Youngstown,|Ohio, alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or|about February 9, 1942, by the William Bettles Co. from Pittsburgh, Pa.; and|charging that it was adulterated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to be a drug|the name of which is recognized in the United States Pharmacopoeia but its|strength differed from and its quality fell below the standard set forth therein.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement \"\"made of pure citric acid|and carbonate of magnesia according to the U. S. Pharmacopoeia\"\" was false and|misleading since it was not correct.|On May 11, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 3, FOOD AND DRUGS ACT. MISBRANDING OF FLOURfdnj00003July 1, 1908Birkett Mills, a corporation located and doing business at Penn Yan, N. YFLOURJuly 15, 1907NebraskaNew YorkNebraskaWestern District of New York3\NThe National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainfdnj00003fdnj|NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 3, FOOD AND DRUGS ACT.|MISBRANDING OF FLOUR.|In 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 that on the 23d day of |January, 1908, in the United States District Court for the Western Dis- |trict of New York, the United States of America being plaintiff and the |Birkett Mills, a corporation located and doing business at Penn Yan, |N. Y., defendant, in a criminal proceeding on information filed by the |United States Attorney, a copy of which is hereinbelow given, charging |a violation of section 2 of the Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 1906, in |shipping and delivering for shipment into interstate commerce a mis- |branded flour, the said defendant having been duly arraigned, entered |a plea of guilty and the Court, in its discretion, suspended sentence.|UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.|THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF, ~}|against |^Information.|THE BIRKETT MILLS, DEFENDANT. J|BE IT REMEMBERED, That Lyman M. Bass, Attorney of the United States of |America, for the Western District of New York, who for the said United States |in this behalf prosecutes, in his own person, comes here into the District Court |of the said United States of America for the District aforesaid on this 23rd day of |January, 1908, and for the said United States of America gives the Court here to |understand and be informed that one The Birkett Mills, a corporation organized |and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, with |its place of business at Penn Yan, in the Western District of New York, hereto- |fore, to wit, on the 20th day of May, A. D., 1907, at said Penn Yan, in the |Western District of New York, and within the jurisdiction of this Court did then |and there wrongfully and unlawfully ship and deliver for shipment from the |State of New York to the City of Omaha, in the State of Nebraska, two barrels |of a certain wheat product, which said wheat product did not then and there |contain as a constituent element thereof 5.6% of nitrogen, but did in fact con- |tain no more than 1.37 % of nitrogen, and did then and there contain approxi- |mately 12.80% of moisture, and which said wheat product was not then and |there pure gluten flour, and which said two barrels of said wheat product was |then and there misbranded by having printed thereon the words \"\"Pure Gluten |Flour,\"\" contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, |to wit, An Act of Congress of the United States of America, entitled \"\"An Act |for preventing the manufacture, sale, or transportation of adulterated or mis- |branded or poisonous or deleterious foods, drugs, medicines, and liquors and|2|for regulating traffic therein and for other purposes,\"\" approved June 30th, 1906, |and against the peace and dignity of the said United States of America.|Whereupon the said attorney of the said United States, who prosecutes as |aforesaid for the said United States of America, prays for the consideration of |the Court in the premises and that due process of law be awarded against the |said The Birkett Mills, a corporation organized and existing under and by vir- |tue of the laws of the State of New York in this behalf, to make it answer to |the said United States of America concerning the premises aforesaid.|LYMAN M. BASS, |United States Attorney in and for the Western District of New York.|The following is a statement of the facts upon which the case is based: ¦ |On July 15, 1907, an inspector of the Department of Agriculture pur- |chased from Courtney & Company, Omaha, Nebr., samples of an |article labeled \"\"/Pure Gluten Flour, The Birkett Mills, sole manufac- |turers, Penn Yan, N. Y.\"\" The flour was duly analyzed by the Bureau |of Chemistry, Department of Agriculture, and the results obtained indi- |cated that it was not a gluten flour as defined in the \"\"Standards of |Purity for Food Products,\"\" promulgated under authority of the Secre- |tary of Agriculture, in that it contained 12.80 per cent of moisture and |1.53 per cent of nitrogen, the former 2.80 above and the latter 4.07 per |cent below the standard, which is as follows:|Gluten flour is the clean, sound product made from flour by the |removal of starch and contains not less than five and six-tenths (5.6) |per cent of nitrogen and not more than ten (10) per cent of moisture.|By this removal of starch the product is particularly adapted to the |use of those persons whose digestive organs can not dispose of the |starch in ordinary flour. The starch had not been extracted from the |flour in this case, hence the person who supposed he was purchasing a |pure gluten flour was deceived and misled. The statement on the |sacks was, therefore, false, misleading, and deceptive, and the flour was |offered for sale and sold by the defendant under the distinctive name |of another article in violation of section 8 of the act.|Whereupon, the defendant having been afforded an opportunity to |present evidence showing any fault or error in the finding of the analyst |or examiner, the case, on December 28, 1907, was transmitted by the |Secretary of Agriculture to the Department of Justice and by that |Department referred to the United States Attorney for the Western Dis- |trict of New York for prosecution with the result hereinbefore stated.|H. W. WILEY, |GEO. P. MCCABE, |Board of Food and Drug Inspection. |Approved:|JAMES WILSON,|Secretary of Agriculture.|WASHINGTON, D. C, June 17, 1908.|O|724. Adulteration and misbranding of vitamin tablets. U. S. v. 27,500 Vitamin A and D Tablets. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00724April 1948Strong, Cobb & Co., Inc.vitamin tabletsJanuary 5, 1942Detroit, Mich.Cleveland, OhioDetroit, Mich.Eastern District of Michigan724F. D. C. No. 7054. Sample No. 30494-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00724ddnj|724. Adulteration and misbranding of vitamin tablets. TJ. S. v. 27,500 Vitamin|A and D Tablets. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 7054. Sample No. 30494-E.)|This product was represented to contain 625 units of vitamin D per tablet but|contained not more than 470 units of vitamin D per tablet.|On March 18, 1942, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Michigan filed a libel against 27,500 vitamin tablets at Detroit, Mich., alleging|that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about January|5, 1942, by Strong, Cobb & Co., Inc., from Cleveland, Ohio; and charging that it|was adulterated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from and|its quality fell below that shown on the label, 625 units [of vitamin D] per tablet.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that statements on the label pertaining to|vitamin D content, \"\"Active Ingredients Only-Per Tablet Vitamin D (Viosterol)|625 Units Each Tablet Contains The Equivalent of Two Teaspoonsfulls Cod|Liver Oil Minimum USP Strength in Vitamin Potency,\"\" were false when applied|to an article that contained not more than 470 U. S. P. units of vitamin D|per tablet.|The article was also charged to be adulterated and misbranded in violation of|the provisions of the law applicable to food, as reported in F. N. J. No. 3643.|On May 5, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|DRUGS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF FALSE AND MISLEADING STATE-|MENTS IN THE LABELING'|725. Action to enjoin and restrain distribution in interstate commerce of Diaplex under false and misbranding labeling. U. S. v. Henry Wayne Pierce (Horace Wayne Pierce) and Alice Pierce. Permanent Injunction granted.ddnj00725April 1948Henry Wayne Pierce, also known as Horace Wayne Pierce, and Alice Pierce, Larimer, Colo.Diaplex\NColoradoWellington, Colo.ColoradoDistrict of Colorado725Inj. No. 18.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00725ddnj|725. Action to enjoin and restrain distribution in interstate commerce of Diaplex|under false and misleading labeling:. U. S. v. Henry Wayne Pierce|(Horace Wayne Pierce) and Alice Pierce. Permanent Injunction granted.|(Inj. No. 18.)|On October 14, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Colorado|filed a complaint against Henry \"\"Wayne Pierce, also known as Horace Wayne|Pierce, and Alice Pierce, Larimer, Colo., alleging that the defendants were engaged|in the business of selling, distributing, and shipping in interstate commerce, and|on numerous occasions had shipped or caused to be shipped to various persons|throughout the United States a food, drug, or weed commonly known as Diaplex,|which bore certain false and misleading statements in the labeling as quoted|hereinafter.|The complaint alleged further that the defendant on divers occasions had been|informed that the statements on the labels hereinafter quoted were false and|misleading and that said product was misbranded; that the defendants had been|warned that further shipments in interstate commerce of Diaplex with false and|misleading statements on the labels must cease; that the defendants had con-|tinued to ship and cause to be shipped in interstate commerce large quantities of|Diaplex with directions and false and misleading statements printed on the|labels; that they had announced their present and future intentions to continue|making shipments of Diaplex in interstate commerce with the said false and|misleading statements in the labeling until restrained and enjoined by law from|doing so; and prayed that a temporary injunction issue restraining the defend-|ants and those acting on their behalf from shipping such product or causing it to|be shipped in interstate commerce and that the temporary injunction be made|permanent on final hearing of the case.|On October 29,1941, the court orally instructed the defendants that neither they|nor their agents were to conduct any further business in the manufacture and|interstate shipment of the article, pending the hearing of medical testimony on|November 22, 1941.|On October 31, 1941, the defendants filed an answer denying the making of|any dogmatic claims of cure for the product and also denying that the labeling|was false and misleading. On December 1, 1941, the case having come on for|trial and the plaintiffs having appeared by counsel and the defendants appearing|for themselves and without counsel, the court made the following findings of|fact and conclusions of law:|SYMES, D. J. \"\"That at all times hereinafter mentioned, and for a long time|prior thereto, the defendants, Henry Wayne Pierce, also known as Horace Wayne|Pierce, and Alice Pierce, were engaged in the business of selling, distributing,|and shipping in interstate commerce, a product more commonly known as|'Diaplex* for the treatment and benefit of persons suffering from diabetes.|\"\"That on or about July 3, 1941, the defendants did ship and cause to be|shipped in interstate commerce, namely, from the town of Wellington, Colo., a|shipment of a product more commonly known as 'Diaplex' and billed as 'dried|2 See also Nos. 701-706, 708, 710, 711, 744-717, 720.|herbs ground,' to Henry Legler at Boise, Idaho; that said shipment consisted|of 5 boxes, each box containing 50 cartons of the product known as Diaplex;|that each carton had then and there affixed the following label: 'Diaplex--|Directions as a Beverage: Place two heaping tablespoons of Diaplex in a|porcelain or earthen percolator (never use aluminum) and pour one quart of|hot water over it, percolate same for ten minutes and serve hot. Directions|to Doctors: For those whose blood-sugar count tests 125 Mgs. per 100 C.C.|or over, use four heaping tablespoons of Diaplex to the quart of water and|percolate ten to fifteen minutes. Always serve Diaplex hot, never ice cold or|lukewarm. (Never use aluminum.) An adult should use two quarts of Diaplex|tea daily and a child, one, for a period of nine to eighteen months. Diaplex|is a food, not a drug. It should never lower the blood-sugar below normal.|Therefore, a great amount is effective. Small doses are worthless for the|diabetic. Diaplex contains no opiates and is non-injurious. Notice! . . .|Warning! Persons using Diaplex with insulin should make the urine test|daily, and as the pancreas increases its normal function, reduce the amount of|insulin sufficiently to|* avoid insulin reaction. Only use enough insulin to take|care of the surplus sugar reducing the amount of insulin from time to time|sufficiently to avoid insulin reaction; but continue the use of Diaplex until you|are well and strong. If you are using Protamine Zinc insulin write for further|instructions; Diaplex, Wellington, Colorado Diaplex-Trademark reg. U. S.|Pat Office-by H. W. Pierce. Net Weight 12 ounces avoirdupois when packed.'|Ill|\"\"That the defendants were on this and previous occasions informed by proper|notice, through the proper officials and representatives of the plaintiff, that the|statements printed on said label in conjunction with the name 'Diaplex' were|false and misleading when the product was presented either as a food or as|a drug.|\"\"That the defendants did on September 22, 1941, notify the plaintiff, through|its proper official's and representatives that they produced Diaplex and would|continue to sell it in interstate commerce.|\"\"That said product more commonly known as 'Diaplex' has never been rec-|ognized as a food for human consumption, nor is it a plant containing in-|gredients of medicinal value, but on the contrary, is a common weed, saltbush,|which is scientifically known as Atriplex canescens.|Conclusions of Law|\"\"That the product commonly known as 'Diaplex,' as heretofore described in|the complaint and as so labeled, is misbranded in violation of the Federal Food,|Drug, and Cosmetic Act, a statute 'to prohibit the movement in interstate|commerce of adulterated and misbranded food, drugs, devices and cosmetics,|and for other purposes,' by reason of the false and misleading statements|directly and impliedly indicating that the product was and is of therapeutic|value in the treatment of diabetes.|\"\"That the plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction enjoining said|defendants, their agents, servants, employees, attorneys, representatives, and|assigns, and all persons acting or claiming to act in their behalf in the same|regard and the same effect from shipping or causing to be shipped in interstate|commerce, or from receiving in interstate commerce, shipments of the weed,|saltbush (Atriplex canescens) for subsequent sale under the name 'Diaplex,'|or other language directly and impliedly offering or claiming the product of|therapeutic value in the treatment of diabetes.\"\"|On December 5, 1941, a decree was entered granting a permanent injunction|in accordance with the prayer of the complaint.|726. Action to enjoin and restrain distribution of Slend-R-Form, a misbranded candy. U. S. v. Riley Products, Inc., and George C. Riley. Judgment ordering permanent injunction.ddnj00726April 1948Riley Products, Inc., a corporation, and George C. Riley, an officer of corporationSlend-R-FormOctober 28, 1940Illinois\NIllinoisNorthern District of Illinois726Inj. No. 15.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00726ddnj|726. Action to enjoin and restrain distribution of Slend-R-Form, a misbranded|candy. U. S. v. Riley Products, Inc., and George C. Riley. Judgment|- ordering: permanent injunction. (Inj. No. 15.)|On February 2, 1942, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Illinois filed a complaint against Riley Products, Inc., a corporation, and George|0. Riley, an officer of said corporation, alleging that the defendants for several|months past, and more particularly on. or about October 28, 1940, had been intro-|ducing and delivering for introduction in interstate commerce, a product con-|sisting of a drug and a food, labeled in part \"\"Slend-R-Form the New Candy,\"\"|alleging that in form and appearance it was like ordinary caramel candy, that|it was packed, distributed, and sold by the defendants in cardboard cartons|which cartons and smaller cartons contained therein and the accompanying|circulars had printed thereon statements referring to its efficacy and the quantity|to be consumed.|The complaint alleged further that the labeling of the article Was false and|misleading since it created the impression in the minds of the purchaser that it|was a reducing agent and that when consumed in the manner and in the quantity|recommended in the labeling it would be of substantial value in reducing body|weight, whereas it contained no ingredients or combination of ingredients capable|of producing the effects claimed for it as a reducing agent when consumed in|accordance with the directions contained in the labeling.|The complaint alleged further that the defendants, unless restrained by the|court, would continue to introduce and deliver for introduction in interstate|commerce the said article or a similar article of drug or food misbranded in the|manner aforesaid, and prayed that they be permanently enjoined and restrained|from doing so and further prayed that a temporary restraining order and pre-|liminary injunction issue. On the same date, the United States attorney filed a|motion for an order to show cause why the defendants should not be enjoined|and restrained during pendency of the action.|On February 6, 1942, the court entered a preliminary injunction against the|defendants pursuant to the prayer contained in the complaint.|On April 10, 1942, the cause having been called for a hearing, judgment was|entered permanently enjoining and restraining Riley Products, Inc., and George|O. Riley, their agents, employees, and representatives and all others acting by|or under their direction or authority or in active concert or participation with|them from introducing or delivering for introduction in interstate commerce,- the|product labeled in part \"\"Slend-R-Form, the New Candy\"\" or a similar article of|drug or food similarly labeled. It was provided further that the United States|of America recover the costs of the action.|727. Misbranding of Bronchi-Lyptus. U. S. v. Mrs. Millie R. Binz, Mrs. Maude F. Boynton, and Ralph H. Boynton (Bronchi-Lyptus Laboratory). Pleas of nolo contendere. Imposition of sentences suspended and defendants placed on probation for 1 year.ddnj00727April 1948Mrs. Millie R. Binz, Mrs. Maude F. Boynton, and Ralph H. Boynton, copartners trading as Bronchi-Lyptus Laboratory at Los Angeles, Calif.Bronchi-LyptusSeptember S, 1940CaliforniaCaliforniaArizonaSouthern District of California727F. D. C. No. 5489. Sample No. 32653-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00727ddnj|727. Misbranding- of Bronebl-Lyptus. U. S. v. Mrs. Millie R. Binz, Sirs. Maude F.|Boynton, and Ralph H. Boynton (Bronchi-Lyptus Laboratory). Pleas of|nolo contendere. Imposition of sentences suspended and defendants|placed on probation for 1 year. (F. D. C. No. 5489. Sample No. 32653-E.)|On October 27, 1941, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|California filed an information against Mrs. Millie R. Binz, Mrs. Maude F. Boyn-|ton, and Ralph H. Boynton, copartners trading as Bronchi-Lyptus Laboratory at|Los Angeles, Calif., alleging shipment on or about September S, 1940, from the|State of California into the State of Arizona of a number of packages, each|containing a number of bottles enclosed in cartons, and a number of sample vials,|of Bronchi-Lyptus which was misbranded.|Analyses of samples of the product showed that it consisted essentially of oil|of eucalyptus, a gum, glycerin, sugar, and water.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the name \"\"Bronchi-Lyptus.\"\"|and certain statements in the labeling which represented and suggested that the|article was efficacious in the treatment of affections of the bronchi, would relieve|inflamed tissues and soothe the mucous membrane, would be efficacious in the|treatment of all throat irritations, would relieve night attacks of spasmodic croup|or coughing almost immediately; that it was a treatment accepted by all nose|and throat specialists and was highly efficacious in assisting the delicate organs of|the throat to throw off conditions that might lead to serious affections, would|assist nature in its efforts to bring about recovery from coughs and colds, would|provide relief in chronic conditions of the throat or lungs, and would aid one in|recovering from such conditions; and that it would correct fermentation in the|stomach, were false and misleading since it would not be efficacious for such|purposes. The article contained in the sample vial was alleged to be misbranded|further in that its label did not bear an accurate statement of the quantity of|the contents.|On November 30, 1941, the defendants were arraigned and entered pleas|of not guilty. On April 21, 1942, the defendants moved for an order requiring ,-|greater particularity in certain respects, particularly whether the Govern- [|ment intended to introduce evidence that the word \"\"Bronchi-Lyptus\"\" consti-|tuted misbranding, in what respect this word violated the law, and in what|respect persons reading the article would be led to believe that it was a|competent treatment for all chronic conditions of bronchial and nasal passages.|On May 4, 1942, the defendants' motion for a bill of particulars came before|the court and the court denied the motion announcing as grounds for such de-|nial, first, that the name \"\"Bronchi-Lyptus\"\" was not misleading and;|second, that assuming that it might have been misleading, the information|contained no direct averment as to how or in what manner the name could|be misleading. Thereupon the defendants changed their pleas of not guilty|to pleas of nolo contendere, and the court ordered that the imposition of sen-|tences be suspended and that the defendants be placed on probation for 1 year.|728. Misbranding of Gid Granules. U. S. v. Eberly-Williams Manufacturing Co. and Lawrence M. Williams. Pleas of guilty. Fine, $250 and costs.ddnj00728April 1948Eberly-Williams Manufacturing Co., a corporation, Chicago, Ill., and Lawrence M. WilliamsGid GranulesApril 9 to April 17, 1941IllinoisIllinoisMassachusettsNorthern District of Illinois728F. D. C. No. 5534. Sample Nos. 36782-E, 36783-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00728ddnj|728. Misbranding of Gid Granules. U. S. v. Eberly-Williams Manufacturing Co.|and Lawrence M. Williams. Pleas of guilty. Fine, $250 and costs.|(F. D. C. No. 5534. Sample Nos. 36782-E, 36783-E.)|The labeling of a portion of Gid Granules No. 1 (in sample enevelopes) failed|to bear adequate directions for use and was objectionable in other respects as|indicated hereinafter. That of the remainder, in addition to bearing false and|misleading curative claims, falsely represented that it was not a laxative drug.|On February 27, 1942, the United States attorney for the Northern District|of Illinois filed an information against the Eberly-Williams Manufacturing Co.,|a corporation, Chicago, 111., and Lawrence M. Williams, alleging shipment with-|in the period from on or about April 9 to on or about April 17, 1941, from the|State of Illinois into the State of Massachusetts of quantities of Gid Granules|No. 1 and Gid Granules No. 2, and a number of sample envelopes containing Gid|Granules No. 1, which were misbranded.|Analyses showed that Gid Granules No. 1 consisted essentially of the muci-|laginous portion of psyllium seed, karaya gum, sodium bicarbonate, calcium car-|bonate, and sugar; and that Gid Granules No. 2 consisted essentially of the|mucilaginous portion of psyllium seed, karaya gum, yeast, and sugar.|Both articles were alleged to be misbranded in that the statements on the|packages and cartons, (No. 1) \"\"are scientifically prepared to be of effective|value in the treatment of minor irritations and inflammations of the stomach|and upper intestines\"\" and (No. 2) \"\"are scientifically prepared to be of effec-|tive value in the treatment of minor irritations and inflammations of the|lower intestine and colon, and in spastic * * * constipation,\"\" and those|in an accompanying circular, were false and misleading since they represented|that the articles would be efficacious in the treatment of minor irritations and|inflammations of the lower intestine and colon and in spastic constipation;|that they were appropriate and effective treatments for stomach troubles, in-|testinal disorders, indigestion, diarrhea, sore stomach, bad breath, gnawing|pains, gas pains, dyspepsia, biliousness, headaches, sleeplessness, intestinal stasis,|auto-intoxication, colitis, colonic irritation, liver and gall deficiencies (not due|to infection), intestinal trouble, lesions, stasis, toxemia, putrefaction, flatulence,|stomach ulcer, or tuberculosis or cancer of the gastric tract, sore and lacerated|ulcers of the upper parts of the gastric tract, the stomach, duodenum, jejunum,|small intestine, troubles located in the lower intestines, cecum, ascending and|transverse colon, sigmoid, and rectum; whereas they would not be efficacious for|such purposes.|They were alleged to be misbranded further in that the statements \"\"Gid, a|mucinoid from cereal * * * it is significant that Gid supplies elements that|Nature intended to be in man's natural food, but which have been largely lost|in the refinement of food processing, Gid is for that reason essentially a food|supplement. Certainly it is not a drug or a medicine in the ordinary sense of|the word, * * * this * * * food supplement. Gid is not a laxative or|cathartic. It has little or no such action. Its help is altogether different.|Those who have had to depend on drug or oil laxatives will find Gid a delightful|comfort,\"\" appearing in the labeling, were false and misleading since the articles|were not prepared from a cereal, would not supply elements that nature intended|to be in man's natural food but which had been largely lost in the refinement|of food processing, they were not food supplements but were drugs in the|ordinary sense of the word, and were laxative or cathartic drugs.|The article contained in the sample envelopes was alleged to be misbranded|further (1) in that it was in package form and did not bear a label containing|the name and place of business of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor, nor|a statement of the quantity of the contents; (2) in that it was fabricated from|two or more ingredients and its label did not bear the common or usual name of|each active ingredient; and (3) in that its labeling did not bear adequate direc-|tions for use, since the envelopes bore no directions at all.|On March 3, 1942, pleas of guilty having been entered on behalf of the defend-|ants, the court imposed a fine of $250 and costs, which was applicable to both|defendants.|729. Misbranding of Merlek Mineral Water. U. S. v. Michael Lee (Lee Bros.). Pica of nolo contendere. Fine, $1,000. Defendant placed on probation for 5 years.ddnj00729April 1948Michael Lee, trading as Lee Bros., Oakland, Calif.Merlek Mineral WaterMay 18, 1940CaliforniaCaliforniaArizonaNorthern District of California729F. D. C. No. 5527. Sample No. 7399-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00729ddnj|729. Misbranding of fiferlek Mineral Water. U. S. v. Michael Lee (Lee Bros.).|Pica of nolo contendere. Fine, $1,000. Defendant placed on probation|for 5 years. (F. D. C. No. 5527. Sample No. 7399-E.)|This product consisted of sea water to which had been added a small amount|of potassium iodide. Its labeling bore false and misleading claims regarding|its mineral content and its efficacy in conditions of impaired health resulting|from mineral deficiency.|On January 3, 1942, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|California filed an information against Michael Lee, trading as Lee Bros., Oak-|land, Calif., alleging shipment on or about May 18, 1940, from the State of|California into the State of Arizona of a quantity of Merlek which was|misbranded.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, \"\"Contains|Parts Per Million (Approximate Analysis) Sodium & Potassium Chlorides:|28924.7 Magnesium Chloride: 3286.9 Magnesium Sulphate: 3106.7 Calcium Sul-|phate : 857.3 Calcium Chloride: 573.0 * * * Magnesium Bromide: 76.0 Alka-|line Nitrates: 42.5 Traces of Phosphorus, Boron, Silica, Sodium Fluoride, Iron|Oxide, Aluminum Oxide * * * Merlek is sold only to help supply minerals|for mineral deficiency,\"\" borne on the label, were false and misleading since they|represented and suggested that it contained the above-named minerals in|amounts sufficient to contribute in an important respect to the requirements of|the body for such minerals, and that it would be efficacious in conditions of|impaired health resulting from deficiency of said minerals; whereas it would|not contribute in an important respect to the requirements of the body for|such minerals since it contained inconsequential amounts of minerals and would|not be efficacious in conditions of impaired health resulting from deficiency of|such minerals. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that its labeling|was misleading since it failed to reveal the fact, material in the light of tluo|representations in the labeling, that it consisted of sea water to which had been|added a small amount of potasshim iodide.|The article was also alleged to be misbranded under the provisions of the|law applicable to foods, as reported in F. N. J. No. 3839.|On June 9,1942, the defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere and the court|imposed a fine of $1,000 and placed the defendant on probation for 5 years.|730. Misbranding of Hoyt's Compound. U. S. v. Herman P. Doyle, Verne N. Seeley, and Fred D. Grantham (Hoyt Chemical Co.). Pleas of guilty. Fines, $600.ddnj00730April 1948Herman P. Doyle, Verne N. Seeley, and Fred D. Grantham, trading as the Hoyt Chemical Co. at Denver, Colo.Hoyt's CompoundMay 27, 1941ColoradoColoradoWashingtonDistrict of Colorado730F. D. C. No. 6462. Sample No. 52314-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00730ddnj|730. Misbranding: of Hoyt's Compound. U. S. v. Herman P. Doyle, \"\"Verne N.|Seeley, and Fred D. Grantham (Hoyt Chemical Co.). Pleas of guilty.|Fines, $600. (F. D. C. No. 6462. Sample No. 52314-E.)|On May 11, 1942, the United States attorney for the District of Colorado filed|an information against Herman P. Doyle, Verne N. Seeley, and Fred D. Gran-|tham, trading as the Hoyt Chemical Co. at Denver, Colo., alleging shipment on|or about May 27, 1941, from the State of Colorado into the State of Washington|of a quantity of Hoyt's Compound that was misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of|extracts of plant drugs including a laxative drug, alcohol, and water.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that representations in the labeling that|it would be efficacious in the treatment of indigestion, sour stomach, gas, bloating,|nervousness, excitability, skin and blood diseases, stomach trouble, constipation,|run-down condition, sleeplessness, belching and burning sensation in the throat|and stomach, pains in the hips and legs, gas and pressure around the heart,|dizziness, lump in the stomach, twitching, jerking, spots before the eyes, and|knotty sensation in the stomach; that it would be efficacious to prevent suffering|after meals and to quiet the nerves and restore health; that it would be efficacious|in the relief of suffering from stomach, bowels, and kidneys; that it would be|efficacious to prevent getting up nights caused by kidney affections, to produce|gain in weight, to cleanse the bowels and leave the intestinal tract pure and clean|and free of poisonous waste matter, and to make the bowels normal; that it|would be efficacious in the treatment of all kinds of aches and pains and disorders|of the general health; and that it was a wonderful treatment for poor health|and tired and run-down conditions; were false and misleading since it would not|be efficacious for such purposes.|On May 15, 1942, the defendants entered pleas of guilty and the court fired?\\|each one $200.|731. Misbranding of Renair Pomade. U. S. v. Frederick Godfrey (Adams Products Co.). Plea of guilty. Fine, $300.ddnj00731April 1948Frederick Godfrey, Adams, N. Y.Renair PomadeMay 14, 1940New YorkNew YorkNew JerseyNorthern District of New York731F. D. C. No. 4183. Sample No. 83157-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00731ddnj|731. Misbranding of Renair Pomade. U. S. v. Frederick Godfrey (Adams Products|Co.). Plea of guilty. Fine, $300. (F. D. C. No. 4183. Sample No. 83157-B.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regarding|its efficacy as a treatment for baldness or thinning and falling hair.|On February 12, 1942, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|New York filed an information against Frederick Godfrey, Adams, N. Y., alleging|shipment, in the name of the Adams Products Co., on or about May 14, 1940,|from the State of New York into the State of New Jersey of a quantity of Kenair|Pomade which was misbranded. The article was labeled in part as follows:|(Jars) \"\"Renair Pomade and Massage Stimulate the Scalp. * * * For Thinned|Areas. * * * For Falling Hair.\"\"|Analysis showed that the article was an amber-colored ointment containing|betanaphthol and volatile oils with cedar-like odor in small amount incorporated|in a base consisting chiefly of petrolatum and a smaller amount of fatty material.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that its labeling bore representa-|tions that, when used alone or in conjunction with certain pulling, massaging,|and kneading treatments recommended in the labeling, it would produce beneficial|effects in the treatment of baldness, falling hair, and thinned hair, whereas it|would not produce the beneficial effects claimed for it in the labeling, whether used|alone or in conjunction with such treatments.|On April 20,1942, the defendant entered a plea of guilty and the court imposed|a fine of $300.|732. Misbranding of Betene. U. S. v. 380 Cans and 130 Cans of Betene. Decree of condemnation. Product ordered released under bond to be relabeled.ddnj00732April 1948L. H. Stewart CorporationBeteneNovember 25, 1941Rochester, N. Y.Rochester, N. Y.Rochester, N. Y.Western District of Pennsylvania732F. D. C. No. 6877. Sample No. 64672-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00732ddnj|732. Misbranding of Betene. TJ. S. v. 3S0 Cans and 130 Cans of Betene. Decree|of condemnation. Product ordered released under bond to be relabeled.|(F. D. C. No. 6877. Sample No. 64672-B.)|On February 16, 1942, the United States attorney for the Western District of|Pennsylvania filed a libel (amended March 21, 1942) against 480 cans of Betene|at Rochester, N. Y., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate com-|merce on or about November 25,1941, from Rochester, N. Y., by the L. H. Stewart|Corporation; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of a|mixture of dried skim milk, dried egg yolk, soya bean tissues, wheat bran, wheat|germ, salt, agar agar, calcium phosphate, chondrus (Irish moss), and saccharin,|flavored with cocoa, vanillin, and coumarin, together with certain added vitamin|substances.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that statements in the labeling|which represented and suggested that when consumed as directed, it would cause|an increase in weight, would give vigor and vitality to the user and that it con-|stituted a sure, sane, safe, and effective way to reduce, were false and misleading|since its use would not accomplish such results.|It also was alleged to be misbranded under the provisions of the law applicable|to foods, as reported in F. N. J. No. 3840.|On May 21, 1942, the L. H. Stewart Corporation having appeared as claimant,|and having admitted that the allegations of the libel were substantially correct,|judgment of condemnation was entered and it was ordered that the product be|released under bond conditioned that it be relabeled under the supervision of the|Food and Drug Administration.|733. Misbranding of Camelline. U. S. v. 9 Dozen Bottles of Camelline. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00733April 1948Walter M. WillettCamellineAugust 28, 1941Portland, Oreg.San Francisco, Calif.Portland, Oreg.District of Oregon733F. D. C. No. 6948. Sample No. 63431-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00733ddnj|733. Misbranding of Camelline. U. S. v. 9 Dozen Bottles of Gamelline. Default|decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 6948. Sample No.|63431-E.)|On March 7, 1942, the United States attorney for the District of Oregon filed|a libel against the above-named product at Portland, Oreg., alleging that it had|been shipped on or* about August 28, 1941, by Walter M. Willett from San Fran-|cisco, Calif.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analyses of samples of the article showed that it consisted essentially of cal-|cium carbonate, bismuth, subcarbonate, alcohol, and water.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that statements on the bottle label|and in an accompanying circular suggesting and representing that it was effica-|cious in preventing tooth decay, freckles, sunburn, poison ivy, poison oak, and in|relieving the irritation caused by poison oak and poison ivy, were false and mis-?(|leading since it would not be efficacious for such purposes.|It was also alleged to be misbranded under the provisions of the law applicable|to cosmetics, as reported in O. N. J. No. 85.|On April 13, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|734. Misbranding of Chek-A-Cold. U. S. v. 66 Packages and 69 Packages of Chek-A-Cold. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00734April 1948Hance Bros. & White, Inc.Chek-A-ColdMarch 13, 1942Newark, Del.Philadelphia, Pa.Newark, Del.District of Delaware734F. D. C. No. 7475. Sample No. 77023-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00734ddnj|734. Misbranding of Chek-A-Cold. U. S. v. 66 Packages and 69 Packages of|Chek-A-Cold. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C.|No. 7475. Sample No. 77023-E.)|On or about May 7, 1942, the United States attorney for the District of Dela-|ware filed a libel against 135 packages of Chek-A-Cold at Newark, Del., alleging|that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on br about March 13,|1942, by Hance Bros. & White, Inc., from Philadelphia, Pa.; and charging that it|was misbranded.|Examination of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of|extracts of plant drugs including an alkaloid-bearing drug, a small proportion|of tartaric emetic, chloroform (0.97 minims per fluid ounce), alcohol, sugar, and|water.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the designation \"\"Chek-A-Cold\"\" and|the statement \"\"Each Fluid Ounce Contains: Chloroform?4 minims,\"\" borne|on the carton and bottle label, were false and misleading, since the article con-|tained no ingredient capable of checking a cold and contained materially less|than 4 minims of chloroform in each fluid ounce.|On May 27,1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|735. Misbranding of Cook's Laxative Cold Breakers. U. S. v. 21 Dozen Packages of Cook's Laxative Cold Breakers. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00735April 1948Thomas E. Cook Chemical Co.Cook's Laxative Cold BreakersSeptember 16, 1941Grundy, Va.Frederick, Md.Grundy, Va.Western District of Virginia735F. D. C. No. 6306. Sample No. 59686-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00735ddnj|735. Misbranding of Cook's Laxative Cold Breakers. TJ. S. v. 21 Dozen Packages|of Cook's Laxative Cold Breakers. Default decree of condemnation and|destruction. (F. D. C. No. 6306. Sample No. 59686-E.)|On or about November 28, 1941, the United States attorney for the Western|District of Virginia filed a libel against the above-named product at Grundy,|Va., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or|about September 16, 1941, by the Thomas E. Cook Chemical Co. from Frederick,|Md.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article contained acetophenetidin (approximately 1|grain per tablet), cinchonine sulfate (0.26 grain per tablet), camphor, aloin,|podophyllin, and cayenne pepper.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that statements in the label-|ing which represented that it was efficacious as a remedy for colds and the|accompanying ailments, loss of appetite, etc., and that it would break colds,|were false and misleading, since it would not be efficacious for such purposes.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the statements in the label-|ing \"\"They Contain No Quinine\"\" and \"\"if your druggist cannot supply you,|* * * we will mail you a box direct from our laboratory,\"\" were false|and misleading since the article contained cinchonine, a cinchona alkaloid|having properties generally similar to those of quinine, which is also a cinchona|alkaloid, and since the firm maintained no laboratory but merely repackaged|medicines manufactured in other establishments.|On May 4, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|736. Misbranding of Gold Sledal Compound Pills and Savatan. U. S. v. 9 3/8 Dozen Packages of Gold Medal Compound Pills and 5 1/2 Dozen Packages of Savatan. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00736April 1948S. Pfeiffer Manufacturing Co.Gold Sledal Compound Pills and SavatanFebruary 16, 1942Los Angeles, Calif.St. Louis, Mo.Los Angeles, Calif.Southern District of California736F. D. C. Nos. 7099, 7100. Sample Nos. 72230-E, 72231-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00736ddnj|736. Misbranding of Gold Sledal Compound Pills and Savatan. TJ. S. v. 9% Dozen|Packages of Gold Medal Compound Pills and 5% Dozen Packages of|Savatan. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos.|7099, 7100. Sample Nos. 72230-E, 72231-E.)|On March 27, 1942, ? the United States attorney for the Southern District|of California filed a libel against the above-named drug products at Los|Angeles, Calif., alleging that they had been shipped in interstate commerce|on or about February 16, 1942, by the S. Pfeiffer Manufacturing Co. from|St. Louis, Mo.; and charging that they were misbranded. They were labeled|in part: \"\"Gold Medal Compound Pills' * * * Virginia Chemical Company,|St. Louis, Mo.\"\" or \"\"Savatan * * * S. Pfeiffer Manufacturing Co., St. Louis,|Mo.\"\"|Analysis of a sample of the Gold Medal Compound Pills showed that they|consisted essentially of iron sulfate and small amounts of volatile oils includ-|ing oil of spearmint. Analysis of a sample of Savatan showed that each cap-|sule contained approximately 5 minims of apiol.|The articles were alleged to be misbranded in that the following state-|ments in the labeling were misleading since they represented and suggested|that they would be efficacious in relieving minor discomforts associated with|menstruation; whereas they would not be efficacious for such purpose: (Gold?r|Medal Compound Pills) \"\"Directions. One pill before meals and at bedtime.?\\|Begin a day or two before expected period or when functional discomfort|appears. At bedtime, a brief hot foot bath up to the knees or hot sitz bath|is suggested to help improye local circulation, if needed. Drink a pint or|less of hot ginger tea a few days before regular time. Keep feet and body|warm and bowels open. ?* * * Intended only for palliative relief in|minor discomforts, not as a remedy for diseases and underlying causes which|might affect functional menstruation\"\"; (Savatan) \"\"Directions. Take one|Savatan four times a day, before meals and at bedtime. It may be desirable|to take a brief hot foot bath up to the knees or hit sitz bath to improve|pelvic circulation. A few days before expected period or when functional|discomfort appears, drink freely a pint if possible of hot ginger tea and|keep the body warm. * * * Savatan is intended only for palliative relief|and not as a remedy for diseases and underlying causes which might affect|functional menstruation.\"\"|On April 22, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|737. Misbranding of Green's Reliable Restorer. U. S. v. 8 1/4 Dozen Bottles of Green's Reliable Restorer. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00737April 1948A. J. GreenGreen's Reliable RestorerFebruary 16, 1942Grayson, Ky.Clarksburg, W. Va.Grayson, Ky.Eastern District of Kentucky737F. D. C. No. 7434. Sample No. 80742-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00737ddnj|737. Misbranding: of Green's Reliable Restorer. U. S. v. 8% Dozen Bottles of|Green's Reliable Restorer. Default decree' of condemnation and destruc-|tion. (F. Ds C. No. 7434. Sample No. 80T42-E.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading claims that it would|restore gray hair to its natural color and would be efficacious in the treatment|of certain scalp conditions.|On May 2,1942, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky|filed a libel against the above-named product at Grayson, Ky., alleging that it|had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about February 16, 1942, by A. J.|Green from Clarksburg, W. Va.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of lead acetate, lead|sulfate, sulfur, zinc acetate, alcohol, glycerin, oil of bay, and water.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements in the|labeling, \"\"Contents: Sulphur, Zinc Sulfate, Acetate Merck, Glycerine, Bay Rum,|Water Reliable Restorer * * * This preparation restores grey or faded hair|to its natural color Frees the scalp from Dandruff and All Contagious Eruptions|Stops hair from falling, promotes its growth * * * To Restore Growth-|Apply the 'Restorer' daily and brush the scalp vigorously with a stiff brush,\"\"|were false and misleading, since it contained no zinc sulfate but did contain|lead salts which were not declared, and it would not restore the natural color|to gray or faded hair, would not free the scalp from dandruff and all contagious|eruptions, and would not restore the growth of hair or prevent it from falling. It|was alleged to be misbranded further in that the label failed to bear an accurate|statement of the quantity of the\"\" contents.|- On May 25,1942, no claimant having appeared, Judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|738. Misbranding of O'Dara. U. S. v. 142 3-Fluid-Ounce Bottles of O'Dara. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00738April 1948O'Dara Products Co.O'DaraApril 28, 1941Omaha, Nebr.St. Louis, Mo.Omaha, Nebr.District of Nebraska738F. D. C. No. 6186. Sample No. 73339-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00738ddnj|738. Misbranding: of O'Dara. U. S. v. 142 3-Fluid-Ounce Bottles of O'Dara. De|fault decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 6186. Sample|No. 73339-E.)|This product was not antiseptic when used in the dilutions recommended in|the labeling, and the labeling also bore false and misleading therapeutic claims.|On January 6, 1942, the United States attorney for the District of Nebraska|filed a libel against the above-named product at Omaha, Nebr., alleging that it|had been shipped in interstate commerce from St. Louis, Mo., by O'Dara Products -|Co. on or about April 28, 1941; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of alcohol|(46 percent), glycerin (17 percent), potassium iodide (5 percent), methyl salicy-|late (7 percent), zinc chloride (3 percent), phenol (1 percent), water, and small|proportions of saccharin and myrrh. Bacteriological examination showed that it|would not be antiseptic when used in the dilution of 1 teaspoonful to a glass|of water.|The article was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that statements in the labeling|which represented that it constituted a proper or adequate treatment for pyorrhea,|trench mouth, canker sores, stomatitis, or spongy gums; that it would coagulate, -|detach, and clear away objectionable matter, leave the tissues clean and have a?/|healing effect or stimulate healing processes; that it would kill disease-producing?V|organisms embedded in the tissues to which it was applied; that it was an|adequate treatment for sore throat; that it would act as a blood coagulant form-|ing a protective film over wounds; and that it was an adequate treatment for|painful erupting teeth and for painful conditions or severe swelling after extrac-|tion of teeth, were false and misleading since it would not be efficacious for such|purposes, except that it might act as a blood coagulant and form a protective film|over wounds of a minor character. (2) In that the following statements, (carton,|bottle label, and circular) \"\"Concentrated antiseptic in undiluted state. Astringent,|Deodorant, Mouth Wash, Gum Massage and Gargle,\"\" (carton and bottle) \"\"Direc-|tions : As a mouth wash or gargle use about a teaspoonful to glass of water or|euough to give you a tingling feeling on tongue,\"\" and (circular) \"\"Wash: as a|mouth wash for daily use, use about a teaspoonful to a glass of water (you may|use cap on bottle, which holds a teaspoonful) or use according to your taste, but|enough to give your tongue a tingling feeling. * * * Gargle: For a sore|throat, a teaspoonful to a glass of hot water every two hours * * * The|contents of this 3 oz. bottle make a gallon and one-half of mouth wash when|diluted,\"\" were false and misleading particularly in the absence of a statement in|the labeling that it would not be antiseptic when used in some of the dilutions|recommended, namely, \"\"about a teaspoonful to a glass of water,\"\" and \"\"The con-|tents of this 3 oz. bottle makes a gallon and one-half of mouth wash when diluted,\"\"|an omission material in the light of the prominent display of the words \"\"Concen-|trated Antiseptic In Undiluted State. Astringent, Deodorant, Mouth Wash, Gum|Massage and Gargle\"\" on the carton, bottle label, and circular.|On February 18,1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|739. Misbranding of Na-Stim. U. S. v. 6 Dozen Packages of Na-Stim A Nasal Stimulant. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00739April 1948Na-Stim Laboratories, Inc.Na-StimNovember 24, 1941Phoenix, Ariz.Modesto, Calif.Phoenix, Ariz.District of Arizona739F. D. C. No. 6895. Sample No. 72559-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00739ddnj|730. Misbranding: of Na-Stlm. V. S. v. 6 Dozen Packages of Na-Stim A Nasal|Stimulant. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No.|6895. Sample No. 72559-E.)|On February 21, 1942, the United States attorney for the District of Arizona|filed a libel against 6 dozen packages of Na-Stim at Phoenix, Ariz., alleging that|the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about November 24,1941,|by the Na-Stim Laboratories, Inc., from Modesto, Calif.; and charging that it was|inisbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of water, a gum, and fatty|material; but failed to reveal the presence of menthol, oil of pine, or turpentine.|The article was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that the statement on the|tube labels \"\"Contains * * * Menthol, Venice Turpentine, Oil of Pine, Iodine,\"\"|was false and misleading since it contained no detectable amount of menthol,|Venice turpentine, oil of pine, or free iodine, and contained merely a trace of|combined iodine. (2) In that statements in the labeling which represented that|it would be efficacious for the relief from symptoms of hay fever, sinus, head colds,|and nasal disorders, and that it constituted an adequate treatment for such|conditions, were false and misleading since it would not be efficacious for such|purposes and was not an adequate treatment for such conditions.|On April 21,1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|740. Misbranding of Omega Oil and Kotalko. U. S. v. 59 1/2 Dozen Bottles of Omega Oil and 34 Packages of Kotalko. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00740April 1948Block Drug Co., Inc.Omega Oil and KotalkoDecember 22, 1941, and May 11 and June 2, 1942New York, N. Y.Jersey City, N. J.New York, N. Y.Southern District of New York740F. D. C. Nos. 6764, 7830. Sample Nos. 80107-E. 89880-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00740ddnj|740. Misbranding: of Omega Oil and Kotalko. U. S. ?. 59% Dozen Bottles of|Omega Oil and 34 Packages of Kotalko. Default decrees of condemnation|and destruction. (P. D. C. Nos. 6764, 7830. Sample Nos. 80107-E. 89880-E.)|The labeling of both products bore false and misleading therapeutic claims. The|Kotalko ointment failed to bear the common or usual name of each of its active|ingredients on tHe label, and the box in which it was packed occupied less than|one-third of the capacity of the carton.|On February 10 and June 30,1942, the United States attorney for the Southern|District of New York filed libels against the above-named articles at New York,|N. Y., alleging that they had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|December 22, 1941, and May 11 and June 2, 1942, by Block Drug Co., Inc., from|Jersey City, N. J.; and charging that they were misbranded.|Analyses of samples of the articles showed that Omega Oil consisted essentially|of chloroform, methyl salicylate, mineral oil, and a small quantity of alkaloidal|material such as hyoscyamus; and that the Kotalko consisted essentially of sulfur,|pilocarpine, resorcinol, and a camphoraceous oil in an ointment base.|The Omega Oil was alleged to be misbranded in that statements in the|labeling which represented that it differed from ordinary liniments, that|it was \"\"far more than just liniment,\"\" that it was a powerful and reliable|answer to dozens of everyday ills; that at the point of application it would|soothe and ease the local nerves, stimulate the circulation, break up congestion|and thus quickly and directly relieve pain and Its congestive cause; that it|would relieve rheumatic pains due to exposure, dampness, and cold; that it|would be helpful in the treatment of bruises, would help relieve suffering from|varicose veins, would bring quick relief of athlete's foot, and toe itch, would|relieve chest and throat colds, and tightness and congestion in throat and chest|muscles, were false and misleading since it was a counter-irritant liniment and|did not possess the properties claimed for it.|Kotalko was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that representations in the|labeling that it would discourage excessive loss of, and strengthen existing|growth of, hair and aid in promoting new growth; and that it would be effi-|cacious in the treatment of dandruff, thin, brittle or falling hair, and baldness,|were false and misleading since it would not be efficacious for such purposes.|(2) In that it was fabricated from two or more ingredients and its label failed|to bear the common or usual name of each of the active ingredients. (3) In|that its container was so filled as to be misleading since the retail carton was|materially larger than necessary to hold the contents.|On April 20 and July 29, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgments of|condemnation were entered and the products were ordered destroyed.|741. Misbranding of Optic Drop. U. S. v. 20 Bottles of Optic Drop. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00741April 1948Romero Drug Co.Optic DropOctober 4, 1940Albuquerque, N. Mex.El Paso, Tex.Albuquerque, N. Mex.District of New Mexico741F. D. C. No. 3828. Sample No. 6978-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00741ddnj|741. Misbranding: of Optic Drop. TJ. S. v. 20 Bottles of Optic Drop. Default de|cree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 3828. Sample No.|6978-E.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations re-|garding its efficacy in the conditions indicated below. The volume of the carton|was more than 5 times the volume of the bottle and certain mandatory label-|ing requirements of the law were not complied with.|On February 19, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of New|Mexico filed a libel against 20 bottles of Optic Drop at Albuquerque, N. Mex.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|October 4, 1940, by the Romero Drug Co. from El Paso, Tex.; and charging that|it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of a water solution|of zinc sulfate, chlorobutanol, a berberine salt, boric acid, and/or a borate.|It was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that the statement \"\"For irritated Eyes\"\"|and the Spanish translation of the same statement \"\"Para Ojos irritados,\"\" ap-|pearing in the labeling, were false and misleading, since it was not an adequate|or appropriate treatment for all irritations of the eyes. (2) In that the following|statements (in Spanish) in the labeling were false and misleading, since it|would not fulfill the promise of benefit stated and implied thereby: (Transla-|tion from Spanish) \"\"It is well known that the eyes are constantly exposed to|the bright and burning light of the sun, the electric lamp and reflections of the|earth; nor do they fail to collect sand, dust and other small particles which|imperceptibly float through the air and which greatly affect the vision, causing|a certain sensation of itching and even reddening of the eyes. This occurs|chiefly in those who work in shops, trains, factories or any other places of|movement and commotion. Now then, in order to constantly protect the sight|at such times, one should always have on hand a bottle of Gota Optica, an|admirable, scientifically prepared lotion for the eyes which not only soothes,|refreshes and cleanses the eyes and eyelids but alleviates the irritation, re-|moving the foreign substances which may have lodged in them. This is why|the Gota Optica has been and is now highly recommended by all the most|celebrated opticians.\"\" (3) In that the label failed to bear, the common or|usual name of each active ingredient, since of the ingredients only chloro-|butanol was mentioned on the label and carton; (4) In that the carton failed|to bear a declaration of the quantity of contents of the package. (5) In that|its container was so made, formed, and filled as to be misleading.|On April 1, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|742. Misbranding of Utona. U. S. v. 102 Packages of Utona. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00742April 1948National Utona Co.UtonaOctober 18 and December 2, 1941, and January 12, 1942San Francisco, Calif.Detroit, Mich.San Francisco, Calif.Northern District of California742F. D. C. No. 7006. Sample No. 23117-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00742ddnj|742. Misbranding of Utona. U. S. v. 102 Packages of Utona. Default decree of|condemnation and destruction. (P. D. C. No. 7006. Sample No. 23117-B.)|On March 11, 1942, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|California filed a libel against 102 packages of Utona at San Francisco, Calif.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|October 18 and December 2, 1941, and January 12, 1942, by the National Utona|Go. from Detroit, Mich., and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of extract of a saponin-|bearing plant such as yucca, preserved with salicylic acid and sodium benzoate,|colored with caramel and flavored.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements in the labeling|which represented and suggested that it was efficacious as a relief for high blood|pressure and would control the pressure and relieve the distressing symptoms;|would lower high blood pressure of patients, even those of advanced years, that|it would render the body less toxic (poisoned) ; would bring about marked|improvement in older patients through less frequent demands to rise at night|to urinate; that it would impart a profound sense of well-being; that it would|usually bring about improvement in symptoms such as pain in the back, neck,|dizziness, headache, pins and needles sensation; would be efficacious to make|one sleep better and feel better and would bring about a better relationship|between the systolic and diastolic pressure and that results obtained from its use|were such as to warrant clinical study of its effectiveness in the control of hyper-|tension, arteriosclerosis, stroke and kindred conditions, were false and mis-|leading since it would not be efficacious for the purposes go represented and|suggested.|On May 19,1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|743. Misbranding of Via-Min. U. S. v. 465 Packages of Via-Min. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00743April 1948Universal Products Co.Via-MinMarch 7 and 10, 1942Boston, Mass.Cleveland, OhioBoston, Mass.District of Massachusetts743F. D. C. No. 7094. Sample Nos. 90166-E, 90167-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00743ddnj|743. Misbranding- of Via-Min. U. S. v. 465 Packages of Via-Min. Default decree|of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 7094. Sample Nos. 90166-E,|90167-E.)|On March 26, 1942, the United States attorney for the District of Massachu-|setts filed a libel against 465 packages of Via-Min at Boston, Mass., alleging|that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about March 7|and 10, 1942, by the Universal Products Co. from Cleveland, Ohio; and charging|that it was misbranded.|Analysis of a sample showed that the article contained approximately 2,200|grains per gallon of total solids, i. e., ferric sulfate (not over 1,196 grains),|aluminum sulfate (not less than 500 grains), calcium sulfate (16 grains), mag-|nesium| sulfate (53 grains), and sodium phosphate (51 grains). The specific|gravity varied between 1.018 and 1.027 at 25? C.|The article was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that the following state-|ments on the label, \"\"Ingredients: Grains per gallon. Specific Gravity 1.049;|Ferric Sulphate 1752; Aluminum Sulphate 29; Calcium Sulphate 79; Magnesium|Sulphate 409 Sodium Phosphate 70 * * * Total Solids 4,413,\"\" were false|and misleading since it did not have the total solids or specific gravity stated,|and the statements of the amounts of said minerals in grains per gallon were|incorrect. (2) In that the statement on the label \"\"used on minor Sores and|Cuts,\"\" and certain statements contained in an accompanying circular, were|false and misleading since they represented and suggested that it would be|efficacious in the treatment of minor sores and cuts and in the mitigation,|treatment, or prevention of acidosis, acne, eczema, muddy skin, anemia, mal-|nutrition, underweight, arthritis, rheumatism, gout, asthma, auto-intoxication,|biliousness, high blood pressure, boils, Bright's disease, bronchitis, colds, sinus|trouble, catarrh, constipation, diabetes, falling eyesight, cataract, falling hair,|thin hard brittle fingernails, gall-bladder disorders, gallstones, jaundice, goiter,|hardening of the arteries, hay fever, stiffness of the joints, leucorrhea, low|vitality, lack of endurance, lack of pep, nervousness, sciatic rheumatism, neu-|ralgia, neuritis, nerve exhaustion, obesity, enlarged prostate gland, poor circu-|lation, sexual indifference, tooth decay and spongy gums, gums that bleed|easily, tuberculosis of the lungs, and undernourishment of children; that it|would build and maintain the bones, teeth, and tendons, counteract acidity, heal|wounds, and aid vitality and endurance; that it would be efficacious in the|mitigation, treatment, or prevention of tuberculosis, rickets, pyorrhea, heart|disease, painful menstruation, anemia, asthma, circulatory diseases, female|disorders, and indigestion; that it would build and nourish the brain, nerves,|and bones, and would aid in strengthening the mental power; that it would|counteract acidosis, purify the blood by eliminating carbon dioxide, and would|dissolve hard deposits in the joints; that it would purify the system, aid in|keeping the hair, skin, and sex organs in a healthy condition, and intensify|the emotions; that it would be efficacious as a nerve sedative; that it would|vitalize the lungs and neutralize acid waste materials, and would supply energy|and vitality; and that it would be efficacious in producing glossy hair, hard|teeth, keen hearing, sparkling eyes, and would aid greatly in recovery from|disease or injury; whereas it would not be efficacious for such purposes.|On May 25, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|744. Misbranding of mercurochrome. U. S. v. 10 Gross Bottles of 2% Solution of Mercurochrome. Default decree of condemnation. Product ordered distributed to charitable institutions.ddnj00744April 1948Certified Pharmacal Co., Inc.mercurochromeDecember 9, 1941New Haven, Conn.New York, N. Y.New Haven, Conn.District of Connecticut744F. D. C. No. 6731. Sample No. 84851-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00744ddnj|744. Misbranding of mercurochrome. U. S. v. 10 Gross Bottles of 2% Solution of|Mercurochrome. Default decree of condemnation. Product ordered dis-|tributed to charitable institutions. (P. D. C. No. 6731. Sample No. 84851-E.)|This product was short of the declared volume.|On or about January 19, 1942, the United States attorney for the District of|Connecticut filed a libel against 10 gross bottles of 2? solution of mercuro-|chrome at New Haven, Conn., alleging that the article had been shipped in|interstate commerce on or about December 9, 1941, by Certified Pharmacal Co.,|Inc., from New York, N. Y.; and charging that it was misbranded in that the|statement \"\"Contents 9 cc.\"\" was false and misleading as applied to an article|in bottles containing less than 9 cc. The article was labeled in part: \"\"2? Solu-|tion Mercurochrome * * * Contents 9 cc. * * * Distributed by United|First Aid Co., New York, N. Y.\"\"|On May 25, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered distributed to charitable institutions.|VETERINARY REMEDIES|745. Misbranding of Lapp's Poultry Blocketts. U. S. v. 10 Cases of Lapp's Poultry Blocketts. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00745April 1948Lapp Laboratories, Inc.Lapp's Poultry BlockettsFebruary 1, 1942Topeka, Kans.Nevada, IowaTopeka, Kans.District of Kansas745F. D. C. No. 6987. Sample No. 68914-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00745ddnj|745. Misbranding: of Lapp's Poultry Blocketts. 17. S. v. 10 Cases of Lapp's Poultry|Blocketts. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No.|6987. Sample No. 68914-E.)|On March 9, 1942, the United States attorney for the District of Kansas filed a|libel against 10 cases, each containing 12 cartons, of Lapp's Poultry Blocketts at|Topeka, Kans., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce|on or about February 1,1942, by the Lapp Laboratories, Inc., from Nevada, Iowa;|and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted of a mixture of tobacco stems,|molasses residue, sodium bicarbonate, and siliceous material.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements in the labeling|which represented and suggested that it was of value in improving production,|quality of eggs, and fertility of poultry; was of value in the prevention of intes-|tinal parasites, coccidiosis, simple diarrhea, anemia, and some forms of worms in|poultry; and that it was a real poultry regulator, were false and misleading since|it would not be of value for such purposes and it was not a poultry regulator.|On April 13, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|746. Misbranding of Wilcoxson's Perfection Liniment. U. S. v. 25 Pint Bottle of Wilcoxson's Perfection Liniment. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00746April 1948Wilcoxson Remedy Co.Wilcoxson's Perfection LinimentAugust 14, 1941Lexington, Ky.Tiffin, OhioLexington, Ky.Eastern District of Kentucky746F. D. C. No. 6993. Sample No. 80373-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00746ddnj|746. Misbranding of Wilcoxson's Perfection Liniment. U. S. v. 25 Pint Bottle*|of Wilcoxson's Perfection Liniment. Default decree of condemnation and|destruction. (F. D. C. No. 6993. Sample No. 80373-E.)|On March 10, 1942, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Kentucky filed a libel against the above-named product at Lexington, Ky., alleging|that it had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about August 14, 1941,|by the Wilcoxson Remedy Co. from Tiffin, Ohio; and charging that it was|misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of water, alcohol, oil of|turpentine, camphor, potassium iodide, and a trace of organically combined iodine.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that statements in the labeling|which represented and suggested that when used as directed on horses, it was a|great remedy for bad legs; would allay all fever; would toughen and harden|the leg; would remove soreness from spavins, splints, curbs, ringbones, thorough-|pins, and all blemishes; and would be efficacious in the treatment of spavins,|splints, thoroughpins, ringbone, and all bone enlargements and would be efficacious|for back, shoulder and hip lameness and all rheumatic troubles, were false and|misleading since when used as directed on horses, it would not accomplish such|results.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the label failed to bear an|accurate statement of the quantity of contents; and in that it was fabricated from|two or more ingredients and the label failed to bear the common or usual name of|each active ingredient.|On April 15,1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|NONSTERILE SURGICAL DRESSINGS|754. Misbranding of Luebert's preparations. U. S. v. 4 3/4 Dozen Boxes of Luebert's (Nox'em Brand) Iron Tonic Compound Tablets, 2 3/4 Dozen Boxes of Luebert's Ka-No-Mor Capsules, and 2 2/3 Dozen Boxes of Luebert's Noxem Brand Tablets and Capsules (Combined). Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00754September 1943A. G. Luebert, P. D.Luebert's preparationsMay 17 and June 27, 1941Wilmington, Del.\NWilmington, Del.District of Delaware754F. D. C. No. 6837. Sample Nos. 54634-E to 54636-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00754ddnj|754. Misbranding of Luebert's preparations. U. S. v. 4% Dozen Boxes of Lue|bert's (Nox'em Brand) Iron Tonic Compound Tablets, 2% Dozen Boxes of|Luebert's Ka-No-Mor Capsules, and 2% Dozen Boxes of Luebert's Noxem|Brand Tablets and Capsules (Combined). Default decree of condemna-|tion and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 6837. Sample Nos. 54634-E to 54636-E.|incl.)|This case was based upon the following violations: Drugs containing acetanilid|and dangerous to health when used with the frequency and duration recom-|mended in the labeling-Ka-No-Mor Capsules and .Noxem Brand Tablets and|Capsules (Combined) ; labeling failing to bear adequate warning statements and|containing false and misleading therapeutic claims-all three products;. failure|to bear adequate directions for use-Ka-No-Mor Capsules; failure to bear satis-|factory active ingredient statements-Iron Tonic Compound Tablets and Noxem|Brand Tablets and Capsules (Combined) ; and inconspicuousness of warning|statement-Ka-No-Mor Capsules.|Delaware filed a libel against the above-named drug preparations at Wilmington,|Del., alleging that they had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|May 17 and June 27, 1941, by A. G. Luebert, P. D.; and charging that they were|misbranded.|Analysis of Luebert's Iron Tonic Compound Tablets showed that they con-|sisted essentially of salts of iron and manganese, strychnine sulfate, arsenic|trioxide, a phosphide, and fish oil. They were alleged to be misbranded: (1) In|that the labeling failed to warn against their use by children and by eldierly|persons because of their strychnine content, and it also failed to warn against|taking more than the recommended dose and against frequent or continued use|because of their strychnine and arsenic content. (2) In that the statements|in the labeling which represented and suggested that they would produce rich|blood, good health-, strong nerves, and astounding vitality; would give strength|and vigor to the entire system; would cleanse the blood after the accumulations|of the winter months; would benefit those who are weak, run-down, or depressed;|would insure a vigorous condition of the nervous system; would produce proper|activity of all the organs and functions of the body; would stimulate the nutritive|functions; would act as a general tonic to the digestive tract; would be efficacious|for those conditions which call for an effective tonic, such as loss of appetite and|a tired run-down feeling; and that they were solely an iron tonic, were false and|misleading since they would not produce such effects, and they contained|physiologically active drugs in addition to an iron compound. (3)- In that they|were fabricated from two or more ingredients and their label failed to bear a|statement of the quantity or proportion of strychnine sulfate and arsenic trioxide|that they contained.|Analysis of the Ka-No-Mor Capsules showed that they contained acetanilid (3|grains per capsule), caffeine, and aspirin. They were alleged to be misbranded:|(1) In that they would be dangerous to health when used with the frequency or|duration recommended in the labeling. (2) In that the labeling failed to warn|against their use by children; and against unsafe dosage or duration of adminis-|tration since the box labels failed to restrict the number of doses, and although|the circular restricted their use to five capsules a day, such use constituted an|excessive dosage of acetanilid. (3) In that the directions for use provided for|administration of an excessive amount of acetanilid. (4) In that the warning|against use in those pathological conditions where their use might be dangerous|to health did not appear in the labeling with such conspicuousness as to render|it likely to be read by the ordinary individual under customary conditions of|purchase and use. (5) In that certain statements in the labeling which repre-|sented and suggested that when used as directed the capsules constituted a safe)|and appropriate treatment for the relief of pain and discomfort of simple headache,|neuralgias, and muscular aches and pains, for pain following tooth extraction,|for helping to allay functional menstrual pains, for common colds, for helping to|allay feverish conditions in colds, and for rheumatic pains, were false and mis-|leading since they did not constitute a safe and appropriate treatment for such|conditions but were a dangerous drug; and the label failed to reveal the material|fact that their use in accordance with the directions might cause serious blood|disturbances, anemia, collapse, or a dependence on the drug.|Analysis of Luebert's Noxem Brand Tablets and Capsules (Combined) showed|that the tablets consisted essentially of sodium salicylate, caffeine, strychnine|sulfate, and a laxative plant drug; and that the capsules consisted essentially of|acetanilid (3 grains per capsule), aspirin, and caffeine. They were alleged to|be misbranded: (1) In that they would be dangerous to health when used with|the frequency or duration recommended in the labeling. (2) In that the labeling|failed to warn (a) that they should not be given to children because of their|acetanilid and strychnine content; (b) that they should not be used by elderly|persons because of their strychnine content; (c) that they could not be safely|administered over a long period of time because they contained strychnine; (d)|that because of their acetanilid content frequent or continued use might result in|serious blood disturbances, anemia, collapse, or dependence upon the drug; and|(e) against unsafe dosage of an article containing acetanilid and strychnine. (3)|In thatrepresentations in the labeling that they were an adequate treatment for|rheumatic fever and were an appropriate treatment for aches and pains of|neuralgia, gout, and muscles, were false and misleading since they would not be|efficacious for such purposes. (4) In that the label failed to declare one of the|active ingredients under its common or usual name, i. e., aspirin; and to bear a|statement of the quantity or proportion of strychnine sulfate that was present.|entered and the products were ordered destroyed.|755. Adulteration and misbranding of Gilmore's Headache Powders, U. S. v. 45 Packages of Gilmore's Headache Powders. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00755September 1943Don Gilmore Laboratories, Inc.Gilmore's Headache PowdersNovember 11 and December 9, 1941Fort Wayne, Ind.Cleveland, OhioFort Wayne, Ind.Northern District of Indiana755F. D. C. No. 7354. Sample No. 86370-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00755ddnj|755. Adulteration and misbranding of Gilmore's Headache Powders, TJ. S. v. 45|Packages of Gilmore's Headache Powders. Default decree of condemna,-|tion and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 7354. Sample No. 86370-E.)|This product, in addition to being dangerous to health when used according|to directions, failed to bear adequate directions for use and warning statements|in the labeling, and contained acetanilid, caffeine citrate, and sodium bicar-|bonate greatly in excess of the amounts declared on the label.|On April 16, 1942, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Indiana filed a libel against 45 packages of the above-named article at Fort|Wayne, Ind., alleging that it had been shipped in interstate commerce on or|about November 11 and December 9, 1941, by the Don Gilmore Laboratories,|Inc., from Cleveland, Ohio; and charging that it was adulterated and mis-|branded. The article was labeled in part: \"\"Each Powder contains 2? grains|Acetanilid * * * ? grain Caffeine Citrate, ? grain Sodium Bicarbonate.\"\"|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that each powder contained 6.93|grains of acetanilid, 2.61 grains of caffeine citrate, and 2.50 grains of sodium|bicarbonate.|It was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from that which|it. purported or was represented to possess.|It was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that it would be dangerous to|health when used in the dosage or with the frequency or duration prescribed,|recommended, or suggested in the labeling, namely, \"\"Directions: Place a pow-|der on the tongue and swallow with water. Repeat in twenty minutes if|necessary,\"\" since when taken in accordance with these directions the powders|would provide for the administration of slightly less than 14 grains of ace-|tanilid in 20 minutes. (2) In that the labeling failed to bear adequate warn-|ings against use in those pathological conditions or by children where its use|might be dangerous to health, or against unsafe dosage or methods or duration|of administration, in such manner and form as are necessary for the protec-|tion of users, since the powders contained acetanilid and the labeling con-|tained no warning that frequent or continued use might be dangerous, causing|serious blood disturbances, anemia, collapse, or dependence on the drug; and,|further, that the powders, should not be given to children. (3) In that the|label failed to bear adequate directions for use. (4) In that the statement on|the label, \"\"Each Powder contains 2y2 grains Acetanilid * * * ? grain|Caffeine Citrate, ? grain Sodium Bicarbonate,\"\" was false and misleading.|On July 1, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|DRUGS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO BEAR ADEQUATE|DIRECTIONS OR WARNING STATEMENTS3|747. Adulteration and misbranding of absorbent cotton. U. S. v. 96 Packages of Absorbent Cotton. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00747April 1948United Drug Co.absorbent cottonNovember 18, 1941, to January 6, 1942Tampa, Fla.Atlanta, Ga.Tampa, Fla.Southern District of Florida747F. D. C. No. 6851. Sample No. 70310-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00747ddnj|747. Adulteration and misbranding of absorbent cotton. TJ. S. v. 96 Packages of|Absorbent Cotton. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(P. D. C. No. 6851. Sample No. 70310-E.)|On February 16, 1942, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|Florida filed a libel against 96 packages (varying in size from ? ounce to 16|ounces in size) of absorbent cotton at Tampa, Fla., alleging that the article had|been shipped in interstate commerce within the period from on or about|November 18, 1941, to on or about January 6, 1942, by the United Drug Co. from|Atlanta, Ga.; and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to be and was|represented as a drug the name of which is recognized in the United States|Pharmacopoeia and its quality or purity fell below the standards set forth in that|compendium since the pharmacopoeia specifies among other things, that absorbent|cotton be sterile; whereas the article was not sterile but was contaminated with|viable micro-organisms. It was alleged to be misbranded in that the following|statements in the labeling, \"\"Absorbent Cotton U. S. P. Double Sterilized * * . *|The selected high grade cotton in this package has been double sterilized and|when sealed, is ready for immediate first aid use,\"\" were false and misleading as|applied to an article that was contaminated with viable micro-organisms.|On April 23,1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|748. Adulteration and misbranding of absorbent cotton. U. S. v. 33,136 Packages of Absorbent Cotton. Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered released under bond to be resterilized.ddnj00748April 1948United Drug Co., Boston, Mass.absorbent cottonFebruary 18, 1942Atlanta, Ga.Boston, Mass.Atlanta, Ga.Northern District of Georgia748F. D. C. No. 7014. Sample No. 70420-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00748ddnj|748. Adulteration and misbranding: of absorbent cotton. U. S. v. 33,136 Pack|ages of Absorbent Cotton. Consent decree of condemnation. Product|ordered released under bond to be resterilized. (F. D. C. No. 7014. Sample|No. 70420-E.)|On March 12, 1942, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Georgia filed a libel against the following quantities of absorbent cotton at|Atlanta, Ga.-9,080 ?-ounce packages, 14,576 1-ounce packages, 3,230 2-ounco|packages, 4,050 4-ounce packages, 1,580 8-ounce packages, and 620 1-pound pack-|ages, alleging that the article had been shipped within the period from on or about|November 5, 1941, to on or about February 18, 1942, by Absorbent Cotton Co. of|America from Valley Park, Mo.; and charging that it was adulterated and|misbranded.|It was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to be and was represented|as a drug the name of which is recognized in the United States Pharmaco-|poeia,, but its quality or purity fell below the standard set forth in the pharma-|copoeia since it was not sterile but was contaminated with viable micro-organisms.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements on the label|were false and misleading as applied to an article contaminated with living|micro-organisms: \"\"Absorbent Cotton U. S. P. double sterilized * * * The|selected high grade cotton in this package has been double sterilized and when|sealed, is ready for immediate first aid use.\"\"|On April 23,1942, the United Drug Co., Boston, Mass., claimant, having admitted|the allegations of the libel, judgment of condemnation was entered and the|product was ordered released under bond conditioned that it be resterilized under|the supervision of the Food and Drug Administration.|749. Misbranding of Aids Bandages for Emergency Use. U. S. v. 216 Packages of Bandages (and 2 other seizure actions against bandages). Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00749April 1948Sealtex Co.Aids Bandages for Emergency UseNovember 5 and December 6, 1941, and January 31, 1942Cleveland, Ohio; Pittsburgh, Pa.Chicago, Ill.Cleveland, Ohio; Pittsburgh, Pa.Northern District of Ohio, the Western District of Pennsylvania, and the Southern District of California749F. D. C. Nos. 6900, 6950, 6953. Sample Nos. 64683-E. 80108-E, 92008-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00749ddnj|749. Misbranding; of Aids Bandages for Emergency Use. U. S. v. 216 Packages of|Bandages (and 2 other seizure actions against bandages). Default de-|crees of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 6900, 6950, 6953.|Sample Nos. 64683-E. 80108-E, 92008-E.)|On February 20 and 26, 1942, the United States attorneys for the Northern|District of Ohio, the Western District of Pennsylvania, and the Southern District|of California filed libels against 216 packages of bandages at Cleveland, Ohio, 34|dozen packages at Pittsburgh, Pa., and 22 dozen packages at Los Angeles, Calif.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|November 5 and December 6, 1941, and January 31, 1942, by the Sealtex Co.|from Chicago, 111.; and charging that it was misbranded.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements \"\"Aids Bandages|For Emergency Use * * * Place medicated pad over injury Press edges|together Wrap around finger,\"\" and the design showing application of the bandage|to the finger, appearing in the labeling, were misleading as applied to an article|that was not sterile but was contaminated with living micro-organisms.|On March 19 and 21 and April 17,1942, no claimant having appeared, judgments|of condemnation were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|[D. D. N. J.|750. Misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. Penn-Jersey Drug Co., Inc., and Samuel Kohn. Pleas of guilty. Corporation fined $100; Samuel Kohn fined $400.ddnj00750April 1948Penn-Jersey Drug Co., Inc., Newark, N. J., and Samuel KohnprophylacticsOctober 10, 1940New JerseyNew JerseyPennsylvaniaDistrict of New Jersey750F. D. C. No. 4112. Sample No. 46322-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00750ddnj|750. Misbranding of prophylactics. TJ. S. v. Penn-Jerscy Drag? Co., Inc., and|Samuel Kobn. Pleas of gnilty. Corporation fined $100; Samuel Kobn|fined $400. (F. D. C. No. 4112. Sample No. 46322-E.)|Qn September 18,1941, the United States attorney for the District of New Jer-|sey filed an information against Penn-Jersey Drug Co., Inc., Newark, N. J., and|Samuel Kohn, alleging shipment on or about October 10, 1940, from the State of|New Jersey into the State of Pennsylvania of a quantity of prophylactics which|were misbranded. The article was labeled in part: \"\"Saf-T-Skin Liquid Latex|* * * Gotham-Rubber Co. Chicago New York.\"\"|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements (cartons and enclosed|folders) \"\"The Dependable Prophylactic Saf-T-Skin * * * To Prevent Disease|Guaranteed Five Years,\"\" were false and misleading since they represented and|suggested that it was a safe and dependable prophylactic, would be efficacious|in preventing disease, and would be free from defects for a period of 5 years;|whereas it was not a safe and dependable prophylactic, it would not be efficacious|for preventing disease, and it would not be free from defects for a period of 5|years but was defective because of the presence of perforations or holes.|They were alleged to be misbranded further in that they were in package|form and did not contain an accurate statement of the quantity of the contents|in terms of numerical count.|On February 27, 1942, pleas of guilty having been entered on behalf of the|defendants, the court imposed a fine of $100 against the corporation and $400|against the individual, Samuel Kohn.|INDEX TO NOTICES OF JUDGMENT D. D. N. J. NOS. 701-750|PRODUCTS|N. J. No.|Aids Bandages|?749|Alcoban|?* 701|A. m. Solution|?703|Antiseptic medicated skin cream??721|Betene|?732|Bronchi-Lyptus|?727|Camelline|?733|Cbek-A-Cold|?734|Cold remedies|734,735|Cook's Laxative Cold Breakers??735|Cotton, absorbent|747, 748|Dextro Calcium, colloidal|?717|Diaplex|?2725|Dickson's Laxative Rheumatic Diru-|atica|?704|Dromgooles Bitters|?705|Endocrine Extract Formula Nos. 2, 131,|and 157|?717|Estromone|?719|Gauze bandages|?749|Gid Granules|?728|Glandular preparations| 717, 719|Glycerant|?711|Gold Medal Compound Pills|?736|Greenawalt's Compound Dandelion Liv-|er Disks|?706|Green's Reliable Restorer|?737|Hair and scalp remedies|731, 737|Hoyt's Compound|?730|Hydrogen peroxide|?720|Iron, quinine, and strychnine, elixir.?718|Isopropyl alcohol|?720|Kalis Capsules|?707|1 Permanent injunction issued.|N.?J. No.|Kotalko|?740|Lambert's Powders|?702|Lanoton for Women|?708|Lapp's Poultry Blocketts|?745|Magnesia, citrate of|709, 722|Mercurochrome|?744|Mf-rlek Mineral Water|?729|Mineral oil|720, 723|Na-Stim|?739|Nurito|?710|ODara|?738|Olive oil|?720|Omega Oil|?740|Optic Drop|?741|Pon-Tam-Pon Medications|?711|Prophylactics|?750|Reducing preparation|?*726|Renair Pomade|?731|Savatan|?736|Shapley's Medicine for Acid or Sour|Stomach|?712|Slend-R-Form|?* 726|Soda|?720|Special Formula Tablets S. C. Purple-?713|Spicer's Compound|?714|Starr's Wonderful M. L. & K. Pills-?715|Surgical dressings|747-749|Utona|?742|Veterinary remedies|745, 746|Via-Min|?743|Vitamin A and D Tablets|?724|Weltone|?716|Wilcoxson's Perfection Liniment??746|2Permanent injunction issued; contains|: hidings of fact and conclusions of law.|751. Action to enjoin and restrain interstate shipments of a drug designated as Dependon Products Intrauterine Paste and the same drug designated as Dependon Products Paste. U. S. v. Anne At. Jenks doing business as Dependon Products and Jenks Physicians' Supplies. Permanent injunction granted.ddnj00751September 1943Anne M. Jenks, doing business as Dependon Products and Jenks Physicians' Supplies at White Bear Lake, Minn.Dependon Products Intrauterine Paste\NMinnesotaWhite Bear Lake, Minn.MinnesotaDistrict of Minnesota751Inj. No. 35The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00751ddnj|751. Action to enjoin and restrain interstate shipments of a drug designated as|Dependon Products Intrauterine Paste and the same drug designated as|Dependon Products Paste. ~U. S. v. Anne At. Jenks doing business as De-|pendon Products and Jenks Physicians' Supplies. Permanent injunction|granted. (Inj. No. 35.)|On October 16, 1942, the United States attorney for the District of Minnesota|filed a complaint against Anne M. Jenks, doing business as Dependon Products|and Jenks Physicians' Supplies at White Bear Lake, Minn., alleging that since|1930 the defendant had been the sole owner and operator of said business and|had been engaged in the sale and distribution of gynecological specialties; that|about the latter part of 1938 the defendant had become engaged in the sale and|distribution in interstate commerce of an article labeled in part, \"\"Dependon|Products Intrauterine Paste\"\"; that the article was offered for sale for injection|into the pregnant uterus and as an effective medicament for the treatment of|abnormal conditions which prevail in a nonpregnant uterus; that it was a|viscous yellowish liquid consisting of a water solution of potassium soap,|alcohol, glycerin, and iodine compounds and was a drug within the meaning of|the law; that accompanying said drug in interstate commerce so as to consti-|1 For reduction of quality because of extraneous material, see No. 756 (triple-distilled|water) ; omission of, or unsatisfactory, active ingredients statements, Nos. 754, 756-758,|761, 764, 775, 782, 790, 791, 793; inconspicuousness of warning statement, No. 754 ; omis-|sion of name and place of business of manufacturer, packer, or distributor, No. 758; omis-|sion of accurate statement of quantity of contents, Nos. 758, 760; deceptive packaging, No.|782, 790, 791.|533413-43 1|dosage, frequency, and duration of administration.2|The complaint alleged further: I. That the drug was misbranded: (1) In that|it was dangerous to health when used in the dosage or with the frequency or|duration prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling for the purposes|of terminating pregnancy, for inducing labor, and for removing the retained|portions of the products of conception. (2) In that the words \"\"Intrauterine|Paste,\"\" borne on the label, and statements in an accompanying circular represented|and suggested that it was safe and appropriate for introduction into the uterine|cavity for the purposes of terminating pregnancy, for inducing labor, and for|removing retained portions of the products of conception; whereas it was not|safe or appropriate for such purposes but was unsafe and dangerous and was|capable of producing serious or even fatal consequences. (3) In that the fol-|lowing statements, \"\"For Dysmenorrhea From 5 to 10 cc's of the Paste applied|shortly before the period is considered helpful in some cases. The insertion of|the Cannula may be considered to act as a dilatation. For Endometritis Cervi-|cal and Uterine Discharges. Application of from 5 to 10 cc's of the paste, as|needed, is suggested by many physicians,\"\" represented and suggested that it was|an effective medicament for the treatment of dysmenorrhea, endometritis, and|cervical and uterine discharges; whereas it was not an effective medicament for|such purposes.|II. (1) That in or about December 1941, and since that time up to the filing|of the complaint, the drug had been subject to numerous libel or seizure actions|commenced by the Government in various Federal judicial districts throughout|Che country for the purpose of condemning the quantities seized as misbranded|within the meaning of the law; that in at least five instances decrees in favor of|the United States had been entered condemning, forfeiting, and ordering destruc-|tion of the seized goods; and that other cases were awaiting trial. [These have|since been terminated by the entry of decrees in favor of the Government.] (2)|3 The following statements appeared in the circular : \"\"For Physicians Only Nod-Nep-Ed|Sterile Intrauterine Paste * * * Non-Toxic * * * Instillation of the Paste|may be made by means of a Cannula attached to the tube, or by transferring the Paste to|a syringe and then attaching the special syringe type Cannula to the syringe. * * *|When using the Paste to terminate a pregnancy, or to induce labor it is usually considered|that best results are obtained when the available space in the uterus is filled with the|Paste. * * ? Dependon Intrauterine Paste should b? used only by a Physician, with|adequate and continuous supervision of the case. For Therapeutic Termination of Preg-|nancy * * * Technique of Application of Paste-With self-supporting vaginal specu-|lum in place, very slowly pass Cannula thru cervix until the tip has reached the uterine|cavity. During this procedure keep expelling small amounts of the Paste. Thus the canal|is continually lubricated and readily opened. After Cannula has reached the uterine|cavity, even more slowly continue its insertion until a slight back pressure is felt-then|slightly withdraw Cannula and turn it to one side (quarter turn)-now instill the desired|amount| of Paste into the uterus. If the uterus tips forward, the Cannula is turned to point|downward. Undue pressure in applying the Paste must be avoided-should tension, pain,|bleeding or expulsion of Paste develop, arrest instillation. After Paste instillation keep|patient in Trendelenburg's position (hips higher than shoulders) for some moments. Later|when Patient is resting she should be advised to place feet higher than her head. Should|the cervical canal be enlarged, a small amount of sterile cotton may be placed so as to|retain the Paste. The use of a rubber plug for this purpose is not recommended. Treat-|ment during early stages of pregnancy: Dependon Intrauterine Paste may be used in the|very early stages. Extreme gentleness and care is advised at this difficult tim-e. It is|essential that the Paste be deposited at the vault of the uterus, otherwise some bleeding;|but no evacuation may be the result. Depending on the size of the uterus, from 10 to 15|cc's applied after effects of sedatives are noted, is suggested. Treatment during later|stages of pregnancy: (after eight weeks)-Best dosage is usually from 7 to 10 cc's per|month of pregnancy. Larger dosages (up to capacity of uterus to receive Paste) often|produce stronger and quicker action. Maximum dosage, ordinarily should not exceed 30|to 40 cc's. Precautions-Always before using Paste a careful diagnosis should be made.|* ? * * Under some conditions the Paste may not bring on the desired results. * * *|It may also be observed that unless the Paste is properly placed and in sufficient amount,|no results following its use may be looked for. In cases where the Paste fails to bring|the desired results, and there are no contra-indications for its use, it is the usual practice|to repeat the treatment after a few days * * * Then pains set in with rhythmic and|sustained contractions. * * * In a few cases, spotting may be looked for, following|the Paste treatment. This condition may ordinarily be expected to shortly correct itself.|However, if spotting continues over a period of weeks, the possibility of only partial|expulsion should be considered and proper therapy instituted. Generally massage of the|uterus is sufficient. * * * Comments of Physicians indicate that practically every|ease is uneventful, and that in the very rare event that the Paste fails to bring the desired|results no harm develops from the trial of the Paste treatment. We believe this is due to|the fact that Dependon Intrauterine Paste is nontoxic and sterile. For Induction of|Labor. Dosage is usually from 30 to 40 cc's, accompanied by quinine or other indicated|therapy. For Incomplete Miscarriage. Usually from 10 to 15 cc's of the Paste is sufficient.?Proper therapy should accompany use of Paste. * * * When using Dependon Intra-|uterine Paste it is suggested that a syringe be employed in some cases. * * * pressure|can be accurately controlled. ? * * In cases where Paste Is used for the therapeutic|termination of pregnancy * ? * as the ability to conceive seems to be greatly|enhanced following use of Dependon Intrauterine Paste,\"\"|the defendant the drug was dangerous to health and misbranded in violation of|the law, she in complete disregard of the decrees which had been entered con-|demning the drug had continued to introduce or deliver it for introduction into|interstate commerce. (3) That in or about April 1942, the defendant relabeled|her product under the name of \"\"Dependon Products Paste,\"\" but that it was in fact|the same drug as that formerly known as Dependon Products Intrauterine Paste;|and that although she was not shipping it under the former designation, she|was continuing to ship the same product under the latter designation to and|through States other than Minnesota.|III.?That the drug labeled \"\"Dependon Products Paste\"\" was misbranded: (1)|In that it was dangerous to health when used in the dosage prescribed, recom-|mended, and suggested in the labeling, namely, \"\"The use of this product in uterine|therapy (which is still medically controversial) should be by physicians only|* * * maximum dosage * * * in pregnant uterus 30 C. C. actual dosage|to be determined by the physician for the individual patient.\"\" (2) In that the|statements, \"\"Dependon Products Paste * * * The use of this product in|uterine therapy (which is still medically controversial) should be by Physicians|only. * * * Maximum dosage to be determined by the Physician for the|individual patient. Undue pressure in applying paste must be avoided,\"\" repre-|sented and suggested that it was safe and appropriate for introduction into the|pregnant uterus; whereas it was not safe and appropriate for such purpose but|was unsafe and dangerous and capable of producing serious injury or even fatal|consequences. (3) In that the said statements represented and suggested that|it was an effective medicament for the treatment of abnormal conditions in a|nonpregnant uterus; whereas it was not an effective medicament for such|purposes.|IV.?That the shipments subsequent to 1938 of Dependon Products Intrauterine|Paste and subsequent to April 1942 of Dependon Products Paste were in violation|of section 301 of the act which makes it a criminal offense to cause the intro-|duction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of an adulterated or|misbranded drug; and that in order to protect the public of the United States from|dangers inherent in the use of the article it was necessary that an injunction|issue; and praying that after proper notice and hearing a preliminary injunction|issue restraining such unlawful acts by the defendant, and that after due pro-|ceedings the preliminary injunction be made permanent.|On October 29, 1942, the defendant having filed an answer denying the mate-|rial allegations of the complaint and having appeared by counsel, the case came on|for hearing to show cause why a temporary injunction should not issue. As|a result of the hearing, the court found in substance that the defendant was|engaged in the distribution in interstate commerce of the drug product alleged|in the complaint, that it was offered for the purposes therein alleged, that the|court had jurisdiction to restrain violations of section 301 of the act \"\"for cause|shown,\"\" and that irreparable injury need not be established as a prerequisite to|the issuance of such preliminary injunction. The court stated further that the|position taken by the Government was supported by the sworn statement of three|leading doctors and that sufficient cause for the issuance of a temporary|injunction had been shown; and on October 31, 1942, a temporary injunction|against the defendant was entered.|On January 5, 1943, the case came on for trial on the merits as to why a|permanent injunction should not issue, the trial continuing until and through|January 18, 1943. During the trial no evidence was introduced on behalf of|the defendant in opposition to the contentions of the Government; and on Janu-|ary 19, 1943, the court after consideration of the evidence submitted by the|Government in the form of files, records, and exhibits, of the testimony of wit-|nesses, and of arguments of counsel, made the following Findings of Fact, Con-|clusions of Law, and Order for Judgment (BEEL, District Judge):|FINDINGS OF FACT|\"\"Defendant, Anne M. Jenks, resides in the City of White Bear Lake, Ramsey|County, State of Minnesota, and within the jurisdiction of this court, where for|a number of years she has been engaged under the name and style of Dependon|Products and Jenks Physicians' Supplies in the sale and distribution in inter-|state commerce of gynecological specialties.|state commerce an article which has been labeled in part as 'Intrauterine Paste|Gynecological Soap' and 'Dependon Products Paste'; said article has been com-|posed mainly of potassium soap or other soft soap base, with small quantities|of alcohol, iodine, and distilled water added, although its formula and composi-|tion has not been entirely consistent; said article is offered for sale and intended|for use by licensed physicians in the performance of therapeutic abortions, in|the treatment of incomplete abortions and miscarriages, for the induction of|labor and as a medicament for the treatment of endometritis, cervicitis, dysmen-|orrhea, and cervical and uterine discharges.|Ill|\"\"In connection with the interstate distribution of the said article, defendant|has distributed written, printed, and graphic matter in the form of circulars con-|taining suggestions and recommendations as to usage, technique of use, dosage,|frequency, and duration of administration-at times, by enclosing the same in|the retail cartons containing said article, and at times by enclosing the same|in the shipping carton in which several of said retail cartons have been shipped|in interstate commerce, and at other times by sending such matter by separate|mail at or about the same time the article itself was shipped: that where the|latter practice has been followed, the article and such matter, although sepa-|rately shipped, arrived at destruction at or about the same time.|\"\"Such written, printed, and graphic matter as well as the various labels which|have been affixed to said article, represent and suggest that said article is safe|and appropriate for introduction into the pregnant uterus, for the purpose of|inducing labor, terminating pregnancy, and removing the retained portions of|the products of conception.|\"\"Such written, printed, and graphic matter as well as the various labels which|have been affixed to said article, represent and suggest that said article is an|effective medicament for the treatment of cervicitis, endometritis, dysmenorrhea,|and cervical and uterine discharges.|\"\"Said article when used for the purposes of the induction, of labor, termination|of pregnancy, and the removal of the retained portions of the products of con-|ception, is unsafe and dangerous to health and has caused fatalities and serious|injury. Among the specific dangers which are involved in and have resulted|from its use are the extensive destruction of tissue, hemolysis or the destruction|of the cellular portions of the blood, systemic potassium poisoning, extensive|hemorrhage and prolonged bleeding, sterility, peritonitis, pulmonary embolism,|damage to kidneys, liver and other internal organs, and increased susceptibility|to infection.|VII|\"\"The dangers to health hereinbefore enumerated in Paragraph VI for the most|part are the result of the physiological action of the soap ingredient present|in said article or any article of drug having soap as a base.|VIII|\"\"The dangers to health hereinbefore enumerated in Paragraph VI are present|when said article is used by licensed physicians or anyone, in any quantity, or|for any duration, or with any frequency of usage, for the treatment of any condi-|tions which prevail in the pregnant uterus.|\"\"Said article is ineffective for the treatment of cervicitis, endometritis, dys-|menorrhea, and cervical and uterine discharges, or the treatment of any other|condition prevailing in a non-pregnant uterus.|injunction should issue restraining defendant and any of her agents or associates|from introducing or delivering for introduction into interstate commerce, and|from causing the introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate com-|merce of said article or an article of substantially similar composition.|\"\"The dangers inherent in the use of said article, or any other article having a|soap for its base, with or without small quantities of iodine, alcohol, and dis-|tilled water added, when used for introduction into a pregnant uterus, and its|ineffectiveness when used for the conditions suggested in a non-pregnant uterus,|make essential the issuance of a permanent injunction restraining henceforth the|interstate distribution of said article for introduction into a pregnant or non-|pregnant uterus, or for any other purpose unless application therefor is made|to the court.\"\"|CONCLUSIONS OF LAW|\"\"The court is specifically authorized by section 302 (a) of the Federal Food,|Drug, and Cosmetic Act to restrain the introduction or delivery for introduction|or the causing of the introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate|commerce of a drug which is misbranded.|\"\"Cause has been shown justifying the issuance of a permanent injunction.|Ill|\"\"Said article, whether labeled in part 'Intrauterine Paste Gynecological Soap'|or 'Dependon Products Paste' is a drug within the meaning of section 201 (g)|(2) and (3) of said act'|\"\"The written, printed, or graphic matter distributed by defendant enclosed|either in retail cartons containing said drug or within shipping packages con-|taining said retail cartons, or shipped separately from said drug accompanies|said drug within the meaning of section 201 (m) of the act and hence consti-|tutes 'labeling.' The labels which have been affixed by defendant to said drug|also constitute 'labeling' within the meaning of section 201 (m).|\"\"Said drug is misbranded within the meaning of section 502 (a) of said act|in that its labeling is false and misleading, for the reason that it represents and|suggests that said drug when used for induction of labor, termination of preg-|nancy, or the removal of the retained portions of the products of conception, is|safe and appropriate; whereas in truth and in fact it is unsafe and dangerous|and has caused serious and fatal consequences.|Said drug is misbranded within the meaning of section 502 (a) of said act in|that its labeling is false and misleading for the reason that it represents and|suggests that said drug is an effective medicament for the treatment of cervicitis,|endometritis, dysmenorrhea, and uterine and cervical discharges; whereas in|truth and in fact it is ineffective for such purposes.|VII|\"\"Said drug is misbranded within the meaning of section 502 (j) in that it is|dangerous to health when used in any dosage or with any frequency or with any|duration of administration prescribed, recommended, or suggested in its labeling,|for the purposes of induction of labor, termination of pregnancy, and removal of|the retained portions of the products of conception.|\"\"Upon the basis of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,|\"\"It is hereby Ordered, That a Permanent Injunction be entered accordingly,|without costs to either party.\"\"|PERMANENT INJUNCTION|\"\"It is hereby Ordered and Decreed, That defendant, her employees, servants,|agents, distributors, assigns, and any and all persons in active concert or participa-|tion with them be, and they are, hereby permanently enjoined from introducing|or delivering for introduction into interstate commerce and from causing the|introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of the article|of drug, labeled in part, 'Intrauterine Paste' or 'Dependon Products Paste,' or|under any other name, containing soft soap or other soap base with or without|distilled water, iodine, and alcohol or other ingredients added, under labeling|recommending or suggesting its use for introduction into the uterus for the pur-|pose of terminating pregnancy, treating incomplete abortions or miscarriages,|for inducing labor, or as a medicament for the treatment of dysmenorrhea,|endometritis, cervicitis, cervical or uterine discharges, or for any intrauterine or|cervical therapy whatever.|\"\"In order to effectuate the purposes of the act and to prevent the article of drug|from being used in uterine and cervical therapy, defendant, her employees,|servants, agents, distributors, assigns, and any and all persons in active concert|or participation with them, are specifically enjoined from introducing or deliver-|ing for introduction or causing the introduction or delivery for introduction into|interstate commerce of said article of drug or any similar article of drug for any|purpose whatsoever in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and|amendments thereto.\"\"|752. Introduction and delivery for introduction in interstate commerce of quantities of Dependon Products Paste in violation of preliminary injunction. U. S. v. Anne M. Jenks, W. S. Jenks, and C. H. Jenks. Plea of guilty by W. S. Jenks; fine $500. Plea of not guilty by Anne M. Jenks. Tried to the court. Judgment of guilty; fine $250. Action against C. H. Jenks dismissed.ddnj00752September 1943Anne M. Jenks, W. S. Jenks, and C. H. Jenksquantities of Dependon Products Paste in violation of preliminary injunction\NMinnesota\NMinnesotaDistrict of Minnesota752Inj. No. 35.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00752ddnj|752. Introduction and delivery for introduction in interstate commerce of quan-|tities of Dependon Products Paste in violation of preliminary injunction.|V. S. v. Anne M. Jenks, W. S. Jenks, and C. H. Jenks. Plea of guilty by|W. S. Jenks; fine $500. Plea of not guilty by Anne M. Jenks. Tried to|the court. Judgment of guilty; fine $250. Action against C. H. Jenks|dismissed. (Inj. No. 35.)|On January 19, 1943, the United States attorney for the District of Minnesota|filed an information against Anne M. Jenks, W. S. Jenks, and C. H. Jenks, alleging|that Anne M. Jenks was trading as the Dependon Products and Jenks Physicians'.|Supplies at White Bear Lake, Minn., that defendant W. S. Jenks was the husband|and that defendant C. H. Jenks was the brother-in-law of the said Anne M. Jenks,|and that the two defendants last named were at that time actively associated|with her in the business and on the dates hereinafter mentioned were the agents|of and were acting in concert with defendant Anne M. Jenks.|The complaint alleged further that an injunction proceeding was commenced|under section 302 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act by the filing on|October 16, 1942, of a complaint and petition for issuance of an order to show|cause why a temporary injunction should not issue restraining the defendant|Anne M. Jenks, her agents, and all those acting on her behalf from introducing|or delivering for introduction into interstate commerce a drug product under the|name \"\"Dependon Products Intrauterine Paste\"\" or the same product under the|name \"\"Dependon Products Paste,\"\" and that on October 29, 1942, a preliminary|injunction issued in accordance with the prayer of said complaint; that on or|about November 15, 1942, Anne M. Jenks knowingly and willfully, in violation|of the preliminary injunction, introduced or delivered for introduction or caused|such delivery or introduction into interstate commerce from White Bear Lake,|Minn., by making personal delivery of 2 tubes of Dependon Products Paste to a|physician at Hannibal, Mo., in contemptuous disregard of the preliminary|injunction.|The information alleged further that since January 1, 1943, the three above-|named defendants had introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate|commerce from White Bear Lake, Minn., (or, had caused such acts) various|quantities of the said drug under the designation \"\"Dependon Products Paste\"\" to|various physicians in the States of Missouri, Iowa, Oklahoma, Wisconsin, Penn-|sylvania, and Massachusetts, in contempt of the preliminary injunction and that|such acts were willfully and knowingly made in violation of the said injunction.|On January 19, 1943, the defendants were arraigned and W. S. Jenks entered|a plea of nolo contendere, which plea was rejected by the court, whereupon he|not guilty, the charges against her were tried to the court. The Government|produced no witnesses but evidence was introduced by and on behalf of the|defendants. Judgment was entered by the court finding Anne M. Jenks guilty.|The court thereupon imposed a fine of $500 against W. S. Jenks and a fine of|$250 against Anne M. Jenks. No evidence of any violation of the law by the|defendant C. H. Jenks having been introduced, the action against him was|dismissed.|753. Misbranding of intrauterine paste. U. S. v. 22 Tubes of Intrauterine Paste (and 9 other seizure actions against intrauterine paste). Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00753September 1943Dependon Products from St. Paul, Minn., and in part under the name Jenks Physicians' Supplies from White Bear Lake, Minnintrauterine pasteSeptember 28, 1941, to on or about January 2, 1942New York, N. Y.; Kansas City, Mo.; Chillicothe, Mo.; Medf ord, Mass.; Atlanta, Ga.St. Paul, Minn.; White Bear Lake, Minn.New York, N. Y.; Kansas City, Mo.; Chillicothe, Mo.; Medford, Mass.; Atlanta, Ga.district court for the District of Massachusetts and stipulations having been entered between the claimant and753F. D. C. Nos. 6564. 6567, 6571, 6574, 6579, 6580, 6590, 6613, 6690, 6745. Sample Nos. 16897-E, 16898-E, 22398-E, 23114-E, 48990-E, 48991-E, 71514-E, 84674-E, 90131-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00753ddnj|753. Misbranding of intrauterine paste. U. S. v. 22 Tubes of Intrauterine Paste|(and 9 other seizure actions against intrauterine paste). Default decrees|of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 6564. 6567, 6571, 6574, 6579,|6580, 6590, 6613, 6690, 6745. Sample Nos. 16897-B, 16898-E, 22398-E, 23114-E,|48990-E, 48991-E, 71514-E, 84674-E, 90131-E.)|Between December 26, 1941, and January 22, 1942, the United States attorneys|for the Southern District of New York, Western District of Missouri, District of|Massachusetts, Northern District of Georgia, and the Northern District of Cali-|fornia filed libels against 22 tubes of intrauterine paste at New York, N. Y.;|49 cartons, each containing 1 tube of intrauterine paste at Kansas City, Mo.;|13 tubes at Chillicothe, Mo.; 33 tubes at Medf ord, Mass.; 27 tubes at Atlanta, Ga.;|and 36 tubes at San Francisco, Calif., alleging that the article had been shipped|in interstate commerce within the period from on or about September 28, 1941,|to on or about January 2, 1942, in part under the name Dependon Products from|St. Paul, Minn., and in part under the name Jenks Physicians' Supplies from|White Bear Lake, Minn.; and charging that it was misbranded.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that it would be dangerous to|health when used in the dosage and with the frequency and duration prescribed,|recommended, or suggested in the labeling. It was alleged to be misbranded|further in that the statement \"\"Intrauterine Paste,\"\" borne on the labels, repre-|sented and suggested that it would be safe and appropriate for introduction into|the uterine cavity; whereas it was not safe or appropriate for introduction into|the uterine cavity, but was unsafe and dangerous and was capable of producing|serious and even fatal consequences.|On February 27 and 28 and September 28, 1942, no claimant having appeared|for the seizures at New York, Kansas City, and Chillicothe, and one of the-|seizures (involving 6 tubes) at San Francisco, Calif., judgments of condemnation|were entered and the product was ordered destroyed in each instance, with the|exception of the lot seized at New York, N. Y., which was ordered delivered to|the Food and Drug Administration.|On March 12, 1942, Anne M. Jenks, trading as Dependon Products and Jenks|Physicians' Supplies, having entered an appearance in the district court for the|District of Massachusetts and stipulations having been entered between the|claimant and the United States attorney for consolidation of the cases instituted|in the District of Massachusetts, the Northern District of Georgia, and the|seizure of 30 tubes of Dependon Paste at San Francisco, Calif.,-and the removal|of the cases to the Western District of Wisconsin, the court ordered the consolida-|tion and transfer of said cases as stipulated.|On April 1, 1943, no claim or answer having been filed and the intervener|having stipulated that the appearance of counsel be withdrawn and that further|proceedings should be had as upon default, judgments of condemnation were|entered and the product was ordered delivered to the Food and Drug Adminis-|tration.|756. Adulteration of triple distilled water and sterile solution of epinephrine chloride; misbranding of Suppletive Formula No. 1, Sterile Supportive Formula S. G. M. a., Sterile Solution Formula No. 1, Compressed Tablets No. 358, and Compressed Tablets Thyroid; adulteration and misbranding of Neohormestrin, solution of quinine and urea hydrochloride, quinine sulfate tablets, and sterile solution of ovarian extract. U. S. v. E. S. Miller Laboratories, Inc. Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $75 on each of 4 counts. Imposition of sentence suspended on remaining counts and defendant placed on probation for 1 year.ddnj00756September 1943E. S. Miller Laboratories, Inc., Los Angeles, Calif.triple distilled water and sterile solution of epinephrine chloride; Suppletive Formula No. 1, Sterile Supportive Formula S. G. M. a., Sterile Solution Formula No. 1, Compressed Tablets No. 358, and Compressed Tablets Thyroid; Neohormestrin, solution of quinine and urea hydrochloride, quinine sulfate tablets, and sterile solution of ovarian extractApril 30, 1940, to March 28, 1941CaliforniaCaliforniaArizona, IllinoisSouthern District of California756F. D. C. No. 4132. Sample Nos. 7368-E, 7397-E, 7655-E, 7939-E, 30843-E, 31909-E, 31912-E, 32631-E. 53828-E to 53831-E. incl. , 53833-E, 55734-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00756ddnj|756. Adulteration of triple distilled water and sterile solution of epinephrine|chloride; misbranding of Suppletive Formula No. 1, Sterile Supportive|Formula S. G. M. a., Sterile Solution Formula No. 1, Compressed Tablets|No. 358, and Compressed Tablets Thyroid; adulteration and misbranding|of Neohormestrin,^ solution of quinine and urea hydrochloride, quinine|sulfate tablets, and sterile solution of ovarian extract. IT; S. v. E. S.|Miller Laboratories, Inc. Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $75 on each of|4 counts. Imposition of sentence suspended on remaining counts and|defendant placed on probation for 1 year. (F. D. C. No. 4132. Sample|Nos. 7368-E, 7397-E, 7655-E, 7939-E, 30843-E, 31909-E, 31912-E, 32631-E.|53828-E to 53831-E. incl., 53833-E, 55734-E.)|This case involved the following violations and products: Failure to bear|adequate directions, adequate warning statements, and satisfactory ingredient|statements, Suppletive Formula No. 1 and Sterile Solution No. 1; failure to|bear adequate directions and warnings, Compressed Tablets No. 358 and Com-|pressed Tablets Thyroid; failure to bear adequate directions and ingredient|statements, Sterile Supportive Formula S. G. M. a.; failure to comply with own|standard of strength and quality and to bear satisfactory ingredient state-|ment, Neohormestrin; failure to comply with official standard and reduction|of quality because of the presence of minute particles of rubber, triple distilled|water; failure to comply with official standards of strength and quality, qui-|nine and urea hydrochloride, quinine sulfate, and epinephrine chloride.|8 See also Nos. 754, 755.|533413-43 2|On February 16, 1942, the United States attorney for the Southern District|of California filed an information against E. S. Miller Laboratories, Inc., Los|Angeles, Calif., alleging shipment within the period from on or about April|30, 1940, to on or about March 28, 1941, from the State of California into the|States of Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon of quantities of the above-named drugs|which were adulterated and/or misbranded.|The Suppletive Formula No. 1 was alleged to be misbranded in that its labeling|failed to bear (1) adequate directions for use; and (2) adequate warnings|against use in those pathological conditions where its use might be dangerous to|health or against unsafe dosage or methods or duration of administration in|such manner and form as are necessary for the protection of users since it con-|tained emetine hydrochloride, and warnings that its use might cause vomiting,|nausea, heart, kidney, stomach, or intestinal injury or disease unless adminis-|tered in restricted dosage by a physician; and that it should not be administered|over a continued period of time because of its cumulative toxic effects. It was al-|leged to be misbranded further in that its label did not bear the common or usual|name of the drug contained therein, i. e., emetine hydrochloride.|The Sterile Solution Formula No. 1 was alleged to be misbranded in that its|label failed to bear adequate directions for use and adequate warnings against use|in those pathological conditions where its use might be dangerous to health, or|against unsafe dosage or methods or duration of administration since it con-|tained emetine and its labeling failed to bear warnings that its use might cause|nausea, vomiting, heart, kidney, stomach, or intestinal diseases, that it should|not be used in the presence of such pathological conditions; and that it might be|especially dangerous for elderly persons and should not be administered to|individuals suffering from high blood pressure, heart disease, diabetes, or thyroid|trouble except when administered by a physician. It was alleged to be misbranded|further in that it was fabricated from two or more ingredients and its label failed|to bear the common or usual name of each active ingredient.|The Compressed Tablets No. 358 were alleged to be misbranded in that the|labeling did not bear adequate directions for use since it bore no directions at|all; and in that it failed to,bear adequate warnings against use in those pathologi-|cal conditions or by children where its use might be dangerous to health, or against|unsafe dosage or methods or duration of administration in such manner and form|as are necessary for the protection of users since its labeling did not bear warnings|that the tablets contained acetanilid frequent or continued use of which might|be dangerous, causing serious blood disturbances, anemia, collapse, or dependence|on said drug, and that it should not be given to children.|The Compressed Tablets Thyroid Substance were alleged to be misbranded in|that the labeling did not bear adequate directions for use since it bore no di-|rections at all; and in that the labeling failed to bear adequate warnings against|use in those pathological conditions or by children where such use might be|dangerous to health, or against unsafe dosage or methods or duration of admin-|istration in such manner and form as are necessary for the protection of users,|since the article contained thyroid and the labeling failed to bear a warning that|it might cause adverse effects on the body metabolism and the cardiovascular|and central nervous systems, and that it should not be used by persons afflicted by|heart disease or hyperthyroidism.|The Sterile Solution Neohormestrin was alleged to be adulterated in that its|strength differed from and its quality fell below that which it purported and|was represented to possess since the labels of all 3 shipments represented that|it possessed in each cubic centimeter a potency equivalent to that possessed by|2,500 International Units of oestrus-producing hormone and the label of one of|the shipments represented that each cubic centimeter possessed a potency equiva-|lent to that possessed by 500 Allen-Doisy rat units, namely, 500 rat units of oestrus-|producing hormone; whereas it possessed a potency lower than that represented,|tests of the three shipments having shown the following results: No. 1 was inert,|No. 2 had a potency equivalent to that possessed by not more than 75 International|Units of oestrus-producing hormone, and No. 3 had a potency equivalent to that|possessed by not more than 55 International Units of oestrus-producing hormone|equivalent to not more than 11 Allen-Doisy rat units. It was alleged to be mis-|branded in that the statements on the label, (2 shipments) \"\"1 c. c. contains 2500|International Units Oestrus Producing Hormone,\"\" and (3d shipment) \"\"Neohormes-|trin Each c. c. contains 2500 International * * * Units. 500 Rat (Allen-|Doisey) Units,\"\" were false and misleading. One shipment was alleged to be|misbranded further in that it was fabricated from two or more ingredients|and its label did not bear the common or usual name of the active ingredient, i. e.,|oestrus-producing hormones.|to be and was represented as a drug the name of which is recognized in the|National Formulary but its strength differed from and its quality and purity|fell below the standard set forth therein since when tested for oxidizable sub-|stances in accordance with the method prescribed in the'formulary, it required|more than 0.1 cc., namely, 1.6 cc. of twentieth-normal potassium permanganate|to maintain a pink color; whereas the formulary provides that triple distilled|water when tested in accordance with the method prescribed therein, shall require|not more than 0.1 cc. of twentieth-normal potassium to maintain a pink color;|and its difference in strength, quality, and purity from such standard was not|plainly stated on the label. It was alleged to be adulterated further in that minute|particles of rubber had been mixed or packed therewith so as to reduce its quality.|The Ampuls of Sterile Solution Quinine and Urea Hydrochloride were alleged|to be adulterated in that they purported to be and were represented as a drug|the name of which is recognized in the National Formulary, but their strength|differed from and their quality fell below the.standard set forth therein since|each ampul yielded an amount of anhydrous quinine equivalent to less than 54.8|percent, namely, not more than 49.6 percent of the labeled amount of quinine and|urea hydrochloride and 2 cc. of the article contained not more than 12.99 grains|(0.838 gram) of quinine and urea hydrochloride; whereas the formulary specifies|that unless another concentration of the solution is stated on the label, ampuls|of quinine and urea hydrochloride shall contain a sterile solution of approximately|50 grams of quinine and urea hydrochloride in a sufficient quantity of ampul water|to make 100 cc. (which is equivalent to 15? grains (1 gram) of quinine and urea|hydrochloride per 2 cc. ampul), and shall yield an amount of anhydrous quinine|(CjoHwOaNa) corresponding to not less than 54.8 percent of the labeled amount of|quinine and urea hydrochloride; and its difference in strength and quality from|such standard was not stated on the label. They were alleged to be misbranded|in that the statement on the carton and ampul labels, \"\"2 c. c. * * * Quinine|and Urea Hydrochloride 15? Grains (1.0 Gram),\"\" was false and misleading.|The Sterile Supportive Formula S. G. M. a. was alleged to be misbranded (1)|in that its label failed to bear adequate directions for use; and (2) in that it|was fabricated from two or more ingredients and its label did not bear the com-|mon or usual name of each active ingredient. \"\"|The quinine sulfate tablets were alleged to be adulterated in that their strength|differed from that which they purported and were represented to possess in that|they were represented to contain 5 grains of quinine sulfate; whereas each tablet|contained not more than 2.09 grains of quinine sulfate. They were alleged to|be misbranded in that the statement \"\"Quinine Sulfate 5 Grs.\"\" was false and|misleading.|One shipment of Solution Epinephrin Chloride was alleged to be adulterated|in that it purported to be and was represented as a drug the name of which is|recognized in the United States Pharmacopoeia but its quality fell below the|standard set forth therein since it contained in each 100 cc. of the solution not|more than 0.05 gram of epinephrine; whereas the pharmacopoeia specifies that the|article (which is recognized therein under the name \"\"solution of epinephrine|hydrochloride\"\") shall consist of \"\"a solution of epinephrine in distilled water and|hydrochloric acid, containing in each 100 cc. not less than 0.095 Gm. * * * of|COHISOJN,\"\" and its difference in strength and quality from the pharmacopoeial|standard was not plainly stated on the label. The other shipment of Solution|Epinephrin Chloride was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to be|and was recognized as a drug the name of which is recognized in the National|Formulary but its strength differed from and its quality fell below the standard|set forth therein since it contained in each cubic centimeter not more than 0.06|gram of epinephrine; whereas the National Formulary specifies that \"\"Unless|otherwise stated on the label, Ampuls of Epinephrine Hydrochloride contain|measured quantities of sterile Solution of Epinephrine Hydrochloride (see U. S.|Pharmacopoeia XI, page 207),\"\" and the said pharmacopoeia specifies that \"\"Solu-|tion of epinephrine hydrochloride is a solution of epinephrine in distilled water|and hydrochloric acid, containing in each 100 cc, not less than 0.095 Gm. * * *|of C9H13O3N,\"\" and its difference in strength and quality from the standard set|forth in the formulary was not plainly stated on the label.|The Solution of Ovarian Extract was alleged to be adulterated in that its|strength differed from and its quality fell below that which it purported and|was represented to possess in that it was represented to contain in each cubic|centimeter not less than 50 rat units of ovarian extract; whereas it contained|in each cubic centimeter not more than 4 rat units of ovarian extract. It was|alleged to be misbranded in that the statement on the label, \"\"Ovarian Extract|* * * 50 Rat Units per cc.\"\" was false and misleading.|On April 20, 1942, a plea of nolo contendere having been entered on behalf of|the defendant, the court imposed a fine of $75 on four of the counts, i. e., a total|of $300; and ordered that imposition of sentence on the remaining counts be sus-|pended for 1 year, that the defendant be placed on probation for 1 year, and|that if no further violation occurred no further penalties be imposed.|757. Misbranding of Nomo For Piles, Sanafrio, and Asmolac. U. S. v. Albert B. Hirscbman (Hirschman Laboratories and Sanafrio Laboratories). Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $75 on each of 3 counts; sentence suspended on all but first count.ddnj00757September 1943Albert B. Hirschman, trading as Hirschman Laboratories and as Sanafrio Laboratories, San Pedro, Calif.Nomo For Piles, Sanafrio, and AsmolacMay 14 to July 1, 1940CaliforniaCaliforniaArizona and OregonSouthern District of California757F. D. C. No. 5491. Sample Nos. 26467-E, 26469-E, 32632-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00757ddnj|757. Misbranding: of Nomo For Piles, Sanafrio, and Asmolac. U. S. v. Albert B.|Hirscbman (Hirschman Laboratories and Sanafrio Laboratories). Plea|of nolo contendere. Fine, $75 on each of 3 counts; sentence suspended|on all bnt first count. (F. D. C. No. 5491. Sample Nos. 26467-E, 26469-E,|32632-E.)|The labeling of the Asmolac failed to bear adequate directions for use, such|adequate warnings as are necessary for the protection of users, and a declara-|tion of the alkaloids of atropine, hyoscine, and hyoscyamine that were present.|The labeling of all three products bore false and misleading curative and thera-|peutic claims.|On November 3, 1941, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|California filed an information against Albert B. Hirschman, trading as Hirsch-|man Laboratories and as Sanafrio Laboratories, San Pedro, Calif., alleging|shipment within the period from on or about May 14 to on or about July 1, 1940,|from the State of California into the States of Arizona and Oregon of quantities|of the above-named drugs which were misbranded.|Analyses of samples showed that the Asmolac consisted essentially of water,|alcohol, plant extractives, alkaloids, reducing sugars, potassium iodide, and|sodium iodide; that the Sanafrio consisted essentially of fat, zinc oxide, cam-|phor, and menthol; and that the Nomo For Piles consisted essentially of benzo-|caine, boric acid, eucalyptus oil, fixed oils, and zinc oxide.|The Asmolac was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that the directions for|use,contained no limitation as to duration of administration. (2) In that it|contained (a) iodine or iodides and the labeling failed to warn that it should|not be used in case of goiter except upon the advice of a physician and should|be discontinued if skin rash appears; and (b) the alkaloids of belladonna and|hyoscyamus and the labeling failed to warn that frequent or continued use|should be avoided, that it should be used cautiously if dryness of the throat|occurs, that it should be discontinued if rapid pulse or blurring of the vision|occurs, and that it should not be taken by elderly people except upon competent|advice. (3) In that the name \"\"Asmolac\"\" and the statements in the accom-|panying circular, \"\"Where it is not deemed necessary to use Asmolac continuously,|you should watch for the approaching of attacks such as nervousness, headache,|itching of the nose or skin, severe sneezing, yawning, and other suggestive symp-|toms. If this is noticeable take half a teaspoon of Asmolac twice a day. In this|way the actual spasms are usually to the greatest extent and often completely|prevented,\"\" were false and misleading since they represented that when used|as directed in the above-named conditions, it often would completely prevent the|actual spasms of asthma; whereas if used as directed, it would not often, nor|at all, completely prevent the actual spasms of asthma. (4) In that it contained,|the alkaloids of atropine, hyoscine, and hyoscyamine, but the labeling did not|contain the name and quantity or proportion of said alkaloids or, in lieu thereof,|the quantity or proportion of total alkaloids of belladonna and hyoscyamus that|it contained.|The Nomo For Piles was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that the name \"\"Nomo|For Piles\"\" and the statements in the labeling, (carton only) \"\"Astringent,\"\"|(carton, tube, and circular) \"\"To Believe * * * Soreness * * * Asso-|ciated with Piles,\"\" and (circular) \"\"For the relief of pain it is highly recom-|mended,\"\" were false and misleading since they represented and suggested that|it was a competent treatment for all cases of piles and would be efficacious to|relieve the soreness and pain associated with piles; whereas it would not ac-|complish such results. (2) In that the labeling was misleading since it failed|to reveal the fact, material in the light of the representations which it con-|tained, that the preparation did not constitute a treatment for all kinds of piles|and that competent advice should be secured in cases of excessive bleeding.|in the labeling, (carton) \"\"For * * * Chest Colds * * * Eelieves Head-|ache, Neuralgia, Inflammation in Head Colds, and similar conditions. * * *|Directions Apply externally to the chest. Acts much like a plaster and helps to|relieve local congestion,\"\" and (jar) \"\"Relieves Headache, Neuralgia, Congestion,|and Inflammation in * * * Chest Colds and similar conditions * * *|Chest Colds, Cough, Sore Throat,\"\" were false and misleading since it would not be|efficacious as a treatment or relief for such conditions.|On May 19, 1842, the defendant having entered a plea of nolo contendere,|the court imposed a fine of $75 on each of the 3 counts and suspended the sen-|tence on counts 2 and 3 on condition that the defendant comply with instructions|of the Government|758. Misbranding of agar and oil with phenolphthalein. U. S. v. 28 Dozen Bot tles of Royale Agar and Oil (and 1 other seizure action against Agar and Oil with Phenolphthalein). Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00758September 1943Vital Laboratoriesagar and oil with phenolphthaleinJanuary 7 and March 21, 1942Philadelphia, Pa.Union City, N. J.Philadelphia, Pa.Eastern District of Pennsylvania758F. D. C. Nos. 7052, 7647. Sample Nos. 40894-E, 77140-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00758ddnj|758. Misbranding of agar and oil with phenolphthaleln. U. \"\"S. v. 28 Dozen Bot|tles of Royale Agar and Oil (and 1 other seizure action against Agar and|Oil with Phenolphthalein). Dcfanlt decrees of condemnation and de-|struction. (F. D. C. Nos. 7052, 7647. Sample Nos. 40894-E, 77140-E.)|The bottles containing this product were unlabeled when shipped in inter-|state commerce.|On March 18, and June 15, 1942, the United States attorney for the Eastern|District of Pennsylvania filed libels against 61 dozen bottles of Agar and Oil|with Phenolphthalein at Philadelphia, Pa., alleging that the article had been|shipped in interstate commerce on or about January 7 and March 21, 1942, by|the Vital Laboratories from Union City, N. J.; and charging that is was mis-|branded. After shipment a portion of the article was labeled in part, (bottle)|\"\"Royale Agar and Oil with Phenolphthalein\"\"; and the cartons containing the|remainder were labeled in part, \"\"I. S. 137 1 Doz 16 Oz.\"\"|Analysis showed that the article was an emulsion containing mineral oil and|phenolphthalein.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that it bore no labeling containing (1)|adequate directions for use; (2) adequate warnings, since the label failed to|warn that it should not be taken when suffering from nausea, vomiting, abdomi-|nal pain, or other symptoms of appendicitis, and that frequent or continued use'|might result in dependence upon laxatives; (3) the name and place of business|of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor; (4) an accurate statement of the|quantity of the contents; and (5) the common or usual name qi each active|ingredient.|On May 1 and July 6, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgments of con-|demnation were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|759. Adulteration and misbranding of Aurofectol; misbranding of Purpoil No. 22 and Purpoil No. 600. U. S. v. 6 2/3 Dozen Packages of Purpoil No. 22, 3 1/2 Dozen Packages of Purpoil No. 600, and 2 1/12 Dozen Packages of Aurofectol. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00759September 1943Purpoil Laboratories, Inc.Aurofectol; Purpoil No. 22 and Purpoil No. 600March 9 and 25, 1942Washington, D. C.Baltimore, Md.Washington, D. C.District of Columbia759F. D. C. No. 7474. Sample Nos. 87163-E, to 87165-E, Incl.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00759ddnj|759. Adulteration and misbranding of Aurof ectol; misbranding of Purpoil No. 22|and Purpoil No. 600. U. S. v. 6% Dozen Packages of Purpoil No. 22, 3*/i2|Dozen Packages of Purpoil No. 600, and 21/b Dozen Packages of Auro-|fectol. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No.|7474. Sample Nos. 87163-E, to 87165-B., Incl.)|The labeling of the Purpoil Nos. 22 and 600 failed to bear such warnings as|are necessary for the protection of users and also contained false and misleading|curative and therapeutic claims. The labeling of the Aurofectol contained false|and misleading claims regarding its curative, therapeutic, and antiseptic|properties.|On May 6, 1942, the United States attorney for the District of Columbia filed|a libel against the above-named products at Washington, D. C, alleging that|they had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about March 9 and 25,|1942, by Purpoil Laboratories, Inc., from Baltimore, Md.; and charging that|they were misbranded and that the Aurofectol was also adulterated.|Analyses of samples of the Purpoil Nos. 22 and 600 showed that both con-|sisted essentially of mineral oil containing small quantities of iodine, chloro-|butanol, and menthol. Analysis of a sample of the Aurofectol showed that it|consisted essentially of a mixture of oils and phenols. Bacteriological tests|of the Aurofectol showed that it was not antiseptic.|The Purpoil Nos. 22 and 600 were alleged to be misbranded in that their|labels failed to bear adequate warnings against use by children where their|use might be dangerous to health and failed to bear adequate warnings against|unsafe duration of administration or application in such manner and form as|are necessary for the protection of users, since they failed to warn that use by|children might be dangerous and that frequent or excessive use might cause|injury to the lungs. The Purpoil No. 22 was alleged to be misbranded further|(1)?in that statements in the labeling which represented and suggested that it|would be efficacious in the treatment of acute and mild chronic infections of|the nose, that it would cause a depletion of the swollen mucous membrane,|would promote drainage and greatly improve ventilation, would be efficacious to|promote healing and would gradually diminish excess discharge, whether due to|acute coryza or chronic nasal infection and whether the discharge was purulent|or mucopurulent in quality, and would be equally efficient or effective whether|dealing with repulsive scab formation or ozena or persistent postnasal drip,|were false and misleading since it would not be efficacious for such purposes;|(2)?in that the following statement in the labeling, \"\"Bacteriological tests havev|shown that Purpoil No. 22 and Purpoil No. 600 have bacteria destroying prop-|erties which are equivalent to phenol in the same strength and in the same|type of oil,\"\" was false and misleading since it failed to reveal the material fact|that phenol in the same strength and in the same type of oil possesses no|bacteria-destroying properties. The Purpoil No. 600 was alleged to be mis-|branded further in that the statement \"\"Used in the treatment of chronic sup-|purative infections of the nose\"\" was false and misleading since it would not be|efficacious in the treatment -of suppurative infections of the nose.|The Aurofectol was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from|that which it was represented to possess since it was not an antiseptic as repre-|sented in its labeling. It was alleged to be misbranded in that certain state-|ments in the labeling which represented that it would be efficacious in the|treatment of dermatitis, eczema, and acute catarrhal inflammation of the|tympanic membrane; would be efficacious in the treatment of acute and chronic|infections of the external auditory canal and acute myringitis and acute|catarrhal otitis media; that it was an effective parasiticide and antiseptic in|skin diseases; that it would produce desired results in external auditory canal|infections; that it would be efficacious in the treatment of infections of the|skin of the external auditory canal were false and misleading since it would|not be efficacious for such purposes.|On June 11, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|760. Misbranding of Fermlax. U. S. v. 61 Packages of Fermlax. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00760September 1943Moon-Winn Drug Co., Inc.FermlaxMarch 11, 1942Chattanooga, Tenn.Athens, Ga.Chattanooga, Tenn.Eastern District of Tennessee760F. D. C. No. 7450. Sample No. 70672-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00760ddnj|760. Misbranding of Fermlax. TJ. S. v. 61 Packages of Fermlax. Default decree|of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 7450. Sample No. 70672-E.)|On May 5, 1942, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Ten-|nessee filed a libel against 61 packages of Fermlax at Chattanooga, Tenn., al-|leging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|March 11, 1942, by Moon-Winn Drug Co., Inc., from Athens, Ga.; and charging|that it was misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of|sodium bicarbonate, magnesium carbonate, calcium carbonate, bismuth sub-|nitrate, and rhubarb.|The article was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that the directions on the|label, \"\"Adult dose-Teaspoonful in a full glass of water three times a day after|meals. Children in proportion to age,\"\" provided for continuous administration,|whereas it was a laxative and should not be used continuously, and they also|failed to indicate the dosage for children of different ages. (2) In that the label-|ing failed to warn that a laxative should not be used in case of nausea, vomiting,|abdominal pain, or other symptoms of appendicitis; and that frequent or con-|tinued use of a laxative might result in dependence upon a laxative to move the|bowels. (3) In that it was in package form and its label failed to bear an|accurate statement of the quantity of the contents.|On June 12, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|761. Misbranding of laxative cold tablets and Rx S36S230 Pills. Adulteration and misbranding of epinephrine tablets for hypodermic use. U. S. v. 84 Bottles of Laxative Cold Tablets, 14,800 Rx S368230 Pills, and 2,045 Tubes and 6,040 Packages of Hypodermic Tablets. Default decrees ordering destruction of laxative cold tablets, pills, and portion of hypodermic tablets. Consent decree of condemnation ordering portion of hypodermic tablets released under bond to be brought into compliance with the law.ddnj00761September 1943Parke, Davis & Co.laxative cold tablets and Rx S36S230 PillsJanuary 13, 1941, to on or about July 14, 1942Chicago, Ill.; Oconomowoc, Wis.; Columbus, OhioDetroit, Mich.Chicago, Ill.; Oconomowoc, Wis.; Columbus, OhioNorthern District of Illinois, Eastern Districf of Wisconsin, and the Northern and Southern Districts of Ohio761F. D. C. Nos. 7324, 7480, 8271, 8331. Sample Nos. 76829-B, 91224-E, 91225-E, 4959-F, 5078-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00761ddnj|761. Misbranding of laxative cold tablets and Rx S36S230 Pills. Adulteration|and misbranding: of epinephrine tablets for hypodermic use. U. S. v. 84|Bottles of Laxative Cold Tablets, 14,800 Rx S368230 Pills, and 2,045|Tubes and 6,040 Packages of Hypodermic Tablets. Default decrees order-|ing destruction of laxative cold tablets, pills, and portion of hypodermic|tablets. Consent decree of condemnation ordering portion of hypodermic|tablets released under bond to be brought into compliance -with the law.|(F. D. C. Nos. 7324, 7480, 8271, 8331. Sample Nos. 76829-B, 91224-E, 91225-E,|4959-F, 5078-F.)|The labeling of the laxative cold tablets and of the Rx S368230 Pills (a por-|tion of which had been repackaged and labeled in part, \"\"Gloria Laxative|Pills * * * Prepared for John A. Smith Co., Oconomowoc, Wis.\"\") failed to|bear adequate directions and warning statements, that of the pills also failed|laxative cold tablets and the hypodermic tablets also bore false and misleading|statements. The epinephrine hypodermic tablets contained only three-fourths|as much epinephrine as the amount declared on the label.|On April 30, May 8, August 29, and September 8, 1942, the United States at-|torneys for -the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Districf of Wisconsin, and|the Northern and Southern Districts of Ohio filed libels against 49 bottles|each containing 100, and 35 bottles each containing 1,000 laxative cold tablets|at Chicago, HI.; 14,800 Rx S368230 Pills at Oconomowoc, Wis.; 6,040 packages|each containing 100 epinephrine tablets at Columbus, Ohio; and 2,045 tubes|each containing 20 epinephrine tablets at Toledo, Ohio, alleging that the articles|had been shipped in intergtate commerce \"\"within the period from on or about|January 13, 1941, to on or about July 14, 1942, by Parke, Davis & Co. from|Detroit, Mich.; and charging that the cold tablets and pills were misbranded,|and that the epinephrine tablets were adulterated and misbranded.|Analyses of samples showed that the laxative cold tablets each contained|approximately 2 grains of acetanilid, plant extractives (including resinous|material), a quinine compound, and caffeine; and that the pills contained aloin|and an extract of cascara sagrada.|The laxative cold tablets were alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that the label-|ing failed to bear adequate directions for use since it contained no directions as|to frequency or duration of administration. (2) In that the labeling failed to|bear adequate warnings since (a) they contained acetanilid and it did not warn|that frequent or continued use might therefore be dangerous, causing serious|blood disturbances, anemia, collapse, or a dependence upon acetanilid, and that|they should not be given to children; and (b) they contained laxative ingredients|and the label did not warn against their use in case of abdominal pain and nausea,|vomiting, or other symptoms of appendicitis; or that frequent or continued use|might result in dependence upon laxatives to move the bowels. (3) In that the|statement on the label, \"\"Cold * * * (Grip),\"\" was false and misleading since|they did not constitute an adequate treatment for cold or grippe.|The pills were alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that the labeling failed to bear|any directions for their use. (2) In that the labeling failed to warn that they|were not to be used in the presence of abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, or other|symptoms of appendicitis; and that frequent or continued use might result in|dependence upon laxatives. (3) In that the label failed to bear the common or|usual names of the active ingredients since \"\"Cascarin Bitter\"\" is not the common|or usual name of any substance.|The epinephrine tablets were alleged to be adulterated in that their strength|differed from that which they purported and were represented to possess,|namely, (label) \"\"Tablets Epinephrine 3/200 grain\"\" and \"\"One tablet dissolved in|lcc. of water makes a 0.1? solution,\"\" since each tablet contained less than|3/200 grain of epinephrine and 1 tablet dissolved in 1 cc. of water would make a|solution of less concentration than 0.1 percent of epinephrine. They were|alleged to be misbranded in that the above-quoted statements were false and|misleading.|One June 1, August 26, and November 9, 1942, no claimant having appeared|for the seizures at Chicago, Oconomowoc, and Columbus, judgments were entered|ordering that they be destroyed. On February 6, 1943, Parke, Davis & Co.,|claimant for the seizure at Toledo, having admitted the material allegations of|the libel, judgment of condemnation was entered and the product was ordered|released under bond conditioned that it be brought into compliance with the law|under the supervision of the Food and Drug Administration.|762. Adulteration and misbranding of Gloria Tonic tablets. U. S. v. 74 Packages of Gloria Tonic. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00762September 1943John A. Smith Co.Gloria Tonic tabletsOctober 20, 1941Cleveland, OhioOconomowoc, Wis.Cleveland, OhioNorthern District of Ohio762F. D. C. No. 7338. Sample No. 8018-5-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00762ddnj|762. Adulteration and misbranding of Gloria Tonic tablets. IT. S. v. 74 Packages|of Gloria Tonic. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C.|No. 7338. Sample No. 8018-5-E.)|On April 16,1942, the United States attorney for the Northern District of Ohio|filed a libel against 74 packages of Gloria Tonic tablets at Cleveland, Ohio, alleg-|ing that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about October|20, 1941, by the John A. Smith Co. from Oconomowoc, Wis.; and charging that|it was adulterated and misbranded.|Analysis showed that the tablets contained iron (0.77 grain), sodium salicylate|(3.64 grains), colchicine (0.003 grain), and extract of cascara sagrada.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from that|which it purported or was represented to possess, namely, \"\"Each tablet contains|reduced Iron 1 gr., * * * Sodium Salicylate 5 gr., Colchicine 1-250 gr.\"\"|quate directions for use since those which appeared on the label did hot provide|for sufficient medication to constitute a treatment for gout. (2) In that [its|labeling failed to bear adequate warnings] since'it was a laxative and the label|failed to warn that it should not be used when abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting,|or other symptoms of appendicitis were present, and that frequent or continued|use might result in dependence upon laxatives. (3) In that the statement|\"\"Tonic * * * An Allevial Treatment Useful in * * * Gout\"\" was false|and misleading since the tablets when used as directed did not constitute a tonic|or treatment for gout.|On June 26, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|763. Misbranding of solution of citrate of magnesia. U. S. v. 144 Bottles ol Solution Citrate of Magnesia U. S. P. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00763September 1943Gordon Pharmacal Co.solution of citrate of magnesiaJanuary 26, 1942Richmond, Ind.Cincinnati, OhioRichmond, Ind.Southern District of Indiana763F. D. C. No. 7397. Sample No. 79270-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00763ddnj|763. Misbranding of solution of citrate of magnesia. IT. S. v. 144 Bottles ol|Solution Citrate of Magnesia U. S. P. Default decree of condemnation|and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 7397. Sample No. 79270-E.)|On April 27, 1942, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|Indiana filed a libel against the above-named product at Richmond, Ind., alleging|that it had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about January 26, 1942,|by Gordon Pharmacal Co. from Cincinnati, Ohio; and charging that it was|misbranded in that it was a laxative and its labeling failed to warn that a|laxative should not be taken in case of nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, or|other symptoms of appendicitis, and that frequent or continued use of a laxative|might result in dependence upon laxatives to move the bowels.|On June 4, 1942, no claimant haying appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 4, FOOD AND DRUGS ACT. MISBRANDING OF COFFEEfdnj00004July 29, 1908United States Coffee Refining CompanyCOFFEEMarch 25, 1908MassachusettsNew YorkMassachusettsDistrict of Massachusetts4\NThe National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainfdnj00004fdnj|NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 4, FOOD AND DRUGS ACT.|MISBRANDING OF COFFEE.|In 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 that on the 30th day of |April, 1908, in the District Court of the United States for the District |of Massachusetts, in a proceeding of libel for condemnation of two |hundred and ten packages of coffee, labeled and branded in part \"\"Refined |Coffee, Digesto Brand,\"\" wherein the United States was libellant and |the United States Coffee Refining Company, a corporation, was claim- |ant, the cause having come on for a hearing and the claimant having |waived its exceptions to the libel, and failed to answer, a decree was |rendered, in substance and form as follows:|DODGE, J. This cause came on to be heard before me, and, after hearing the |complainant, the claimant having waived his exceptions and failed to answer, |it is now, to wit: April 30, 1908, ordered, adjudged, and decreed that said two |hundred and ten packages of coffee are misbranded but not adulterated within |the meaning of the Food and Drugs Act, June 30,1906, and upon petition of the |claimant it is further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that upon the payment of |the costs of the libel proceedings and upon the execution and delivery of a bond |in the sum of two hundred (200) dollars conditioned that said two hundred and |ten packages shall not be sold or otherwise disposed of contrary to the provisions |of the said act, or the laws of any State, Territory, or insular possession, said |packages of coffee shall be delivered to the claimant.|This case grew out of the following state of facts:|On or about March 24, 1908, an inspector of the Department of |Agriculture located on the premises of the Metropolitan Steamship Com- |pany, India Wharf, Boston, Mass., a consignment consisting of-a num- |ber of cases, each of which contained one dozen packages of \"\"Refined |Coffee, Digesto Brand,\"\" subject to the order of the United States Coffee |Refining Company, of New York City. The label appearing on each in |full was as follows:|Refined Coffee, Digesto Brand. This high-grade coffee is the only really refined |coffee known. The excess of both caffeine and caffetannic acid has been removed. |Consequently, its flavor is better than other coffee, because this bitterness and|acidity have been extracted. Does ordinary coffee hurt you ? Many people |cannot drink unrefined coffee because it contains the irritating poisons, caffeine |and tannic acid. They produce—headache, wakefulness, palpitation of the |heart, nervousness, nervous dyspepsia, indigestion, biliousness, languid feeling, |heartburn, depression of spirits, irritability, tremulousness, caffeinism. (See |Century Dictionary.) Why refined coffee will not hurt you: The excess of irri- |tating bitter poison is taken out of this coffee. It is refined by both mechanical |and chemical processes.|The product was misbranded in violation of section 8 of the Food |and Drugs Act, as appeared from the analysis made by the Bureau of |Chemistry, Department of Agriculture, the results of which are herein- |below set forth, in that it purported to be a refined coffee, when as a |matter of fact it-was not, and in that the following statements were |made which were false, deceptive, and misleading: It was claimed that |the coffee, by reason of its purity, was the best in the world for flavor |and aroma. It was represented that the excess of both caffein and |caffetannic acid had been removed from the coffee, whereas in truth |and in fact no portion of these substances had been so removed, unless |by the removal of a portion of the substance of the coffee itself; that |its flavor was better than any other coffee because bitterness and acidity |had been extracted; that the reduction of the bitter and acid elements |left the coffee in a highly purified form; that the excess of irritating |bitter poison had been taken out of the coffee, and that it was refined |by both mechanical and chemical processes; and that the manner in |which the coffee was prepared permitted the real flavoring constituent— |an aromatic oil—to be extracted easily by boiling.|A sample of the coffee was obtained by an inspector of the Depart- |ment of Agriculture, and on analysis the results given below were ob- |tained. At the same time an analysis of a sample of ordinary roasted |coffee purchased on the open market way made and these results are |also given for comparison:|Analysis of \"\"Digesto\"\" and of ordinary coffee.|Determination.|Water (per cent) |Ash (per cent) ||Alkalinity of ash (cc of normal acid per 100 grams of material) .|Fat (per cent) |Proteids (No.25) (percent) |Chloroform extract from alkaline solution of the water extract.|Acidity (cc of normal alkali per 100 grams of material) |Caffetannic acid (per cent) |Caffein (per cent) ||\"\"Di- |gesto\"\" |coffee.|2.45|4.23 |48.2 |14.10 |12.43|1.24 |22.0 |10.88|1.06|Ordi- |nary |roasted |coffee.|3.19|3.92 |48.4 |15.92 |13.50|1.30 |28.0 |10.67|1.04|The results of these analyses showed that the sample of \"\"Digesto\"\" |coffee corresponded very closely in composition with the average roasted |coffee, contained a normal amount of caffetannic acid and caffein, and|o |O|had not been treated in any manner so as to produce a material differ- |ence between it and the average coffee.|On March 25, 1908, the facts were reported by the Secretary of Agri- |culture to the United States Attorney at Boston, Mass. Libel for |seizure and condemnation was duly filed in the District Court of the |United States for the District of Massachusetts, under section 10 of the |act, with the result hereinbefore stated.|H. W. WILEY, |GEO. P. MCCABE, |Board of Food and Drug Inspection. |Approved:|W. L. MOORE,|Acting Secretary of Agriculture.|WASHINGTON, D. C, July 6, in.|O|764. Misbranding of Pond's Digestans and Pond's Laxative Pills. U. S. v. 12 Dozen, 4 Dozen, and 1 Dozen Tins of Pond's Digestans. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00764September 1943Pond Pharmacal Co., Inc.Pond's Digestans and Pond's Laxative PillsOctober 8 and November 13, 1941Newark, N. J.New York, N. Y.Newark, N. J.District of New Jersey764F. D. C. No. 6538. Sample No. 74170-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00764ddnj|764. Misbranding of Pond's Digestans and Pond's Laxative Pills. IT. S. v. 12|Dozen, 4 Dozen, and 1 Dozen Tins of Pond's Digestans. Default decree|of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 6538. Sample No. 74170-E.)|The labeling of these products failed to bear adequate directions for use and|such adequate warnings as are necessary for the protection of users, and did|bear false and misleading therapeutic claims. The labeling also failed to state|the common or usual names of the active ingredients of the laxative pills.|On December 19, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of New|Jersey filed a libel against 12 dozen 15-cent, 4 dozen 35-cent, and 1 dozen 65-cent-|sized tins of Pond's Digestans, each tin containing a number of brown-coated|tablets and a small envelope containing 3 pink pills, labeled \"\"Pond's Laxative|Pills,\"\" at Newark, N. J., alleging that the articles had been shipped in inter-|state commerce on or about October 8 and November 13, 1941, by Pond Phar-|macal Co., Inc., from New York, N. Y.; and charging that they were misbranded.|Analyses of samples showed that Pond's Digestans tablets consisted essen-|tially of sodium bicarbonate, extracts of laxative plant drugs (including aloin),|peppermint oil, and strychnine sulfate; and that the laxative pills consisted|essentially of laxative plant drugs (including aloin and podophyllin), and small|quantities of belladonna. .|The articles were alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that the directions for|use appearing on the tins and in the circulars were inappropriate and inadequate|for a laxative since they provided for continued administration, which might|result in dependence upon a laxative. (2) In that although the labeling cau-|tioned the user against the use of laxatives in the presence of nausea, vomiting,|and abdominal pain, it failed to warn ihat such symptoms may be those of|appendicitis; and the tablets contained strychnine but the labeling failed to warn|that not more than the recommended dosage should be taken and that its use by|children and elderly persons might be especially dangerous. (3) In that the|warnings required by law had not been placed upon the labeling with such con-|spicuousness as compared with other words and. statements as to render them|likely to be read or understood by the ordinary individual under customary con-|ditions of purchase and use since the warning that did appear was in very small|type and at the bottom of the first page of the circular enclosed in the tin.|(4) In that the following statements in the labeling, \"\"Digestans * * * These|tablets * * * have been found of great value * * * in relieving|*?* * wind colic. * * * contain bitter stomach tonics used to stimulate|the flow of gastric juices. * * * Oil of Peppermint is * * * stimulant|to the appetite * , * * Gentian is a stimulant to the appetite and is the most|popular of all the bitters for its stomachic action. Ipecac in small doses is a|carminative, stimulates the appetite and helps the action of the other ingredients.|*?* * Rhubarb is also a widely prescribed remedy as a * * * bitter,\"\"|were false and misleading since the name \"\"Digestans\"\" created the impression|created the impression that Digestans would relieve wind colic, that it contained|bitter stomach tonics which would stimulate the now of gastric juices and that|the ingredients named would accomplish the individual effects claimed for them;|whereas Digestans was not a digestant of food, it would not relieve wind colic,|it did not contain bitter stomach tonics that would stimulate the flow of gastric|juices, and it would not accomplish the results attributed individually to oil of|peppermint, gentian, ipecac, and rhubarb. (5) In that the outside container did|not bear an accurate statement of the quantity of the contents with respect to|Pond's Laxative Pills. (6) In that the tin and glassine envelope did not bear|the common or usual names of the active ingredients of Pond's Laxative Pills.|On May 8, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|765. Misbranding of My-X-Ym. U. S. v. 28 Packages of My-X-Ym. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00765September 1943My-X-Ym Food Enzymes ProductsMy-X-YmMarch 2, 1942Salinas, Calif.Chicago, Ill.Salinas, Calif.Northern District of California765F. D. C. No. 7380. Sample No. 23391-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00765ddnj|765. Misbranding of My-X-Tm. TJ. S. v. 28 Packages of My-X-Ym. Default|decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 7380. Sample No.|23391-B.)|On April 27, 1942, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|California filed a libel against 28 packages of My-X-Ym at Salinas, Calif., alleg-|ing that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about March|2, 1942, by My-X-Ym Food Enzymes Products from Chicago, 111.; and charging|that it was misbranded.|Analyses of samples of the article showed that it consisted essentially of|ground senna pods, powdered milk, yeast, wheat bran, cornstarch, cacao powder,|soybean tissues, and sugars including dextrose and sucrose.|The article was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that its labeling failed|to bear adequate warnings since it was a laxative and the label failed to warn|that a laxative should not be taken in cases of nausea, vomiting, abdominal|pain, or other symptoms of appendicitis; and that frequent or continued use|of a laxative may result in dependence upon a laxative to move the bowels.|(2)?In that the directions which appeared in the labeling provided for con-|tinuous administration whereas a laxative should not be used continuously.|(3)?In that statements in the labeling which represented and suggested that it|was an enzyme product and that when used as directed, it would balance the|weight of the body, would be efficacious \"\"for health,\"\" would supply a factor|the absence of which causes many ailments to develop; would cause the glandular|system to function properly and would restore energy and vigor; would prevent|bacteria from forming toxic matter in the gastro-intestinal tract and would|detoxify the system; that it was an adequate treatment for chronic angioneurotic|edema, allergic eczema, pancreatic indigestion, allergic rhinitis, chronic allergic|headache, allergic vomiting, chronic urticaria, allergic edema, allergic papular|eczema, chronic allergic colitis, gastric and pancreatic achylia, acidosis, auto-|intoxication, acne, appendicitis, bad breath, constipation, colitis, colds, catarrhal|disease, gall bladder trouble, headache, neuritis, underweight, obesity, piles,|rheumatism, stomach disorders, sluggishness, and spasmatic colon; that it was|a preventive of catarrhal conditions of the sinuses, nose, ears, throat, bronchial|tubes, lungs, stomach, liver, gall bladder, pancreas, intestines and colcfi, were|false and misleading since it was not an enzyme product and would not be|effective for the above-named diseases, symptoms, and conditions.|On June IS, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|DRUGS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF DEVIATION FROM OFFICIAL OR|OWN STANDARDS *|DRUGS FOR HUMAN USE|766. Adulteration and misbranding of Adiron tablets; misbranding of Floramucin. U. S. v. Lawrence M. Williams (Lawrence Laboratories). Plea of guilty. Fine, $250 and costs.ddnj00766September 1943Lawrence M.Adiron tablets; FloramucinJanuary 27 to March 7, 1941IllinoisIllinoisWashingtonNorthern District of Illinois766F. D. C. No. 5531. Sample Nos. 60557-E to 60560-E, incl.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00766ddnj|766. Adulteration and misbranding of Adiron tablets; misbranding of Flora-|mucin. V. S. v. Lawrence M. Williams (Lawrence Laboratories). Plea of|guilty. Fine, $250 and costs. (F. D. C. No. 5531. Sample Nos. 60557-E to|60560-E, incl.) |The Adiron tablets were deficient in vitamins A and D, and the labeling of|Floramucin bore false and misleading statements.|On February 27, 1942, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Illinois filed an information against Lawrence M. \"\"Williams, trading as Lawrence|Laboratories at Chicago, 111., alleging shipment in interstate commerce within the|* See also Nos. 755, 756, 759, 762.|533413-43 3|period from on or about January 27 to on or about March 7, 1941, from the State|of Illinois into the State of 'Washington of quantities of Floramucin which was|misbranded, and of a quantity of Adiron which was adulterated and misbranded.|The Adiron was alleged to be adulterated in that its. strength differed from|and its quality fell below that which it purported and was represented to possess|since it was represented to* contain in each tablet, 1,200 U. S. P. XI units of|vitamin A and 180 U. S. P. XI units of vitamin D, but did contain not more than|300 U. S. P. XI units of vitamin A and not more than 100 U. S. P. XI units of|vitamin D. It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement on the label,|\"\"Adiron * * * Tablets, each contain * * * 1200 U. S. P. XI Units Vita-|min 'A' 180 U. S. P. XI Units Vitamin 'D', \"\" was false and misleading.|The information alleged that the Adiron was also adulterated and misbranded|under the provisions of the law applicable to foods, as reported in F. N. J. No. 3338.|Analysis of a sample of Floramucin showed that it consisted essentially of|the mucilaginous portion of psyllium seed, karaya gum, sugar, and dextrin.|Floramucin was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that the statement (display|card) \"\"Detoxification aids in getting rid of the poisons,\"\" and those in an accom-|panying circular which represented and suggested that it would detoxify and|aid in getting rid of poisons; that it would be efficacious in the treatment of|biliousness, sore stomach, indigestion, intestinal stasis, excess gas, colitis, torpid|liver, and stomach and intestinal troubles; that it would combat constipation and|colitis without laxatives, implying that it was not a laxative; that it would keep|the digestive tract vigorous and healthy and would restore it to vigor and health|if it were impaired; that it would be efficacious to insure quick and effective relief|from faulty elimination; would soothe and ease sore, inflamed, and irritated|conditions of the intestinal lining and assist natural healing processes; would|infiltrate into every wrinkle and fold of each pocket of the intestines and make|movement of the entire mass of the feces more easy and aid by its bulk in setting|up normal peristalsis; would detoxify by better elimination of stagnant and putre-|factive matter and would induce complete evacuation without irritating laxa-|tives ; would aid in combating auto-intoxication and resulting self-poisoning and|would help break the laxative habit; would enable the consumer to reduce the|quantity of laxatives and cathartics used and finally eliminate the necessity for|using it, were false and misleading since it would not be efficacious for such pur-|poses. (2) In that the statements, \"\"with dextrine for its well-known flora-|changing properties in encouraging the growth of B. Acidophilus and similar|friendly organisms in the colon,\"\" \"\"Dosage varies from 2 to 5 teaspoonfuls daily,\"\"|\"\"An adjuvant Food-Not a Drug,\"\" \"\"Without Laxatives,\"\" \"\"A Mucin-Not a Gum|The earlier attempts to aid nature in this direction were mere gums like|Karaya, * * ' * Bulk-but nothing else,\"\" were false and misleading since they|represented that in the dosage recommended, it would be efficacious in chang-|ing the flora in the intestines and encouraging the growth of B. acidophilus and|similar friendly organisms; that it was not a drug nor a laxative; and that it|did not contain a gum and was more than a bulk-producing laxative, but it would|not be efficacious in changing the flora in the intestines or encouraging the growth|of B. acidophilus, it did contain the mucilaginous part of psyllium seed and|karaya ?um, which are laxative drugs, and it was a bulk-producing laxative.|(3) In that the statement of the active ingredients, \"\"Hexose Mucinoid fraction|of Plantago Ovata (Bast Indian psyllium) Dextrine, Karaya Gum and Raw Su-|gar,\"\" required by the law to appear on the label, was not prominently placed|thereon in such terms as to render it likely to be understood by the ordinary|individual under customary conditions of purchase and use, since the expression|\"\"Hexose Mucinoid fraction of Plantago Ovata (East Indian psyllium)\"\" was|not the common name of one of the ingredients, i. e., the mucilaginous part of|psyllium seed; dextrin and raw sugar were not active ingredients as implied in|said statement, and the statement of ingredients did not distinguish between its|active and nonactive constituents.|On March 3, 1942, a plea of guilty was entered to all charges and the court|imposed a fine of $250, which covered all counts of the information.|767. Adulteration and misbranding of thyroid powder. U. S. v. Martha E. Johnston (H. H. Johnston Laboratories) and Arthur V. Jones. Pleas of nolo contendere. Total net fines, $40; each defendant fined $100 of which $80 was suspended.ddnj00767September 1943Martha E. Johnston, trading as H. H. Johnston Laboratories at Hollywood, Calif., and Arthur V. Jones, manufacturing pharmacist and salesman for H. H. Johnston Laboratoriesthyroid powderAugust 18, 1941CaliforniaCaliforniaColoradoSouthern District of California767F. D. C. No. 6502. Sample No. 65865-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00767ddnj|767. Adulteration and misbranding of thyroid powder. U. S. v. Martha E.|Johnston (H. H. Johnston Laboratories) and Arthur V. Jones. Pleas|of nolo contendere. Total net fines, $40; each defendant fined $100 of|which $80 was suspended. (F. D. C. No. 6502. Sample No. 65S65-E.)|On June 11, 1942, the United States attorney for the Southern District of Cali-|fornia filed an information against Martha E. Johnston, trading as H. H. John-|ston Laboratories at Hollywood,, Calif., and Arthur V. Jones, manufacturing|pharmacist and salesman for H. H. Johnston Laboratories, alleging shipment|rado of a quantity of thyroid powder which was adulterated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to be and was|represented as a drug the name of which, i. e., thyroid, is recognized in the|United States Pharmacopoeia, an official compendium, but its strength differed|from and its quality fell below the standard set forth therein since the pharma-|copoeia provides that thyroid contain not less than 0.17 percent of iodine in thy-|roid combination; whereas it contained not more than 0.134 percent of iodine|in thyroid combination, and its difference in strength and quality from such|standard was not plainly stated on the label. It was alleged to be misbranded|in that the statement on the bottle label, \"\"Thyroid Powder U. S. P. XI,\"\" was|false and misleading.|On June 26, 1942, the defendants entered pleas of nolo contendere, and the|court imposed fines of $100 against each defendant but suspended payment of|$80 of each of the fines, thus reducing the total amount of the fines paid to $40.|768. Adulteration of powdered borax. U. S. v. 1 Barrel and 2 Barrels of Pow dered Borax. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00768September 1943American Potash & Chemical Corporationpowdered boraxFebruary 21, 1942Baltimore, Md.Trona, Calif.Baltimore, Md.District of Maryland768F. D. C. Nos. 7495, 7496. Sample Nos. 59785-E, 87584-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00768ddnj|768. Adulteration of powdered borax. U. S. v. 1 Barrel and 2 Barrels of Pow|dered Borax. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C.|Nos. 7495, 7496. Sample Nos. 59785-B, 87584-E.)|Samples taken from this product were found to contain 3.4, 3.8, and 3.9 parts,|respectively, of arsenic trioxide in each 100,000 parts of borax; whereas the|U. S. Pharmacopoeia provides that it should contain not more than 1 part of|arsenic trioxide per 100,000 parts.|On May 20, 1942, the United States attorney for the District of Maryland|filed libels against 3 barrels, each containing 300 pounds of powdered borax at|Baltimore, Md., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate com-|merce on or about February 21, 1942, by the American Potash & Chemical Cor-|poration from Trona, Calif.; and charging that it was adulterated in that it|purported to be a drug the name of which is recognized in the U. S. Pharma-|copoeia but its purity fell below the standard set forth in that compendium and|its difference in purity from such standard was not stated on its label.|On June 24, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|769. Adulteration and misbranding of chorionic gonadotropic hormone. U. S. v. 12 Vials of Chorionic Gonadotropic Hormone. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00769September 1943Pro-Medico Laboratories, Inc.chorionic gonadotropic hormoneMay 27, 1942Philadelphia, Pa.Brooklyn, N. Y.Philadelphia, Pa.Eastern District of Pennsylvania769F. D. C. No. 7845. Sample No. 77049-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00769ddnj|769. Adulteration and misbranding of chorionic gonadotropic hormone. IT. S. v.|12 Vials of Chorionic Gonadotropic Hormone. Default decree of con-|demnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 7845. Sample No. 77049-B.)|On July 1, 1942, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Penn-|sylvania filed a libel against the above-named product at Philadelphia, Pa.,|alleging that it had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about May 27,|1942, by the Pro-Medico Laboratories, Inc., from Brooklyn, N. Y.; and charging|that it was adulterated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from|that which it purported and was represented to possess, namely, (label) \"\"Anterior|pituitary-like sex hormone standardized to a potency of 500 International units|per cc. * * * 5000 International units of Chorionic Gonadotropic Hormone|per 10 cc.\"\" since its potency was less than 835 International Units per 10 cc.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, \"\"10 cc. * * *|Package 5000 International Units * * * Chorionic Gonadotropic Hormone,\"\"|and \"\"Contains Anterior pituitary-like sex hormone standardized to a potency|of 500 International units per cc.\"\" were false and misleading since they repre-|sented and suggested that it had a potency of 500 International Units of chorionic|gonadotropic hormone per cc.; whereas it had a potency of less than 500 Inter-|national Units per cc.|On July 17, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|796. Adulteration and misbranding of Blue Gross First Aid Kits. U. S. v. 83 3/4 Dozen Blue Cross First Aid Kits. Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered released under bond for reconditioning and relabeling.ddnj00796September 1943Hampton Manufacturing Co., Carlstadt, N. J.Blue Gross First Aid KitsFebruary 16, 1942Baltimore, Md.Philadelphia, Pa.Baltimore, Md.District of Maryland796F. D. C. No. 7067. Sample No. 59769-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00796ddnj|796. Adulteration and misbranding of Blue Gross First Aid Kits. V. S. v. 83%|Dozen Blue Cross First Aid Kits. Consent decree of condemnation. Prod-|uct ordered released under bond for reconditioning: and relabeling. (P.|D. C. No. 7067. Sample No. 59769-E.)|The absorbent cotton in these first aid kits was contaminated with viable|micro-organisms; and the outside container of the kits failed to bear statements|of the quantity of the contents and of the quantity or proportion of the mer-|cury derivative (mercurochrome) contained in one of xthe items, i. e., the|bottle of mercurochrome solution.|On March 19, 1942, the United States attorney for the District of Maryland|filed a libel against the above-named product at Baltimore, Md., alleging that|it had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about February 16, 1942, from|Philadelphia, Pa., by Sol Levy; and charging that it was adulterated and mis-|branded. The article was labeled in part: \"\"Blue Cross First Aid Kit, Hampton|Manufacturing Co., Carlstadt, New Jersey.\"\"|It was alleged in the libel that the cotton contained in the kits was adulter-|ated in that it purported to be, and was represented as a drug the name of|which is recognized in the Second Supplement to the Eleventh Revision of the|United States Pharmacopoeia, which specifies among other things, that ab-|sorbent cotton must be sterile, but its quality or purity fell below the standard|set forth in that compendium since it was not sterile but was contaminated with|viable aerobic and anaerobic or facultative anaerobic micro-organisms.|The kits were alleged to be misbranded (1) in that the statement \"\"First Aid|Kit,\"\" borne on the cover of the kits, was false and misleading when applied to|an article which was not sterile but was contaminated with viable micro-|organisms ; (2) in that the outside container did not bear an accurate statement|of the quantity of the contents; and (3) in that the outside container did not|bear a statement of the quantity or proportion of mercurochrome, a mercury|derivative contained in the bottle of mercurochrome solution.|On June 17, 1942, the Hampton Manufacturing Co., Carlstadt, N. J., claimant,|having admitted the allegations of the libel, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered released under bond for reconditioning by|removal and destruction of the nonsterile cotton and proper relabeling of the|kits under the supervision of the Food and Drug Administration.|770. Adulteration and misbranding of Effervescing Solution of Citrate of Magnesia with Magnesia Sulphate. U. S. v. 342 Bottles of Effervescing Solution of Citrate of Magnesia with Magnesia Sulphate. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00770September 1943Roma Extract Co., Inc.Effervescing Solution of Citrate of Mag nesia with Magnesia SulphateSeptember 11, 1941Providence, R. I.Boston, Mass.Providence, R. I.District of Rhode Island770F. D. C. No. 6758. Sample No. 90417-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00770ddnj|770. Adulteration and misbranding' of Effervescing Solution of Citrate of Mag|nesia with Magnesia Sulphate. XJ. S. v. 342 Bottles of Effervescing- Solu-|tion of Citrate of Magnesia with Magnesia Sulphate. Default decree of|condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 6758. Sample No. 90417-B.)|This product was labeled to indicate that it consisted of a standard solution|of citrate of magnesia to which magnesium sulfate (Epsom salt) had been|added; but it actually contained only about one-fourth as much magnesium oxide|and one-seventh as much citric acid as required by the U. S. Pharmacopoeial|standard. Furthermore, it contained Epsom salt in such an amount (approxi-|mately 10 grains per recommended dose of 11 fluid ounces) that its purgative|effect was due primarily to the added Epsom salt.|On February 4, 1942, the United States attorney for the District of Rhode|Island filed a libel against the above-named product at Providence, R. I., alleg-|ing that it had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about September 11,|1941, by Roma Extract Co., Inc., from Boston, Mass.; and charging that it was|adulterated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from|that which it purported and was represented to possess, namely, \"\"Effervescing|Solution of Citrate of Magnesia with Magnesia Sulphate,\"\" since its strength|differed from that of a solution of magnesium citrate to which magnesium|sulfate had been added. It was alleged to be misbranded in that the title,|\"\"Effervescing Solution of Citrate of Magnesia with Magnesia Sulphate,\"\" borne|on the label, was false and misleading.|On April 1, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|771. Adulteration of Nebulin A with Nebulator. U. S. v. 141 Packages of Nebulin A with Nebulator. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00771September 1943Nyal Co.Nebulin A with NebulatorFebruary 6, to April 10, 1942Kansas City, Mo.Detroit, Mich.Kansas City, Mo.Western District of Missouri771F. D. C. No. 7477. Sample No. 73653-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00771ddnj|771. Adulteration of Nebulin A with Nebulator. V. S. v. 141 Packages of Nebulin|A with Nebulator. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|<F. D. C. No. 7477. Sample No. 73653-E.)|On May 11, 1942, the United States attorney for the Western District of Mis-|souri filed a libel against 141 packages of Nebulin A with Nebulator at Kansas|City, Mo., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce|within the period from on or about February 6, to on or about April 10, 1942,|by the Nyal Co. from Detroit, Mich.; and charging that it was adulterated.|The article was labeled in part: (Package) \"\"Combination package consisting of|Nebulin A with Nebulator * * * Frederick Stearns & Company Detroit,|U. S. A.\"\"; (bottle contained in package) \"\"Nebulin A Stearns Solution Epine-|phrine Hydrochloride 1:100 Contains: * * * 1.0? .* * * in an aqueous|vehicle.\"\"|It was alleged to be adulterated in that it was represented as a drug the name|of which is recognized in the United States Pharmacopoeia but its quality fell|below and its strength differed from the standard set forth in that compendium,|since it was a brown liquid and the pharmacopoeia specifies that epinephrine|hydrochloride is \"\"a nearly colorless * * * liquid * * * when the solu-|tion has become brown in color * * * it must be rejected,\"\" and its strength|was five times that specified in the pharmacopoeia and its difference in strength|and quality from such standard was not stated on the label.|On June 16, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|772. Adulteration and misbranding of Ramsdell's Sulphur Cream. U. S. v. 129 Packages of Ramsdell's Sulpbur Cream. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00772September 1943E. Fougera & Co., Inc.Ramsdell's Sulphur CreamApril 22, 1942Newark, N. J.New York, N. Y.Newark, N. J.District of New Jersey772F. D. C. No. 7499. Sample No. 84378-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00772ddnj|772. Adulteration and misbranding- of Ramsdell's Sulphur Cream. IT. S. v. 129|Packages of Ramsdell's Sulpbur Cream. Default decree of condemnation|and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 7499. Sample No. 84378-E.)|This product, in addition to containing a smaller amount of sulfur than that|declared, bore false and misleading therapeutic claims in the labeling.|On May 15, 1942, the United States attorney for the District of New Jersey|filed a libel against 129 packages of Ramsdell's Sulphur Cream at Newark, N. J.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|April 22, 1942, by E. Fougera & Co., Inc., from New York, N. Y.; and charging|that it was adulterated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from|that which it purported or was represented to possess, namely, \"\"Contains 10-|Precipitated Sulphur.\"\"|It was alleged to be misbranded in that certain statements in the labeling,|which represented that it would be efficacious in the treatment of scabies, eczema,|ringworm, itching, simple acne, acne rosacea, burning and soreness in eczema,|\"\"Jock-Strop itch,\"\" barber's itch, and water rash; and that it would be efficacious|in the treatment of bald spots and falling hair, were false and misleading since|it would not be efficacious for such purposes.|On July 7, 1942, no claimant haying appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|773. Adulteration and misbranding of Blue Fin Tuna Liver Oil. U. S. v. 1 Drum of Blue Fin Tuna Liver Oil. Decree of condemnation. Product released urfder bond for relabeling.ddnj00773September 1943S. B. Penick & Co.Blue Fin Tuna Liver OilJuly 14, 1939Detroit, Mich.Jersey City, N. J.Detroit, Mich.Eastern District of Michigan773F. D. C. No. 1858. Sample No. 5486-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00773ddnj|773. Adulteration and misbranding of Blue Fin Tuna Liver Oil. TJ. S. v. 1 Drum|of Blue Fin Tuna Liver Oil. Decree of condemnation. Product released|urfder bond for relabeling. (F. D. C. No. 1858. Sample No. 5,5486-D.)|This product contained a smaller amount of vitamin D than that declared|on the label.|On April 22, 1940, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Michigan filed-a libel against 1 drum of the above-named product at Detroit,|July 14, 1939, by S. B. Penick & Co. from Jersey City, N. J.; and charging that|it was adulterated and misbranded. Two drums of oil having been seized, one|-of which was not in violation of the law, an order was entered oh June 14,|1940, releasing the drum which had been erroneously seized.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that -its strength differed from|-and its purity fell below that which it purported or was represented to possess.|It was alleged to be misfcrandea in that the statement \"\"35,000 U. S. P. Units|of Vitamin D per gram,\"\" stenciled on the drum, was false and misleading, since|it did not contain 35,000 U. S. P. units of vitamin D per gram.|On July 29, 1940, S. B. Penick & Co., claimant, filed a motion for discovery of|the Government's assay and oh July 81 an order was entered directing that,|upon the claimant's riling its answer, the Government produce and permit the|inspection and copying of documents which showed the results of the assay or|.assays.|On February 28, 1941, the claimant having admitted the allegations of the|libel, judgment of condemnation was entered and the product was ordered?'|released under bond conditioned that it be relabeled under the supervision of|the Food and Drug Administration as follows: \"\"Blue Fin Tuna Liver Oil|100,000 U. S. P. Units of Vitamin A Per-Gram, 20,000 U. S. P. Units of Vitamin|D Per Gram.\"\"|774. Adulteration and misbranding of Vi-Penta Drops 'Roche'. U. S. v. 234 Vials of Vi-Penta Drops 'Roche'. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00774September 1943Hoffman-La Roche, Inc.Vi-Penta Drops 'Roche'April 22, 1941New York, N. Y.Nutley, N. J.New York, N. Y.Southern District of New York774F. D. C. No. 4833. Sample No. 69145-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00774ddnj|T74. Adulteration and misbranding of Vi-Penta Drops 'Roclie'. TJ. S. v. 234 Vials|of \"\"Vi-Pentn Drops 'Roche'. Default decree of condemnation and destruc-|tion. (F. D. C. No. 4833. Sample No. 69145-E.)|This product was represented to contain 9,000 U. S. P. units of vitamin A per|0.6 cc. but in fact contained not more than 3,500 U. S. P. units of vitamin A|per 0.6 cc.|On May 27, 1941, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|New York filed a libel (amended September 16, 1941) against the above-named|product at New York, N. Y., alleging that it had been shipped in interstate|?commerce on or about April 22, 1941, by Hoffman-La Roche, Inc., from Nutley,|N. J.; and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from|and its quality fell below that which it was represented to possess, namely,|9,000 U. S. P. units of vitamin A per 0.6 cc, since it contained much less than|?9,000 U. S. P. units of vitamin A per 0.6 cc.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, (circular) \"\"Each|10-minim dose of Vi-Penta Drops contains: Vitamin A 90Q0 U. S. P.|Units * * * Indications for Vi-Penta Drops * * * For the normal|growth and development of infants or children. In cases of malnutrition,|lowered resistance or run-down states. During prolonged illness such as in-|fections, anemias, tuberculosis, typhoid, etc. * * * For gastrointestinal|conditions, such as diarrhea, colitis, etc. When restrictions in diet are neces-|sary, as in obesity, diabetes, catarrhal jaundice, etc. Whenever the total food|intake must be increased, as in hyperthyroid conditions. For the treatment of|certain skin diseases, such as eczema. In certain allergic conditions, such as|those due to milk, eggs, wheat, etc. During periods of temporary or persistent|vomiting (in infancy, childhood, or pregnancy). In the prophylaxis or treat-|ment of abnormal dentition (or gum and tooth conditions),\"\" were false and|misleading since it would not be efficacious for such purposes.|It was also alleged to be adulterated and misbranded under the provisions|?of the law applicable to food, as reposed in notices of judgment on foods.|On March 17, 1942, Hoffman-La Roche, Inc., claimant, having consented to|the entry of the decree, judgment of condemnation was entered and the product|was ordered destroyed.|DRUGS FOR VETERINARY USE|775. Adulteration and misbranding of sodium cacodylate solution, alkaline compound powder, calcium gluconate compound solution, diuretic powder canine worm tablets, liquid nux vomica alkaloids, and tonic powder; and misbranding of Aresnol Compound Powder, glucose solution, potassium arsenite compound tablets, santonin-calomel tablets, Gualadine Tablets, Conjunctivities #1 Tablets, and tetrachlorethylene capsules. U. S. v. Peerles Serum Co. Plea of guilty. Fine, $105 and costs.ddnj00775September 1943Peerless Serum Co., a corporation having a place of business at Kansas City, Kans.sodium cacodylate solution, alkaline compound powder, calcium gluconate compound solution, diuretic powder canine worm tablets, liquid nux vomica alkaloids, and tonic powder; and misbranding of Aresnol Compound Powder, glucose solution, potassium arsenite compound tablets, santonin-calomel tablets, Gualadine Tablets, Conjunctivities #1 Tablets, and tetrachlorethylene capsulesAugust 16 to October 25, 1940KansasKansasOklahomaDistrict of Kansas775F. D. C. No. 555. Sample Nos. 43057-F to 43059-F. incl. 43061-K 43063-K to 43065-E incl. , 43067-E, 43069-E, 43074-E to 43076-E, incl. , 43078-E, 43079-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00775ddnj|775. Adulteration and misbranding- of sodium caeod-ylate solution, alkaline com-|pound powder, oalcium jerluconate compound solution, diuretic wowder.|canine worm tablets, liauid nux vomica alkaloids, and tonic powder; and|misbranding: of Aresnol Compound Powder, glucose solution, potassium|arsenite compound tnblets. sahtrmin-ea^jiriel tablets, Guaiadine Tablets,|Conjunctivities #1 Tablets, and tetracWorethvlene capsules. U. S. v.|P?*erle?s Serum Co. Ple? of gui^+v. Fine, $!OK a**d costs. (F. P. O. No.|555. Sample Nos. 43057-F to 4305P-F. incl.. 43061-K 430R3-K to 43065-E|incl., 43067-E, 43069-E, 43074-E to 43076-E, incl., 43078-E, 43079-E.) -|The labeling of these veterinary preparations, with the exception of the|potassium arsenite compound tablets, and the liquid nux vomica alkaloids, bore|false and misleading curative claims. Some of the products fell below their|own declared standards and others failed to comply with certain labeling re-|quirements of the law.|On March 28, 1942, the United States attorney for the District of Kansas filed|an information against the Peerless Serum Co., a corporation having a place of|business at Kansas City, Kans., alleging shipment within the period from on or|about August 16 to on or about October 25, 1940, from the State of Kansas into|the State of Oklahoma of quantities of the above-named veterinary preparations|which were misbranded and some of which were also adulterated.|Analysis of the sodium cacodylate solution showed that it contained not more|than 2.53 grains of sodium cacodylate per cc. It was alleged to be adulterated;|in that its strength differed from and its quality fell below that which it pur-|ported and was represented to possess, since it was represented to contain 4.5|grains of sodium cacodylate per cc.; whereas It contained not more than 2.53.|grains of sodium cacodylate per cc. It was alleged to be misbranded (1) in|that the statement on the bottle label, \"\"Sodium Cacodylate Solution 4.5 Gr. per|cc.\"\" was false and misleading; (2) in that the statements on the bottle label,.|\"\"Useful in the treatment of A'naplasmosis, Swamp Fever, Anemia, Influenza,'|Shipping Fever, Chronic Skin Diseases and to build up Convalescent Patients,\"\"'|were false and misleading since it would not be efficacious for such purposes;|and (3) in that it contained sodium cacodylate, a derivative of arsenic, and its|label did not bear a statement showing the substance from which such ingredient|was derived.|Analysis of the alkaline compound powder showed that it consisted essentially|of sodium hydroxide with small proportions of copper sulfate, sodium thiosulfate,.|sodium bicarbonate, and phenol, and a minute amount of phenolphthalein flavored|with oil of anise. It was alleged to be adulterated in that it contained, for|purposes of coloring only, a coal-tar color, namely, phenolphthalein, other than|one from a batch that had been certified in accordance with regulations as pro-|vided by law. It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, \"\"for the|treatment of necrotic enteritis * * * Action: Systemic Alkalinizer. Use:.|To rebuild Alkaline Reserve of bodily tissues and fluids; as an aid in the treat-|ment of Necrotic Enteritis (Swine) and Intestinal Infections of Poultry,\"\" borne|on the label, were false and misleading since it would not be efficacious for such|purposes.|Analysis of a sample of the Aresnol Compound Powder showed that it consisted|essentially of arsenic trioxide (1.02 percent), powdered willow bark, linseed meal,,|and sulfur. It was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that the statements, (box|label) \"\"For the internal treatment of chronic supperative processes, such as|Fistulour Withers, Poll Evil, Grease Heel, Catarrhal, Respiratory, Uterine In-|fections, etc., of the Horse,\"\" were false and misleading since it would not he-|efficacious for such purposes; and (2) in that it was fabricated from two or more|ingredients and its label did not bear the common or usual name of each active|ingredient, including the quantity or proportion of arsenic that it contained.|Analysis of the calcium gluconate compound solution showed that it contained|approximately 15.05 percent of calcium gluconate and approximately 4 percent|of boric acid. It was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from|and its quality fell below that which it purported and was represented to possess|in that it was represented to contain 23 percent of calcium gluconate; whereas|it contained not more than 15.05 percent of calcium gluconate. It was alleged to-|be misbranded (1) in that the statement (bottle label and carton) \"\"Calcium.|Gluconate Comp. Solution * * * 23? Solution,\"\" was false and misleading;|(2) in that the statement (bottle label) \"\"Indications: * * * azoturia,\"\" was|false and misleading since it would not be efficacious in the treatment of azoturia;|and (3) in that its labeling was misleading since it failed to reveal the fact,,|material in the light of the representations therein, that it contained boric acid.|Analysis of the Diuretic Powder showed that it contained approximately 2.61|percent of methenamine, also sodium bicarbonate, potassium nitrate, and plant|material including uva ursi, a resinous material, and an atropine-bearing drug;|such as belladonna. It was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed|from and its quality fell below that which it purported and was represented to|possess, since it was represented to contain 3 percent of methenamine; whereas|it contained not more than 2.61 percent of methenamine. It was alleged to be|misbranded (1) in that the statement, (carton label) \"\"Contains Methenamine,|3?\"\" was false and misleading; (2) in that the statement (carton) \"\"Urinary-|disorders in horses, such as strangury, urinary retention associated with oedema|leading since it would not be efficacious for such purposes; and (3) in that it|was fabricated from two or more ingredients and contained the alkaloids of|atropine, hyoscine, and hyoscyamine, constituents of belladonna, but the label|?did not state the quantity or proportion of atropine, hyoscine, and hyoscyamine|present, nor did it state the quantity or proportion of total alkaloids contained as|constituents of belladonna.|Analysis of the Glucose Solution showed that it contained approximately 50|percent of anhydrous glucose. It was alleged to be misbranded in that the state-|ments, \"\"For the treatment of eclampsia, auto-intoxication. Also of value in Milk|Fever * * * Adicosis * * * running fits and chronic diseases of a nerv-|ous nature,\"\" borne on the bottle label and carton, were false and misleading since|it would not be efficacious for such purposes.|Analysis of the Potassium Arsenite Compound tablets showed that each tablet|contained approximately 1.01 gram of arsenic as AS2O3 per tablet, and that each|tablet would make a solution containing not more than 0.854 gram of arsenic|trioxide in 100 cc. It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement, \"\"Each|tablet contains sufficient potassium arsenite to make four ounces of a solution|whose arsenic content is the same as that of Fowler's Solution,\"\" borne on the|bottle label, was false and misleading, since each tablet contained sufficient potas-|sium arsenite to make a solution containing in each 100 cc. not more than 0.854|gram of arsenic trioxide; whereas Fowler's solution is a drug the name of which|is recognized in the United States Pharmacopoeia, which provides that Fowler's|solution, namely, solution of potassium arsenite, shall contain in each 100 cc. the|equivalent of not less than 0.950 gram of As2Os, namely, arsenic trioxide.|Examination of the Canine Worm Tablets showed that the product consisted of|capsules, each capsule containing a red-coated tablet and gray powder. Analysis|showed that the tablets contained approximately 0.073 (1/14) grain of arecoline|each and that the powder consisted essentially of sodium bicarbonate, a small|proportion of santonin, and plant material including areca nut. The article was|alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from and its quality fell|below that which it purported and was represented to possess since each tablet|was represented to contain ?o grain of arecoline, whereas each tablet contained|not more than 0.073 (?4> grain of arecoline. It was alleged to be misbranded it!|that the statement (on the bottle label) \"\"Tablets * * * Contains: Arecoline|* * * -W.0 gr-?\"\" was false and misleading. It was alleged to be misbranded|further in that the statements (bottle label) \"\"For Round * * * Worms in|dogs and cats\"\" and \"\"Worm,\"\" were false and misleading since it would not be|efficacious for such purposes.|Analysis of the Santonin-Calomel tablets showed that they contained santonin|and calomel in approximately* the quantities declared on the label, namely,|\"\"Calomel ? Gr. Santonin ? Gr.\"\" The article was alleged to be misbranded (1)|in that the statement on the bottle label \"\"Round worms in dogs and cats,\"\" was|false and misleading since it would not be efficacious for such purposes; (2) in|that it was fabricated from two or more\"\" ingredients and contained calomel, a|derivative of mercury, but the label did not bear a statement showing that said|ingredient was derived from mercury; and (3) in that the statement on the bottle|label \"\"Each cc. contains a quarter \"\"grain each of strychnine Sulphate and Brucine|Sulphate,\"\" was false and misleading.|The Tetrachlorethylene Capsules were alleged to be misbranded in that the|statement on the bottle label, \"\"For the removal of * * * round worms from|all animals,\"\" was false and misleading since they would not be efficacious for|such purposes.|Analysis of the Tonic Powder showed that it contained not more than 22 percent|of phosphate and that it contained arsenic trioxide, sodium sulfate, iron sulfate,|a calcium compound, and plant material including nux vomica, gentian, and|quassia. It was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from and|its quality fell below that which it purported and was represented to possess,|since it was represented to contain 28 percent of phosphate, whereas it contained|not more than 22 percent of phosphate. It was alleged to be misbranded (1) in|that the statements on the cartons, \"\"1 Pound\"\" and \"\"Contains * * ' * Phos-|phate, 28?,\"\" were false and misleading since each of the cartons contained less|than 1 pound of the powder and less than 28 percent of phosphate; (2) in that|the statements on the cartons, \"\"restorative. * * * improves digestion and|assimilation of food,\"\" were false and misleading since it would not be efficacious|for such purposes; (3) in that it was fabricated from two or more ingredients|and contained strychnine; and (4) in that its container (bottle) was so filled as|to be misleading since the contents occupied not more than 30 percent of its total|volume.|Analysis of the Guaiadine Tablets showed that they contained small proportions|of potassium dichromate-, iodine, guiacol, and creosote. The article was alleged|to be misbranded in that the statements on the bottle label, \"\"Indications: In the|treatment of the so-called Fowl Cholera, Typhoid, Roup, Coccidosis and various|troubles originating in the intestinal tract of fowls,\"\" were false and misleading|since it would not be efficacious for such purposes.|Analysis, of the Conjunctivitis #1 Tablets showed that they contained boric|acid, zinc sulfate, salicylic acid, and methylene blue. They were alleged to be|misbranded in that the statement \"\"Conjunctivitis,\"\" borne on the bottle label, was|false and misleading since they would not be efficacious in the treatment of|conjunctivitis.|Analysis of the Liquid Nux Vomica Alkaloids showed that the article contained|not mare than 0.1508 (slightly less than ?) grain of strychnine sulfate and 0.0441|(1/23) grain, of brucine sulfate, per cc. It was alleged to be adulterated in that|its strength differed from and its quality fell below that which it purported and|was represented to possess, since it was represented to contain ? grain of strych-|nine sulfate and ? grain of brucine sulfate per cc.; whereas it contained not|more than.0.1503 (slightly less than ?) grain of strychnine sulfate and not more|than 0.0441 (1/230 grain of brucine sulfate per cc. It was alleged to be con-|stituent of the drug nux vomica, but its label failed to declare the quantity of|strychnine that it contained.|On April 13, 1942, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant and|the court imposed a fine of $105 and costs.|776. Adulteration and misbranding of cod-liver oil. U. S. v. 5 Barrels and 1 Drum of Cod-Liver Oil. Default decrees, of condemnation. Portion of product ordered disposed of for stock and poultry feed; remainder ordered destroyed.ddnj00776September 1943Swiftide Co.cod-liver oilFebruary 17 and April 4, 1942Mt. Orab, Ohio; St. Louis, Mo.Portland, MaineMt. Orab, Ohio; St. Louis, Mo.Southern District of Ohio and Eastern District of Missouri776F. D. C. Nos. 7567, 7586. Sample Nos. 71520-E, 80695-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00776ddnj|776. Adulteration and misbranding of cod-liver oil. IT. S. v. 5 Barrels and 1|Drum of Cod-Liver Oil. Default decrees, of condemnation. Portion of|product- ordered- disposed of for stock and poultry feed; remainder or-|dered destroyed. (F. D. C. Nos. 7567, 7586. Sample Nos. 71520-E, 80695-B.|This product differed from the pharmacopoeia! standard since it was not|partially destearinated, and it was off in color and odor and high in free fatty|acids. The oil in the drum contained smaller amounts of vitamin D and vitamin A|than those declared on the label.|On May 26 and 29, 1942, the United States attorneys for the Southern Dis-|trict of Ohio and Eastern District of Missouri filed libels against 5 30-gallon|barrels of cod-liver oil at Mt. Orab, Ohio, and 1 30-gallon drum of cod-liver oil|at St. Louis, Mo., which had been consigned on or about February 17 and|April 4, 1942, alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce|by the Swiftide Co., from Portland, Maine; and charging that it was adulterated|and misbranded. The article was labeled in part: \"\"Swiftide Brand Cod Liver|Oil.\"\"|It was alleged to be adultered in that it was represented as a drug the name|of which is recognized in an official compendium but its quality fell below the|standard set forth in that compendium and the manner in which it differed|from such standard was not stated on the label.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the name \"\"Cod Liver Oil\"\" was false|and misleading since it was not cod-liver oil. A portion was alleged to be|misbranded further in that the statements (drum) \"\"Guaranteed to Contain|Not Less Than 200 A. O. A. C. Units Vitamin D\"\" and \"\"Not less than 1,000 Units|Vitamin A Per Gramme,\"\" were false and misleading since it contained not more|than 100 A. O. A. C. units of vitamin D and not more than 700 U. S. P. units|of vitamin A per gram. The oil in the drum was also alleged to be misbranded|under the provisions of the law applicable to foods, as reported in Notices of|Judgment on Foods.|On June 30, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|DRUGS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF FALSE AND MISLEADING CLAIMS5|DRUGS FOR HUMAN USE|777. Alleged misbranding of Armi Mineral Water. U. S. v. Ralph R. Markwood Armi Mineral Water Co.). Demurrer to the information sustained. Case ordered dismissed.ddnj00777September 1943Ralph R. Markwood, trading as the Armi Mineral Water Co. at Toledo, OhioArmi Mineral WaterJuly 2 and August 15, 1940OhioOhioIndianaNorthern District of Ohio777F. D. C. No. 4114. Sample Nos. 5790-E, 27566-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00777ddnj|777. Alleged misbranding of Armi Mineral Water. U. S. v. Ralph R. Markwood|(Arm! Mineral Water Co.). Demurrer to the information sustained.|Case ordered dismissed. (F. D. C. No. 4114. Sample Nos. 5790-E, 27566-E.)|On June 24, 1941, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Ohio filed an information against Ralph R. Markwood, trading as the Armi|5 See also Nos. 754, 757, 759, 765, 766, 772, 774.|August 15, 1940, from the State of Ohio into the State of Indiana of quantities|of Armi Mineral Water which was misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it contained only traces of, if|any, potassium diphosphate, manganese chloride, magnesium phosphate, po-|tassium chloride, calcium phosphate, sodium phosphate, potassium iodide, ferric|phosphate, or lithium bromide, and not more than 0.15 grain of silicon dioxide|per quart (an insignificant quantity present in many city water supplies), and|substantial amounts of sodium sulfate and lime.|It was alleged in the information that the article was misbranded: (1) In that|the statements on the jug label, \"\"Minerals Added Potassium Diphosphate Man-|ganese Chloride Calcium Hydroxide Magnesium Phosphate Potassium Chlo-|ride Calcium Phosphate Sodium Phosphate Potassium Iodide Silicon Dioxide|Sodium Sulphate Ferric Phosphate Lithium Bromide\"\" were false and mis-|leading aince they represented that it contained important and substantial|proportions of each one of the said substances; whereas it contained but in-|consequential and unimportant proportions of, if any, potassium diphosphate,|manganese chloride, magnesium phosphate, potassium chloride, calcium phos-|phate, sodium phosphate, potassium iodide, ferric phosphate, and lithium bro-|mide. (2) In that its label did not bear the common or usual name of each|active ingredient since one of its active ingredients was slaked lime, which|was described on the label as calcium hydroxide, which is not its common or|usual name. (3) In that the statement of the ingredients was not borne on|the label in such terms as to render it likely to be understood by the ordinary|individual under customary conditions of purchase and use since the ordinary|individual would not understand that the various ingredients listed in the|labeling, with the exception of lime and sodium sulfate, were present, if at all,|in unimportant and inconsequential proportions. (4) In that the labeling was|misleading since the zigzag design depicting lightning and the statement|\"\"Treated By Electrolysis,\"\" failed to reveal the fact which is material in|the light of the representations made and suggested by the design and state-|ment, that any treatment by electrolysis to which the article may have been|subjected had not affected its properties. (5) In that the statement on the|label, \"\"Scientifically Balanced,\"\" was false and misleading when applied to|water to which had been added small amounts of lime and sodium sulfate and|inconsequential amounts of other substances.|On April 2, 1942, the defendant filed a general demurrer to the information;|and on June 5, 1942, the court sustained the demurrer and ordered the case|dismissed.|778. Misbranding of double strength solution of posterior pituitary. U. S. v. 2 Bottles of Double Strength Solution of Posterior Pituitary. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00778September 1943Armour & Co.double strength solution of posterior pituitarySeptember 12, 1941New York, N. Y.Chicago, Ill.New York, N. Y.Southern District of New York778F. D. C. No. 7568. Sample No. 89434-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00778ddnj|778. Misbranding' of double strength solution of posterior pituitary. U. S. v.|2 Bottles of Double Strength Solution of Posterior Pituitary. Default|decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 7568. Sample No.|89434-B.)|This product was represented to possess a potency double that of posterior|pituitary as defined in the U. S. Pharmacopoeia and therefore should produce|per cubic centimeter an activity corresponding to not less than 160 percent of|that produced by 0.005 gram of the standard powdered posterior pituitary;|whereas samples taken from the two lots, produced per cc. an activity correspond-|ing in one instance to not more than 120 percent and in the other to not more|than 100 percent of the activity produced by 0.005 gram of the standard|powdered posterior pituitary. It also was represented to contain 20 Interna-|tional Units of posterior pituitary per cc, but samples were found to contain|not more than 12 and 10 International Units, respectively, of posterior pituitary|per cc.|On June 1, 1942, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|New York filed a libel against 2 bottles containing a total of approximately 1-|liters of the above-named product at New York, N. Y., alleging that it had been|shipped in interstate commerce on or about September 12, 1941, by Armour &|Co. from Chicago, 111.; and charging that it was misbranded in that the state-|ments on the label, \"\"Double Strength Solution of Post. Pituitary U. S. P. XI\"\"|and \"\"20 I. U. per cc,\"\" were false and misleading since its strength was not|double that of solution of posterior pituitary as defined in the U. S. Pharmaco-|poeia, and it did not contain 20 International Units per cc|On June 26, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|779. Misbranding of Arnold Garlic Tablets. U. S. v. 56 Packages and 60 Packages of Arnold Garlic Tablets. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00779September 1943Melrose Drug Co.Arnold Garlic TabletsJanuary 21, 1942Bluefield, W. Va.Cleveland, OhioBluefield, W. Va.Southern District of West Virginia779F. D. C. No. 7352. Sample No. 87955-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00779ddnj|779. Misbranding of Arnold Garlic Tablets. U. S. v. 56 Packages and 60 Pack|ages of Arnold Garlic Tablets. Default decree of condemnation and de-|struction. (F. D. C. No. 7352. Sample No. 87955-E.)|On April 16, 1942, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|West Virginia filed a libel against the above-named product at Bluefield, W. Va.,|alleging that it had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about January|21, 1942, by.Melrose Drug Co. from Cleveland, Ohio; and charging that it was|misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of starch- and garlic.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement on the carton,|\"\"May be of Value in Reduction of Hyper-Tension,\"\" was false and misleading|since it contained no ingredients which would be of value in the reduction of|hypertension.|On June 16, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|787. Misbranding of Vita-Port Vitamin B1 Tonic. U. S. v. 141 Bottles of Vita Port Vitamin B1 Tonic. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00787September 1943\NVita-Port Vitamin B1 Tonic\NWashington, D. C.\NWashington, D. C.District of Columbia787F. D. C. No. 7539. Sample No. 87177-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00787ddnj|787. Misbranding- of Vita-Port Vitamin Bi Tonic. V. S. v. 141 Bottles of Vita-|Port Vitamin BL Tonic. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. T539. Sample No. 87177-E.)|On May 20, 1942, the United States attorney for the District of Columbia|filed a libel against 141 bottles of Vita-Port Vitamin Bi Tonic at Washington, D. C,|alleging that the article was being offered for sale in the District of Columbia|at the Super Cut Rate Drugs, Washington, D. C ; and charging that it was mis-|branded. The article was labeled in part: \"\"Each fluid ounce contains thiamine|hydrochloride (Vitamin Bi) ... 4 mg. (Equivalent to 1330 International Units)|Alcohol 20 Per cent.\"\"|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements in the labeling,|\"\"Here's Health! * * * Recommended for Underweight-Loss of Appetite|Nervousness,\"\" were false and misleading since it would not be an effective treat-|ment for such conditions.|It was also alleged to be misbranded-under the provisions of the law applicable|to foods, as reported in F. N. J. No. 3841.|On June 26, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|780. Misbranding of Davis Formula No. 7805. U. S. v. 16 Packages and 10 Packages of Davis Formula No. 7895. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00780September 1943E. R. Davis Prescription Co.Davis Formula No. 7805December 17, 1941, and June 23, 1942San Francisco, Calif.Bellingham, Wash.San Francisco, Calif.Northern District of California780F. D. C. Nos. 7341, 7962. Sample Nos. 23097-E, 95346-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00780ddnj|780. Misbranding of Davis Formula No. 7805. V. S. v. 16 Packages and 10|Packages of Davis Formula No. 7895. Default decrees of condemnation|and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 7341, 7962. Sample Nos. 23097-E, 95346-E.)|On April 21 and July 25, 1942, the United States attorney for the Northera|District of California filed libels against 26 packages of Davis Formula No. 7895|at San Francisco, Calif., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate|commerce on or about December 17, 1941, and June 23, 1942, by E. R. Davi-|Prescription Co. from Bellingham, Wash/: and charging that it was misbranded.|Examination showed that each package of the article contained a small bottle|of a solution of vitamin A and a larger bottle of the formula. Analysis of the|formula showed that it consisted essentially of water, alcohol, potassium iodide,|chloroform, sugar, and an extracv. of a plant drug such as lobelia.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that representations in the labeling|that it constituted an adequate treatment for asthma, hay fever, eczema, or|rheumatic, neuritic or arthritic pains, were false and misleading since it would|not be efficacious for such purposes.|On June 18 and December 24, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgments|of condemnation were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|781. Misbranding of Eff-Remin Dentifrice. U. S. v. 34 Packages and 11 Pack ages of Eff-Remin Dentifrice. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00781September 1943Goodrich & LoveEff-Remin DentifriceApril 22, 1942Boston, Mass.New York, N. Y.Boston, Mass.District of Massachusetts781F. D. C. No. 7455. Sample No. 98285-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00781ddnj|781. Misbranding of Eff-Remin Dentifrice. V. S. v. 34 Packages and 11 Pack|ages of Eff-Remin Dentifrice. Default decree of condemnation and de-|struction. (F. D. C. No. 7455. Sample No. 98285-E.)|On May 4, 1942, the United States attorney for the District of Massachusetts|filed a libel against 34 packages, each containing 150 grams and 11 packages,|each containing 300 grams of Eff-Remin Dentifrice at Boston, Mass., alleging|that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about April 22,|1942, by Goodrich & Love from New York, N. Y.; and charging that it was|misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of|tartaric acid and salt and compounds of calcium, magnesium, and sodium includ-|ing carbonates and sulfates, flavored with volatile oils and sweetened with|saccharin.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements in the labeling|(tin container) \"\"Rub powder directly' on gum margins or place some powder|on thin layer of moist cotton wool and apply to affected areas,\"\" and (circular)|\"\" 'Eff-Remin' Dentifrice is an effervescent remineralizing powder. It is of value|in reducing sensitivity, for controlling decalcification due to erosion or dental|caries, for 'soft' teeth * * * apply to affected areas,\"\" were false and mis-|leading since they represented and suggested that when applied to affected|areas, it would be of value in reducing sensitivity, in controlling decalcification|due to erosion or dental caries, and for \"\"soft\"\" teeth; whereas when applied to|affected areas it was of no value for such purposes.|It was also alleged to be misbranded in violation of the provisions of the law|applicable to cosmetics, as reported in Notices of Judgment on Cosmetics.|On June 15,1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|782. Misbranding of Pitcher's Castoria. U. S. v. 132 Bottles of Pitcher's Castoria. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00782September 1943Roma Extract Co., Inc.Pitcher's CastoriaNovember 10, 1941Providence, R. I.Boston, Mass.Providence, R. I.District of Rhode Island782F. D. C. No. 6525. Sample No. 75662-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00782ddnj|782. Misbranding of Pitcher's Castoria. U. S. v. 132 Bottles of Pitcher's Cas|toria. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. G. No.|6525. Sample No. 75662-E.)|On December 18, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Rhode|Island filed a libel against 132 bottles of Pitcher's Castoria at Providence,|about November 10, 1941, by Roma Extract Co., Inc., from Boston, Mass.; and|charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of|extracts of plant drugs including senna, Rochelle salt (approximately 0.28 per-|cent), sodium bicarbonate (2.5 percent), santonin (0.027 percent), flavoring|materials (including methyl salicylate), sugar, and water. Examination|showed that the carton containing the bottle was approximately 1^ inches|taller than the bottle.|The article was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that the statements on|the retail carton and on the carton containing 1 dozen retail packages, \"\"A|Reliable Remedy for * * * Diarrhea due to Constipation, Worms, and|Promotes Sleep by Overcoming these Disorders,\"\" were false and misleading|since they created the impression that it was a reliable remedy for diarrhea|due to constipation and worms, and would promote sleep by overcoming diarrhea|due to constipation and worms; whereas it would not be efficacious for such|purposes. (2) In that the names of its active ingredients did not appear on the|label in such terms as to render them likely to be understood by the ordinary|individual under customary conditions of purchase and use since the statement|on the cartons. \"\"Formula Alex. Senna, Pumpkin Seed, Anise Seed, Peppermint,|Sod, Bicarbonate, Rochelle Salt, Worm Seed, Clarified Sugar, Wintergreen|Flavor,\"\" did not reveal which of the substances mentioned were active ingre-|dients. (3) In that its label failed to bear the common or usual name of each|active ingredient since the label attached to the bottle did not contain the names|of the active ingredients. (4) In that its container was so made and filled as|to be misleading since the carton was materially larger than necessary to hold|the bottle.|On April 22, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|783. Misbranding of Re-Duce-Oids Capsules. U. S. v. 53 Bottles of Re-Duce-Oids Capsules. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00783September 1943American Medicinal Products Co.Re-Duce-Oids CapsulesApril 7 to June 9, 1941Spokane, Wash.Los Angeles, Calif.Spokane, Wash.Eastern District of Washington783F. D. C. No. 5198. Sample No. 61308-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00783ddnj|783. Misbranding: of Re-Duce-Oids Capsules. U. S. v. 53 Bottles of Re-Duce-|Oids Capsules. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C.|No. 5198. Sample No. 61308-E.)|On August 2, 1941, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Washington filed a libel against 53 bottles of Re-Duce-Oids Capsules at Spokane,|Wash., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce within|the period from on or about April 7 to on or about June 9, 1941, by American|Medicinal Products, Inc., from Los Angeles, Calif.; and charging that it was|misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article was essentially a mixture of thyroid, potas-|sium iodide, phenolphthalein, and milk sugar. Each capsule contained 0.92 grain|of potassium iodide and 0.5 grain of thyroid.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements in the labeling|which represented and suggested that it was an adequate and appropriate treat-|ment for obesity were false and misleading, since it would not be efficacious for|that purpose when used in accordance with the directions.|On September 11, 1941, the American Medicinal Products Co., claimant, having|petitioned for a change of venue, an order was entered by the court trans-|ferring the action to the Northern District of California; and on September|18, 1941, the marshal was ordered to transmit the seized goods to that district.|On July 13, 1942, the claimant having withdrawn its claim and answer, judg-|ment of condemnation was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|784. Misbranding of Special Formula 833. U. S. v. 130 Bottles of Special Formula 833. Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered released under bond for relabeling.ddnj00784September 1943Brewer & Co., Inc.Special Formula 833June 13, 1941East Hampton, Conn.Worcester, Mass.East Hampton, Conn.District of Connecticut784F. D. C. No. 5956. Sample No. 51636-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00784ddnj|784. Misbranding of Special Formula 833. U. S. v. 130 Bottles of Special For|mula 833. Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered released|under bond for relabeling. (F. D. C. No. 5956. Sample No. 51636-E.)|On October 4, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Connecticut|filed a libel against 130 bottles of Special Formula 833 at East Hampton, Conn.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|June 13, 1941, by Brewer & Co., Inc., from Worcester, Mass.; and charging that|it was misbranded.|Biological examination of a sample of the article showed that it contained|approximately 1 milligram (333 International Units) of vitamin Bi (thiamine|chloride) per tablet.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements in the labeling|were false and misleading since\"\" it would not constitute an adequate or effective|treatment for the conditions mentioned nor would it be of especial value for|elderly men and women: \"\"Vitamin Bi. Deficiency of this valuable vitamin may|cause constipation, loss of vigor, various nervous and other important symptoms.|This preparation is of especial value to elderly men and women.\"\"|It was also alleged to be misbranded under the provisions of the law applicable|to foods, as reported in Notices of Judgment on Foods.|On June 12, 1942, Brewer & Co., Inc., claimant, having admitted the allega*|tions of the libel, judgment of condemnation was entered and the product was|ordered released under bond conditioned that it be relabeled under the supervision|of the Federal Security Agency.|785. Misbranding of S-T-D \"\"The\"\" Hair Tonic. U. S. v. 4 Bottles, 21 Bottles, and 1 Bottle of S-T-D \"\"The\"\" Hair Tonic. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00785September 1943George A. DustinS-T-D \"\"The\"\" Hair TonicDecember 17, 1941Springfield, Mass.Chicago, Ill.Springfield, Mass.District of Massachusetts785F. D. C. No. 7339. Sample No. 90314-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00785ddnj|785. Misbranding: of S-T-D \"\"The\"\" Hair Tonic. V. S. v. 4 Bottles,|21 Bottles, and|1 Bottle of S-T-D \"\"The\"\" Hair Tonic. Default decree of condemnation and|destruction. (F. D. C. No. 7339. Sample No. 90314-E.)|On April 14, 1942, the United States attorney for the District of Massachusetts|filed a libel against the above-named product at Springfield, Mass., alleging that|it had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about December 17, 1941, by|George A. Dustin from Chicago, 111.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of small proportions of|potassium arsenite, sodium borate, and water. The potassium arsenite con-|tained arsenic equal to 0.2 gram per 100 cc.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements on|the bottle labels were false and misleading: (Front) \"\"Stops the Dandruff 'The'|Hair Tonic for Dandruff Falling Hair Itching Scalp and all Scalp Ailments\"\";|(back) \"\"Wet Scalp with Ess-Tee-Dee Hair Tonic and massage every day until|scalp is free from dandruff. * * * For best results, shampoo the hair once|each week, then apply Ess-Tee-Dee Hair Tonic after hair has dried and continue|applications every third or fourth day until scalp is free from dandruff and then|use Tonic only as often as it is necessary to keep the scalp in a clean and healthy|condition. * * * 'The' Hair Tonic.\"\"|It was also alleged to be misbranded under the provisions of the law applicable|to cosmetics, as reported in C. N. J. No. 90.|On June 15,1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|786. Misbranding of Vita Might Capsules. U. S. v. 9 Packages of Vita Might Capsules and 2 Cartons of Circulars. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00786September 1943Vital Foods CorporationVita Might CapsulesFebruary 28, 1942Cleveland, OhioChicago, Ill.Cleveland, OhioNorthern District of Ohio786F. D. C. No. 7509. Sample Nos. 80174-E, 80175-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00786ddnj|786. Misbranding: of Vita Might Capsules. U. S. v. 9 Packages of Vita Might|Capsules and 2 Cartons of Circulars. Default decree of condemnation and|destruction. (F. D. C. No. 7509. Sample Nos. 80174-E, 80175-E.)|This product consisted of red capsules containing vitamins and black capsules|containing minerals. The black capsules contained smaller amounts of minerals|than those declared, and the labeling of both kinds of capsules bore false and|misleading therapeutic claims.|On May 14, 1942, the United States attorney for the Northern District of Ohio|filed a libel against 9 packages of Vita Might Capsules, and 2 cartons each con-|taining approximately 1,500 circulars, at Cleveland, Ohio, alleging that they|had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about February 28, 1942, by the|Vital Foods Corporation from Chicago, 111.; and charging that the article was|misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the black capsules showed that they contained dicalcium|phosphate, peptonized iron, magnesium sulfate, manganese hypophosphite, copper|peptonate, zinc sulfate, and potassium iodide. Vitamin assays of the red capsules|showed that they contained 10,000 U. S. P. units of vitamin A, 1,000 U. S. P. unit*|of vitamin Bi, and 1,000 U. S. P. units of vitamin D per capsule.|The article was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that the black capsules failed|to contain the represented amounts of iron, copper, zinc, magnesium, and man-|ganese declared on the label, namely, \"\"Iron ? Gr. Copper ? Gr. Zinc ?5 Gr.|Magnesium ? Gr. Iodine ?ooo Gr. Manganese ? Gr.\"\" (2> In that certain state-|ments in the labeling were false and misleading since they represented and sug-|gested that its use would result in longer life, good health, increased vigor,|ambition and energy, improved sleep, lessening of fatigue, aches, pains and nervous|strain; increased resistance to disease, colds and coughs; in beautiful teeth, skin,|and hair; better digestion of food; healthy hair and skin; in growth, appetite,|and muscular activity; freedom from skin disorders; good blood, fertility, and|good teeth; that two out of three individuals are in need of vitamin supplements;|and that the vitamin and mineral requirements of man cannot be obtained by|consumption of ordinary foods; whereas its use would not accomplish such|results, two out of three individuals are not in need of a vitamin supplement,|and the vitamin and mineral needs of man can be obtained by consumption of|vitamins and minerals to promote healthy hair and skin; prevent night blind-|ness; build resistance to colds, coughs, sinus; promote growth, healthy nerves,|appetite, digestiqn, and muscular activity; minimize effects of alcohol; prevent|certain skin disorders; heal lesions of lips at angles of mouth and of eyes and|nose; promote growth and healing of wounds; prevent anemia, hemorrhage,|pyorrhea, tuberculosis, and scurvy; form bones and teeth; prevent rickets; cure|certain muscular and nerve diseases; restore color to gray hair; produce red|corpuscles; produce hemoglobin; promote normal growth of body cells; influence|muscle activity, digestion, and nerves; promote reproduction and growth; prevent|goiter; aid heart, blood clotting, and brain cells; promote healthy bones and|blood; and promote fertility, were misleading since alone or in connection with|each other, they created the impression in the mind of the reader that it was an|effective treatment for the symptoms and diseases mentioned and described;|whereas it was not an effective treatment for such conditions.|The article was also alleged to be misbranded under the provisions of the law|applicable to foods, as reported in Notices of Judgment on Foods.|On June 22,1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|788. Misbranding of wheat embryo. U. S. v. 34 Cans of Wheat Embryo. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00788September 1943Freshman Vitamin Co.wheat embryoFebruary 27, 1941Minneapolis, Minn.Detroit, Mich.Minneapolis, Minn.District of Minnesota788F. D. C. No. 6807. Sample No. 76077-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00788ddnj|788. Misbranding of wheat embryo. U. S. v. 34 Cans of Wheat Embryo. Default|decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 6807. Sample No.|76077-E.)|On February 6, 1942, the United States attorney for the District of Minnesota|filed a libel against 34 cans of wheat embryo at Minneapolis, Minn., alleging that|the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about February 27,|1941, by Freshman Vitamin Co. from Detroit, Mich.; and charging that it was|misbranded. It was labeled in part: \"\"Dr. Ray Wheat Embryo.\"\"|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement on the label, \"\"When|indicated in Gastro-Intestinal Disorders, Dr. Ray Wheat Embryo should be cooked|in with cereal for five minutes,\"\" was false and misleading in that it would imply|that the article was of significant value in the treatment of all types of gastro-|intestinal disturbances; whereas it was not.|The article was also charged to be misbranded under the provisions of the law|applicable to drugs, as reported in F. N. J. No. 3842.|On June 15, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|789. Misbranding of Wise's Kollesol Tablets. U. S. v. 45 Bottles of Wise's Kollesol Tablets. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00789September 1943Wise's K. C. Homeopathic PharmacyWise's Kollesol TabletsJanuary 22, 1942Los Angeles, Calif.Kansas City, Mo.Los Angeles, Calif.Southern District of California789F. D. C. No. 7126. Sample No. 92501-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00789ddnj|789. Misbranding: of Wise's Kollesol Tablets. U. S. v. 45 Bottles of Wise's|Kollesol Tablets;. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 7126. Sam-pie No. 92501-E.)|On April 1, 1942, the United States attorney for the Southern District of Cali-|fornia filed a libel against 45 bottles, each containing 300 tablets, of Wise's|Kollesol at Los Angeles, Calif., alleging that the article had been shipped on or|about January 22, 1942, by Wise's K. C. Homeopathic Pharmacy from Kansas|City, Mo.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of|oxyquinoline sulfate, potassium sulfate, and lactose.|it would eliminate bacteria, guard against toxins and ptomaines, promote healing,|provide healthy granulation with a minimum of scar tissue, keep lesions from|becoming infected, and control hemorrhage; that it would prevent diphtheria and|other infections, both external and internal; that it would be useful in surgery,|obstetrics, and gynecology as an all purpose antiseptic, would be useful for|sterilizing instruments, for intrauterine use after removal of retained placental|tissue, postpartum infection, or after curettage; that it was an adequate medica-|tion in dentistry for tootache, pyorrhea, trench mouth, gingivitis, bad teeth, and|ulcerations of the buccal cavity; that it was an appropriate treatment for diseases|of the eye, ear, nose, and throat including tonsillitis, septic sore throat and|diphtheria; for conditions of the gastro-intestinal tract such as stomach ulcers,|colitis, diarrhea, dysentery, typhoid fever, amoebic dysentery; conditions of the|genito-urinary tract such as cystitis, balanitis, gonorrhea, chancroid, and|syphilitic lesions; and for skin conditions including varicose ulcers, carbuncles,|boils, burns, scalds, erysipelas, and athlete's foot, were false and misleading since|it would not be efficacious for such purposes.|, On April 22,1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|DRUGS FOR VETERINARY USE|790. Misbranding of Security Roup and Cold Remedy for Poultry, Security Worm Powder, and Security Gas Colic Remedy. U. S. v. The Jersee Co., Inc. (Security Food Co.) and Fred J. McCann. Pleas of guilty. Fine, $250.ddnj00790September 1943Jersee Co., Inc., doing business as the Security Food Co. at Minneapolis, Minn., and Fred J. McCann, president of Jersee Co., Inc.Security Roup and Cold Remedy for Poultry, Security Worm Powder, and Security Gas Colic RemedyFebruary 22, March 17, and July 28, 1941MinnesotaMinnesotaNebraska, IllinoisDistrict of Minnesota790F. D. C. No. 6425. Sample Nos. 43195-E, 43196-E, 49858-E, 57552-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00790ddnj|790. Misbranding of Security Roup and Cold Remedy for Poultry, Security Worm|Powder, and Security Gas Colic Remedy. U. S. v. The Jersee Co., Inc.|(Security Food Co.) and Fred J. McCann. Pleas of guilty. Fine, 8250.|(F. D. C. No. 6425. Sample Nos. 43195-E, 43196-E, 49858-E. 57552-E.)|The labeling of these veterinary products bore false and misleading representa-|tions regarding their curative and therapeutic efficacy and also failed to comply|with certain other labeling requirements of the law.|On May 18, 1942, the United States attorney for the District of Minnesota|filed an information against the Jersee Co., Inc., doing business as the Security|Food Co. at Minneapolis, Minn., and Fred J. McCann, president of Jersee Co., Inc.,|alleging shipment on or about February 22, March 17, and July 28, 1941, from|the State of Minnesota into the States of Nebraska, Illinois, and Mississippi of|quantities of the above-named drugs which were misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of Security Roup and Cold Remedy for Poultry showed|that it consisted essentially of copper sulfate, potassium permanganate, and talc.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that statements in the labeling which repre-|sented that when used in conjunction with certain specified procedures and certain|sanitary measures, it would be efficacious in the treatment of roup and cold in|fowl and poultry, that it would prevent fowl and poultry from contracting cold|and roup, and that another drug, Security Cholera Remedy, would be efficacious|in the treatment or prevention of bowel troubles in fowl and poultry, were false|and misleading since the articles would not be efficacious for such purposes. It|was alleged to be misbranded further in that the label failed to bear a statement|of the quantity of the contents in terms of weight, measure, or numerical count|and in that it was fabricated from two or more ingredients and the label failed to|bear the common or usual name of each active ingredient.|Analysis of the Security Cholera Remedy showed that it consisted essentially|of potassium alum, ferrous sulfate, and talc. It was alleged to be misbranded in|that statements in the labeling which represented that it would be efficacious as|a remedy for cholera in poultry; that it was a positive and quick relief for cholera,|indigestion, dysentery, diarrhea, and all bowel troubles in poultry' including|chicks 1 or 2 months old and fowl over 2 months old; that it was a preventive|against bowel irregularities in chicks and fowl; that when used in conjunction with|certain specified procedures and certain sanitary measures it would be efficacious|in the treatment of the said disease in fowl and poultry and that the use of|another drug, Security Roup and Cold Remedy, would be efficacious in the treat-|ment of roup and cold in fowl and poultry, were false ,and misleading since the|articles would not be efficacious for such purposes. It was alleged to be mis-|branded further in that the labeling failed to bear a statement of the quantity of|the contents in terms of weight, measure, or numerical count and in that it was|fabricated from two or more ingredients and the label failed to bear the common|or usual name of each active ingredient.|Analysis of the Security Worm Powder showed that it consisted essentially|of sodium chloride, iron sulfate, sulfur, charcoal, and plant material including|anise and areca nut. It was alleged to be misbranded in that statements in the|labeling which represented that it was the safest and surest remedy in existence|may be easily prevented by judicious use of the article, that it was a standard|remedy for worms in horses, sheep, swine, and cattle and was recommended by|leading farmers and breeders to be a cheap and practical remedy for worms,|that when administered to horses, it would regulate the bowels, blood, and diges-|tive organs, that it would save feed by expelling worms, grubs, and bots, that|the presence of worms in animals is usually due to a diseased condition of the|system, that it would expel small worms from the large bow.els and round or|giant worms (Eustrongylus gigas) from the kidneys, bladder, and intestines,|that it would tend to invigorate the digestive organs and bowels, that if ad-|ministered to horses in the absence of worm symptoms it would prevent worms|and would prevent horses getting in poor condition, that it was a mild purge,|was harmless to the digestive organs and would leave the horses in better|condition than before such administration, that it would prevent development|of a new group of worms in horses, that it contained no poison or powerful|drugs,-that it would tend to correct the system so that worms would not be|apt to return, would improve the general appearance of horses; whereas it was|not the safest and surest remedy in existence for worms, every lamb does not|have worms in its stomach at birth, it was not a standard remedy for worms|in horses, sheep, swine, and cattle, and was not a cheap and practical remedy|for worms, the presence of worms is not usually due to a diseased condition of|the system, it was not harmless to the digestive system, would not leave horses|in better condition than before such administration, it did contain poison or|powerful drugs, it was not a mild purge, and would not be efficacious for the|purposes for which it was recommended. It was alleged to be misbranded fur-|ther (1) in that the label failed to bear an accurate statement of the quantity|of the contents in terms of weight, measure, or numerical count; and (2) in|that it was fabricated from two or more ingredients and the label failed to bear|the common or usual name of each active ingredient.|Analysis of the Security Gas Colic Remedy showed that it consisted essen-|tially of a hydroalcoholic solution containing volatile oils, ether, emodin-bearing|plant material, sodium sulfite, and a trace of alkaloids. It was alleged to be|misbranded in that statements in the labeling which represented that it was|entirely different from all other colic remedies, that the moment it entered|the stomach of the animal it neutralized the gases and acids in the stomach|caused by the fermentation of food; that after administration, relief was im-|mediate on the same principle as a chemical fire extinguisher; that when it|reached the stomach it immediately formed other gases which subdued and neu-|tralized those already there and which had caused colic; that one bottle was|sufficient to cure colic in horses, mules, and cattle; that it would be efficacious|in the cure, mitigation, treatment, and prevention of cases of kidney, wind or|spasmodic colic, grippe, flatulent or acute indigestion; that it would be effica-|cious in the treatment of engorgement colic, obstruction colic, worm colic, flatu-|lent colic, and spasmodic or cramp colic, and was a positive remedy for alfalfa|or lucerne bloat; that it was a \"\"security\"\" remedy and was insurance against all|forms of colic in horses, mules, and cattle, were false and misleading since it|was not entirely different from other colic remedies and would not be effica-|cious for the purposes recommended. It was alleged to be misbranded further|in that the label failed to bear an accurate statement of the quantity of the|contents in terms of weight, measure, or numerical count, and in that its label|failed to bear a declaration of the common or usual name of each active|ingredient.|On May 18, 1942, pleas of guilty having been entered on behalf of the de-|fendants, the court imposed a fine of $250. as a general sentence on all counts|for both defendants.|791. Misbranding of Security Gas Colic Remedy. U. S. v. 5 Gases and 1 Case of Security Gas Colic Remedy. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00791September 1943Security Food Co.Security Gas Colic RemedyJuly 28, 1941Bolton, Miss.Minneapolis, Minn.Bolton, Miss.Southern District of Mississippi791F. D. C. No. 6099. Sample No. 49858-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00791ddnj|791. Misbranding: of Security Gas Colic Remedy. U. S. v. 5 Gases and 1 Case of|Security Gas Colic Remedy. Default decree of condemnation and destruc-|tion. (F. D. C. No. 6099. Sample No. 49858-E.)|The labeling of this veterinary product bore false and misleading therapeutic|claims and also failed to contain a statement of the quantity of the contents and|a list of the active ingredients.|On November 13, 1941, the United States attorney for the Southern District|of Mississippi filed a libel against 6 cases containing a total of 26 bottles of|Security Gas Colic Remedy at Bolton, Miss., alleging that the article had been|shipped in interstate commerce on or about July 28, 1941, by the Security Food|Co, from Minneapolis, Minn.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of a hydroalcoholic solu-|tion containing volatile oils, ether, emodin-bearing plant material, sodium sulfite,|and a trace of alkaloids.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that statements in the labeling|which represented that it was entirely different from all other colic remedies;|that the moment it entered the stomach of the animal it neutralized the gases|and acids in the stomach caused by the fermentation of food; that after adminis-|tration, relief was immediate on the same principle as a chemical fire extin-|guisher; that when it reached the stomach it immediately formed other gases|which subdued and neutralized those already there and which had caused|colic; that one bottle was sufficient to cure colic in horses, mules, and cattle;|that it would be efficacious in the cure, mitigation, treatment, and prevention|of cases of kidney, wind or spasmodic colic, grippe, flatulent or acute indigestion;|and that it would be efficacious in the treatment of engorgement colic, obstruction|colic, worm colic, flatulent colic, and spasmodic or cramp colic, and was a positive|remedy for alfalfa or lucerne bloat; that it was a \"\"security\"\" remedy and was|an insurance against all forms of colic in horses, mules and cattle, were false|and misleading since it was not entirely different from all other colic remedies|and would not be efficacious for the purposes recommended.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the carton did not bear a state-|ment of the quantity of the contents and in that the label did not bear a list of|the active ingredients.|On May 5, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|792. Misbranding of Brown's Inhalant. U. S. v. 893 Cans and 37 Cans of Brown's Inhalant. Product ordered released to claimant. Amended order filed striking provision for release. Decree of condemnation. Product ordered released under bond for relabeling.ddnj00792September 1943A. J. Timmons & Sons, Dagsboro, Del.Brown's InhalantJanuary 31 to April 9 and 17, 1942DelawarePennsylvaniaDelawareDistrict of Delaware792F. D. C. No. 7429. Sample Nos. 54740-E, 54741-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00792ddnj|792. Misbranding of Brown's Inhalant. IT. S. v. 893 Cans and 37 Cans of|Brown's Inhalant. Product ordered released to claimant. Amended|order filed striking provision for release. Decree of condemnation.|Product ordered released under bond for relabeling:. (F. D. C. No. 7429.|Sample Nos. 54740-E, 54741-E.)|On May 1, 1942, the United States attorney for the District of Delaware filed|a libel against 893 gallon cans and 37 5-gallon cans of Brown's Inhalant at Dags-|boro, Del., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce|within the period from on or about January 31 to on or about April 9 and 17,|1942, by Brown's Poultry Products Co. from Lancaster, Pa.; and charging that|it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of kerosene and volatile|oils including oil of citronella.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that statements in the labeling|regarding its efficacy in the treatment of diseases, symptoms, or conditions of the|respiratory tract of poultry, such as colds, roup, brooder pneumonia, and other|congestions of the respiratory tract, were false and misleading since it would|not be efficacious for such purposes.|iA. J. Timmons & Sons, Dagsboro, Del., appeared as claimant and denied the|allegations of the libel and Edgar W. Brown, Lancaster, Pa., also petitioned|for leave to intervene. On May 21, 1942, the court entered an order granting|Edgar W. Brown leave to intervene and defend for himself and the other claim-|ants, and also ordered the goods returned to A. J. Timons & Sons on condition|thnt the labels which constituted the misbranding were removed or rendered|illegible. On May 26,1942, the Government moved to amend the order of May 21|by striking those portions which permitted a return of the seized property,|which motion was granted after hearing, the court handing down the following|opinion;|IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE|LEAHY, District Judge. \"\"A libel was filed which sought seizure and condemna-|tion of certain cans containing poultry medicine. The articles were shipped|from Pennsylvania into Delaware. The libel charges misbranding of the product|within the meaning of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of June 25,|1938. The marshal made seizure. The claimants, who were in possession of|the articles, filed an answer denying the property was misbranded. The manu-|facturer, Edgar W. Brown, an individual engaged in business under the name of|'Brown's Poultry Products Co.,' in Lancaster, Pa., was permitted to intervene on|May 21, 1942, to defend the labeling on his own behalf. In the order permitting|the intervention,-there'was a provision directing that the property be discharged|from seizure and delivered to the claimant upon the claimant's filing bond; and|that the claimant should not sell said property unless and until the labels were|it was admitted the contents of the cans were not deleterious and that merely the|labels came within the prohibition of the statute. On May 26, 1942, the Govern-|ment moved to amend the precipitous order of May 21, 1942, by striking out those|portions which permitted a return of the seized property.|\"\"In opposing the Government's motion, both the manufacturer and claimant|assert that as this is a cause in admiralty, they should be allowed to have posses-|sion of the property before final hearing and decree by filing an appropriate bond|in view of the fact that the statute provides that the procedure under section 334|(b) 'shall conform, as nearly as may be, to the procedure in admiralty.' Espe-|cially is this so in view of the fact that the Government admits, they argue, the|contents of the cans are not harmful. The Government contends that there can be|no release of seized property under the statute until 'after entry of the (final)|decree' of condemnation.9 A search discloses no decision dealing with the|precise question raised.|\"\"Sec. 334 (b) does state that the procedure 'in cases under this section shall|conform, as nearly as may be, to the procedure in admiralty.' The argument|of the claimants that the application of the admiralty rules should control the|procedure as to release of seized products finds no support when we examine|the admiralty rules. Rule 11 deals with release of perishable goods. Obviously|this rule can hardly apply to non-perishable goods seized under sec. 334 (d).|Rule 12 relates to the release of a vessel to the claimant upon the filing of bond|to protect the claim of libelant.7 Hence, it appears that there is no apposite|admiralty rule or traditional practice upon the basis of which goods may be|released prior to decree of condemnation.|\"\"The legislative history of the present statute throws some light on the pro-|cedure intended by Congress. If we turn to sec. 10 of the Federal Food and|Drugs Act of 1906,8 it likewise appears that the release and delivery of the|articles tb the owners is only after the entry of a decree of condemnation.9 The|language of the various bills considered by Congress from 1933 to 1937 re-|mained unchanged with respect to the release of articles and the giving of|\"\"21 U. S. C. A. ? 334 (d) : \"\"Any food, drug, device, or cosmetic condemned under this|section shall, after entry of the decree, be disposed of by destruction or sale as the court|may, in accordance with the provisions of this section, divert and the proceeds ? thereof,|if sold, less the legal costs and charges, shall be paid into the Treasury of the United|States; but such articles shall not be sold under such decree contrary to the provisions|of this chapter or the laws of the jurisdiction in which sold: Provided, That after entry|of the decree and upon the payment of the costs of such proceedings and the execution of|a good and sufficient bond conditioned that such article shall not be sold or disposed of|contrary to the provisions of this chapter or the laws of any State or Territory in which|sold, the court may by order direct that such article be delivered to the owner thereof to|be destroyed or brought into compliance with the provisions of this chapter under the|supervision of an officer or employee duly designated by the Administrator and the ex-|penses of such supervision shall be paid by the person obtaining release of the article|under bond. Any article condemned by reason of its being an article which may not, under|section 344 or 355, be introduced into interstate commerce, shall be disposed of by|destruction.\"\"|7 For an analogous situation, involving seizure of a vessel for forfeiture, see The Pietro|Campanella, 41 F. Supp. 656, where the court said : \"\"It is pointed out for the claimant that|the statutes of the \"\"United States and the practice in admiralty do not permit the surren-|der of a libeled ship to the libelant except after formal decree of condemnation; and the|analogous proceedings for forfeiture of other property are generally to the same effect.\"\"|8 21 U. S. C. A. ? 14: \"\"* * * seized for confiscation by a process of libel for condemna-|tion. And if such article is condemned as being adulterated or misbranded, or of a poison-|ous or deleterious character, within the meaning of this act, the same shall be disposed of|by destruction or sale, as the said court may direct, and the proceeds thereof, if sold, less|the legal costs and charges, shall be paid into the Treasury of the United States, but such|goods shall not be sold in any jurisdiction contrary to the provisions of this act or the|laws of that jurisdiction: Provided, however, That upon the payment of the costs of such|libel proceedings and the execution and delivery of a good and sufficient bond to the effect|that such articles shall not be sold or otherwise disposed of contrary to the provisions of|this act, or the laws of any State, territory, district, or insular possession, the court may|by order direct that such articles be delivered to the owner thereof. The proceedings of|such libel cases shall conform, as near as may be, to the proceedings in admiralty, except,|that either party may demand trial by jury of any issue of fact joined in any such case, and|all such proceedings shall be at the suit of and in the name of the United States.\"\"|? Three cases decided under the 1906 statute passed upon the release of goods to claim-|ants. In U. 8. v. 9 Barrels of Butter, 241 F. 499, the application for release was not made|until after the entry of a decree of condemnation. In A. 0. Anderson & Go. v. United|States, 9th Cir. 284 F. 542. it would seem the court assumed the necessity of a prior decree|of condemnation before release. In U. 8. v. 2 Cans of Oil of Sweet Birch, etc., 268 F. 866,|it appeared that the claimant moved for release of the product before decree; but if I have|failed to read the cases correctly and the motion was made, in fact, after decree, it would|seem to make little difference as the court simply held that the motion was one addressed|wholly to the court's discretion and the court declined to exercise it in favor of the claim-|ant. Thus, no court, as far as I have been able to find, has held specifically that release|may be had before decree, or that release may only be had after decree.|bond.\"\" The various Senate Reports as well as the hearings had on the several|proposed bills makes it manifest to me that Congress understood the procedure|looked to the entry of a decree of condemnation before release of the seized|articles.\"\"|\"\"Not only is the legislative history of sec. 304 helpful in determining its mean-|ing, but a mere examination of the statute makes it clear that (1) an article|may be proceeded against by libel when it is adulterated or misbranded; (2)|once such an article is seized the issue of adulteration or misbranding must|be determined by the court; (3) if the article is neither adulterated nor mis-|branded, it is released to the claimant; but (4) if it is adulterated or misbranded|it may be disposed of only as provided by sec. 304 (d).. Destruction or release|may only be had after decree.|\"\"I reject the contention of the claimants that the articles may be released prior|to judicial determination of whether they were misbranded. Accordingly, the|motion of the Government to amend the order of May 21, 1942, is granted.|An order may be submitted, striking out those portions of the May 21st order|which permitted a return of the seized goods.\"\"|On June 15, 1942, judgment of condemnation. was entered and the product|was ordered released under bond conditioned that it be relabeled under the|supervision of the Food and Drug Administration.|793. Misbranding of Emerson's Dead Shot. U. S. v. 18 Cans of Emerson's Dead Shot. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00793September 1943Emerson Products Co., Inc.Emerson's Dead ShotNovember 26, 1941New York, N. Y.Newark, N.J.New York, N. Y.Southern District of New York793F. D. C. No. 6920. Sample No. 89121-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00793ddnj|793. Misbranding of Emerson's Dead Shot. U. S. v. 18 Cans of Emerson's Dead|Shot. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 6920.|Sample No. 89121-E.)|On February 27, 1942, the United States attorney for the Southern District|of New York filed a libel against 18 8-ounce cans of Emerson's Dead Shot at|New York, N. Y., alleging that the article had been shipped on or about Novem-|ber 26, 1941, by the Emerson Products Co., Inc., from Newark, N.J.; and|charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of|calcium carbonate and fenugreek, with a small amount of a potassium com-|pound, and not more than a trace of iron.|The article was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that statements in the|labeling which represented that it would be of value in the control, prevention,|and removal of all species of worms infesting animals; in the control, preven-|tion, and treatment of disease conditions of animals; and as a tonic and|conditioner, were false and misleading since it would not be of value for such|purposes. (2) In that it was a drug fabricated from two or more ingredients|and the label failed to bear the common or usual name of each active in-|gredient.|On April 10, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|794. Misbranding of ADM Wheat Germ Oil. U. S. v. 141, 32, 21, and 17 Cans of Wheat Germ Oil With Accompanying Labeling. Consent decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00794September 1943Archer-Daniels-Midland Co.ADM Wheat Germ OilApril 21 to June 5, 1941Des Moines, IowaMinneapolis, Minn.Des Moines, IowaSouthern District of Iowa794F. D. C. No. 5228. Sample Nos. 57684-13 to 57687-E, incl.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00794ddnj|794. Misbranding of ADM Wheat Germ Oil. IT. S. v. 141, 32, 21, and 17 Cans of|\"\"Wheat Germ Oil With Accompanying Labeling. Consent decree of con-|demnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 5228. Sample Nos. 57684-13 to|57687-E. lncl.)|On July 28, 1941, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|Iowa filed a libel against 141 quart cans, 32 4-ounce cans, and 38 pint cans of|ADM Wheat Germ Oil with accompanying labeling at Des Moines, Iowa, alleg-|ing that the wheat germ oil had been shipped in interstate commerce within the|period from on or about April 21 to on or about June 5, 1941, by Archer-|Daniels-Midland Co. from Minneapolis, Minn.; and charging that it was mis-|branded.|Examination of samples of the article showed that it consisted of a bland|oil possessing chemical and physical constants corresponding to those of wheat|germ oil.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that statements in the labeling|which represented that it would be efficacious in the treatment and prevention|of the various causes of breeding difficulties in cattle and other livestock,|poultry, dogs, and foxes; that it would be efficacious in the treatment and pre-|vention of sterility, impotency, failure to come on heat, missed breedings, false|pregnancy, fetus resorption, .abortion, premature birth, stillbirth, weak, puny|io S. 1944, 73d Cong.. 1st and 2d Sess.; S. 2800, 73d Cong., 2d Sess.; S. 5, 74th Cong.,|1st and 2d Sess.; S. 5. 75th Cong., 1st and 3d Sess.|\"\"For the various Senate Reports and the hearings on the proposed bills, see Dunn,|Federal Food, Drug, and|' Cosmetic Act (1988), pp. 46, 61, 102, 206, 642, and 1,263 et seq.|that it would be efficacious in the treatment and prevention of nonfertility, 4th|day embryonic death, leukemia, poorly developed pullets, poor reproductive de-|velopment, slow maturity, weak chicks, poor egg yield, poor hatchability, and|various diseases in poultry; and that it would be efficacious in the treatment|and prevention of sterility, impotency, partial fertilization, fetus resorption,|abortion, stillbirth, weak, puny runts, poor lactation, mortality during nursing,|diseases of reproductive organs, and small unprofitable litters in hogs, were false|and misleading since it would be of no value for such purposes.|On June 16, 1942, the shipper and consignee, claimants, having consented|to the entry of a decree, judgment of condemnation was entered and the|product was ordered destroyed.|NONSTERILE SURGICAL DRESSINGS|795. Adulteration and misbranding of adhesive strips and first aid kits. U. S. v. 286 3/4 Gross Packages of Sanlf Cross Adhesive Strips and 4 5/12 Gross Tip Top Emergency First Aid Kits. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00795September 1943Gero Products, Inc.adhesive strips and first aid kitsJanuary 27 and April 28, 1942New Tork, N. Y.South Boston, Mass.New Tork, N. Y.Southern District of New York and the Eastern District of Louisiana795F. D. C. Nos. 7364, 7617. Sample Nos. 83892-E, 89872-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00795ddnj|795. Adulteration and misbranding of adhesive strips and first aid kits. U. S. v.|286% Gross Packages of Sanl-f- Cross Adhesive Strips and 4%2 Gross Tip|Top Emergency First Aid Kits. Default decrees of condemnation and de-|struction. (F. D. C. Nos. 7364, 7617. Sample Nos. 83892-E, 89872-E.)|The Sani+Cross Adhesive Strips and the absorbent cotton, gauze, and com-|press in the first aid kits were contaminated with living micro-organisms. The|first aid kits were misbranded since the boxes containing the absorbent cotton,|adhesive tape, and compress were much larger than necessary; and no statement|of the quantity of contents appeared on any of the labels.|On April 23 and June 9, 1942, the United States attorneys for the Southern|District of New York and the Eastern District of Louisiana filed libels against|286? gross packages of adhesive strips at New Tork, N. T., and 4?2 gross|first aid kits at New Orleans, La., alleging that the articles had been shipped|in interstate commerce on or about January 27 and April 28, 1942, by Gero|Products, Inc., from South Boston, Mass.; and charging that they were adulter-|ated and misbranded.|The Sani+Cross Adhesive Strips were alleged to be adulterated in that their|purity and quality fell below that which they purported and were represented to|possess, i. e., they purported to be and were represented as being of such purity|and quality that they were suitable for use on cuts and other wounds; whereas|they were not suitable for such use since they were contaminated with living|bacteria. They were alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements|on the label, \"\"Sani+Cross Adhesive Strips for Home, Factory, and Sport Use.|Directions Wash wound with an antiseptic. Remove crinoline and apply|gauze pad to the wound,\"\" were false and misleading since they represented and|suggested that the article was a safe and appropriate bandage for first aid use|on broken skin; whereas it was not safe and appropriate for such purposes.|The first aid kits were alleged to be adulterated in that they contained a|package of an article which purported to be a drug recognized in the United|States Pharmacopoeia, namely, absorbent cotton, but its quality or purity fell|below the standard set forth in the pharmacopoeia since it was not sterile.|They were alleged to be misbranded (1) in that the statements, \"\"First Aid|Kit * * * For small cuts use 'Handi-Aid' or Adhesive Bandage * * * Be|Prepared for Emergencies,\"\" were false and misleading when applied to kits con-|taining items which were not sterile; (2) in that the labels failed to bear an|accurate statement of the quantity of the contents; and (3) in that the containers|were |so made and filled as to be misleading.|On June 26 and July 3, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgments of con-|demnation were entered and the products were ordered destroyed.|797. Adulteration and misbranding of Sani+Cross Adhesive Strips. U. S. v. 49 1/2 Gross of Sani+Cross Adhesive Strips. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00797September 1943World Merchandise ExchangeSani+Cross Adhesive StripsOctober 9, 1941Philadelphia, Pa.New York, N. Y.Philadelphia, Pa.Eastern District of Pennsylvania797F. D. C. No. 7106. Sample No. 40897-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00797ddnj|797. Adulteration and misbranding of Sani+Cross Adhesive Strips. II. S. v.|49% Gross of Sani+Cross Adhesive Strips. Default decree of condemna-|tion and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 710ft Sample No. 40897-E.)|On March 28, 1942, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Pennsylvania filed a libel against 49? gross of Sani+Cross Adhesive Strips at|Philadelphia, Pa., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate com-|merce on or about October 9, 1941, by the World Merchandise Exchange from|New York, N. Y?; and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded.|It was alleged to be adulterated in that its purity and quality fell below that|which it purported and was represented to possess, i. e., by its form and nature|it purported and was represented to be of such purity and quality that it would|be suitable for use on cuts and other wounds; whereas it was not suitable for|such use since it was contaminated with living bacteria and the inconspicuous|declaration on the package that the strips were not sterilized did not alter the|character of an article represented as and purporting to be suitable for such use.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements appearing on|the label \"\"Sani+Cross Adhesive Strips for home, factory, and sport use. Direc-|tions. \"\"Wash wound with an antiseptic. Remove crinoline and apply gauze|pad to the wound,\"\" were false and misleading since they represented and sug-|gested that it was a safe, sanitary, and appropriate bandage for first aid use on|broken skin; where.as it was not a safe and appropriate bandage for such use.|On May 1, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|798. Adulteration and misbranding of gauze bandages. U. S. v. 23 Dozen and 47 Dozen Packages of Gauze Bandages. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00798September 1943Hampton Manufacturing Co.gauze bandagesFebruary 16 and 18, 1942Cincinnati, OhioCarlstadt, N. J.Cincinnati, OhioSouthern District of Ohio and the Northern District of Illinois798F. D. C. Nos. 7419, 7793. Sample Nos. 66259-E, 80747-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00798ddnj|798. Adulteration and misbranding- of gauze bandages. IT. S. v. 23 Dozen and|47 Dozen Packages of Gauze Bandages. Default decrees of condemnation|and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 7419, 7793. Sample Nos. 66259-E, 80747-E.)|Examination of samples of this product showed that approximately one-half|were contaminated with viable cocci or spore-forming micro-organisms.|On April 29 and June 29, 1942, the United States attorneys for the Southern|District of Ohio and the Northern District of Illinois filed libels against 23 dozen|packages of gauze bandages at Cincinnati, Ohio, and 47 dozen packages at Chi-|cago, HI., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on|or about February 16 and 18, 1942, from Carlstadt, N. J., by the Hampton Manu-|facturing Co.; and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded. The article|was labeled in part: \"\"Blue Cross 2 [or \"\"1?\"\"] inch 10 yds, Gauze Bandage|Sterilized.\"\"|It was alleged to be adulterated in that its purity or quality fell below that|which it purported or was represented to possess. It was alleged to be mis-|branded in that the statement \"\"Sterilized\"\" was false and misleading as applied|to an article that was not sterile.|condemnation were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|799. Adulteration and misbranding of gauze bandage. U. S. v. 179 Dozen Retail Packages of Gauze Bandage (and 3 other seizure actions against gauze bandage). Portion of product ordered released under bond to be resterilized; remainder ordered destroyed.ddnj00799September 1943Gotham Sales Co., Inc.gauze bandageMarch 18, 20, and 25, May 1, and August 11, 1942Los Angeles, Calif.; Pittsburgh, Pa.; Atlanta, Ga.; Minneapolis, Minn.New York, N. Y.Los Angeles, Calif.; Pittsburgh, Pa.; Atlanta, Ga.; Minneapolis, Minn.Southern District of California, Western District of Pennsylvania, Northern District of Georgia, and the District of Minnesota799F. D. C. Nos. 7467, 7897, 8075, 8420. Sample Nos. 78914-E, 78915-E, 92536-E, 7250-F, 28507-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00799ddnj|799. Adulteration and misbranding of gauze bandage. IT. S. v. 179 Dozen Retail|Packages of Gauze Bandage (and 3 other seizure actions against gauze|bandage). Portion of product ordered released under bond to be re-|sterilized; remainder ordered destroyed. (F. D. C. Nos. 7467, 7897, 8075,|8420. Sample Nos. 78914-E, 78915-E, 92536-E, 7250-F, 28507-F.)|All shipments of this product were contaminated with viable micro-organ-|isms ; and the cartons in one shipment were unnecessarily large.|On May 6, July 14, August 10, and September 24, 1942, the United States|attorneys for the Southern District of California, Western District of Penn-|sylvania, Northern District of Georgia, and the District of Minnesota filed|libels against the following quantities of gauze bandage-179 dozen packages|at Los Angeles, Caljf.; 48? gross packages at Pittsburgh, Pa.; 153 dozen pack-|ages at Atlanta, Gaf; and 21 dozen packages at Minneapolis, Minn., alleging|that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about March|18, 20, and 25, May 1, and August 11, 1942, by Gotham Sales Co., Inc., from|New York, N. T.; and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded. It|was labeled in part: \"\"Gauze Bandage * * * Distributed by Gotham Sales|Co. N. Y. C. [or \"\"Distributors Chatham Sundries Co. New York NY\"\"]!\"\"|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its purity or quality fell|below that which it purported or was represented to possess, namely, \"\"Sterilized.\"\"|It was alleged in substance to be misbranded in that the statements (cartons|in all shipments) \"\"Sterilized after packaging,\"\" .and (cartons of portions located|at Los Angeles and Pittsburgh) \"\"Designed to perfectly meet first aid require-|ments,\"\" were false and misleading as applied to an article that was contaminated|with viable micro-organisms. A portion (seized at Minneapolis) was alleged|to be misbranded further in that its container was so made, formed, and filled|as to be misleading.|On May 26 and December 10, 1942, and January 22, 1943, no claimant having|appeared for the seizures at Los Angeles, Minneapolis, and Atlanta, decrees|were entered ordering that those at Los Angeles and Minneapolis be destroyed|and that the portion of the product seized at Atlanta be sold after having been|sterilized under the supervision of the Food and Drug Administration. On|September 24, 1942, Gotham Sales Co., Inc., having admitted the allegations|of the libel filed in Pennsylvania, judgment of condemnation was entered and|the portion of the product seized at Pittsburgh was ordered released unde? bond|conditioned that it be resterilized under the supervision of the Food and Drug|Administration.|800. Adulteration and misbranding of sutures. U. S. v. 27 Cartons of Champion Dermal Sutures (and 3 other seizures of sutures). Decrees of condemnation. Portion of product ordered destroyed; remainder ordered released under bond to be sterilized.ddnj00800September 1943Gudebrod Bros. Silk Co.suturesJune 18, 1941, to April 20, 1942Minneapolis. Minn.; Brooklyn, N. Y.; Detroit, Mich.; Denver, Colo.Stowe, Pottstown, and Philadelphia, Pa.Minneapolis. Minn.; Brooklyn, N. Y.; Detroit, Mich.; Denver, Colo.District of Colorado, District of Minnesota, Eastern District of New York, and Eastern District of Michigan800F. D. C. Nos. 7583. 7584, 7788, 7814, 7833 Sample Nos. 31382-E, 76999-E, 77000-E, 77701-E to 77703-E, incl. , 81664-E, 81665-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00800ddnj|800. Adulteration and misbranding of sutures. TJ. S. v. 27 Cartons of Champion|Dermal Sutures (and 3 other seizures of sutures). Decrees of condemna-|tion. Portion of product ordered destroyed; remainder ordered released|under bond to be sterilized. (F. D. C. Nos. 7583. 7584, 7788, 7814, 7833|Sample Nos. 31382-E, 76999-E, 77000-E, 77701-E to 77703-E, incl., 81664-E,|81665-E.)|On June 5, 1942, the United States attorney for the District of Colorado filed|a libel against 27 cartons each containing 1 dozen sutures at Denver,\"\" Colo.,|which had been consigned by Gudebrod Bros. Silk Co. On June 22 and 26 and|July 1, 1942, the United States attorneys for the District of Minnesota, Eastern|District of New York, and Eastern District of Michigan filed libels against 12|packages each containing 1 dozen sutures at Minneapolis. Minn.; 36,532 en-|velopes of sutures at Brooklyn, N. Y.; and 23 dozen packages each contain-|ing 1 dozen sutures at Detroit, Mich., alleging that they had been shipped by|Gudebrod Bros. Silk Co. The libels alleged that the article had been shipped|in interstate commerce within the period from on or about June 18, 1941, to|April 20, 1942, from Stowe, Pottstown, and Philadelphia, Pa.; and charged that|it was adulterated and misbranded. It was labeled in part: \"\"Champion Dermal|Suture 000 [or \"\"0000\"\"] Fine 40 Inches\"\"; or \"\"Sizes 1-5-8 Two 18\"\" Strands of|Each.\"\"|It was alleged to be adulterated in that its purity or quality fell below|that which it purported or was represented to possess, namely, \"\"Sterilized,\"\"|since it was not sterile but was contaminated with living micro-organisms.|The portion of the article seized at Brooklyn, was alleged to be misbranded|in that the statements, (envelopes) \"\"Sterile * * * Caution-To prevent con-|tamination, remove contents with disinfected hands or forceps only,\"\" were false and|it was not. The remainder was alleged to be misbranded in that the word|\"\"Sterilized,\"\" borne on the envelopes, was false and misleading.|On June 19, 1942, the shipper having signed an acceptance of service and|authorization for taking of final decree against the portion of the product|seized at Denver, judgment of condemnation was entered and the product was|ordered destroyed. On August 27, 1942, the shipper having admitted the allega-|tions of the libel filed in the Eastern District of New York, the product was|ordered released under bond conditioned that it be sterilized and repackaged|under the supervision of the Food and Drug Administration. On September S|and 8, 1942, no claimant having appeared for the seizures at Minneapolis and|Detroit, judgments of condemnation were entered and the product was ordered|destroyed.|INDEX TO NOTICES OF JUDGMENT D. D. N. jf NOS. 751-800|PRODUCTS|N. J. No.|Abortifacients|751-753|Adhesive strips|795, 79 <|Adiron| 766|Agar and oil with phenolphthalein- 758|Alcoholism remedy| 756|Alkaline compound powder| 775|Aresnol Compound Powder??_ 775|Armi Mineral Water| a 777|Arnold Garlic Tablets| 779|Asmolac| 757|Aurofectol| 759|Blue Cross First Aid Kits| 796|Borax| 768|Brown's Inhalant| 2792|Calcium gluconate compound solution- 775|Canine worm tablets| 757|Chorionic gonadotropic hormone? 769|Cod-liver oil| 776|Compresses| 795|Conjunctivitis #1 Tablets-? 775|Cotton, absorbent|? 795, 796|Davis Formula No. 7895| 780|Dependon Products Intrauterine|P?te| 751|Products Paste|* 751. * 752|See also Intrauterine paste.|Diuretic powder| 775|Eff-Remin Dentifrice| 781|Emerson's Dead Shot| 793|Epinephrine hydrochloride| 756|tablets| 761|Fermlax| 760|First aid kits|,.?795, 796|Floramucin| 766|Garlic tablets| 779|Gauze|795, 798, 799|Gilmore's Headache Powders? 755|Glandular products?756, 767, 769, 778, 783|Gloria Laxative Pills| 761|Tonic Tablets| 762|Glucose solution| 775|Guaiadine Tablets| 775|Hair tonic| 785|Headache remedy| 755|Intrauterine paste|751-753|Laxatives?___ 758, 760-766, 770, 782|cold tablets| 761|Luebert*s Ka-No-Mor Capsules, (Nox'em|Brand) Iron Tonic Compound Tab-|lets and Noxem Brand Tablets and|Capsules (Combined)| 754|Magnesia, citrate-| 763|citrate, with magnesium sulfate? 770|N. J. No.|Mercurochrome solution|?796|My-X-Ym|?765|Nebulin A with Nebulator|?771|Neohormestrin?:|.??756|Nomo For Piles?:|?757|No. 358 Compressed Tablets??756|Nux vomica alkaloids, liquid??775|Ovarian extract|?756|Pitcher's Castoria|?782|Pituitary, posterior, solution??778|Pond's Digestans and Laxative Pills??764|Potassium arsenite compound tablets.?775|Purpoil Nos. 22 and 600|?759|Quinine sulfate tablets|?756|and urea, hydrochloride solution??756|Ramsdell's Sulphur Cream|?772|Re-Duce-Oids Capsules|?783|Reducing preparation|?783|Rx S368230 Pills|?761|Sanafrio|?757|Sani+Cross Adhesive Strips?795, 797|Santonin-calomel tablets|?775|Security Gas Colic Remedy|790,791|Roup and Cold Remedy; and Worm|Powder|?790|S.G.M.a.,Sterile Supportive Formula??756|Sodium cacodylate solution|?775|Special Formula 833?'?;??784|S-T-D \"\"The\"\" Hair Tonic|?785|Sterile Solution Formula No. 1??756|Sulfur -cream|?772|Suppletive Formula No. 1|?756|Surgical dressings|795-800|Sutures|?800|Tetrachlorethylene capsules??775|Thyroid powder|?767|tablets |?756|See also Re-Duce-Oids Capsules.|Tip Top Emergency First Aid Kits??795|Tonic Powder|?775|Tuna-liver oil|?773|Veterinary remedies?775, 776, 790-794|Vi-Penta Drops 'Roche'|?774|Vitamin preparations|:??766,|773, 774, 776, 784-787|Vita Might Capsules|?786|Vita-Port Vitamin Bx Tonic??787|Water, mineral|?J 777|triple distilled|?756|Wheat embryo|?788|germ oil|?794|Wise's Kollesol Tablets|?789|1 Prosecution contested.|* Contains an opinion of the court?3 Permanent injunction issued.|1 Violation of injunction.|801. Misbranding of Dr. Shreves' S-and-L Pills and Dr. Shreves' Anti-Gall-Stone Remedy. U. S. v. Ralph V. Toland (Dr. Shreves' Medicine Co.). Plea of guilty. Fine, $50 and costs.ddnj00801December 1943Ralph V. Toland, trading as Dr. Shreves' Medicine Co., Newton, IowaDr. Shreves' S-and-L Pills and Dr. Shreves' Anti-Gall-Stone RemedyJune 19, 1940Arkansas; IndianaIowaArkansas; IndianaSouthern District of Iowa801F. & D. No. 4117. Sample Nos. 15549-E, 30909-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00801ddnj|FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION|NOTICES OF JUDGMENT UNDER THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG,|AND COSMETIC ACT|[Given pursuant to section 705 of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act]|801-850|DRUGS AND DEVICES|The cases reported herewith were instituted in the United States District|Courts by the United States attorneys acting upon reports submitted by direction|of the Federal Security Administrator.|WATSON B. MILLER,|Acting Administrator, Federal Security Agency.|WASHINGTON, D. C, October 7,1948.|Page|Drags actionable because of potential danger|when used according to directions 41|Drugs actionable because of failure to bear|adequate directions or warning state-|ments | 43|Drugs actionable because of deviation from|official or own standards | 49|CONTENTS*|Page|Drugs actionable because of false and mis-|leading claims | 52|Drugs for human use 52|Drugs for veterinary use | 70|Index | 75|DRUGS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF POTENTIAL DANGER WHEN USED|ACCORDING TO DIRECTIONS|801. Misbranding of Dr. Shreves' S-and-L Pills and Dr. Shreves' Anti-Gall-Stone|Remedy. U. S. v. Ralph V. Toland (Dr. Shreves' Medicine Co.). Plea of|gnilty. Fine, $50 and costs. (F. & D. No. 4117. Sample Nos. 15549-E,|30909-E.)|On July 31,1941, the United States attorney for the Southern District of iqwa|filed an information against Ralph V. Toland, trading as Dr. Shreves' Medicine|Co., Newton, Iowa, alleging shipment on or about June 19, 1940, from the State|of Iowa into the State of Arkansas of a number of boxes of Dr. Shreves' S-and-L|Pills which were misbranded, and on or about May 11, 1940, from the State of|Iowa into the State of Indiana of a number of packages, each containing a bottle|of Dr. Shreves' Anti-Gall-Stone Remedy, and an envelope containing a number|of Dr. Shreves' S-and-L Pills which were also misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the pills showed that they contained plant material,|including a laxative plant drug, and metallic mercury with chalk, the two samples|containing 0.62 grain and 0.68 grain respectively of mercury. Analysis of a sample|of the gallstone remedy showed that it consisted essentially of lime water contain-|ing a white sediment and flavored with sassafras.|The pills were alleged to be misbranded in that they would be dangerous to|health when used in the dosage or with the frequency or duration prescribed,|i For substitution of a drug and its sale under the name of another drug, see No. 820; omission of name|and place of business of manufacturer, packer, or distributor, No. 845; omission of accurate statement of|quantity of contents, Nos. 805, 809, 845; inconspicuousness of quantity of contents and active ingredients|statements, Nos. 840, 840; omission of, or unsatisfactory, active ingredient statement, Nos. 809,828,839,844,|845; deceptive packaging, No. 805.|656997\"\"-43 1 |recommended, or suggested in the labeling, (box and envelope) \"\"Directions-|One to three pills every night until the bowels move freely/' and (circular enclosed|in envelope) \"\"Directions-Dose-One to three pills. For occasional Constipation,|Biliousness and Sour Stomach, take two or three pills at bedtime, then follow with|two pills, every night until completely restored,\"\" since they contained mercury, a|cumulative toxic substance. The pills which were shipped separately were alleged|to be misbranded in that certain statements in the labeling, which represented|that they would be efficacious as a treatment for biliousness and sour stomach,|catarrh of the stomach or bowels, dizziness, nausea, diarrhea, or dysentery, would|promote digestion and assimilation, and would restore tone to the system, were|false and misleading since they would not be efficacious for such purposes. The|combination Anti-Gall-Stone Remedy and Pills was alleged to be misbranded in|that certain statements in the labeling which represented and suggested that It|would be efficacious as a gallstone remedy, would produce a chemical change in|the gall, would alter the secretions of the gall bladder, liver, kidneys, and bladder,|would place the system in better condition and would maintain the stomach and|intestines in a healthy condition, would overcome chronic constipation, would|clean the alimentary canal, would prevent injury to the system by disease germs|in the stomach and bowels, and would cleanse the system by removing poisons,|would be efficacious in the treatment of billiousness, sour stomach, catarrh of|the stomach or bowels, dizziness, nausea, diarrhea or dysentery, would promote|digestion and assimilation and would restore tone to the system, were false and|misleading since the combination would not be efficacious for such purposes.|On July 11,1942, the defendant entered a plea of guilty and the court imposed|a fine of $50 and costs.|802. misbranding of UtraJel. U. S. v. 59 Boxes of UtraJel Regular and 8 Boxes of UtraJel Mild. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00802December 1943Pynosol Laboratories, Inc.UtraJelApril 18, 1942Los Angeles, Calif.Chicago, Ill.Los Angeles, Calif.Southern District of California802F. D. C. No. 7490. Sample Nos. 92548-E, 92549-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00802ddnj|802. misbranding; of UtraJel. IT. S. v. 59 Boxes of UtraJel Regular and 8 Boxes|of UtraJel Mild. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F.|D. C. No. 7490. Sample Nos. 92548-E, 92549-E.)|On May 12, 1942, the United States attorney for the Southern District of Cali-|fornia filed a libel against 58 boxes of UtraJel Regular and 8 boxes of UtraJel|MTTd, at Los Angeles, Calif., alleging that the articles had been shipped in inter-|state commerce on or about April 18, 1942, by the Pynosol Laboratories, Inc.,|from Chicago, JR.|Analysis of a sample of the UtraJel Regular showed that it consisted essentially|of soap, water, oil of pine, and combined iodine. Analysis of a sample of the|UtraJel Mild showed that it consisted essentially of soap, water, and oil of pine.|The articles were alleged to be misbranded in that they would be dangerous|to health when used in the dosage and with the frequency and duration prescribed,|recommended, or suggested in the labeling since they might result in injury to|the parts to which applied and to other organs of the body. The dosage recom-|mendations were in part as follows: \"\"As a Uterine Evacuant * * * Prepare|field, gently insert sterilized applicator into the internal os and pass it carefully|along the canal and into the mouth of the uterus remembering the position of|the uterus as determined by previous bimanual examination. In aU cases treat-|ment should be administered very slowly to eliminate as much, the possibility of|shock and excessive cramping. Dosage: 2 to 5cc first month, 8-10cc second|month, 12-15cc third month and 20-22cc for farther advanced cases. Note: in|some cases it may be necessary to increase dosage slightly, depending entirely on|individual case * * * When no response is obtained after treatment, it is due|either to uterine inertia or insufficient dosage. A great number of cases respond|to a second treatment * * * The same procedure should be followed if por-|tions of placenta are retained.\"\"|They were alleged to be misbranded further in that the foUowing statements|\"\"Cervical Infections and Cervical Erosions (Minor) * * * Infections of the|Cervical Canal (Minor) * '* * Cystic Cervix,\"\" were false and misleading|since the articles would not be effective treatments for the conditions mentioned,|and in that the statements \"\"UtraJel * * * As a Uterine Evacuant * * *|UtraJel has been used successfully for induction of labor in full term deliveries,| and for the expulsion of either entire or parts of placenta,\"\" were false and|misleading since they represented and suggested that the articles were safe and|appropriate for Introduction into the uterine cavity, whereas they were hot|safe and appropriate for such use but were unsafe and dangerous and were|capable of producing serious or even fatal consequences.|On August 10, 1942, no claimant having appeared judgment of condemnation|was entered and the products were ordered destroyed.|812 of Texas Crystals. U. S. v. 47 Packages of Texas Crystals. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00812December 1943Loye Distributing Co.Texas CrystalsApril 8 and May 1, 1942Baltimore, Md.Fairmont, W. VaBaltimore, Md.District of Maryland812F. D. C. No. 7585. Sample No. 78303-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00812ddnj|Misbranding: of Texas Crystals. V. S. v. 47 Packages of Texas Crystals.|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 7585.|Sample No. 78303-E.)|In addition to failure to bear such warnings as are necessary for the pro-|tection of users, the labeling of this product failed to declare that sodium sul-|fate was the only ingredient present in an appreciable amount.|On May 29, 1942, the United States attorney for the District of Maryland|filed a libel against 47 packages of Texas Crystals at Baltimore, Md.raftgglhg|that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about April|8 and May 1, 1942, by Loye Distributing Co. from Fairmont, W. Va.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted of hydrated|sodium sulfate with traces of other inorganic salts..|The article was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that it was a laxative and its|labeling failed to warn that a laxative should not be taken in cases of nausea,|vomiting, abdominal pain, or other symptoms of appendicitis, and that frequent|or continued use might result in dependence upon laxatives; (2) in that the|statement appearing on the label, \"\"Analysis sodium sulphate, calcium carbonate,|sodium chloride, magnesium carbonate, potassium chloride, sodium carbonate,|traces of iron and aluminum oxide,\"\" was misleading since it failed to reveal|the fact that the article did not contain appreciable amounts of any ingredient|except sodium sulfate.|On July 21,1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was\"\"|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|4048. Misbranding of Lipitrons capsules. U. S. v. 5 Bottles, etc.ddnj04048January 1954Vitamin Industries, Inc., from Omaha, Nebr.Lipitrons capsulesSeptember 24; November 10, 1952Denver, Oolo.Omaha, Nebr.Denver, Oolo.District of Colorado.4048F. D. C. No. V 34159. Sample No. 14547-L.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj04048ddnj|I/4048. Misbranding of Lipitrons capsules. U. S. v. 5 Bottles, etc. (F. D. 0. No.?V 34159. Sample No. 14547-L.)|LIBEL FILED : December 4, 1952, District of Colorado.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT: On or about September 24 and November 10, 1952, by|Vitamin Industries, Inc., from Omaha, Nebr.|PRODUCT: 5 100-capsule bottles and 2 250-capsule bottles of Lipitrons cap-|sules at Denver, Oolo.|RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION : A poster entitled \"\"If You Are Over 35\"\" and on|display in the store of the consignee had been supplied by the Vitamin|Industries, Inc. In addition, there appeared in the September 21, 1952, issue|of a local newspaper an advertisement in which Lipitrons capsules were offered|for persons more than 35 years of age suffering from the various conditions|indicated below. This advertisement was printed from a mat furnished by|Vitamin Industries, Inc.|LABEL, IN PART: (Bottle) \"\"Guardian * * * Super Forte Lipitrons Dietary|Supplement Improved B Complex Vitamin C Iron * * * Each Capsule|Contains: Vitamin Bi 15 mgm. Vitamin B2 6 mgm. Vitamin C 50 mgm.|Niacinamide 30 mgm. Calcium Pantothenate 3 mgm. Vitamin B? 0.5 mgm.|Liver Concentrate 30 mgm. Choline Dihydrogen Citrate 20 mgm. Inositol|20 mgm. Iron as Ferrous Gluconate 30 mgm. Folic Acid 0.1 mgm. Vitamin|B12 USP (Crystalline) 3 meg. dl-Methionine 20 mgm.\"\"|NATURE OF CHARGE: Misbranding, Section 502 (a), the following statements|appearing on the poster which accompanied the article were false and mis-|leading: \"\"If you are over 35 If you are getting that Growing Old Feeling|* * * A True Geriatric Formula Designed Especially For Advanced Age|Groups To Help You Enjoy Life Again.\"\" These statements, when read and|interpreted in the light of the above-mentioned newspaper advertisement, rep-|resented and suggested and created the impression that the article was effec-|tive in the treatment of persons more than 35 years old suffering from constant|tiredness, lack of vigor and energy, nervousness, and a rundown condition;|that it was effective to supply extra vigor and extra energy; that it was effec-|tive to enable one to really begin to enjoy life again; that it was effective to|attack the basic causes of the tired feeling, poor appetite, loss of weight and|strength, and insomnia or sleeplessness; that it was effective to insure persons|past 35 against fear of the feeling of advancing age; and that it was effective|to help build new, red blood. The article was not effective in the treatment of|persons over 35 years of age suffering from such conditions, and it was not|capable of fulfilling the promises of benefit stated and implied. The article|was misbranded in the above respect when introduced into and while in inter-|state commerce.|Further misbranding, Section 502 (f) (1), the labeling of the article failed|to bear adequate directions for use for the conditions and purposes for which|the article was intended, namely, for persons more than 35 years old suffering|from constant tiredness, lack of vigor and energy, weakness, nervousness, and|a rundown condition; to supply extra vigor and extra energy; to enable one to|really begin to enjoy life again; to attack the basic causes of the tired feeling,|poor appetite, loss of weight and strength, and insomnia or sleeplessness; to|insure persons past 35 against fear of the feeling of advancing age; and to help|build new, red blood, which were the conditions and purposes for which the|article was offered in the September 21,1952, issue of a local newspaper. The|article was misbranded in this respect when introduced into, while in, and|while held for sale after shipment in, interstate commerce.|DISPOSITION: January 23, 1953. Default decree of condemnation. The court|ordered that the product be delivered to the hospital ward of a Federal institu-|tion, for use in the treatment of patients requiring the prescribing of vitamin|preparations.|DRUGS AND DEVICES ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF DEVIATION FROM|OFFICIAL OR OWN STANDARDS|803. Misbranding of castor oil. U. S. v. 29 2/3 Dozen Bottles of Castor Oil. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00803December 1943Ritchie & Janvier, Inc.castor oilApril 21, 1942New York, N.Y.Bloomfield, N. J.New York, N.Y.Southern District of New York803F. D. C. No. 7575. Sample No. 89773-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00803ddnj|803. Misbranding of castor oil. TJ. S. v. 29% Dozen Bottles of Castor Oil. De-|fault decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. T>. C. No. 7575. Sample|No. 89773-E.)|On May 29,1942, the United States attorney for the Southern District of New|York filed a libel against 29? dozen bottles of castor oil at New York, N.T.,|alleging thaJ; the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|April 21, 1942, by Ritchie & Janvier, Inc., from Bloomfield, N. J.; and charging|that it was misbranded in that it would be dangerous to health when used in|the dosage recommended in the labeling, namely, \"\"Dosage: Infants Up to 1 year,|1 tablespoonful.\"\" The article was labeled, in pait: \"\"Kellogg's Perfected Tasteless|Castor Oil.\"\"|On July 22, 1942, the claimant having consented to the entry of a decree,|judgment of condemnation was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|804. Misbranding of Dr. Hand's Worm Elixir. U. S. v. 23 1/2 Dozen Bottles of Dr. Hand's Worm Elixir. Decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00804December 1943Smith, Kline & French LaboratoriesDr. Hand's Worm ElixirFebruary 17, 1942Detroit, Mich.Philadelphia, Pa.Detroit, Mich.Eastern District of Michigan804F. D. C. No. 7137. Sample No. 31378-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00804ddnj|604. Misbranding of Dr. Hand's Worm Elixir. TJ. S. v. 23% Dozen Bottles of|Dr. Hand's Worm Elixir. Decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 7137. Sample No. 31378-E.)|On April 1,1942, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Michi-|gan filed a libel against 23? dozen bottles of Dr. Hand's Worm Elixir at Detroit,|Mich., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce by|Smith, Kline & French Laboratories from Philadelphia, Pa., on or about February|17,1942.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of|extracts of plant drugs, including santonin and a laxative drug, in a vehicle|of syrup, a small proportion of alcohol, and flavoring material. Santonin was|present in solution to the extent of 0.164 gram per 100 cubic centimeters and in|the sediment to the extent of 0.065 gram per 100 cubic centimeters.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that it was dangerous to health|when used in the dosage and with the frequency or duration prescribed in the|labeling, since the amount of santonin provided by the article when used in ac-|cordance with such directions was sufficient to produce serious poisoning. The|dosage recommended was as follows: \"\"DOSE-2 to 4 years, 1 teaspoonful; 4 to|6 years, 1? to 2 teaspoonfuls; 6 to 10 years, 2 to 3 teaspoonfuls~; adults, 4 tea-|spoonfuls. Give first, dose at bedtime, second dose the first thing the following|morning and third dose two hours later. Give a light diet while using the|medicine. Do not repeat treatment for seven days. If the bowels have not|moved freely within two hours after the third dose, give an enema or a quick|acting cathartic, such as Epsom salt or citrate of magnesia until free move-|ment has occurred. Do not give an oily cathartic.\"\"|On August 7, 1942, judgment of condemnation was entered and the product|was ordered destroyed.|DRUGS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO BEAR ADEQUATE|DIRECTIONS OR WARNING STATEMENTS1|805. Adulteration and misbranding of Cherry Balsam and misbranding of Arabian Oil liniment, Mentho-Thymoline, Mettozone Tablets, Climax C. & P. R., and Bu-U Diuretic. U. S. v. Standard Drug Co., Inc. Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $5.00. Fine suspended during good behavior.ddnj00805December 1943Standard Drug Co., Inc., Spartanburg, S. CCherry Balsam; Arabian Oil liniment, Mentho-Thymoline, Mettozone Tablets, Climax C. & P. R., and Bu-U DiureticFebruary 28 and March 13, 1941South CarolinaSouth CarolinaNorth Carolina and GeorgiaWestern District of South Carolina805F. D. C. No. 6446. Sample Nos. 37487-E to 37489-E, incl. , 37796-E to 37799-E, incl.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00805ddnj|805. Adulteration and misbranding of Cherry Balsam and misbranding of|Arabian Oil liniment, Mentho-Thymoline, Mettozone Tablets, Climax C. &|P. R., and Bu-U Diuretic. U. S. v. Standard Drug Co., Inc. Plea of nolo|contendere. Fine, $5.00. Fine suspended during good behavior. (F. D. C.|\"\"No. 6446. Sample Nos. 37487-E to 37489-E, incl., 37796-E to 37799-E, incl.)|These products were misbranded because of false and misleading curative and|therapeutic claims in the labeling and were further misbranded in the following|respects: The labels of the Arabian Oil and the Mettozone Tablets, the former|a rubefacient containing ammonia and turpentine and the latter containing|zinc phosphide and cantharides, failed to bear necessary and adequate warning|statements; the Cherry Balsam contained a smaller amount of chloroform|than declared, the Mentho-Thymoline failed to bear a statement of the quantity|of the contents and the cartons of the Cherry Balsam, Arabian Oil, Climax|C. & P. R. and the Bu-U Diuretic were much larger than was necessary to|hold the bottles.|On August 4, 1942, the United States attorney for the Western District of|South Carolina filed an information against the Standard Drug Co., Inc.,|Spartanburg, 15. C, alleging shipment on or about February 28 and March 13,|1941, from the State of South Carolina into the States of North Carolina and|Georgia of quantities of the above-named drugs, all of which were misbranded;|the Cherry Balsam was also adulterated.|* See also Nos. 837, 845.|tially of extracts of plant drugs, chloroform 0.76 minim per fluid ounce, sugar,|and water. It was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from|and its quality fell below that which it purported and was represented to|possess, since it was represented to contain 2 minims of chloroform per fluid|ounce, whereas it contained not more than 0.76 minim of chloroform per fluid|ounce. It was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that its labeling bore false|and misleading representations regarding its efficacy in the cure, mitigation,|treatment or prevention of chronic coughs; (2) in that its container was so|made, formed, and filled as to be misleading; and (3) in that the statements,|\"\"Chloroform 2 minims to Fl. Oz.,\"\" and \"\"Each Fluid Ounce Contains 2 minims|Chloroform,\"\" were false and misleading.|Analysis of a sample of the Arabian Oil showed that it consisted essentially|of soap, ammonia, turpentine, and water. It was alleged to be misbranded|(1) in that it was a rubefacient, containing ammonia and turpentine and might|cause irritation of the skin, particularly if applied with rubbing, and it should|not be allowed to get into the eyes or on the mucous membranes and its|labeling did not bear warnings to that effect; (2) in that its labeling bore false|and misleading representations regarding its efficacy in the cure, treatment or|prevention of pain incident to rheumatism, lame back, stiff joints, croup, swell-|ings, wounds, etc.; and (3) in that its container was so made, formed, and|filled as to be misleading.|Analysis of a sample of the Mentho-Thymoline showed that it consisted|essentially of small proportions of camphor, menthol, and thymol, incorporated|,in a petrolatum base. It was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that its labeling|bore false and misleading representations regarding its efficacy in the cure|or treatment of inflammations, colds, croup, sore throat, burns, wounds, piles,|headache, and earache; (2) in that the name \"\"Mentho-Thymoline\"\" was mis-|leading, since it suggested that the article consisted solely of menthol and|thymol, whereas it did not so consist, but did contain other active ingredients;|and (3) in that its label failed to bear an accurate statement of the quantity|of the contents.|Analysis of a sample of the Mettozone Tablets showed that they consisted|essentially of small proportions of extracts of plant drugs, including nux vomica,|and a phosphide of some metal such as zinc. It was alleged to be misbranded:|(1) In that it contained zinc phosphide, the frequent or continued use of which|might lead to chronic phosphorus poisoning, and it contained cantharides, the use|of which might cause nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain and might seriously|injure the kindeys, and its labeling did not warn of such dangers, and its use by|persons afflicted by disease of the kidneys might be especially dangerous; (2)|in that its labeling bore false and misleading representations regarding its|efficacy in the cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of sexual debility,|weakened sexual powers, or impotency.|Analysis of a sample of the Climax C. & P. K. showed that it consisted essentially|of extracts of plant drugs including capsicum, chloroform, alcohol, and water.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that its labeling bore false and misleading|representations regarding its efHcacy in the cure, mitigation, treatment or preven-|tion of pain in the bowels, cramp, colic, and diarrhea; and in that its container|was so made, formed, and filled as to be misleading.|Analysis of a sample of the Bu-U Diuretic showed that it consisted essentially|of extracts of plant drugs, small proportions of potassium acetate, alcohol, and|water, preserved with sodium benzoate and colored with caramel. It was alleged|to be misbranded in that representations in the labeling that it was a diuretic and|would strengthen the kidneys and would assist in eliminating poisons and wastes|from the system were false and misleading since it was not a diuretic, and would|not be efficacious for the purposes claimed; and in that its container was so made,|-formed, and filled as to be misleading.|On September 14,1942, the defendant having entered a plea of nolo contendere,|the court imposed a fine of $5.00 and ordered that payment be suspended during|good behavior by the defendant.|806. Adulteration and misbranding of W. K. Sterline's Compound. U. S. v. Webster K. Sterline (W. K. Sterline). Plea of guilty. Fine, $700; payment of $600 suspended.ddnj00806December 1943Webster K. Sterline, trading as W. K. Sterline at Sidney, OhioW. K. Sterline's CompoundDecember 30, 1940KentuckyOhioKentuckySouthern District of Ohio806F. D. C. No. 6417. Sample No. 5019-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00806ddnj|806. Adulteration and misbranding- of W. K. Sterline's Compound. IT. S. v.|Webster K. Sterline (W. K. Sterline). Plea of guilty. Fine, $700} pay-|ment of $600 suspended. (F. D. C. No. 6417. Sample No. 5019-E.)|. On March 7,1942, the United States attorney for the Southern District of Qliio|filed an information against Webster K. Sterline, trading as W. K. Sterline at|Sidney, Ohio, alleging shipment on or about December 30, 1940, from the State|which was adulterated and misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it contained 15.25 grains of|potassium iodide and 14.46 grains of sodium bromide per fluid ounce. (It con-|tained 5.56 percent of alcohol by volume.)|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from that|which it purported and was represented to possess in that the statements on the|label, \"\"Potassium Iodide 7.59 gr., Sodium Bromide 7.59 gr. * * * to each|fluid ounce,\"\" represented and suggested that it contained not more than 7.59|grains of potassium iodide and not more than 7.59 grains of sodium bromide to|each fluid ounce, whereas it contained 15.25 'grains of potassium iodide and 14.46|grains of sodium bromide to each fluid ounce.|It was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that its label failed to bear adequate|warnings against use in those pathological conditions or by children where its|use might be dangerous to health, or against unsafe dosage in such manner and|form as are necessary for the protection of users since, because of the presence of|potassium iodide, it should not be used in cases of lung disease, chronic cough,|or goiter, and its use should be discontinued in the event a skin rash should|appear; frequent or continued use might lead to mental derangement, skin erup-|tions, or other serious effects; and, because of the presence of sodium bromide,|it should not be used by those suffering from kidney disease; (2) in that its|labeling failed to bear adequate directions for use since the labeling failed to|state that it should not be administered to children under 6 years of age; and|(3) in that the statements, \"\"Alcohol 10 Per Cent to each Fl. Oz.,\"\" and \"\"Potassium|Iodide 7.59 gr., Sodium Bromide 7.59 gr. * * * to each fluid ounce,\"\" were|false and misleading since the article contained not more than 5.56 percent of|alcohol, and contained 15.25 grains of potassium iodide and 14.46 grains of|sodium bromide per fluid ounce.|On July 13, 1942, the defendant having entered a plea of guilty, the court|imposed a fine of $350 on each of the 2 counts but suspended payment of $300|on each count, making the total fine paid $100.|807. Adulteration and misbranding of Howell's Cocoa & Quinine Syrup, Howell's Antiseptic Healing Oil, and Howell's Blue Label Cough Syrup, and misbranding of Howell's Epsom Salt, Hi-Qual Quinine Sulphate, and Howell's Hi-Qual Balm. U. S. v. The Howell Company, Inc. Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $90.ddnj00807December 1943Howell Co., Inc., New Orleans, La.Howell's Cocoa & Quinine Syrup, Howell's Antiseptic Healing Oil, and Howell's Blue Label Cough Syrup; Howell's Epsom Salt, Hi-Qual Quinine Sulphate, and Howell's Hi-Qual BalmFebruary 21, 1940. to January 6, 1941LouisianaLouisianaTexas, AlabamaEastern District of Louisiana807F. D. C. No. 7264. Sample Nos. 9079-E, 9080-E, 35065-E, 35066-E, 35068-E, 356S5-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00807ddnj|807. Adulteration and misbranding of Howell's Cocoa & Quinine Syrup, Howell's|Antiseptic Healing Oil, and Howell's Blue Label Cough Syrup, and mis-|branding of Howell's Epsom Salt, Hi-Qual Quinine Sulphate, and Howell's|Hi-Qual Balm. TT. S. v. The Howell Company, Inc. Plea of nolo con-|tendere. Fine, $90. (F. D. C. No. 7264. Sample Nos. 9079-E, 9080-E,|35065-E, 35066-E, 35068-E, 356S5-E.)|The labeling of the Healing Oil failed to bear adequate warning statements|and bore false and misleading statements regarding its curative, therapeutic,|and antiseptic properties. The product also contained carbolic acid in excess|of the amount claimed. The labeling of the Epsom salt failed to bear adequate|directions for use and adequate 'warning statements. The Cocoa and Quinine|Syrup was deficient in quinine sulfate. The Cough Syrup was deficient in chloro-|form. The bottles of quinine sulfate contained less than the labeled amount.|The labeling of the Hi-Qual Balm bore false and misleading curative and thera-|peutic claims.|On July 9,1942, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Louisiana|filed an information against the Howell Co., Inc., New Orleans, La., alleging|shipment, within the period from on or about February 21, 1940. to on or about|January 6, 1941, from the State of Louisiana into the States of Texas, Alabama,|and Mississippi of quantities of the above-named drugs which were misbranded|and portions of which were also adulterated.|Analysis of a sample of the Healing Oil showed that it consisted essentially|of an oil containing camphor and 2.4 percent of phenol; tests showed that it was|not antiseptic when used as directed. It was alleged to be adulterated (1) in|that its strength differed from that which it purported and was represented to|possess, since it was represented to contain 2 percent of carbolic acid, whereas|it contained not less than 2.4 percent; and (2) in that its strength differed from|and its quality fell below that which it purported to and was represented to|possess, since it was represented to be an antiseptic but it was not an antiseptic.|The Healing Oil was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that its labeling failed|to bear a warning.that a bandage should not be used when the article was|applied to fingers and toes, and that it should be applied according to directions|and in no case to large areas of the body; (2) in that the statement, \"\"2-|Carbolic Acid,\"\" borne on the bottles and some of the cartons, and the state-|ment, \"\"Antiseptic,\"\" borne on the bottles and cartons, were false and misleading|since the article contained more than 2 percent of carbolic acid, and it was not|an antiseptic; and (3) in that statements on the cartons containing a portion of|the bottles that the article would be efficacious to relieve pain and soreness in|carbuncles, erysipelas, boils, and itch, and would be efficacious in the treatment of|ulcers, old sores, and skin eruptions, and statements on the cartons containing|the remainder of the bottles that it would be efficacious in the treatment of piles|and open sores, were false and misleading since the article would not be effi-|cacious for such purposes.|The Epsom salt was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that its label failed|to bear adequate directions for use since the label bore no directions for use;|and (2) in that it was a cathartic and its label did not bear a warning that|it should not be used when abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting or other symptoms|of appendicitis are present, and that frequent or continued use might result in|dependence on laxatives.|The Cocoa and Quinine Syrup was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength|differed from and its quality fell below that which it purported and was repre-|sented to possess since it was represented to contain 2 grains of quinine sulfate|per teaspoonful, but it contained not more than 1.65 grains of quinine sulfate|per teaspoonful. It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement, \"\"Qui-|nine Sulphate 2 Gr. per Teaspoonful,\"\" borne on the bottle label was false and|misleading.|Analysis of a sample of the Cough Syrup showed that it /consisted of a dark|brown syrupy liquid containing 0.35 minim of chloroform per fluid ounce. It|was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from and its quality|fell below that which it purported and was represented to possess, since it was|represented to contain 3 minims of chloroform per fluid ounce, whereas it con-|tained not more than 0.35 minimum of chloroform per fluid ounce. It was alleged|to be misbranded in that the statement, \"\"Chloroform 3 Min. per Fl. Oz.\"\" borne on|the cartons and bottle labels was false and misleading.|The quinine sulfate was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement,|\"\"Quinine Sulphate 15 Grains,\"\" borne on the label of the bottle containing the|article was false and misleading since the bottles contained quinine sulfate in|amounts varying from 8.61 to 13.36 grains.|Analysis of a sample of the Hi-Qual Balm showed that it -consisted of a mix-|ture of oil of peppermint, oil of eucalyptus, camphor, menthol, and ephedrine in|a petrolatum base. It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements in|the labeling which represented and suggested that it was efficacious in the|treatment of head colds, croup, and piles were false and misleading since it was|not efficacious for such purposes.|On July 22, 1942, a plea of nolo contendere having entered on behalf of the|defendant, the court imposed a fine of $90.|808. Misbranding of Hillys \"\"H-R 5.\"\" U. S. v. Morris William Hlllinger (Hilly Medicinal Products). Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $10.ddnj00808December 1943Morris William Hillinger, trading as Hflry-Medicinal Products at Pasadena, Calif.Hillys \"\"H-R 5.\"\"October 7, 1940CaliforniaCaliforniaOregonSouthern District of California808F. D. C. No. 7268. Sample No. 55722-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00808ddnj|808. Misbranding: of Hillys \"\"H-R 5.\"\" IT. S. v. Morris William Hlllinger (Hilly|Medicinal Products). Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, 810. (F. D. C. No.|7268. Sample No. 55722-E.)|On June 11, 1942, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|California filed an information against Morris William Hillinger, trading as|Hflry-Medicinal Products at Pasadena, Calif., alleging shipment on or about|October 7, 1940, from the State of California into the State of Oregorrof a|quantity of Hillys \"\"H-R 5\"\" which was misbranded.|\"\" '|Analysis of a sample of the. article showed that it consisted essentially of|small proportions of an ephedrine salt, caffeine, sodium phosphate, reducing|sugars, and water, and was colored with caramel.|The article was alleged to be misbranded <1) in that it contained 0.31 grain|of ephedrine hydrochloride per fluid ounce but its label failed to warn that|frequent or continued use might cause nervousness, restlessness, or sleepless-|ness, and that individuals suffering from high blood pressure, heart disease,|diabetes, or thyroid trouble should not use such drug except on competent|advice rand (2) in that certain statements in the labeling were false and mis-|leading since they represented and suggested that the article would be \"\"effica-|cious for use after over-indulgence in alcohol; would be efficacious in the treat-|ment of hang-overs; would help establish sobriety and would be efficacious in|the cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of alcoholism, whereas it would|not be efficacious for such purposes.|On July 20, 1942, the defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere and the|court imposed a fine of $10.|809. Misbranding of Bowel Regulator, Alterative Tonic Compound, and Neo-Sed. U. S. v. 72 Bottles of Bowel Regulator, 94 Bottles of Alterative Tonic Compound, and 93 Bottles of Neo-Sed. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00809December 1943Hale Drug Co.Bowel Regulator, Alterative Tonic Compound, and Neo-SedJanuary 7, 1942St. Louis, Mo.Birmingham, Ala.St. Louis, Mo.Eastern District of Missouri809F. D. C. Nos. 7762, 7763, 7764. Sample Nos. 71935-E to 71937-E, incl.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00809ddnj|809. Misbranding of Bowel Regulator, Alterative Tonic Compound, and Weo-|Sed. U. S. v. 72 Bottles of Bowel Regulator, 94 Bottles of Alterative|Tonic Compound, and 93 Bottles of Neo-Sed. Default decrees of con-|demnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 7762, 7763, 7764. Sample Nos.|71935-E to 71937-E, incl.)|On June 15, 1942, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Missouri filed libels against the above-listed drugs at St. Louis, Mo., alleging|thalrtney had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about January 7, 1942,|by the Hale Drug Co., from Birmingham, Ala.|Analysis of a sample of the Bowel Regulato\"\"? showed that it consisted essen-|tially of compounds of sodium, potassium, magnesium and iron, tartrates, car-|bonates, extracts of plant drugs, including a laxative drug and an alkaloid-|bearing drug, sugar, and water. It was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that|its labeling failed to bear adequate directions for use since it was a laxative|and the directions provided for no limitation as to the duration of use; (2)|in that the labeling failed to bear adequate warnings that a laxative should|not be taken in cases Of nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain or other symptoms|of appendicitis, and that frequent or continued use might result in dependence|upon laxatives to move the bowels; (3) in that the statements in the labeling|which represented and suggested that it would be an efficacious regulator of the|bowels and stomach and would neutralize an acid condition of the body were|false and misleading, since it would not be efficacious for such purposes; (4) in|that it was fabricated from two or more ingredients and its label failed to|bear a statement of the common or usual names of the active ingredients; and|(5) in that it was in package form and its label failed to bear an accurate|statement of the quantity of the contents.|Analysis of a sample of the Neo-Sed showed that it consisted essentially of|barbital (0.7 grain per fluid ounce), compounds of sodium, ammonium and|potassium, bromides, benzoic acid, sugar, and water. It was alleged to be mis-|branded (1) in that the labeling failed to bear adequate warnings that frequent|or continued use may lead to mental derangement, skin eruptions or other serious|effects, and that it should not be taken by those suffering from kidney diseases;|(2) in that it was fabricated from 2 or more ingredients and the label failed to|bear a statement of the common or usual names of the active ingredients, includ-|ing a declaration of the quantity of bromide; and (3) in that it was in package|form and its label failed to bear an accurate statement of the quantity of the|contents.|Analysis of a sample of the Alterative Tonic Compound showed that it con-|sisted essentially of methenamine, potassium iodide, a compound of iron, strych-|nine (0.01 grain per fluid ounce), extracts of plant drugs, including a laxative|drug and an alkaloid-bearing drug, alcohol, sugar, and water. It was alleged|to be misbranded (1) in that the statements in the labeling which represented|and suggested that it would be efficacious as an alterative tonic and would be|effective treatment for irritations caused by impurities of the blood, and would|aid in the proper functioning of the bowels, kidney, and bladder were false and|misleading, since it would not be efficacious for such purposes; and (2) in that|it was fabricated from two or more ingredients and its label failed to bear a|statement of the common or usual names of the active ingredients including|the quantity of strychnine.|On September 2, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgments of condemna-|tion were entered and the products were ordered destroyed.|810. Misbranding of Bi-Lets. U. S. v. 4 Bottles and 5 Bottles of Bi-Lets. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00810December 1943Bi-Lets, Inc.Bi-LetsMarch 10, 1942Paducah, Ky.Nashville, TennPaducah, Ky.Western District of Kentucky810F. D. C. No. 7622. Sample No. 94511-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00810ddnj|810. Misbranding of Bl-Lets. TT. S. v. 4 Bottles and 5 Bottles of Bi-Lets. De|fault decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 7622. Sample|No. 94511-B.)|On June 9, 1942, the United States attorney for the Western District of Ken-|tucky filed a libel against 4 bottles, each containing 500 capsules, and 5 bottles,|each containing 100 capsules, of Bi-Lets, at Paducah, Ky., alleging that the|article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about March 10, 1942,|by Bi-Lets, Inc., from Nashville, Tenn.|Analysis of a sample showed that the article consisted essentially of calomel,|aloe, and bile. The article was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that it was a|laxative and its labeling failed to warn that it should not be taken in cases|of nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, or other symptoms of appendicitis; and|(2) in that its labeling failed to warn that frequent or continued use might|result in dependence upon laxatives.|On September 15, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|811. Misbranding of Brown's Nosopen. U. S. v. 12 Cartons of Brown's Nosopen Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00811December 1943Am-Bro Co.Brown's NosopenJanuary 7, 1942Houston, Tex.Lawton, Okla.Houston, Tex.Southern District of Texas811F. D. C. No. 7640. Sample No. 83803-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00811ddnj|X811. Misbranding: of Brown's Nosopen. U. S. v. 12 Cartons of Brown's Nosopen*?Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 7640.|Sample No. 83803-E.)|On June 16,1942, the United States attorney for the Southern District of Texas|filed a libel against 12 cartons of Brown's Nosopen at Houston, Tex., alleging|that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about January 7,|1942, from Lawton, Okla., by the Am-Bro Co.|Examination showeiTThat the article contained 2 units designated \"\"No. 1 Solu-|tion\"\" and \"\"No. 2 Solution,\"\" respectively. Analyses of samples showed that the No.|1 solution consisted essentially of ephedrine sulfate (approximately 1 percent),|chlorobutanol, and water; and that the No. 2 solution consisted essentially of|ephedrine alkaloid (approximately ? percent), and small proportions of volatile|oils including camphor, menthol, and oil of eucalyptus in a mineral oil base.|The article was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that both solutions contained|ephedrine but the labeling failed to warn that frequent or continued use might|cause nervousness, restlessness, and sleeplessness and that it should not be used|by individuals suffering from high blood pressure, heart disease, diabetes, or|thyroid trouble except upon competent advice, and in that the No. 2 solution|contained mineral oil and its labeling failed to warn frequent or excessive use|might cause injury to the lungs and that it should not be given to infants and|younger children except on competent advice; (2) in that its name, \"\"Nosopen,\"\"|was false and misleading since it represented and suggested that it would open|the nasal passages and make breathing easier, whereas it would not accomplish|such results; and (3) in that a statement on the label, \"\"Discomforts of Hay-|Fever, Asthma, Sinus-Head-Colds,\"\" was false and misleading since it represented|and suggested that the article would be efficacious for all discomforts of the con-|ditions described, whereas it would be effective only to lessen nasal congestion.|On July 31, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|812.|815. Adulteration and misbranding of milk of magnesia. U. S. v. Certified Pnarmacal Co., Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $40.ddnj00815December 1943Certified Pharmacal Co., Inc., New York, N. Y.milk of magnesiaDecember 9, 1940, and June 19, 1941CaliforniaNew YorkCaliforniaSouthern District Washington, D. C815F. D. C. No. 6461. Sample No. 53412-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00815ddnj|815. Adulteration and misbranding of milk of magnesia. U. S. v. Certified|Pnarmacal Co., Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $40. (F. D. C. No. 6461. Sam-|ple No. 53412-E.)|On June 30, 1942, the United States attorney for the Southern District oOiew|York filed an information against the Certified Pharmacal Co., Inc., New York,|N. Y., alleging shipment on or about December 9,1940, and June 19,1941, from the|State of New York into the State ofCalifornia, of quantities of milk of magnesia|which was adulterated and misbranded:|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to be and was|represented as a drug the name of which is recognized in the United States|Pharmacopoeia, and its strength differed from and its quality fell below the|standard set forth therein, since samples taken from each of the two shipments|showed the presence of 5.85 percent and 5.93 percent of magnesium hydroxide|respectively, and its difference in strength and quality from the standard was|not plainly stated on its label. The United States Pharmacopoeia provides that|milk of magnesia shall contain not less than 7 percent of magnesium hydroxide.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the label statements \"\"Milk of Magnesia|* See also Nos. 805, 806, 807.|556997?-43 2|U. S. P.,\"\" and \"\"Contains not less than 7? * * * of Magnesium Hydroxide,\"\"|were false and misleading since the article did not comply with the specifications|of the United States Pharmacopoeia.|On August 24, 1942, a plea of guilty having been entered on behalf of the|defendant, the court imposed a fine of $40.|816. Adulteration of ampuls of strontium bromide, triple distilled water, iron and arsenic, sodium iodide, Lactosan, and Solution Sal-Ar-Sodide. U. S. v. Cornelius L. Johnson (Haarlem Research Laboratories). Plea of guilty. Total fine, $325.ddnj00816December 1943Cornelius L. Johnson, trading as the Haarlem Research Laboratories at New York, N. Y.ampuls of strontium bromide, triple distilled water, iron and arsenic, sodium iodide, Lactosan, and Solution Sal-Ar-Sodidethe month of February, to October 7, 1940Pennsylvania, MarylandNew YorkPennsylvania, MarylandSouthern District of New York816F. D. C. No. 5557. Sample Nos. 24871-B, 24373-E to 24376-E, incl. , 24385-E, 24391-E, 28036-E, 34842-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00816ddnj|816. Adulteration of ampuls of strontium bromide, triple distilled water, iron|and arsenic, sodium iodide, Lactosan, and Solution Sal-Ar-Sodide. U. S.|v. Cornelius 1>. Johnson (Haarlem Research Laboratories). Plea of guilty.|Total fine, $325. (F. D. C. No. 5557. Sample Nos. 24871-B, 24373-E to 24376-E,|incl., 24385-E, 24391-E, 28036-E, 34842-E.)|On August 5, 1942, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|Nflw Yr^k filed an information against Cornelius X. Johnson, trading as the|Haarlem Research Laboratories at New York, N. Y., alleging shipment within|the period from on or about the month of February, to on or about October|7,1940, from the State of New York into the States of Pennsylvania, Maryland,|and New Jersey of quantities of ampuls of the above-named aTOgs~whlchwere|adulterated.|The strontium bromide was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength|differed from and its quality fell below that which it purported and was|represented to possess since it purported and was represented to contain 15-|grains of strontium bromide in each 10 cc, whereas it contained not more than|12.59 grains of strontium bromide per 10 cc.|The triple distilled water was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported|to be and was represented as a drug the name of which is recognized in the|National Formulary, and its quality or purity fell below the standard set forth|in such compendium since its contained sulfates and chlorides, ingredients|which are not found in the official product and contained oxidizable substances|in excess of the amounts permitted by the Formulary and the residue from 100|cc. was greater than the maximum permitted, 0.002 gram, and Its difference from|such standard was not plainly stated on its label.|The 2 shipments of iron and arsenic were alleged to be adulterated In that|their strength differed from that which they purported and were represented|to possess since the article in one shipment purported and was represented to|contain in each 5 cc, 7.75 milligrams of iron and 32 milligrams of arsenic,|whereas it contained in 5 cc. not less than 10.7 milligrams of iron and not less|than 97.9 milligrams of arsenic; and the article in the other shipment was|represented to contain in each 10 cc, 15.5 milligrams of iron and 64 milligrams|of arsenic, whereas it contained in each 10 cc, not less than 24 milligrams of|iron and not less than 190 milligrams of arsenic.|The sodium idodide was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to be|and was represented as a drug the name of which is recognized in the National|Formulary, and its quality and purity fell below the standard set forth therein|since it was not a clear aqueous solution but contained flocculent precipitate|and its difference from such standard was not plainly stated on its label.|The Lactosan was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed|from, and its quality fell below that which it purported and was represented|to possess, as It was represented to contain in each 2 cc, ? grain of casein and|9/10 grain of sodium phosphate, whereas it contained in each 2 cc, not more|than 0.304 (?o) grain of casein, and not more than 0.370 (less than ?)|grain of sodium phosphate.|The Solution Sal-Ar-Sodide was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength|differed from and its quality fell below that which it purported and represented|to possess since it purported and represented to contain In each 20 cc, 31 grains|of sodium salicylate and 31 grains of sodium iodide, whereas it contained in|each 20 cc, not more than 26.2 grains of sodium salicylate and not more than|27.4 grains of sodium iodide.|On September 10, 1942, the defendant having entered a plea of guilty, the|court imposed a fine of $100 on each of the second and third counts of the|information, which involved the ampuls of triple distilled water and the 5 cc.|ampuls of Iron and arsenic, and imposed a fine of $25 on each of the remaining|five counts, a total of $325.|817. Adulteration and misbranding of digitalis leaves capsules. U. S. v. Philadelphia Capsule Co., Inc., and Joseph McManus. Pleas of nolo contendere. Defendants found guilty. Fines, $250.ddnj00817December 1943Philadelphia Capsule Co., Inc., Philadelphia, Pa., and Joseph McManusdigitalis leaves capsulesSeptember 9, 1941PennsylvaniaPennsylvaniaNew JerseyEastern District of Pennsylvania817F. D. C. No. 7285. Sample No. 54329-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00817ddnj|817. Adulteration and misbranding of digitalis leaves capsules. U. S. v. Phila|delphia Capsule Co., Inc., and Joseph McManus. Pleas of nolo contendere.|Defendants found guilty. Fines, 8250. (F. D. C. No. 7285. Sample No.|54329-E.)|On August 19, 1942, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Pennsylvania filed an information against the Philadelphia Capsule Co., Inc.,|9,1941, from the State of Pennsylvania into the State of New Jersey of a quantity|of digitalis leaves capsules.|~?\"\"~\"\"|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from|that which it purported and was represented to possess since it was represented to|contain 1 grain of digitalis leaves per capsule but it contained not more than 0.4|grain. It was alleged to be misbranded in that the label statement, \"\"Capsules|Digitalis Leaves Approximates 1 Gr.,\"\" was false and misleading.|On September 16,1942, the defendants having entered please of nolo contendere,|'the court found them guilty and imposed a fine of $125 against each defendant.|818. Adulteration and misbranding of Estrovin. U. S. v. 950 ampuls of Estrovin. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00818December 1943Adson-Intrasol Laboratories, Inc.EstrovinJanuary 28, 1942Los Angeles, Calif.New York, N. Y.Los Angeles, Calif.Southern District of California818F. D. C. No. 7634. Sample Nos. 7697-E, 7698-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00818ddnj|818. Adulteration and misbranding of Estrovin. U. S. v. 950 ampuls of Estrovin.|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 7634.|Sample Nos. 7697-B, 7698-E.)|The potency of this product was not greater than 1,100 international units of|estrogenic ovarian, follicular hormones per cubic centimeter, whereas it was rep-|resented to possess a potency of 5,000 such units per cubic centimeter.|On June 10, 1942, the United States attorney for the Southern District -of|California filed a libel against 950 ampuls of Estrovin at Los~Angeles, Calif.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|January 28, 1942, by the Adson-Intrasol Laboratories, Inc., from New, Yjgrk,^N^JY,...|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differedTironT|that which it was represented to possess, namely, 5,000 international units of|estrogenic ovarian follicular hormones in each cubic centimeter.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements in the labeling:|(Box containing 25 ampuls) \"\"Estrovin in Oil * * * 1 c. c. contains thera-|peutic activity of 5,000 i.u. of estrogenic ovarian follicular hormones,\"\" (individual|ampul) \"\"Estroin in Oil 1 c. c. 5,000 I.U.\"\" were false and misleading, since 1|cubic centimeter of the article did not contain the therapeutic activity of 5,000|international units of estrogenic ovarian follicular hormones.|On August 7, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|819. Adulteration of wheat germ. U. S. v. 161 Cases and 45 Cases of Wheat Germ. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00819December 1943Battle Creek Food Co.wheat germAugust 28, 1942New York, N. Y.Battle Creek, Mich.New York, N. Y.Southern District of New york819F. D. C. No. 8399. Sample No. 16874-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00819ddnj|819. Adulteration of wheat g-erm. 17. S. v. 161 Cases and 45 Cases of Wheat|Germ. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No.|8399. Sample No. 16874-F.)|On September 24, 1942, the United States attorney for the Southern District|of New york filed a libel against 161 cases, each containing 12 ^-pound cans, and|45 cases, each containing 12 1-pound cans, of wheat germ at New York, N. Y.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|August 28, 1942, by the Battle Creek Food Co. from Battle Creek^J&ieiu The|article was labeled in part: \"\"Battle Creek Wheat Germ.\"\"|Examination of samples of the article showed that it contained less than|300 U. S. P. units of vitamin Bi per ounce.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from|and its quality fell below that which it was represented on its label as possessing,|500 U. S. P. units of vitamin Bi per ounce.|It was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that the statements on the label, \"\"One|ounce (approx. ? cup) of Battle Creek Wheat Germ supplies 500 U. S. P.|units of vitamin Bi {Thiamin), (1? times the minimum daily requirement for|an adult),\"\" was false and misleading since it contained less than 500 U. S. P.|units of vitamin Bi per ounce; and (2) in that the statements, \"\"Wheat Germ|fills a much-needed place in the modern diet which is apt to be deficient in|Thiamin (vitamin Bi) and Riboflavin (vitamin G). Vitamin Bi tends to make|steady nerves, improves appetite, aids digestion and combats constipation.|Vitamin G promotes good nutrition; both vitamins help to build vital resistance.|Battle Creek Wheat Germ presents a * * * economical source of these|important vitamins. One ounce (approx. ys cup) of Battle Creek Wheat Germ|supplies 500 U. S. P. units of vitamin Bi (Thiamin), (1? times the minimum daily|requirement for an adult),\"\" were misleading since they represented and sug-|gested that adequate amounts of vitamin Bi and riboflavin are not supplied by|the ordinary diet and that the use of the article would promote steady nerves,|improve the appetite, aid digestion, combat constipation, promote good nutrition,|and build vital resistance, whereas vitamin Bi and riboflavin are present in a|wide variety of ordinary foods and are present in many ordinary diets in adequate|amounts, and the use of the article would not correct or promote the conditions|mentioned.|The article was also charged to be misbranded under the provisions of the|law applicable to foods as reported in F. N. J. No. 4488.|On October 10, 1942, no claimant haying appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|828. Misbranding of Bafaline Dental Cream and Bafaline Tablets. U. S. v. The Bafaline Laboratories, Inc. Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $30 on each of 4 counts. Payment suspended on all counts but the first.ddnj00828December 1943Bafaline Laboratories, Inc., Manchester, N. H.Bafaline Dental Cream and Bafaline Tabletsor about January 7 and July 18, 1941MassachusettsNew HampshireMassachusettsDistrict of New Hampshire828F. D. C. No. 6450. Sample Nos. 36272-E, 36273-E, 51554-E, 51555-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00828ddnj|828. Misbranding of Bafaline Dental Cream and Bafaline Tablets. U. S. v. The|Bafallne Laboratories, Inc. Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $30 on each|of 4 counts. Payment suspended on all counts but the. first. (F. D. C.|No. 6450. Sample Nos. 36272-E, 36273-E, 51554-E, 51555-E.)|On May 13,1942, the United States attorney for the District of .NjwJgEannoshire|filed an information against the Bafaline Laboratories, Inc., Manchester, NTEET|alleging shipment on or|' about January 7 and July 18, 1941, from the State of|New Hampshire into the State ofMajsjchujetts of quantities of Bafaline Dental|Cream and Bafaline Tablets wincTH^emisbranded.|Analyses of samples of the dental cream showed that it consisted essentially|of calcium carbonate,, magnesium compounds, soap, sodium borate, sodium ben-|zoate, saccharin, and glycerin, flavored with oils of peppermint and spearmint.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that statements in the labeling which rep-|resented that it would be efficacious to prevent the formation of tartar and|would keep the gums healthy and in a hygienic condition were false and mis-|leading since it would not be efficacious for such purposes.|Analysis of the Bafaline Tablets showed that they consisted essentially of|acetylsalicylic acid and caffeine, with indications of the presence of gelsemium.|One shipment of the tablets was alleged to be misbranded in that the state-|ments in the labeling which represented and suggested that they would be|efficacious for the relief of all pain, for the relief of colds, and for the relief of|discomfort resulting from migraine, earache, neuritis, and rheumatic: .pains;|would act as a restorative on the nervous system after overindulgence; and|would produce unexcelled results in quieting racked nerves and upset nervous|stomach and all other symptoms that go with the \"\"morning after,\"\" were false|and misleading since the article would not be efficacious for such purposes.|The tablets in the remaining shipment were alleged to be misbranded in that the|statements in the labeling that they would stop all pain, would be efficacious|in the cure, mitigation, treatment, prevention, or relief of migraine, earache,|neuritis, and rheumatic pains, and would be efficacious in .the treatment or|prevention of prolonged and severe pain and colds, were false and misleading|since they would not be efficacious for such purposes. Both lots of tablets|were alleged to be misbranded further in that they were fabricated from two|or more ingredients and their labeling did not bear the common or usual name|of each active ingredient.|On July 17,1942, a plea of nolo contendere was entered on behalf of the defend-|ant and the court imposed a fine of $30 on each of the 4 counts but suspended|payment on each count but the first, on condition that the defendant not be|convicted of subsequent violation of the law.|1008. Misbranding of Dye's Compound Tablets and Dye's Laxative Pellets. U. S. v. Clara A. Skey (Dr. J. H. Dye Medical Co.). Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $150.ddnj01008March 1945Clara A. Skey, trading as the Dr. J. H. Dye Medical Co., Buffalo, N. Y.Dye's Compound Tablets and Dye's Laxative PelletsJanuary 17, and March 12 and 31, 1941California and TexasNew YorkCalifornia and TexasWestern District of New York1008F. D. C. No. 6456. Sample Nos. 7673-E, 7674-E, 11173-E, 11174-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01008ddnj|1008. Misbranding of Dye's Compound Tablets and Dye's Laxative Pellets. U. S.|v. Clara A. Skey (Dr. J. H. Dye Medical Co.). Plea of nolo contendere.|Fine, $150. (F. D. C. No. 6456. Sample Nos. 7673-E, 7674-E, 11173-E,|11174-E.)|On May 25, 1942, the United States attorney for the Western District of New|York filed an information against Clara A. Skey, trading as the Dr. J. H. Dye|Medical Co., Buffalo, N. Y., alleging shipment on or about January 17, and March|12 and 31, 1941, from the State of New York into the States of California and|Texas of quantities of the above-named products which were misbranded.|Analyses showed that Dye's Compound Tablets consisted essentially of ex-|tracts of plant drugs including black haw and an alkaloid-bearing drug, and that|Dye's Laxative Pellets consisted essentially of extracts of plant drugs including|aloin, podophyllin, and Hydrastis.|The Dye's Compound Tablets were alleged to be misbranded in that the state-|ments appearing in their labeling which represented and suggested that they|would be efficacious in reducing the distressing symtoms of functional dysmenor-|rhea ; that they would help build up physical resistance and tend to reduce minor|nervous conditions'due to functional painful menstruation; that they would be|efficacious to increase the appetite and resistance; that they would be efficacious in|the alleviation of painful symptoms of certain female functional irregularities,|and were particularly indicated for this purpose for the woman of mature age;|that they would be efficacious in reducing the annoying and sometimes painful|symptoms of change of life; that they would be efficacious in the treatment of|headache or general nervousness during menstrual periods; that they would aid|the digestion and strengthen the young woman at the time of puberty; that they|would be efficacious in the treatment of nervous irritability, headache, backache,|nausea, debility, and rings under the eyes; that they would give the young|mother more appetite and assist her in obtaining more nourishment from the|food eaten, and alleviate nervousness and weakness, and the tendency to tire|easily; that they would be efficacious to bring the joy of motherhood to women;|that they would be efficacious in the treatment of irritability, nervousness,|melancholia, hysteria, loss of sleep, and peculiar pains in various parts of the|body during or preceding change of life; that they would be efficacious in the|cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of amenorrhea (absence of the men-|strual periods or scantiness of the flow for no apparent reason), dysmenorrhea|(difficult or painful menstruation), menorrhagia (excessive or abundant men-|struation), metritis (inflammation of the matrix), and ovaritis (inflammation|of the ovaries) ; that they would be efficacious to make women more attractive;|and that they would develop personal magnetism, prevent loss of vitality, and|bring about a feeling of vigor and animation, were false and misleading since|the tables were not efficacious for such purposes and would not accomplish the|results claimed.|The Laxative Pellets were alleged to be misbranded (1) in that the statements|appearing in their labeling which represented and suggested that they would be|efficacious in relieving headaches, coated tongue, bad breath, aggravated pimply|skin, lassitude, and indigestion were false and misleading since the tablets would|not be efficacious in relieving such conditions; (2) in that their labeling did not|bear adequate directions for use, since the directions for use displayed in the|labeling were indefinite and did not limit the duration of use of the tablets; and,|(3) in that the labeling did not bear such adequate warnings against use in those|pathological conditions wherein their use might be dangerous to health, or against|unsafe duration of administration, in such manner and form as are necessary|for the protection of users, since the tablets were a laxative and their labeling|did not bear a warning that they should not be used when the symptoms of ap-|pendicitis, such as nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain, were present, and that|frequent or continued use of the tablets might result in dependence on laxatives.|On October 4, 1943, the defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere, and on|October 25,1943, the court imposed a fine of $150.|820. Adulteration and misbranding of nicotinic acid amide. U. S. v. 57 Bottles and 314 Bottles of Nicotinic Acid Amide. Default decrees of condemnation. Product ordered relabeled and delivered to State hospitals.ddnj00820December 1943Schieffelin & Co.nicotinic acid amideJuly 1 and 24, 1942Atlanta and Savannah, Ga.New York, N. Y.Atlanta and Savannah, Ga.Northern and Southern District of Georgia820F. D. C. No. 8069, 8099. Sample Nos. 28408-F, 29121-F, 29131-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00820ddnj|820. Adulteration and misbranding: of nicotinic acid amide. U. S. v. 57 Bottles|and 314 Bottles of Nicotinic Acid Amide. Default decrees of condemna-|tion. Product ordered relabeled and delivered to State hospitals. (F. D. C.|No. 8069, 8099. Sample Nos. 28408-F, 29121-F, 29131-F.)|On August 10 and 12, 1942, the United States attorneys for the Northern|and Southern District of Georgia, filed libels against 57 bottles and 314 bottles|of nicotinic acid amide at Atlanta and Savannah, Ga., alleging that the article|had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about July 1 and 24, 1942, by|Schieffelin & Co. fromJStgsLXork,_]S;: Y. The article was labeled in part: \"\"Nico-|tinic Acid Amide.\"\"|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that nicotinic acid had been|substituted in whole or in part for nicotinic acid amide.|It was alleged to.be misbranded in \"\"that the declaration on the label \"\"Nico-|tinic Acid Amide\"\" was false and misleading, and in that it was offered for sale|under the name of another drug.|On September 15 and December 21, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judg-|ments of condemnation were entered and the courts ordered that the article be|delivered to the Florida State Hospital and to a State hospital at Midgeville,|Ga., after it had been relabeled under the supervision of the Food and Drug|Administration.|DRUGS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF FALSE AND MISLEADING CLAIMS *|DRUGS FOK HUMAN USE|821. Action to restrain interstate shipments of Catalyn and other drugs. U. S. v. Royal Lee (Vitamin Products Co.). Permanent injunction granted.ddnj00821December 1943Royal Lee, trading as Vitamin Products Co., Elm Grove, Wis.Catalyn and other drugs\NWisconsin\NWisconsinDistrict Court for the Western District of Wisconsin821Inj. No. 12.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00821ddnj|821. Action to restrain interstate shipments of Catalyn and other drugs. U. S.|v. Royal Lee (Vitamin Products Co.). Permanent injunction granted.|(Inj. No. 12.)|On June 19, 1941, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Wisconsin filed a complaint against Royal Lee, trading as Vitamin Products Co.,|Mm~t3TOve7 Wis., alleging: (1) That the defendant was engaged in the manu-|facture, processing, and packing of vitamin and mineral products at Milwaukee,|Wis., for introduction and delivery for introduction, distribution, and sale in|interstate commerce under the firm name Vitamin Products Co. (2) That in con-|nection with such business the defendant had designated, appointed, directed,|and managed agents and distributors located in various cities in the United|States and Canada and was continuing to do so. (3) That the following prod-|ucts, Catalyn, also known as V:P No. 710 Vitamin Tablets; V-P Vitamin A Com-|plex, also known as V-P No. 711 Vitamin Tablets; V-P Vitamin B complex, also|known as V-P No. 712 Vitamin Tablets; V-P Vitamin C Complex, also known as|V-P No. 713 Vitamin Tablets; V-P Vitamin D Complex, also known as V-P|No. 714 Vitamin Tablets; V-P Vitamin F Complex, also known as V-P No. 716|Vitamin Tablets; V-P Vitamin G Complex, also known as V-P No. 717 Tablets;|V-P Phosphate, also known as V-P No. 718 Liquid; Cerol, also known as V-P No.|719 Vitamin Tablets; V-P Organic Mineral Tablets, also known as V-P No. 721|Mineral Tablets; and Cerodyn, had been manufactured, processed, and packed by|the defendant at Milwaukee, Wis.* and had been and were being introduced and|delivered for introduction into'interstate commerce by the defendant at Mil-|waukee, Wis., to his agents and distributors #for sale, were being sold to the|public, and remained in interstate commerce under the direction and control of|the defendant.|The complaint alleged further that the product \"\"Catalyn,\"\" also known as V-P|No. 710 Vitamin Tablets, was fabricated from more than two active ingredients,|namely, wheat flour,, wheat bran, crystalline milk sugar, powdered rice braji,|powdered carrots, and glandular material; that the product V-P Vitamin A|Complex, also known as V-P No. 711 Vitamin Tablets, was fabricated from more|than two active ingredients, namely, wheat starch and tissues, rice bran, root|tissues resmbling those of dried carrot, milk sugar, and animal tissues suggestive|of glandular material; that the product V-P Vitamin B Complex, also known as|V-P No. 712 Vitamin Tablets, was fabricated from more than two active ingredi-|ents, namely, wheat tissues and starch, rice bran, animal tissues apparently from|* See also Nos| 801, 806-809. 811-320.|apparently a yeast by-product; that the product V-P Vitamin C Complex, also|known as V-P No. 713 Vitamin Tablets, was fabricated from more than two|active ingredients, namely, wheat starch and tissues, milk sugar, rice bran, animal|tissues closely resembling glandular material, and material of the nature of|small droplets of a light green color suggesting chlorophyl origin; that the product|V-P Vitamin D Complex, also known as V-P No. 714 Vitamin Tablets, was fabri-|cated from more than two active ingredients, namely, crystalline calcium laca,te,|crystalline milk sugar, and material closely resembling calcium glycerophosphate;|that the product V-P Vitamin F Complex, also known as V-P No. 716 Vitamin|Tablets, was fabricated from more than two active ingredients, namely, wheat|bran, starchy material, rice bran, animal tissues from glandular source, and|occasional alfalfa hairs; that the product V-P Vitamin G Complex, also known as|V-P No. 717 Vitamin Tablets, was fabricated from more than two active ingredi-|ents, namely, crystalline milk sugar, wheat starch and wheat tissues, and animal|tissues apparently from a glandular source; and charged that the said products|were misbranded in that their labels failed to bear the common or usual name of|their active ingredients.|The complant alleged further (1) that prior to February 8, 1939, the defendant|manufactured, processed, and packed, and introduced and delivered for introduc-|tion into interstate commerce, the product known as Catalyn; (2) that labels and|circulars packed with the product, prior to that date, bore false and mislaading|claims and representations as to its therapeutic valixe in the treatment of human|ailments and diseases; (3) that on February 8,1939, in the District Court for the|Western District of Wisconsin, the defendant was convicted of violation of the|Food and Drugs Act of 1906 in that he had introduced into interstate commerce a|quantity of Catalyn which was misbranded by reason of false and fraudulent|therapeutic claims for it; and (4) that since February 8, 1939, the defendant had|removed from the labels of his product Catalyn all claims and representations|therefor of therapeutic value in the treatment of human ailments and diseases,|and since that date none of the other above-mentioned products had contained,|either on the labels of the products or packages or in circulars enclosed therewith,|any direct statement or representation of therapeutic value for the products in|the treatment of human ailments and diseases.|The complaint alleged further (paragraph 15) that since February 8. 1939, the|defendant had written and caused to be written and printed at Milwaukee, Wis.,|various circulars, pamphlets, booklets, and other literature relative to the articles,|wherein and whereby the deferdant had and was representing that they were|efficacious in the cure, prevention, and treatment of a wide variety of human|diseases and ailments.|Paragraphs 16 to 22 of the complaint charged that the defendant by means of the|said circulars, pamphlets, booklets, and other literature had, and was repre-|senting (1) that the products when taken individually or collectively as pre-|scribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling would cure, prevent, and|constitute an adequate treatment for 'human diseases such sis pneumonia,|tuberculosis, influenza, colds, whooping cough, measles, and mumps, which repre-|sentations were fa7se and misleading since such diseases are caused bv infection|with germs or viruses and not by a deficiency of vitamins or minerals, and|no vitamin or mineral, or any combination thereof, or any product or com-|bination of products manufactured by the defendant was capable of curing,|preventing, or constituting an adequate treatment for any of such diseases:|(2) that representations that such products would cure, prevent and constitute an|adequate treatment for puerperal sepsis, infection of ear, infections of genito-|urinary tract, infections of mucous tract, infections of gastro-intestinal trrct,|infection of res-pirnto^v tract, infections of sinuses, focal infections, and in-|fectious diseases, were false and misleading since no mineral or vitamin or com-|bination thereof nor any product or combination of products above-mentioned|manufactured by the defendant, was capable of curing, preventing, or con-|st'tuting an adequate treatment for any such diseases; (3) that representations|flat they would cure, prevent, or constitute an adequate treatment for high blood|pressure, how blood pressure, overweight, and imderweight, were false and mis-|leading since no substance or combination of substances would correct or con-|fi*i\"\"ufe a cure, preventive, or adequate treatment for both high Wood pressure|and low blood nressure, overweight and underweight; (4) that representations|that they wouM cure, prevent, and constitute an adequate treatment for arterio-|sclerosis, high blood pressure, aortic aneurism, aortic insufficiency, valve leakage,|coronary occlusion, coronary thrombosis, or dementia, were false and mis-|leading since such diseases are almost always accompanied by irreparable|anatomical changes that are incurable and for which no substance or combina-|tion of substances, including minerals, and/or vitamins, or a product or any|combination of products manufactured by the defendant would constitute an|adequate treatment, preventive, or cure; (5) that representations that they|would cure, prevent, and constitute an adequate treatment for arthritis, hemor-|rhagic conditions of the urine, albuminuria, heart disorders, menstrual and|ovarian disorders, Bright's disease, leg ulcers, anemia, wasting of muscles,|paralysis, muscular -weakness, chronic diseases, amenorrhea, colitis, cystitis,|children's diseases, women's diseases, liver disorders, dysmenorrhea, eczema,|gall-bladder disease, gastritis, eye disorders, and cardiovascular disturbances,|were false and misleading since such diseases have a multiplicity of causes and|no mineral or vitamin or combination thereof, or any product of combina-|tion of the products of the defendant, would constitute an adequate or com-|petent treatment for such diseases and conditions; (6) that representations|that the drugs would cure, prevent, and constitute an adequate treatment for|acne, acute or chronic alcoholism, angina pectoris, Addison's disease, adrenal|hypertrophy, agranulocytosis, apoplectic sequellae, atrophy of glands or muscles,|achlorhydric anemias, backward children, burns, cataracts, chlorosis, chorea,|diabetes mellitus, epilepsy, toxic goiter, hyperthyroidism, hyperglycemia, hyper-|tension, hypotension, asthma, hay fever, hyperemesis of pregnancy, sexual im-|potency, insanity due to endocrine failure, menopause disorders, migraine,|menstrual- dysfunction, paralysis agitans, phlebitis, poliomyelitis, paralytic|sequellae, pancreatic dysfunction, pernicious anemia, nephritis, ideopathic ovarian|disorders, prostate enlargement, peptic ulcers, sclerosis, rheumatic fever and|varicose veins, were false and misleading since such diseases are not recognized|by experts qualified by scientific training and experience as being caused by a|deficiency of either minerals and/or vitamins, and no vitamin or mineral or any|combination thereof, or any product or combination of products of the defendant|would constitute an adequate or competent treatment, prevention, or cure for any|of said diseases; (7) that representations that they would cure, prevent, and|constitute an adequate treatment for atrophy of organs and glands (testes, liver,|spleen, thyroid, pituitary and salivary), infections and degenerations of eyes,|physical weakness, nervousness, insomnia, gland swelling in general, renal calculi,|bronchitis, endocrinopathies of childhood, nervous indigestion, neurasthenia,|disorders of pregnancy, sterility, hypogalactia, retarded growth, loss of hair, fatty|infiltration and degeneration of the liver, symptoms of nerve degeneration, Paget's|disease, paresthesias, defective teeth, thyroid dysfunction, diarrhea, vomiting,|dermatosis, gastro-enteritis, infantile gastro-intestinal disorders, glycosuria, mal-|nutrition, sprue, low resistance, kidney and bladder disorders, renal dysfunction,|formation of stones (calculi), excessive growth of lymphoid tissue, lymphatic|gland enlargement, loss of weight and vigor, low vitality, stunted growth, emacia-|tion, enlargement of liver, kidney and spleen, acidosis, and would prevent carci-|noma, were false and misleading since such symptoms and conditions are indicative|of a wide variety of fundamentally different diseases, which require divergent|forms of treatment such as surgery, psychotherapy, endocrine, drug vaccine and|physical therapy, and no mineral or vitamin or combination thereof, or any|product or combination of products manufactured by the defendant, would|constitute an adequate or competent treatment, prevention, or cure for such|diseases and conditions|The complaint alleged further (paragraphs 23 and 24) that supplies of the|circulars, pamphlets, booklets, and other literature containing false and mis-|leading representations as hereinbefore set forth, were maintained by the de-|fendant at Milwaukee, Wis., and that since February 8, 1939, he had, on his own|volition and in response to requests therefor, shipped in interstate commerce|to his agents and distributors quantities of said literature which were shipped|apart from his products; that he had on occasion shipped quantities of literature|in the same shipments as said products; that the agents and distributors had on|hand concurrently, quantities of such literature and products and by virtue|of the power and control exercised by the defendant over his agents and dis-|tributors, he had and was requiring and caiising such agents and distributors,|to place such literature with his products while being held for sale by the agents|and distributors after shipment in interstate commerce, and that thereby the|defendant had so acted so as to cause the misbranding of the products in viola-|tion of the law.|? The complaint alleged further that the defendant would continue to ship|the product in interstate commerce and would continue to cause the circulars,|pamphlets, booklets, and other literature containing the false and misleading|representations to accompany the product unless enjoined; that it was distinctly|in the public interests that an injunction should issue for the reason, among|others, that many of the diseases for which the products were recommended,|suggested, or prescribed in the labeling, such as diabetes, Addison's disease,|coronary thrombosis, pernicious anemia, agranulocytosis, pneumonia, and tuber-|culosis* are serious conditions requiring prompt, adequate treatment; that reliance|on the use of the products of the defendant, in the treatment of said diseases|would preclude prompt, appropriate, and adequate treatment of the person|suffering therefrom with resulting irreparable injury and even death; that be-|cause of inability to sample, examine, and seize each interstate shipment of these|products, many shipments of the misbranded products would enter into inter-|state commerce and the practice of the defendant in misbranding the products|while they were held by his agents and distributors after shipment in interstate|commerce could not be eliminated effectively except through the process of in-|junction, and that the purpose of the law would thus be frustrated and endangered|unless an injunction issue; and prayed that the court grant a preliminary injunc-|tion to be effective until the conclusion of the trial of the case, and that on|final hearing the preliminary injunction be made permanent.|On July 17, 1941, the defendant filed an answer alleging that all the persons ,|and firms listed in the complaint as agents and distributors, with the exception of|(1) Vitamin Products Co., Boston, Mass.; (2) Catalyn California Co., M. R.|Pexton and A. L. Jason, Los Angeles, Calif.; (3) Catalyn California Co., and|J. W. Egan, San Francisco, Calif.; (4) W. A. Pansky, Mandan, N. Dak., and; (5)|Mrs. W. F. Madden, Orlando, Fla., were jobbers buying the products from the|defendant and reselling them for their own account and profit; that these desig-|nated \"\"1,\"\" \"\"2,\"\" and \"\"3,\"\" were factory branches of the defendant and that those|designated \"\"4,\"\" and \"\"5,\"\" were agents of said \"\"jobbers.\"\" The defendant in his|answer admitted the shipment of the drugs and the literature substantially as|alleged in the complaint, except that he denied that the drugs and the literature|were ever shipped together. The answer also denied that the business and|affairs of the jobbers were directed by the defendant, that the jobbers were|agents of the defendant, that the literature described was labeling, and that|the defendant had so acted as to cause the misbranding of his products as|alleged.|On April 12,1941, as the result of a pre-trial conference, it was stipulated that|the question of whether the facts set forth in paragraphs 15 to 24, inclusive, of|the complaint stated a cause of action, be submitted to the-court.|On September 11,1941, the issues having been submitted to the court on written|briefs and arguments of counsel, the following opinion was handed down:|F. RYAN DUFFY, District Judge.|\"\"This is a civil action wherein the plaintiff seeks an injunction against the|defendant under the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act|(Sec. 332, TJ. S. C, Title 21), for alleged violation of Sec. 331 (a), (b), and (k),|Title 21, U. S. C, for shipment of misbranded articles of drugs, as defined by|Sec. 352 (a) and (e), Title 21, U. S. C.|\"\"At the pre-trial conference herein, the parties entered into a stipulation, for the|purpose of clarifying the issues, that prior to the trial of this action, the court.|should determine whether plaintiff's complaint, paragraphs 15 to 24 inclusive,|states a claim upon which relief can be granted against the defendant; that is to|say, whether the acts alleged in said paragraphs constitute such acts with refer-|ence to a food or drug, while held for sale after shipment in interstate commerce,|as are prohibited in Sec. 331 (k), Title 21, U. S. C.|\"\"The paragraphs in question allege that the defendant has caused to be written|and printed various circulars, pamphlets, booklets, and other literature making|therapeutic claims for the products which are manufactured by the defendant.|In particular, the Government claims that said literature falsely represents that|the products will cure and constitute adequate treatment for a long list of human|ailments. It is alleged that such literature is sent*in interstate commerce to|agents and distributors of said products, separately from the products to which|they relate. It is further alleged that the defendant, by virtue of his power and|control over said agents and distributors, requires that they place the separately|shipped literature so as to be displayed with the products of the defendant while|held for sale. The question to be determined is whether the act of bringing|written, printed, or graphic matter containing false and misleading therapeutic|claims, in the presence of, proximity of, and in association with an article, after|shipment in interstate commerce, is a misbranding of that article within the mean-|ing of the term 'misbranding' as that term is defined in the act.|\"\"Sec. 331, Title 21, U. S. C. A. provides:|The following acts and the* causing thereof are hereby prohibited: * *' * (k) The|alteration, mutilation, destruction, obliteration, or removal of the whole or any part of|the labeling of, or the doing of any other act with respect to a food, drug, device, or cos-|metic, if such act is done while such article is held for sale after shipment in interstate|commerce and results in such article being misbranded.|\"\"Sec. 352 (a) provides that a drug is deemed misbranded if its labeling is false|or misleading in any particular. Sec. 321 (m) defines labeling:|The term \"\"labeling\"\" means all labels and other written, printed, or graphic matter (1)|upon any article or any of its containers or wrappers, or (2) accompanying such article.|\"\"The allegations of the complaint concerning the falsity and misleading char-|acter of defendant's literature are, for the purpose of deciding this question,|deemed to be true.|\"\"Plaintiff admits that the alleged misbranding is not a physical tampering with|the labeling, or a tampering with the product itself. Plaintiff contends that the|misbranding occurs through the device of causing written, printed, and graphic|matter, containing false and misleading therapeutic claims, to be shipped through|interstate commerce separately from the product; and that at the destruction,|such written, printed, and graphic matter becomes associated with and used in|proximity and in the presence of the transported product on the shelves, display|counters, and in the window displays on the premises of defendant's agents|and distributors.|\"\"In determining the intent of Congress, it may be helpful to recall some of|the legislative history of the act in question, which at that time was commonly|called the 'Copeland Bill.' The bill, as introduced, gave jurisdiction to enforce|same to the Department of Agriculture. It was generally known at that time|that the Federal Trade Commission desired to enforce any provisions as to|false advertising. While the Copleand Bill was pending, Public Act. No. 477|was passed (approved March 21, 1938), which measure specifically gave juris-|diction over false advertising of foods, drugs, and cosmetics to the Federal|Trade Commission. Thereafter the Copeland Bill was amended and, as passed|(approved June 25, 1938), gave jurisdiction to the Department of Agriculture to|enforce the provisions as to adulteration, packaging, and labeling; but the|enforcement as to false advertising remained in the Federal Trade Commission.|On June 30, 1940, the enforcement of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic|Act was transferred from the Department of Agriculture to the Federal Security|Agency.|\"\"As this action is brought under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act,|we are not here concerned with any false advertising by the defendant. We|must determine whether there was a misbranding by false or misleading|labeling.|\"\"The plaintiff necessarily contends for an extremely broad interpretation of|the language of the act defining labeling:|(m) The term 'labeling' means all labels and other written, printed, or graphic matter|* * * (2) accompanying such article.|The Government contends that when Congress said 'accompanying such|article', it did not necessarily mean accompanying in the ordinary sense of the|word, as long as the literature eventually came together with the products|before or when offered for sale.|\"\"Congress did intend that labeling should be something more than the printed|or written matter actually affixed to the article itself. It undoubtedly had|in mind the practice of manufacturers of placing circulars and printed matter|in cartons, which literature would not be affixed to the product to be sold.|\"\"However, it would be a case of legislation by judicial construction to say|that literature 'placed on shelves, display counters, or in window displays' (to|use the language of the 'Government) comes within the definition of labeling.|It is advertising, pure and simple. The Congress could have provided that all|written or printed matter displayed near or in proximity of the article was|labeling but it did not do so. Suppose defendant provided a sign, extolling|the virtues of his product, to be hung on the wall? Under the construction|contended by the Government, it could be considered labeling. What, about a|labeling would end and advertising begin|\"\"In view of the fact that Congress decided that evils in the field of adver-|tising as to food, drugs, and cosmetics were to be handled by the Federal Trade|Commission, and the Copeland Bill was therefore amended accordingly, there|is no justification for any court to put a strained and unnatural construction|upon the term 'labeling.' Furthermore, the Food and Drug Act is a criminal|statute. In U. 8. v. Weitzel, 246 U. S. 533, the Supreme Court stated (p. 543):|* * * Statutes creating and defining crimes are not to be extended by intendment|because the court thinks the legislature should have made them more comprehensive|*?* *.|To the same effect, see Walter W. Oeflein, Inc., v. The State, 177 Wis. 394, 396.|\"\"It is my opinion that paragraphs 15 to 24 inclusive of the complaint do not|state a claim against the defendant upon which relief can be granted.\"\"|- On November 24, 1941, on motion of the United States attorney the complaint|was amended in order to strike the charge that the labels did not bear the|Common or usual name of each active ingredient of the products. On December|5, 1941, on motion of the defendant, the court ordered the complaint dismissed.|On December 15, 1941, the Government filed a notice of appeal to the Circuit|Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit from the order dismissing the com-|plaint On November 25, 1942, the Circuit Court of Appeals overruled the|District Court's decision, handing down the following opinion:|Before EVANS and KEBNEB, Circuit Judges, and LXNDLEY, District Judge.|KERNER, Circuit Judge. \"\"This is an appeal from a decree dismissing plain-|tiff's complaint for an injunction against violations of ?301 (a), (b), and (k)|for the shipment of misbranded articles of drug and ? 502 of the Federal Food,|Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938, c. 675, 52 Stat. 1040; 21 U. S. C. A., ?331 (a),|(b),and (k) and ? 352 (a).|\"\"The complaint charged that defendant had caused to be printed circulars|making therapeutic claims for the products which he manufactures, falsely|claiming that the products will cure and constitute adequate treatment for|human ailments; that such circulars were sent in interstate commerce to agents|and distributors of said products, separately from the products to which they|relate; and that by virtue of defendant's power and control over his agents and|distributors, he required them to display the separately shipped circulars with|defendant's products.|\"\"We must decide whether the act of bringing printed matter containing false|and misleading therapeutic claims in the presence of, and in association with, an|article after shipment in interstate commerce, results in the article being mis-|branded in violation of ? 301 (k) of the act.|\"\"The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, so far as material, provides:|Sec. 201. For the purposes of this Act-* * *|(m) The term 'labeling' means all labels and other written, printed, or graphic|matter (1) upon any article or any of its containers or wrappers, or (2) accompanying|such article.|Sec. 301. The following Acts and tire causing thereof are * * * prohibited:|(a)?The introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of any|??* ? drug, * * * that is * * * misbranded.|(b)?The * * * misbranding of any * * * drug * ?? * in interstate com-|merce.|(k) The alteration, * * * of * * ? any part of the labeling of, or the doing|of any other act with respect to a * * * drug * * * if such act is done while|such article is held for sale after shipment in interstate commerce and results in such|article being misbranded.|Sec. 502. A drug or device shall be deemed to be misbranded-|(a) If its labeling is false or misleading in any particular.|\"\"In the District Court counsel for plaintiff contended that the phrase 'accom-|panying such article' means that misbranding occurs through any device which|causes printed matter containing false therapeutic claims to be shipped through|interstate commerce, including printed matter shipped separately from the prod-|uct, and constitutes a violation of ? 201 (m) if at the destruction it becomes|associated with and is used in proximity to the transported product on the|shelves and display counters of the defendant's agents and distributors.|\"\"The District Court, howeverT was of the opinion that literature \"\"placed on|the shelves, display counters, or in window displays' was advertising within|the meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 TJ. S. C. A. ? 55, providing|that ' \"\"false advertisement\"\" means an advertisement, other than labeling,' and|consequently was not a misbranding of an article in interstate commerce.|556097?-43?3|\"\"Section 8 of the Food and Drugs Act of 1906 provided that the term 'mis-|branded' should apply to all drugs or articles of food the package or label of|which bore any statement, design, or device regarding such article, which was|false or misleading in any particular, 21 U. S. C. A. ? 9. In interpreting this|section, it was held that a circular enclosed with an article inside the carton in|which it was offered for sale was not within the purview of this section, V. S. v.|American etc., 186 F. 387. Thereafter, in 1912, the act was amended, speciflcaly|extending the definition to include statements, designs, and devices contained in|the package, 'to hit precisely the case of circulars or printed matter placed inside|the package.' Seven Cases v. United States^ 239 U. S. 510, 515. The act was|again amended in 1938 so as to include within the term 'labeling,' all 'labels,'|and 'other written, printed, or graphic matter * * * accompanying such|article.'|\"\"We have not had the benefit of a brief on behalf of the defendant, but in the|District Court the defendant contended that the word 'accompanying' did not in-|clude literature which did not go along with the product-in other words, that the|test was not nearness, concurrence of display, or availability for reading. With|this contention we cannot agree.|\"\"The word 'accompany' is not defined in the act, but we observe that among|the meanings attributed to the word are 'to go along with,' 'to go with or attend|as a companion or associate,' and 'to occur in association with,' Webster's New|International Dictionary (2d edition). There can be no question that among|the usual characteristics of labeling is that of informing a purchaser of the|uses of an article to which the labeling relates, and that the basic character of the|Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act is not directly concerned with the sale|of the products therein described, or whether the literature is carried away by the|purchaser. It was enacted to protect the public health and to prevent fraud, and|it ought to be given a liberal construction. Consequently, we are impelled to the|conclusion that misbranding is cognizable under the act if it occurs while the|articles are being held for sale.|\"\"This conclusion is sustained by the legislative history of the act, from which|it appears that it was not the purpose of Congress to limit the scope of the phrase|'accompanying such articles' to printed matter placed in the carton in which the|article is contained. See Senate Report 1944, 73d Cong., 1st and 2d Sessions,|and Senate Report No. 493 of the Committee on Commerce, 73d Cong., 2d Session.|\"\"Our conclusion is also sustained by the decision in the case of V. S. v. Research|Laboratories, 126 F. (2) 42, decided after the District Court had dismissed the|complaint in the instant case. The defendant in the Research case contended|that the circulars constituted advertising and did not constitute labeling within|the meaning of the act. In disposing of the contention, the court said, p. 45:|The contention assumes that printed matter (such as a circular) cannot constitute|both advertising and labeling. The assumption is unwarranted. Most, if not all, labeling|is advertising. The term 'labeling' is defined in the Act as including all printed matter|accompanying any article. Congress did not, and we cannot, exclude from the definition|printed matter which constitutes advertising.|\"\"The court also said:|* * * nor is it material, whether the packages and the circulars did or did not travel|in the same crate, carton or other container or on the same train, truck or other vehicle|during their interstate Journey. The packages and the circulars had a common origin and|a common destruction and arrived at their destruction simultaneously. Clearly, therefore,|they accompanied each other, regardless of whether, physically, they were together or|apart during their journey.|\"\"The decree of the District Court is reversed, and the cause is remanded for|further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.\"\"|On December 31, 1942, judgment was entered that the defendant, Royal Lee,|individually, and trading as the Vitamin Products Co., or otherwise, its suc-|cessors or assigns, agents, distributors, servants and all other persons acting on|his behalf be perpetually enjoined and restrained as follows: From introducing|or delivering for introduction into interstate commerce any food or drug that is|misbranded by reason of any false or misleading therapeutic or curative claims|for it in the treatment, mitigation, cure, or prevention of human ailments or|diseases, such claims appearing either upon the label or labeling, or in literature|accompanying the article; for misbranding any food or drug in interstate com-|merce that is held for sale after shipment in interstate commerce by or through|the use of written, printed, or graphic matter containing false or misleading|therapeutic or curative claims for the article, i. e., the display or presentation|of such written, printed, or graphic matter in the proximity of, or in company|purchaser a false or misleading impression or belief in regard to the therapeutic|or curative value of such article in the treatment of human ailments or diseases,|and from doing or performing any acts for the purpose, or which has the effect|of evading the foregoing prohibition.|822. Misbranding of Clearwater's Combination Medicine. U. S. v. Henry P. Clearwater (H. P. Clearwater and Pope Laboratories). Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $150.ddnj00822December 1943Henry P. Clearwater, trading as H. P. Clearwater and Pope Laboratories, Hallowell, MaineClearwater's Combination MedicineJuly 18 and August 12, 1940PennsylvaniaMainePennsylvaniaDistrict of Maine822F. D. C. No. 5574. Sample Nos. 24345-E, 26965-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00822ddnj|822. Misbranding of Clearwater's Combination Medicine. U. S. v. Henry P. Clear-|water (H. P. Clearwater and Pope Laboratories). Plea of nolo contendere.|Fine, $150. (P. D. C. No. 5574. Sample Nos. 24345-E, 26965-E.)|On March 17, 1942, the United States attorney for the District of Maine filed|an information against Henry P. Clearwater, trading as H. P. Clearwater and|Pope Laboratories, Hallowell, Maine, alleging shipment on or about July 18 and|August 12, 1940, from the State of Maine into the States of Pennsylvania ax|Washington of quantities of Clearwater's Combination Medicine whTcTTw^smis-|branded.|The /combination consisted of three products. Analysis showed that No. 1|was a pink pill consisting essentially of ferrous carbonate, potassium iodide,|calcium glycerophosphate, manganese dioxide, sulfur, and a compound of zinc;|that No. 2 was a white tablet containing cascara; and that No. 3 was a pink|compressed tablet consisting largely of aspirin and starch.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that certain statements in the|labeling which represented and suggested that it would be efficacious as a reconr|structive systemic tonic and would be efficacious in the treatment and pre-|vention of rheumatism and arthritis were false and misleading since it would|not be efficacious for such purposes.|On July 16, 1942, the defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere and the|court imposed a fine of $150.|823. Misbranding of Blue Ridge Mountain Mineral. U. S. v. Robert T. Sides (C. S. & W. Mineral Co.). Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $200 and probation for 2 years.ddnj00823December 1943Robert T. Sides, trading as the C. S. & W. Mineral Co., Kannapolis, N. C.Blue Ridge Mountain MineralFebruary 21, 1941South CarolinaNorth CarolinaSouth CarolinaMiddle District of North Carolina823F. D. C. No. 6424. Sample No. 37792-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00823ddnj|823. Misbranding; of Blue Ridge Mountain Mineral. V. S. v. Robert T. Sides|C. S. & W. Mineral Co.). \"\"Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $200 and pro-|bation for 2 years. (F. D. C. No. 6424. Sample No. 37792-E.)|On April 21, 1942, the United States attorney for the Middle District of North|Carolina filed an information against Robert T. Sides, trading as the C. S. & W.|Mineral Co., Kannapolis, N. C, alleging shipment on or about February 21, 1941,|from the State of North Carolina into the State of South Carolina of a quantity|of Blue Ridge Mountain Mineral which was misr/randed. \"\"**\"\"\"\"|Examination of the article showed that it consisted of a natural mineral|which when prepared according to directions on the label, consisted essentially|of a dilute solution of ferric sulfate with minute amounts of sulfates of other|minerals and some ferric hydroxide in suspension.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that statements in the labeling|which represented and suggested that it would be efficacious in the-treatment|of high blood pressure, pellagra, nervousness, inability to sleep, nervous in-|digestion, rheumatism, kidney, bladder and stomach trouble, piles, sore eyes,|blood poison, all skin infections, erysipelas or tetter, flux, female complaints,|irregularities, all blood diseases, loss of appetite, old sores, bed wetting and all|skin infections; that it was a powerful germicide and ferruginous tonic, intestinal|astringent and internal hemostatic; that it was efficacious in building up new|red blood and would promote normal circulation; that it was efficacious in the|treatment of gastric indigestion, and would be efficacious as a tonic for blood|disorders, indigestion and other forms of stomach trouble and neuritis; that|it was efficacious in the treatment of diarrhea and dysentery; and was efficacious|in the treatment of boils, carbuncles, skin disease, eczema, leucorrhea or whites,|heart trouble and heartburn, and that the user would derive the benefits usually|derived from a sojourn at a health resort, were false and misleading since the|product would not be efficacious for such purposes.|On October 19, 1942, the defendant having entered a plea of nolo contendere,|the court sentenced him to pay a fine of $200, and placed him on probation for a|period of 2 years on the general conditions of probation and the additional con-|dition that he was not to sell any more of the product covered by the information.|824. Misbranding of McFadden 3 Sisters Springs mineral water. U. S. v. Roy A. Whipple and Ruth A. Whipple (McFadden 3 Sisters Springs). Pleas of nolo contendere. Imposition of sentence suspended.ddnj00824December 1943Roy A. Whipple and Ruth A. Whipple, copartners trading as McFadden 3 Sisters Springs at Hot Springs, Ark.McFadden 3 Sisters Springs mineral waterAugust 8, 1940MissouriArkansasMissouriWestern District of Arkansas824P. D. C. No. 4177. Sample No. 15891-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00824ddnj|824. Misbranding: of McFadden 3 Sisters Springs mineral water. U. S. v. Roy|A. Whipple and Ruth A. Whipple (McFadden 3 Sisters Springs). Pleas|of nolo contendere. Imposition of sentence suspended. (P. D. C. No.|4177. Sample No. 15891-E.)|On October 16, 1941, the United States attorney for the Western District of|ArkaxjsjsJEiled an information against Roy A. Whipple and Ruth A. Whipple,|copartners trading as McFadden 3 Sisters Springs at Hot Springs, Ark., alleging|delivery at Hot Springs, Ark., on or about August 8, 1940, for introduction into|interstate commerce from the State of Arkansas into the State of Ukjissouri of a|quantity of McFadden 3 Sisters Springs mineral water which was nusTJrfnded.|Analysis showed that the article was a lightly mineralized, mildly alkaline|water consisting chiefly of calcium and magnesium bicarbonates, sulfates, and|chlorides.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that certain statements in the|labeling which represented and suggested that it would be efficacious in the|treatment of Bright's disease, diabetes, dropsy, pus in kidney,. bladder and|urethra, and other kidney, bladder, and urinary troubles, high and low blood|pressure, enlarged prostate gland, paralysis, stones in kidney, and other urinary|troubles, change of life, female irregularities, insomnia, anemia, nervous pros-|tration, gout and hyperacidity; that it would be efficacious to maintain and|restore health in apparently hopeless cases; would rejuvenate shattered nerves|and weakened bodies; that it possessed the health-giving properties implied in|the statement \"\"Fountains of Health\"\"; would be efficacious in advanced stages of|kidney trouble, bladder and gall-stone misery, cystitis, rheumatism, arthritis,|sciatica, diabetes, chronic constipation and resulting complications; that it would|bring about renewed vitality and fitness; would help nature to discharge toxins|which frequently cause serious ills and would flush out accumulated wastes|which form poisons to attack the vital organs, the liver, kidney and bladder;|that it would be efficacious in cases of faulty elimination and poor assimilation;|would assist nature in the cleansing of each tissue, nerve and muscle, thus|enabling nature's recreating and rejuvenating forces to carry new life thereto;|would be efficacious to control the changes in tissue which produce old age and|infirmities, and enable one to catch the rhythm of youth again; and would supply|the minerals to keep the body tissues and fluids and organs in perfect running|order, clarify the blood, promote physical repair and eliminate waste, were|false and misleading since the article would not be efficacious for such purposes.|On September 7, 1942, the defendants entered pleas of nolo contendere and on|September 28, 1942, the court suspended imposition of sentence during the|period of compliance by the defendants with the Federal Food, Drug, and|Cosmetic Act.|825. Misbranding of Cos-Tal Big C. U. S. v. Alvin M. Hitt (Cos-Tal Laboratories Co.). Plea of guilty. Defendant placed on probation for 2 years.ddnj00825December 1943Alvin M. Hitt, trading as the Cos-Tal Laboratories Co., at Savannah, Ga.Cos-Tal Big COctober 7, 1941South CarolinaGeorgiaSouth CarolinaSouthern District of Georgia825F. D. C. No. 6438. Sample No. 48977-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00825ddnj|825. Misbranding: of Gos-Tal Big: C. TJ. S. v. Alvin M. Hitt (Cos-Tal Laboratories|Co.). Plea of guilty. Defendant placed on probation for 2 years. (F.|D. C. No. 6438. Sample No. 48977-E.)|On June 20, 1942, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|Georgia filed an information against Alvin M. Hitt, trading as the Cos-Tal Lab-|oratories Co., at Savannah, Ga., alleging shipment on or about October 7, 1941,|from the State of Georgia into the State of South Carolina of a quantity of|Cos-Tal Big C, which was misbranded.?\"\"\"\"'\"\"\"\"\"\":\"\"\"\"~ \"\"\"\"\"\"|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it was an aqueous emulsion,|containing volatile oils, including oil of sandalwood and resins.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement, \"\"Big C is|indicated in cases of un-natural discharges,\"\" borne on the bottle label was false|and misleading since it represented that the article would be efficacious in the|cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of un-natural discharges, whereas|it would not be efficacious for such purposes.|On October 3, 1942. the defendant having entered a plea of guilty, the court|placed him on probation for a period of 2 years.|826. Misbranding of Heilmann's Formula \"\"99.\"\" U. S. v. Frank J. Heilmann (Heilmann's National Distributors). Plea of guilty. Fine, $50.ddnj00826December 1943Frank J. Heilmann, trading as Heilmann's National Distributors at Los Angeles, Calif.Heilmann's Formula \"\"99.\"\"August 7, 1941OregonCaliforniaOregonSouthern District of California826F. D. C. No. 7236. Sample No. 60896-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00826ddnj|836. Misbranding: of Heilmann's Formula \"\"99.\"\" TJ. S. v. Frank J. Heilmann|(Heilmann's National Distributors). Plea of guilty. Fine, $50. (F. D. C,|No. 7236. Sample No. 60896-E.)|On June 15,1942, the United States attorney for the Southern District of Cali-|fornia filed an information against Frank J. Heilmann, trading as Heilmann's|NaSonal Distributors at Los Angeles, Calif., alleging shipment on or about|August 7,1941, from the State of California into the State of Oregon of a quantity|of Heilmann's Formula \"\"99\"\"' which was misbranded.?-?--.~|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of|potassium acetate, potassium iodide, resinous matter, colchicine, alcohol, and|water.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that statements in the labeling which repre-|sented and suggested that it would act as a stimulant diuretic to the kidneys;|would increase the flow of urine and produce a beneficial effect in gouty condi-|tions; would prevent heart injury resulting from the pain, discomfort and ill|mitigation, treatment, or prevention of rheumatism, articular acute rheumatism,|arthritis, neuritis, sciatica, and neuralgia including facial, bronchial, anemic,|diabetic, gouty, malarial, and syphilitic neuralgia; would prevent and give immedi-|ate relief from pain; would fortify the system against the recurrence of lum-|bago; would produce buoyant energy, pleasure in living and working, a keen|appetite, and soundless sleep; and would strike at the cause of disease and|thereby produce immediate benefit, were false and misleading since it would not|be efficacious for such purposes.|On July 6,1942, the defendant entered a plea of guilty and the court imposed|a fine of $50.|827. Misbranding of Malitrate F-1. U. S. v. Organic Laboratories, Inc. and W. Warren Walters. Pleas of guilty. Imposition of sentence suspended and defendants placed on probation for 1 year.ddnj00827December 1943Organic Laboratories, Inc., Los Angeles, Calif., and W. Warren WaltersMalitrate F-1December 8, 1941New YorkCaliforniaNew YorkSouthern District of California827F. D. C. No. 7653. Sample No. 84838-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00827ddnj|827. Misbranding of Malitrate F-l. XT. S. v. Organic Laboratories, Inc. and W.|: Warren Walters. Pleas of anility. Imposition of sentence suspended|and defendants placed on probation for 1 year. (F. D. C. No. 7653. Sample|No. 84838-E.)|On August 24, 1942, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|CalifGinja filed an information against Organic Laboratories, Inc., Los Angeles,|Calif., and W. Warren Walters, alleging shipment on or about December 8, 1941,|from the State of California jnto the State of New York of a quantity of Mali-|trate F-l which was misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it was concentrated apple juice.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements in the labeling|which represented and suggested that the article was efficacious in the cure,|mitigation, treatment, and prevention of disease by reason of the alkalizing|properties of its components; that it was efficacious in the cure, mitigation, treat-|ment or prevention of gastro-intestinal disorders, hyperacidity, (acute indiges-|tion) hyperchlorhydria, intestinal toxemia, diarrhea, constipation, and dysentery;|that it was efficacious for use in convalescence from acute or chronic febrile|diseases and was especially efficacious in the asthenias and wherever an alkaliniz-|ing liquid diet was indicated; that it was efficacious in the cure, mitigation,|treatment or preventon of post-operative nausea and of nausea due to pregnancy|and seasickness, and of colds, influenza, pneumonia, stomach ulcers and obesity;|that it was an efficient dietary regulator for undernourished children; that it|would have an energizing effect on the tissues and would be efficacious in the|cure and treatment of acute or chronic burns and of inflamed mucous mem-|branes ; that when administered as directed it was efficacious in the cure, mitiga-|tion, treatment, or prevention of mastoid cavities, open abdominal sinuses, and|of various types of indolent ulcers; and would be efficacious in the cure, mitiga-|tion, treatment or prevention of ulcerated mouths, sore throats and Vincent's|angina, and would in such cases, prove much more effective than the standard|perborate treatment, were false and misleading, since the article would not be|efficacious for such purposes.|On October 22, 1942, pleas of guilty having been entered on behalf of the|defendants the court suspended imposition of sentence and placed them on proba-|tion for 1 year, the conditions of the probation being that they cooperate with the|Food and Drug Administration and obey the instructions of the probation officer.|1739. Misbranding of B-I-F Combination. U. S. v. 40 Cartons of B-I-F Combination. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj01739December 1946W. C. Hughes and Co., Inc., from Baltimore, Md.B-I-F CombinationSeptember 19, 1945Norfolk, Va.Baltimore, Md.Norfolk, Va.Eastern District of Virginia.1739F. D. C. No. 18349. Sample No. 2374-H.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01739ddnj|1739. Misbranding of B-I-F Combination. V. S. v. 40 Cartons of B-I-F Combina|tion. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No.|18349. Sample No. 2374-H.)|LIBEL FILED: November 9, 1945, Eastern District of Virginia.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT : On or about September 19, 1945, by W. C. Hughes and Co.,|Inc., from Baltimore, Md.|PRODUCT : 40 cartons of B-I-F Combination, each carton containing 1. bottle of|B-I-F Emulsion and 1 bottle of B-I-F Injection, at Norfolk, Va.|Examination disclosed that the Emulsion consisted essentially of balsam of|copaiba, oil of cassia, sugar, glycerin, water, ^a gum, and a potassium com-|pound; and that the Injection- consisted essentially of zinc acetate, glycerin, a|small proportion of carbolic acid, and water, colored with caramel.|LABEL, IN PAST: (Leaflet enclosed in carton) \"\"B-I-F Combination An Emulsion|(For Internal Use) An Injection (With Syringe) Directions Shake the bottle|containing the Injection which is red, fill the syringe full, and inject the con-|tents slowly into the urinal passage, holding the syringe in the right hand. Al-|low the medicine to remain 20 to 30 seconds. The Emulsion, which is-white,|should be taken internally three times a day, before meals, in teaspoonful doses,|in the morning on arising, at noon and at bedtime. The injection should be|used about the same time, and always after passing water.\"\"|NATURE OF CHARGE: Misbranding, Section 502 (a), the labeling of the article|was false and misleading since it represented and created the impression that|the article, when taken as directed, would be effective in the treatment of|gonorrhea. The article would not be effective for that purpose.|DISPOSITION: January 30, 1946. No claimant having appeared, judgment of|condemnation was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|829. Misbranding of Alberty Food, Instant Alberty Food, Alberty's Vegetable Compound) Alberty's Ca-Mo Pellets, Alberty's Phosphate Pellets, Alberty's Lebara Pellets, Alberty's Laxative Blend, Cheno Herb Tea, Cneno Combination Tablets, and Cheno Preparation of Phytolacca Berry Juice. U. S. v. 12 Packages of Alberty's Food (assorted sizes and various packages of similar products). Tried to the court without a jury. Judgment for the Government. Decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00829December 1943Vita Health Food CompanyAlberty Food, Instant Alberty Food, Alberty's Vegetable Compound) Alberty's Ca-Mo Pellets, Alberty's Phosphate Pellets, Alberty's Lebara Pellets, Alberty's Laxative Blend, Cheno Herb Tea, Cneno Combination Tablets, and Cheno Preparation of Phytolacca Berry Juice\NWashington, D. C.; Los Angeles, Calif.\NWashington, D. C.; Los Angeles, Calif.District Court for the District of Columbia, Northern District of California, Southern Division829F. D. C. No. 3707. Sample Nos. 99902-E to 99908-E incl., 99910-E to 99912-E incl.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00829ddnj|829. Misbranding: of Alberty Food, Instant Alberty Food, Alberty's Vegetable|Compound) Alberty's Ca-Mo Pellets, Alberty's Phosphate Pellets, Alberty's|Lebara Pellets, Alberty's Laxative Blend, Cheno Herb Tea, Cneno Combi-|nation Tablets, and Cheno Preparation of Phytolacca Berry Juice. U. S. v.|. 12 Packages of Alberty's Food (assorted sizes and various packages of|similar products). Tried to the court without a jury. Judgment for the|Government. Decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No.|3707. Sample Nos. 99902-E to 99908-E incl., 99910-E to 99912-E incl.)|On January 27, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of jgolumbia|filed a libel against 12 packages of Alberty's Food, 18 packages of InstantAlDerty|Food, 3 packages of Alberty's Vegetable Compound Capsules, 5 packages of|Alberty's Ca-Mo Pellets, 10 packages of Alberty's Phosphate Pellets, 8 packages|of Alberty's Lebara Pellets, 5 packages of Alberty's Laxative Blend, 30 packages|of Cheno Herb Tea, 40 packages of Cheno Combination Tablets, and 5 packages|of Cheno Preparation of Phytolacca Berry Juice, at Washington, D. G, alleging|that the articles were being offered for sale in the District of Columbia at Vita|Health Food Company, Washington, D. C.; and charging that they were mis-|branded.|' .-|Analysis of the Alberty Food showed that it consisted essentially of wheat|flour with added calcium phosphate, the total calcium phosphate equaling 6.75|percent.|? ' |Analysis of the Instant Alberty Food showed that it consisted mainly of dried,|partially skimmed milk, with a little ground cereal and approximately 6 percent|added calcium phosphate.|Both products were alleged to be misbranded in that representations in the|labeling that they were adequate and appropriate treatments for indigestion,|scurvy, rickets, eczema, diseases of malnutrition, nervousness, diarrhea, nausea,|stomach irritation and other complications, mental deficiency, stunted physical|development, decayed teeth, acidity, common aches, dysfunction of the liver,|spleen and pancreas, mucous colitis, \"\"run-down\"\" ? conditions, depleted nervous|system, acidosis, toxic conditions arising from inactive liver, excess bronchial|secretions, jaundice, gallstones, gastric hyperacidity, ulcerative conditions,|stomach distress, malnutrition, malassimilation, irritated inflamed stomach and|anemia; that they would be beneficial to the nerves, the tissues and the vital|organs, i. e., liver, heart, and spleen; would relieve severe pain of the stomach|and other symptoms of upset digestive tract, aid in the healing of broken legs,|increase the red blood cells; would provide strength and health; would cause|children to be larger and heavier than children of the same age and not as sus-|ceptible to the usual children's diseases; would prevent undernourishment, tooth|decay, bodily exhaustion, sagging shoulders, paleness, listless expression in|children; were adequate and appropriate treatments of neurotic, backward|children by improving mentality, disposition and health; would be effective|treatments for infant diarrhea, sore buttocks, irritated stomach and intestines,|digestive disturbances, pyloric stenosis and marasmus; would prevent calcium|deficiency in pregnant- women and their unborn offspring, and prevent after-|childbirth run-down condition; would promote the formation of hemoglobin, bone|tissue; that they possessed healing, health, youth and energy-giving properties;|would cause increase in weight, vitality and strength, clear the skin, and facili-|effect which'would result in strength and stamina, sparkling eyes, pep, clear|skin and vigorous health, improving the personal appearance, changing the phy-|sique and personality from a negative to a positive type; would make the indi-|vidual feel strong, feel better physically and produce solid flesh; would revive|normal functioning of the body, eliminate the \"\"fixed\"\" toxic poisons, and awaken|vital organs and assimilative cells; would increase the peristaltic activities of|the sluggish stomach and intestines and normalize digestive juices; would in-|crease assimilation of the calcium element by furnishing materials for increased|hemoglobin; would aid in growing strong and good teeth; that they were body-|builders, especially in youth; that they would strengthen, rebuild, and.facilitate|the production of new cells, would prevent physical deterioration, premature old|age, ill health and premature death, were false and misleading since the articles|would not be efficacious for such purposes.|Analysis of the Alberty's Vegetable Compound Capsules showed that they|contained approximately 9? grains of a mixture of dried vegetables, including|tomatoes, beet leaf, spinach, cauliflower and lettuce. Total mineral constituents|1.2 grains per capsule, total calcium (calculated as calcium oxide) 0.12 grain,|total phosphorus (calculated as phosphorus pentoxide) 0.01 grain per capsule.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that certain statements in the|labeling, which represented that it would supply mineral elements and nourish-|ment, which would enhance the powers of digestion so that the natural resistance|of the body would not be lowered and the starch and sugar intake would be|kept at a minimum, and that it would increase strength and energy, were false|and misleading since it would not be efficacious for such purposes.|Analysis of the Ca-Mo Pellets showed that they consisted of approximately|?Wooo grain of calcium phosphate and 1 grain of milk sugar moulded into pellet|form.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that representations in the labeling, that|it would build up the calcium reserve, offset acidity, sweeten the over-acid|stomach, and that it was an adequate and appropriate treatment for eczema,|were false and misleading since it would not be efficacious for such purposes.|Analysis of the Alberty's Phosphate Pellets showed that they consisted of|minute amounts of iron, potassium, sodium, calcium, and magnesium phosphates|moulded into pellet form with milk sugar.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that representations in the label-|ing that it was an adequate and appropriate treatment for nervous conditions,|nervousness, neurasthenia, nervous debility, weakness, sleeplessness, nervous|breakdown and dysfunction of the endocrine glands; that it was a preventive|of constipation, loss of stamina, mental and physical exhaustion, loss of mem-|ory, sleeplessness, high blood pressure symptoms, loss of energy, despondency,|and trembling or aching limbs; that it would promote digestion, absorption and|assimilation of food, provide nerve force, induce restful sleep and renew strength|and vitality, would promote better digestion and assimilation, and produce a|soothing, beneficial effect on the nerve tissues of nervous, high strung, mentally|and physically exhausted persons, would improve the force, tone, and vigor of|the nervous tissues, and act as a tonic to the blood and the entire body, were|false and misleading since the article would not be efficacious for such purposes.|Analysis of the Lebara Pellets showed that they consisted of approximately|Hooo grain of anhydrous sodium sulfate and 1 grain of milk sugar moulded|into tablet form.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that representations in the label-|ing that it would increase the flow of bile, keep the skin and complexion clear,|that it was a diuretic, and that it was an adequate and appropriate treatment|for biliousness, headache, bad taste in the mouth, coated tongue, spots before|the eyes, bearing down pains in the small of the back and constipation of|hepatic' origin, were false and misleading since the article would not be effi-|cacious for such purposes.|Analysis of the Alberty's Laxative Blend showed that it consisted of a mix-|ture of plant drugs including buchu leaves, uva ursi leaves, sassafras bark,|couch grass, elderberry flowers, horsetail, yarrow flowers, fennel seed, marsh-|mallow root, senna leaves, aniseed and buckthorn bark.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that representations in the labeling that|it was an aid to digestion, a tonic laxative, and would relieve the usual feeling|of depletion following evacuation, were false and misleading since it would not|be efficacious for such purposes.|Analysis of Cheno Herb Tea showed that it consisted of a mixture of plant|drugs, including senna leaves, sassafras bark, licorice root, seaweed, caraway|seed, mint leaves, fennel seed, and aniseed.|Analysis of the Cheno Combination Tablets showed that they contained dried|okra, Irish moss, dulse, green leafy material, such as parsley, spinach and|celery, and 1.7 grains per tablet of calcium phosphate. The total iron content|was 0.0004 grain; total iodine 0.0001 grain per tablet.|Analysis of the Cheno Preparation of Phytolacca Berry Juice showed that|it consisted of a plant extract such as poke berry juice in a mixture of water,|sugar, and alcohol.|The Cheno preparations were alleged to be misbranded in that representa-|tions in the labeling that the articles constituted adequate and appropriate|treatment for disturbances of nutrition, overweight, underweight, leanness, obes-|ity, stomach disorders, bronchial colds, hypothyroidism with dry skin, lack|of perspiration, heart disturbances, constipation, mental sluggishness, slow|movement, lack of activity, asthma, hay fever, and sensitiveness to various|kinds of food, headache, dizziness, fatigue, drowsiness, sleepiness; that it|would be an efficacious treatment for pancreatic, hypo-gonodal, thyroid and|pituitary obesity, would improve health, reduce nervousness, provide buoyancy|of spirit and freedom from logy oppressiveness, promote firm flesh and soft|skin with fine texture, overcome lassitude, prevent and reduce the storage of|excess fat, prevent toxemia, regulate the elasticity of the muscles, balance|and regulate body functions, speed up metabolism, eliminate accumulated water|in cells and tissues, increase energy and vitality and remineralize the body,|were false and misleading since the articles would not be efficacious for such|purposes.|On April 7, 1941, Ada J. Alberty, Los Angeles, Calif., claimant, having filed|a motion that the action be transferred to a district in close proximity to the|Southern District of California, an order was entered in the District Court for|the District of Columbia transferring the action to the Northern District of.|California, Southern Division; and ordering that the clerk forward all files|and records of the case to that district for trial. The case came on for trial|before the court on January 22, 1942, and was continued to January 23. A|recess was ordered until February 7, 1942, on which date the trial was resumed|and was concluded on February 8, 1942. The court took the case under advise-|ment and on June 29, 1942, handed.down a decision for the Government and|on October 26, 1942, made the following findings of fact and conclusions of|law:|NOBCBOSS, District Judge. \"\"The above-entitled cause having been regularly|tried without a jury and having been submitted by the parties hereto; Frank J.|Hennessy, Esquire, United States attorney for the Northern District of California,|and A. J. Zirpoli, Esquire, assistant United States attorney for said district,|appearing as counsel for libelant, and El don V. Soper, Esquire, and Francis W.|Murphy, Esquire, appearing as counsel for the claimant; and evidence both oral|and documentary having been introduced, and the court being fully advised in|the premises, now makes its findings of fact and conclusions of law as follows:|FINDINGS OF FACT|I.|\"\"That the allegations of the libel are true.|\"\"That the allegations of paragraph third of the answer of claimant and para-|graphs II and IV of the amended answer of claimant are not true.|III.|\"\"That the 'Modified Order to Cease and Desist' entered by the Federal Trade|Commission on June 26,1939, in the matter of 'Adah Alberty, etc., docket number|2875,' pertains to and relates to a matter and matters and things separate and|distinct from the proceedings in the instant case and does not involve the articles|of drug held and offered for sale in the District of Columbia in the manner recited|,jn the libel herein.|\"\"That the following articles described in said libel|'12 packages, more or less, of Alberty Food (Assorted sizes),|18 packages, more or less, of Instant Alberty Food (assorted sizes),|33 packages, more or less, of Alberty's Vegetable Compound Capsules,|5 packages, more or less, of Alberty's Ca-Mo Pellets,|10 packages, more or less, of Alberty's Phosphate Pellets,|8 packages, more or less, of Alberty's Lebara Pellets,|5 packages, more or less, of Alberty's Laxative Blend,|30 packages, more or less, of Cheno Herb Tea,|40 packages, more or less, of Cheno Combination Tablets, and|5 packages, more or less, of Cheno Preparation of Phytolacca Berry Juice.'|were being offered for sale in the District of Columbia at the time of the filing|of the libej herein.|\"\"That the said articles described in the paragraph immediately above were|held in and intended for sale in the District of Columbia at the time and place|aforesaid.|VI.|\"\"That the said articles described in paragraph IV of these findings of fact were|misbranded at the time of the filing of the libel herein, in the manner following:|\"\"352 (a) in that the statements and designs appearing in the labeling (booklet|'Calcium The Staff of Life'), as set forth in Exhibit 'A', attached to the libel, are|false and misleading in that they represent that the articles are efficacious for the|purposes Recommended, whereas the articles are not efficacious for the purposes|recommended; (Alberty Food and Instant Alberty Food)|\"\"352 (a) in,that the following statements appearing in the labeling (booklet|\"\"Calcium The Staff of Life') are false and misleading in that they represent that|the article is efficacious for the purposes recommended, whereas the article is not|efficacious for the purposes recommended: (Alberty's Vegetable Compound|'WHEN THE DIET MUST BE STARCH AND SUGAR FREE|'There are times when persons suffering from malfunctions of certain organs|are unable to tolerate starch and sugar in the same proportion as the normal|individual. Physicians then recommend a diet as free from starch and sugar|as it is possible to get and still give the person enough nourishment to maintain|the life and health.|'During such dietary regimes it is absolutely necessary to keep the digestive|functions working at their best because nature MUST get all the nourishment|possible from what food is eaten without in any way increasing the load of|sugar or starch.|'ALBERTY VEGETABLE COMPOUND CAPSULES' give an easily digestible|form of organic minerals. ***ALBERTY FOOD, VEGETABLE COMPOUND|CAPSULES AND OXORIN TABLETS, furnish mineral elements, nourishment|and enhance the powers of digestion so that the natural resistance of the body|is not lowered and the starch and sugar intake is still kept at a minimum.|'Reports of many users of ALBERTY VEGETABLE COMPOUND CAP-|SULES, OXORIN tablets and ALBERTY FOOD show that they have acquired|greater sugar and starch tolerance and an increase in strength and energy.'|\"\"352 (a) in that the following statements appearing in the labeling (booklet|'Calcium The Staff of Life', pp. 42 and 47) are false and misleading in that they|represent that the article is efficacious for the purposes recommended, whereas|the article is not efficacious for the purposes recommended: (Alberty's Ca-Mo|Pellets)|'* * * The following formulas comprise ingredients of homeopathic dosage|and under those principles are credited with the action described.|'CA-MO helps to build up a calcium reserve. Its calcium content offsets|acidity, sweetening the over-acid stomach.|'ECZEMA|'Improper diet is frequently the cause. * * *|?Here is the treatment I have seen used quiet frequently by physicians:|Cleanse the affected parts * * *. Pat dry and then anoint with * * *|salve * * *. A prescription, identical with which I now call CA-MO PEL-|LETS, was given every two hours during the day. * * *'|\"\"352 (a) in that the statements appearing in the labeling (booklet 'Calcium|The Staff of Life'), as set forth in Exhibit 'B,' are false and misleading in that|they represent that the article is efficacious for the purposes recommended,|whereas the article is not efficacious for the purposes recommended; (Alberty's|Phosphate Pellets.)|\"\"352 (a) in that the following statements appearing in the labeling (booklet|'Calcium The Staff of Life,' pp. 42 and 49) are false and misleading in that they|represent that the article is efficacious for the purposes recommended, whereas the|article is not efficacious for the purposes recommended: (Alberty's Lebara|Pellets.)|'The following formulas comprise ingredients of homeopathic dosage and|under those principles are credited with the action described. * * *|'ALBERTY LEBRARA PELLETS * * * contain salts which act to in-|crease the flow of bile from the liver * * * An active liver keeps the skin|and complexion clear, there is none of the yellow, bilious look characteristic of|the toxic condition resulting from a dormant liver.|'HOW TO HELP THE LIVER|'LEBRARA PELLETS contain a valuable salt which has a definite reaction|on the liver and as a diuretic, by increasing the flow of bile. LEBRARA PEL-|LETS act as a bile stimulant in hepatic disturbances characterized as bilious-|ness, headache, bad taste in the mouth, coated tongue, spots before the eyes,|bearing down pains in the small of the back and constipation of hepatic origin.'|\"\"352 (a) in that the following statements (booklet 'Calcium The Staff of Life,'|p. 52) are false and misleading in that they represent that the article is|efficacious for the purposes recommended, whereas the article is not efficacious|for \"\"the purposes recommended: (Alberty's Laxative Blend.)|'ALBERTY'S LAXATIVE BLEND includes seventeen herbs which, according|to botanical books, were one of the best combinations obtainable for a tonic|laxative: Herbs are included which have a tonic after-effect, that relieves the|usual feeling of depletion following evacuation of the bowels from ordinary|artificial laxatives.|'For the temporarily constipated person it acts * * * to * * * aid-|digestion.*|\"\"352 (a) In that the statement upon a placard accompanying the articles|Reduce the Cheno Way. The Five Factor Plan. Safe Scientific is false and|misleading in that it represents that the articles are efficacious for the purposes|recommended, whereas the articles are not efficacious for the purposes recom-|mended; (Cheno Herb Tea, Cheno Combination Tablets, Cheno Preparation of|Phytolacca Berry Juice.)|\"\"352 (a) in that the statements and designs appearing in the labeling (book-|let Cheno Plan The 5 Factor Reducing System), as set forth in Exhibit C,|attached to the libel, are. false and misleading in that they represent that the|articles are efficacious for the purposes recommended, whereas the articles|are not efficacious for the purposes recommended; (Cheno Herb Tea, Cheno|Combination Tablets, Cheno Preparation of Phytolacca Berry Juice.)|VII.|\"\"That the booklets Calcium The Staff of Life and Cheno Plan the 5 Factor|Reducing System and the placard Reduce the Cheno Way-The Five Factor|Plan, Safe, Scientific accompanied the articles described in paragraph IV hereof|at the time and place described in paragraph IV hereof and then and there|constituted part of the labeling of the aforesaid articles.|CONCLUSIONS OF LAW|\"\"That the articles described in the libel herein and paragraph IV of the|above findings of fact were drugs illegally offered for sale and held and intended|for sale within the District of Columbia at the time of the filing of the libel|herein, in violation of Section 534 of Title 21 USCA, for the reason that said|articles were at said time and place misbranded within the provisions of Section|352 (a) of Title 21 USOA.|Reducing System and the placard Reduce the Cheno Way. The Five Factor|Plan. Safe. Scientific accompanied the articles described in paragraph IV of|the above findings of fact at the time and place described in paragarph IV|of the above findings of fact and then and there constituted part of the labeling|of the aforesaid articles.|III.|\"\"That the Modified Order to Cease and Desist entered by the Federal Trade|Commission on June 26, 1939, in the matter of Adah Alberty, etc., Docket No.|2875, is not res judicata to the matters and things alleged in the libel herein|and does not estop the libelant herein to allege, assert or maintain that the|matters and things in the libel herein constitute labeling within the provisions|of 21 USC 352 (a) and does not estop libelant to allege, assert or maintain|that the matters and things in the libel herein, alleged to consist of booklets|and placards, accompanied the articles in said libel specifically described.|IV.|\"\"That the above-mentioned articles of drugs described in paragraph IV of|the findings of fact above, be, and they are hereby, condemned and forfeited to|the United States, to be by the United States of America destroyed forthwith.|On October 26, 1942, judgment of condemnation was entered and it was|ordered that the product be destroyed and that the clerk of court return the|file and record and copy of the decree of condemnation and destruction to the|clerk of the United States Court for the District of Columbia, with directions|that a certified copy of the decree be furnished the marshal.|On November 7, 1942, the claimant filed a motion for a new trial, which|motion was denied by the court February 13, 1943,. without opinion.|830. Misbranding of Ecco Hygienic Powder. U. S. v. 501 Bottles of Ecco Hygienic Powder. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00830December 1943Eby Chemical Co.Ecco Hygienic PowderApril 13, 1942Dayton, OhioHarrisburg, Pa.Dayton, OhioSouthern District of Qhip830F. D. C. No. 7636. Sample No. 80612-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00830ddnj|830. Misbranding of Ecco Hygienic Powder. U. S. v. 501 Bottles of Ecco Hygienic|Powder. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No.|7636. Sample No. 80612-E.)|On June 15, 1942, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|.Qhip filed a libel against 501 bottles of the above-named product at Dayton, Ohio,|wnTch had been shipped on or about April 13, 1942, alleging that the article|had been shipped in interstate commerce by the Eby Chemical Co. from|Harrisburg^ Pa.' Analysis sTTdwed that the article consisted essentially of boric acid and alum|together with small quantities of oxyquinoline sulfate, menthol, thymol, phenol,|eucalyptol, salicylic acid, and methyl salicylate. Bacteriological tests showed|that it was not germicidal in the dilution recommended for use.|The article was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that the statements in|the labeling which represented and suggested that it was a reliable contraceptive,|that it was an appropriate treatment for head colds, rhinitis, rectal irritations,|bleeding gums, trench mouth, sore throat, tonsillitis, quinsy, laryngitis, sinusitis,|pyorrhea, chickenpox, congestion, measles, infected wounds, abscesses, boils,|hemorrhoids, vaginal burns, leucorrhea, vaginitis, and gonorrhea; and that, it|was an adequate treatment for such skin conditions as dandruff, itchy scalp,|sores, impetigo, hives, corns, callouses, bunions, acne, blackheads, bed sores,|barber's itch, cold sores, eczema, fever blisters, frost bite, chilblains, poison ivy,|skiu rash and sunburn, were false and misleading since it would not be efficacious|for such purposes; (2) in that the following statements on the label, \"\"Ecco|Powder is a concentrated inhibitory antiseptic, efficient and economical. Always|use fresh solutions properly diluted with hot or boiling water * * * When|possible use wet dressing or cover affected parts with clean sterile bandage|or gauze after dusting with Ecco Powder\"\" were misleading since they failed to|reveal the material fact that it was not antiseptic except when used as a wet|dressing or with a bandage that would permit prolonged contact with the body.|On July 16,1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|831. Misbranding of mercurochrome. U. S. v. 60 Dozen Bottles, of Mercurochrome. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00831December 1943Certified Pharmacal Co., Inc.mercurochromeApril 9, 1942Pittsburgh, Pa.New York, N. Y.Pittsburgh, Pa.Western District of Pennsylvania831F. D. C. No. 7841. Sample No. 78842-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00831ddnj|831. Misbranding; of mercurochrome. U. S. v. 60 Dozen Bottles, of Mercurochrome.|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 7841. Sam-|ple No. 78842-E.)|On June 30, 1942, the United States attorney for the Western District of|Pennsylvania filed a libel against 60 dozen bottles of mercurochrome at Pitts-|burgh, Pa., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or|about April 9, 1942, by the Certified Pharmacal Co., Inc., from New York, N. Y.;|and charging that it was misbranded in that the statement \"\"ClSrMffts^S^c.,\"\"|borne on the label was false and misleading as applied to an article in bottles-|containing less than 9 cubic centimeters.|On August 10, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|832. Misbranding of Epsom salt. U. S. v. 130 Packages of Epsom Salt. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00832December 1943Allied Salt & Chemical Co., from Boston, Mass.Epsom saltJune 30, 1942Concord, N. H.Boston, Mass.Concord, N. H.District of New Hampshire832F. D. C. No. 7990. Sample No. 19481-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00832ddnj|832. Misbranding; of Epsom salt. IT. S. v. 130 Packages of Epsom Salt. Default|decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 7990. Sample No.|19481-F.)|The packages of this product contained a smaller amount than declared on|the label.|On July 28,1942, the United States attorney for the District of New Hampshire|filed a libel against 130 packages of Epsom salt at Concord, N. 'BCTHHelpng\"\"that|the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about June 30, 1942,|by the Allied Salt & Chemical Co., fromJBoston^Mass.; and charging that it was|misbranded in that the statement \"\"Five|~ Pounds\"\" borne on the carton was false|and misleading as applied to an article that was short weight. The article was|labeled in part: \"\"Five Pounds * * * Epsom Salt.\"\"|On September 8,1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|833. Misbranding of Faunce's Tooth Paste. U. S. v. 30 Packagres of Faunce's Tooth Paste. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00833December 1943Benjamin R. FaunceFanuce's Tooth PasteJune 9, 1942Philadelphia, Pa.Riverside, N. J.Philadelphia, Pa.Eastern District of Pennsylvania833F. D. C. No. 7843. Sample No. 77051-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00833ddnj|833. Misbranding: of Fannce's Tooth Paste. IT. S. v. 30 Packagres of Faunce'a|Tooth Paste. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C.|No. 7843. Sample No. 77051-E.)|On June 30, 1942, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Pennsylvania filed a libel against 30 packages of Fannce's Tooth Paste at Phila-|delphia, Pa., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce|on or about June 9, 1942, by Benjamin R. Faunce, from Riverside, N. J.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of|calcium carbonate, salt, glycerine, and material derived from bile, flavored with|peppermint.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that statements in the labeling|which represented and suggested that the article would be efficacious in the|treatment of pyorrhea-bleeding gums, bad odor, tartar, and discoloration, and|would act as a prophylactic pus solvent, were false and misleading since it was|not effective for such purposes and would not act as a prophylactic pus solvent.|On August 3, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|864. Adulteration and misbranding of Real's Antiseptic Medicated Skin Cream, aromatic spirit of ammonia, and sweet spirit of nitre. U. S. v. Baker Drug Corp. Plea of guilty. Imposition of sentence suspended for 3 years on condition that the defendant would not violate the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and would pay a fine of $200 under the Probation Statute.ddnj00864May 1944Baker Drug Corporation, Norfolk, Va.Real's Antiseptic Medicated Skin Cream, aromatic spirit of ammonia, and sweet spirit of nitreFebruary 12 and March 21, 1942Pennsylvania and North CarolinaVirginiaPennsylvania and North CarolinaEastern District of Virginia864F. D. C. No. 7746. Sample Nos. 78865-E, 87895-E, 87896-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00864ddnj|864. Adulteration and misbranding of Real's Antiseptic Medicated Skin Cream,|aromatic spirit of ammonia, and sweet spirit of nitre. U. S.V. Baker Drug:|Corp. Plea of guilty. Imposition of sentence suspended for 3 years on|condition that the defendant would not violate the Food, Drug, and Cos-|metic Act and would pay a fine of 3200 under the Probation Statute.|(F. D. C. No. 7746. Sample Nos. 78865-E, 87895-E, 87896-E.)|On November 18, 1942, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Virginia filed an information against the Baker Drug Corporation, Norfolk, Va.,|alleging shipment of quantities of the above-named products on or about|February 12 and March 21, 1942, from the State of Virginia into the States|of Pennsylvania and North Carolina. The former shipment was made in the|name of Jos. Friedberg.|Analysis, of a sample of Real's Antiseptic Medicated Skin Cream showed the|product to consist essentially of small proportions of potassium hydroxide,|volatile oils, including menthol, eucalyptol, and oil of bergamont, and a trace of|phenol, incorporated in a base of stearic acid, petrolatum, and beeswax. Bac-|teriological examination showed the article to be devoid of antiseptic properties.|septic and its strength differed from and its quality fell below that which it|purported and was represented to possess, since it was not antiseptic. It was|alleged to be misbranded in that the statement, \"\"Antiseptic,\"\" borne on the label-|ing was false and misleading since the drug was not an antiseptic.|Examination of a sample of aromatic spirit of ammonia showed that the|product did not conform to the specifications in the United States Pharmacopoeia|in that there was a very material excess of ammonia. The article was alleged|to be adulterated in that it purported and was represented to be a drug the|name of which is recognized in the United States Pharmacopoeia, and its|strength differed from the standard set forth in that compendium, since it|contained not less than 2.95 grams of total ammonia in each 100 cc. and not more|than 58.2 percent of alcohol, whereas the United States Pharmacopoeia provides|that aromatic spirit of ammonia shall contain not more than 2.1 grains of|total ammonia in each 100 cc. and not less than 62 percent of alcohol by|volume. The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the name and address|of the manufacturer appearing on the label was not placed with such con-|spicuousness as to render it likely to be read by the ordinary individual under|customary conditions of purchase and use; it was in very small type and, in|some instances, illegible.|Analysis of a sample of sweet spirit of nitre showed that the product did|not conform to the specifications in the United States Pharmacopoeia in that|there were varying shortages of ethyl nitrite in the various units examined.|The article was adulterated in that it purported and was represented to be|a drug recognized in the United States Pharmacopoeia, and its strength differed|from the standard set forth in that compendium since it contained ethyl nitrite|in amounts ranging from 0.77 to 2.09 percent, and its specific gravity was|0.8347 at 25? Centigrade, whereas the United States Pharmacopoeia provides|that sweet spirit of nitre shall contain not less than 3.5 percent of ethyl nitrite,|and that its specific gravity shall be not more than 0.823 at 25? Centigrade.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the name and address of the 'manu-|facturer was inconspicuously placed on the label; it was in very small type|and, in some instances, illegible.|On November 30,1942, after a plea of guilty was entered, the court suspended|the imposition of sentence for a period of 3 years, upon the condition that the|defendant would not violate the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and would pay|a fine of $200 under the probation statute.|1277. Misbranding of Detoxyl Tablets. U. S. v. 12 Packages of Detoxyl Tablets, and a number of booklets and leaflets. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj01277October 1945E. R. Moras, M. D., Highland Park, Ill.Detoxyl Tabletslast week in January 1944Cleveland, OhioHighland Park, Ill.Cleveland, OhioNorthern District of Ohio1277F. D. C. No. 11986. Sample No. 67412-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01277ddnj|1277. Misbranding: of Detoxyl Tablets. U. S. v. 12 Packages of Detoxyl Tablets,|and a number of booklets and leaflets. Default decree of condemnation|and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 11986. Sample No. 67412-F.)|On March 10, 1944, the United States attorney for the Northern District of Ohio|filed a libel against 12 packages of Detoxyl Tablets and a number of booklets and|leaflets entitled \"\"Autopathic Detoxyl Treatment,\"\" \"\"Autopathic Instructions,\"\" and|\"\"Detoxication, Elimination Nutrition, Why Detoxyl,\"\" at Cleveland, Ohio, alleging|that the tablets and the booklets and leaflets had been shipped on or about the|last week in January 1944, by E. R. Moras, M. D., Highland Park, 111.; and|charging that the tablets were misbranded.|Examination disclosed that the tablets consisted essentially of sodium citrate,|calcium glycerophosphate, calcium carbonate, and a small amount of talc.|The tablets were alleged to be misbranded because of false and misleading|statements in the booklets and leaflets which represented, suggested, and implied|that the article would be effective in the treatment of arthritis, asthma, abscessed|tooth, acidosis, anemia, abscess of the appendix, appendicitis, bowels, blood pres-|sure, biliousness, adenoids, Bright's disease, blood poisoning, bronchitis, change|of life, constipation, consumption, congestion of the lungs, flu, head, heart, hemor-|rhoids, milk-leg, nephritis, nose peritonitis, stomach trouble, spasm, sex organs,|stone in kidney, St. Vitus's dance, toxins, uterine tumor, weak bladder, colds,|colitis, chicken pox, chronic ailments, cystitis, catarrh, diarrhea, diphtheria,|diabetes, defense in epidemics, eczema, ear abscess, epilepsy, fevers in adults|and children, general debility, gastritis, gall-bladder trouble, headaches and many|other aches, hemorrhages, hay fever, high blood pressure, ill-nourished people,|indigestion, influenza, inflammation of the bladder, infantile paralysis, liver|complaints, malnutrition, measles, any illness, neuritis, nervous ailments and|breakdown, nausea and vomiting of pregnancy, neuralgias, over-acidity, obesity,|over-weight, over-fat people, piles, pellagra, pneumonia, pleurisy, detoxication and|elimination, rheumatic fever, rheumatism, sciatica, skin disease, stroke, septi-|cemia, scarlet fever, sinus troubles, typhoid fever, tonsilitis, tuberculosis, under-|weight, ulcers of the stomach, whooping cough, arteriosclerosis, hardening of the|arteries, and advancing old age.|The article was alleged to be further misbranded because of false and mis-|leading statements appearing on the carton which represented and suggested|that the product was effective as an aid to detoxication, elimination, and nutri-|tion ; and in that it was fabricated from two or more ingredients and its label|failed to bear the common or usual name of each active ingredient.|On June 19, 1944, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the tablets and aforesaid printed matter were ordered destroyed.|834. Misbranding of Hanford's Balsam of Myrrh. U. S. v. 22 Packages of Hanford's Balsam of Myrrh. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00834December 1943G. C. Hanford Mfg. Co.Hanford's Balsam of MyrrhApril 11 and May 14, 1942Jacksonville, Fla.Syracuse, N. Y.Jacksonville, Fla.Southern District ofJEUfflclda834F. D. C. No. 7888. Sample No. 70592-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00834ddnj|834. Misbranding; of Han ford's Balsam of Myrrh. V. S. v. 22 Packages of Han-|ford's Balsam of Myrrh. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 7888. Sample No. 70592-B.)|On July 15,1942, the United States attorney for the Southern District ofJEUfflclda|filed a libel against 22 packages of Hanford's Balsam of Myrrh, at Jacksonville,|Fla., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or|about April 11 and May 14,1942, by G. C. Hanford Mfg. Co., from Syracuse, N. Y.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of|alcohol, water, myrrh, benzoin, and chlorthymol.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that certain statements on the|bottle label, carton, and accompanying circular which represented and suggested|that it would be efficacious for sprained ankle, caked udder, and swellings; would|be effective for preventing sunburn; would be effective in the treatment of|frostbites, athlete's foot and minor skin irritations; would be effective as a|soothing application for bunions; would be effective when used as eardrops; and|when other treatments failed would be effective for cuts, lacerations, and bruises,|and for horses badly galled or calked; that it possessed remarkable soreness re-|moving qualities and would heal without leaving a scar, were false and mislead-|ing since it would not be effective for the purposes claimed, did not possess|remarkable soreness removing qualities and would not heal without leaving a|scar.|On August 28, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|835. Misbranding of Menestrex. U. S. v. 11 Bottles of Menestrex. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00835December 1943Rex LaboratoryMenestrexDecember 22, 1941Paducah, Ky.Nashville, Tenn.Paducah, Ky.Western District of Kentucky835F. D. C. No. 7896. Sample No. 71562-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00835ddnj|836. Misbranding; of Menestrex. TT. S. V. 11 Bottles of Menestrex. Default|decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 7896. Sample No.|71562-E.) |On July 17, 1942, the United States attorney for the Western District of Ken-|tucky filed a libel against il bottles of Menestrex at Paducah, Ky., allegingHEEaF\"\"*|the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about December 22,|1941,?by the Rex Laboratory, from Nashville. T.enn.|Analysis of a sample of the article snowea that it contained 3.43 grains of|quinine, sulfate and 0.35 grain of potassium permanganate per capsule.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that certain statements in the|labeling which represented and suggested that it was an effective treatment for-|painful, scanty, or functionally delayed menstruation and was a scientific prepa-|ration, were false and misleading since it would not be an effective treatment for|such conditions and was not a scientific preparation.|On September 15, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|836. Misbranding of Pine Glow Bath and Rainbo Bath. U. S. v. 291 Bottles of Pine Glow Bath and 261 Bottles of Rainbo Bath. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00836December 1943Rainbobath LaboratoriesPine Glow Bath and Rainbo BathFebruary 16, 1942Reno, Nev.San Francisco, Calif.Reno, Nev.District of Nevada836F. D. C. No. 7881. Samples Nos. 95124-E, 95125-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00836ddnj|836. Misbranding; of Pine Glow Bath and Rainbo Bath. V. S. v. 291 Bottles of|Pine Glow Bath and 261 Bottles of Rainbo Bath. Default decree of con-|demnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 7881. Samples Nos. 95124-E,|95125-E.)|On July 14, 1942, the United States attorney for the District of Jfetvada filed|a libel against the above named products at Reno, Nev., alleging that*EBeHarticles|had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about February 16, 1942, by the|Rainbobath Laboratories from Sac.Francisco, Calif.|Analysis of the Pine Glow Bath sEowe^T^EaTTfconsisted essentially of water,|the sodium salt of a sulfonated oil, and volatile oils, including oil of pine needles.|Analysis of a sample of the Rainbo Bath showed that it was essentially a lime-|sulfur solution.|The Pine Glow Bath was alleged to be misbranded in that certain statements|in the labeling were false and misleading since they represented and suggested|that the article when placed in the. bath water would be efficacious in overcoming|insomnia and was an aid to health and would be efficacious for muscular rheuma-|tism and gout and for eliminating toxic poisons and for toning up the circulatory|and nervous systems; would be efficacious in the treatment of the skin and|complexion; would increase the white corpuscles in the blood and cause toxins|and other impurities to pass out through the pores of the skin and would benefit|the entire respiratory tract and would be efficacious for weight reduction,|whereas it would not be effective for such purposes.|The Rainbo Bath was alleged to be misbranded in that certain statements|in the labeling were false and misleading since they represented and suggested|that the article was colloidal sulfur, that when placed in the bath water the user|would obtain the benefits derived from the treatments given at hot springs and|spas, and that it would be efficacious in the treatment in the diseases, conditions,|and symptoms mentioned and described in the labeling, and would be efficacious|for reducing, whereas, in truth and in fact, it was not a colloidal sulfur, and it|would not be efficacious or useful for the purposes and in the manner stated,|represented and suggested in the labeling.|On August 3, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the products were ordered destroyed.|837. Misbranding of Bi-Sal Tablets. U. S. v. 129 Bottles of Bi-Sal Tablets. De fault decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00837December 1943Oxford Products, Inc.Bi-Sal TabletsApril 7, 1942Dallas, TexasCleveland, OhioDallas, TexasNorthern District of Texas837F. D. C. No. 7783. Sample No. 91809-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00837ddnj|837. Misbranding; of Bl-Sal Tablets. V. S. v. 129 Bottles of Bi-Sal Tablets. De|fault decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 7783. Sample|No. 91809-E.)|On July 7, 1942, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Texas filed a libel against 129 bottles of Bi-Sal tablets at Dallas, Texas, alleging|tHaFthe article had been shipped in- interstate commerce on or about April 7,|1942,?by the Oxford Products, Inc., from Cleveland, Ohio.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed tEaftfie tablets contained phenol-|phthalein (y2 grain per tablet) extracts of plant drugs, including nux vomica and|a laxative drug, and an extract of bile.|The article was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that the name \"\"Panogestic|Enzymes with Bile Salts Compound\"\" was misleading since it was essentially|a laxative and its physiologic activity was due principally to phenolphthalein,|which is neither an enzyme nor a bile constituent but is.a coal tar derivative;|(2) in that the statement on the carton \"\"This Combination is used * * *|in certain forms of Gall Bladder and Bile Dust Infections,\"\" was false and|misleading, since it represented and suggested that the article would be effec-|tive in the treatment of gall bladder and bile dust infection, whereas it was not|use, since the directions appearing upon the labeling \"\"2 Tablets about 2 hours|after Breakfast and 2 Tablets at bedtime\"\" and \"\"To avoid the 'Laxative Habit'|do not take continously,\"\" failed to specify that a laxative should be taken|only occasionally when needed.|On August 24, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|838. Misbranding of Ironized Yeast. U. S. v. 500 Cartons of Ironized Yeast. Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered released under bond to be brought into compliance with the law.ddnj00838December 1943Ironized Yeast Co., Inc.Ironized Yeast\NNew York, N. Y.Atlanta, Ga.New York, N. Y.Southern District of New Yotk838F. D. C. No. 6512. Sample No. 74949-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00838ddnj|838. Misbranding of Ironized Yeast. U. S. v. 50O Cartons of Ironlzed Yeast.|Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered released under bond|to be brought into compliance with the law. (F. D. G. No. 6512. Sample|No. 74949-E.)|On December 20, 1941, the United States attorney for the Southern District|of New|_?ojk, filed a libel against 500 Cartons of Ironized Yeast, at New York,|N. Y., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce by|the Ironized Yeast (Do., Inc., from Atlanta, Ga.; and charging that it was mis-|branded. The article was labeled in part: \"\"Each tablet contains reduced iron-|Iron Peptonized Haemoglobin Vitamin B Concentrate from Yeast Lager Yeast\"\"|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that certain statements in the|labeling which represented that it would be efficacious for underweight, thin,|run-down, tired and nervous people were false and misleading since they held|out the promise and created the impression that consumption of the article as|directed would result in gain of weight, increased vigor and appetite, and the|disappearance of tiredness and nervousness, whereas the article, when used|as directed would not increase weight, overcome nervousness, produce vigor,|improve the appetite, produce charm and popularity, or otherwise accomplish|the results promised, implied, and represented.|On October 26, 1942, the Ironized Yeast Co., Inc., claimant, having withdrawn|its amended answer therefore entered and having consented to the entry of|a decree, judgment of condemnation was entered and it was ordered that the|product be released under bond conditioned that it be brought into compliance|with the law under the supervision of the Food and Drug Administration.|865. Adulteration and misbranding of medical carbon dioxide and medical carbon dioxide and oxygen mixture. U. S. v. The Liquid Carbonic Corporation (Wall Chemicals Division of the Liquid Carbonic Corporation). Plea of guilty. Fine, $200.ddnj00865May 1944Liquid Carbonic Corporation, trading at Chicago, Ill., under the name of the Wall Chemicals Division of the Liquid Carbonic Corporationmedical carbon dioxide and medical carbon dioxide and oxygen mixtureMarch 12 and April 2, 1942WisconsinIllinoisWisconsinNorthern District of Illinois865F. D. C. No. 7705. Sample Nos. 91275-E, 91276-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00865ddnj|865. Adulteration and misbranding of medical carbon dioxide and medical carbon|dioxide and oxygen mixture. U. S. v. The Liquid Carbonic Corporation|(Wall Chemicals Division of the Liquid Carbonic Corporation). Plea of|guilty. Fine, #20O. (F. D. C. No. 7705. Sample Nos. 91275-E, 91276-E.)|On October 15, 1942, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Illinois filed an information against the Liquid Carbonic Corporation, trading|at Chicago, 111., under the name of the Wall Chemicals Division of the Liquid|Carbonic Corporation, alleging shipment on or about March 12 and April 2, 1942.|of quantities of the above-named products from the State of Illinois into the|State of Wisconsin.|The medical carbon dioxide was alleged to be adulterated (1) in that it|purported to be and was represented as a drug the name of which is recognized|in the United States Pharmacopoeia, and its quality and purity fell below the|standard set forth in that compendium since it had a pronounced odor, whereas|carbon dioxide, which conforms with the description and possesses the physical|properties set forth in the United States Pharmacopoeia, is an odorless gas;|and (2) in that a substance, nitric oxide, had been mixed with it so as to reduce|its quality.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, \"\"The purity of the|contents of this cylinder has been determined and recorded. It conforms to|the approved specifications for this gas * * *,\"\" appearing on the tag, were|false and misleading since it contained an impurity, nitric oxide, and did not|conform to the approved specifications for carbon dioxide gas.|The carbon dioxide and oxygen mixture was alleged to be adulterated in that|its strength differed from and its quality fell below that which it was repre-|sented to possess, since it was represented to contain 5 percent of carbon dioxide,|whereas it contained not more than 3 percent of carbon dioxide.|580229?-44 2|It was alleged to be misbranded In that the statement, \"\"5 percent Carbon Di-|oxide,\"\" borne on the labeling was false and misleading when applied to a drug that {|contained not more than 3.4 percent of carbon dioxide.|On December 22,1942, a plea of guilty having been entered, the court imposed|a fine of $50 on each count, or a total of $200.|1007. Misbranding of Chuman-ie's Regular \"\"Triple XXX\"\" Herb and Iron Mensal Medicine. U. S. v. Charles Roehm (Chumanie Medicine Co.). Plea of not guilty. Tried to a jury. Verdict of guilty. Sentence of 6 months in jail suspended and defendant placed on probation for 1 year.ddnj01007March 1945Charles Roehm, trading as the Chumanie Medicine Co. at New Richmond, Ohio, and Detroit, Mich.Chu-man-ie's Regular \"\"Triple XXX\"\" Herb and Iron Mensal MedicineJanuary 12, 1942MarylandMichiganMarylandEastern District of Michigan1007F. D. C. No. 7723. Sample No. 59725-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01007ddnj|1007. Misbranding: of Chu-man-ie's Regular \"\"Triple XXX\"\" Herb and Iron Mensal|Medicine. XT. S. v. Charles Roehm (Chumanie Medicine Co.). Plea of not|guilty. Tried to a jury. Verdict of guilty. Sentence of 6 months in jail|suspended and defendant placed on probation for 1 year. (F. D. C. No.|7723. Sample No. 59725-E.)|On December 10, 1942, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Michigan filed an information against Charles Roehm, trading as the Chumanie|Medicine Co. at New Richmond, Ohio, and Detroit, Mich., alleging shipment on|or about January 12,1942, from the State of Michigan into the State of Maryland|of a quantity of the above-named product.|Analysis of the article showed that it was in the form of tablets which con-|tained ferrous sulfate and plant, material, including aloe.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements in its labeling|which represented and suggested that it would be efficacious as a mensal medi-|cine, and would be efficacious in the treatment of amenorrhea (suppressed|menstruation), oligomenorrhea (scanty or infrequent menstruation), and|dysmenorrhea (difficult or painful menstruation), were false and misleading|since the article would not be so efficacious. It was alleged to be misbranded|further in that its labeling did not bear adequate directions for use, since it was|a laxative and should not be used continuously, and the labeling failed to warn|against continuous use of the article.|On December 7, 3943, the case came on for trial, and at its conclusion on|December 9, 1943, the jury returned a verdict of guilty. The court imposed a|sentence of 6 months in jail, but suspended the sentence and placed the defendant|on probation for 1 year, specifying as a part of the probation that he was not|to prepare or market the above-named product until he had submitted an accept-|able label to the Food and Drug Administration.|839. Misbranding of Old Hickory Ointment. U. S. v. 52 Jars of Old Hickory Ointment. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00839December 1943Old Hickory Medicine Co.Old Hickory OintmentMay 5, 1942Atlanta, Ga.Chattanooga, Tenn.Atlanta, Ga.Northern District of Georgia839F. D. C. No. 8019. Sample No. 28503-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00839ddnj|839. Misbranding of Old Hickory Ointment. U. S. -v. 52 Jars of Old Hickory|Ointment. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C.|No. 8019. Sample No. 28503-F.)|On July 31, 1942, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Georgia filed a libel against 52 jars of Old Hickory Ointment at Atlanta, Ga.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|May 5, 1942, by the Old Hickory Medicine Co., from Chattanooga, Tenn.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed thaFlt consisted essentially of|zinc oxide, salicylic acid, calomel, carbolic acid, camphor, menthol, and petro-|latum.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements|on the label: \"\"Acne, Barber's Itch, Tetter, * * * Eczema, Scabies, * * *|Dandruff, Psoriasis, Itching Piles,\"\" were false and .misleading since they rep-|resented and suggested that the article would be effective in the treatment of|such conditions, whereas it would not be so effective. It was alleged to be|misbranded further in that its label failed to bear a statement of the quantity|or proportion of calomel, a mercury derivative, present in the article.|On September 22, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product \\jas ordered destroyed.|DRUGS FOB VETERINARY USE|840. Misbranding of Eby's Chicken Medicine and Eby's Swine Medicine. U. S. v. Frank D. Eby (Eby Remedy Co.). Plea of guilty. Fine, $150 and costs.ddnj00840December 1943Frank D. Eby, trading as Eby Remedy Co., at Marengo, IowaEby's Chicken Medicine and Eby's Swine MedicineDecember 3, 1941, and January 29, 1942IowaIowaSouth DakotaNorthern District of Iowa840F. D. C. No. 5580. Sample Nos. 76759-E, 76760-E, 76930-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00840ddnj|840. Misbranding of Eby's Chicken Medicine and Eby's Swine Medicine. V. S. v.|Frank D. Eby (Eby Remedy Co.). Plea of guilty. Fine, 8150 and costs.|(F. D. C. No. 5580. Sample Nos. 76759-E, 76760-E, 76930-E.)|On September 22, 1942, the United States attorney for the Northern District|of Iowa filed an information against Frank D. Eby, trading as Eby Remedy Co.,|at Marengo, Iowa, alleging shipment on or about December 3, 1941, and Janu-|ary 29,1942, from the State of Iowa into the State of South Dakot&_nf quantities|of Eby's Chicken Medicine and Eby's Swine Medicine whlcTTwefe misbranded.|Analysis of one sample of the Chicken Medicine showed that it consisted|essentially of volatile oils including eucalyptol and phenolic compounds, small|proportions of benzoic acid, and iodine. Analysis of a second sample showed|that it consisted essentially of phenolic and camphoraceous substances includ-|ing menthol, eucalyptol, and camphor, and small proportions of benzoic acid,|water, and an oil-soluble dye. Analysis of a sample of the Swine Medicine|showed that it consisted essentially of phenolic and camphoraceous substances|including camphor, eucalyptol, and menthol, and small proportions of benzoic|acid, water, and an oil-soluble dye.|The Chicken Medicine was alleged to be misbranded in that the following|statements: \"\"Chicken Medicine * * * Separate worst cases. Clean up.|After chickens have gone to roost, spray this remedy on their heads for three|nights with a small household fly spray,\"\" borne on the label, were false and|misleading in that they represented that the article would be an effective|treatment for sick chickens, whereas it would not. One shipment of the Chicken|Medicine was alleged to be misbranded further in that the statements \"\"For|Swine Colds Make six small holes in cap of bottle and sprinkle on bedding|*?* * This remedy has been used by thousands of farmers for twelve years,\"\"|borne on the label, were false and misleading in that they represented that the|article would be efficacious as a treatment of swine colds, whereas it would not|be efficacious for such purpose.|One shipment of the Chicken Medicine was alleged to be misbranded further|in that it was in package form and the statement of the quantity of the con-|tents which is required by the act to appear on the label was not prominently|placed thereon with such conspicuousness (as compared with other words, state-|ments, designs, or devices in the labeling) as to render it likely to be read and|understood by the ordinary individual under customary conditions of purchase|and use.|The Swine Medicine was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements|\"\"Swine Medicine * * * Clean up. Turn the cap of this bottle over on a|board and make six holes with the point of a shingle nail. Replace on bottle|and sprinkle on or under bedding. Keep hogs warm and quiet. Keep warm|and quiet. Do not disturb if very sick * * * This remedy has been used|by thousands of farmers for twelve years,\"\" borne on the label, were false and|misleading since they represented that the article would be an effective treat-,|ment for sick swine, whereas, it would not be effective for such purpose.|On September 22, 1942, the defendant entered a plea of guilty and the court|imposed a fine of $150 and costs.|841. Misbranding of Beebe V-V Vim and Vigor. U. S. v. Beebe Laboratories, Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $100.ddnj00841December 1943Beebe Laboratories, Inc., St. Paul, Minn.Beebe V-V Vim and VigorJanuary 19, 1942WisconsinMinnesotaWisconsinDistrict of Minnesota841F. D. C. No. 7715. Sample No. 76750-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00841ddnj|841. Misbranding' of Beebe \"\"V-V \"\"Vim and Vigor. IT. S. v. Beebe Laboratories,|Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $100.- (F. D. C. No. 7715. Sample No. 76750-E.)|On September 28, 1942, the United States attorney for the District of Minne-|sota filed an information against the Beebe Laboratories, Inc., St. Paul, Minn.,|alleging shipment on or about January 19, 1942, from the State of Minnesota|into the State of Wisconsin, of a quantity of Beebe V-V Vim and Vigor, which|was misbranded.?-|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted of plant material|containing essentially, kamala, areco nuts, nux vomica, fenugreek, tobacco, oil|of anise, and oil chenopodium.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, \"\"V-V Vim & Vigor|*?* * As a Tonic\"\" * * * A Flock Treatment for Chickens and Turkeys,\"\"|borne on the label was false and misleading in that they represented and sug-|gested that the article would be efficacious to promate vim and vigor in poultry,|would be efficacious as a tonic for poultry, and would be an efficacious flock|treatment for diseases of chickens and turkeys, whereas it would not be effica-|cious for such purposes.|On September 29, 1942, a plea of guilty having been entered on behalf of the|defendant, the court imposed a fine of $100.|842. Misbranding of I-O-Tab (Iotein Tablets). U. S. v. Frank Y. Chuck (Dr. F. Y. Chuck Research Laboratories). Plea of not guilty. Jury trial. Jury unable to reach verdict and discharged. Plea of not guilty withdrawn and plea of nolo contendere entered. Fine, $100.ddnj00842December 1943Frank Y. Chuck, trading as Dr. F. Y. Chuck Research Laboratories, San Francisco, Calif.I-O-Tab (Iotein Tablets)February 29, 1940OregonCaliforniaOregonNorthern District of Califiacnia842F. D. C. No. 2895. Sample No. 13373-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00842ddnj|842. Misbranding: of I-O-Tab (Ioteln Tablets). V. S. v. Frank Y. Chuck (Dr.|F. Y. Chuck Research Laboratories). Plea of not guilty. Jury trial.|Jury unable to reach -verdict and discharged. Plea of not* guilty with-|drawn and plea of nolo contendere entered. Fine, $100. (F. D. C. No.|2895. Sample No. 13373-E.)|On January 14, 1942, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Califiacnia filed an information against Frank Y. Chuck, trading as Dr. F. Y.|Chuck Research Laboratories, San Francisco, Calif., alleging shipment on or|about February 29, 1940, from the State of California into the State of .Oregon|of a quantity of I-O-Tab (Ioteih Tablets), which were misbranded.|Analysis of a sample.of the article showed that the tablets contained 3.44|percent of nicotine and 0.85 percent of iodine, incorporated in a base of feed|concentrate containing 24 percent of crude fat, reducing sugars, wheat starch,|and tannic acid.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that statements in the labeling|which represented that it would be efficacious in the treatment of fowl suffering|from coccidiosis, blackhead, and cecum worms (Heterakis gallina) ; that It|would be efficacious in the treatment of pullets, hens, and turkeys that had gone|\"\"backward\"\" or \"\"light\"\"' due to chronic coccidiosis, blackhead, or cecum worms;|that it would have a destructive action on the parasites causing coccidiosis and|blackhead and on cecum worms and that it would be efficacious in the treatment|of very severe cases of acute and chronic types of coccidiosis, were false and|misleading since it would not be efficacious for such purposes.|On May 13, 1941, the defendant having entered a plea of not guilty, the case|came on for trial before a jury. The trial was concluded on May 20 and the|case was submitted to the jury, which after deliberating announced that it was|unable to reach a verdict. The jury was thereupon discharged. The defendant,|on December 23, 1941, withdrew his plea of not guilty and entered a plea of|nolo contendere, which plea was accepted by the court and a fine of $100 was|imposed.|843. Misbranding of Coccidiosis Mash. U. S. v. J. Kendley Martin (Standard Milling Co.). Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $100.ddnj00843December 1943J. Kendley Martin, trading as Standard Milling Co., at Atlanta, Ga.Coccidiosis MashApril 15, 1941North CarolinaGeorgiaNorth CarolinaNorthern District of North Carolina843F. D. C. No. 6445. Sample No. 37913-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00843ddnj|843. Misbranding: of Coccidiosis Mash. IT. S. v. J. Kendley Martin (Standard|Milling Co.). Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $100. (F. D. C. No. 6445.|Sample No. 37913-E.)|On May 20, 1942, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Qporgia fiipri an information against J. Kendley Martin, trading as Standard|Milling Co., at Atlanta, Ga. alleging shipment on or about April 15, 1941, from|the State of Georgia into the State of North Carolina of a quantity of Cocci-|diosis Mash which was misbranded.?-----<~~~|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted principally of|wheat bran, wheat starch, finely ground yellow corn, a milk sugar by-product,|yeast, and corn gluten meal, with smaller amounts of alfalfa leaf meal, meat|scraps, soya bean meal, and salt, very little, if any, linseed tissues, and|dried buttermilk, and a trace of oat product and peanut hulls.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements in the labelling|which represented and suggested that it would be efficacious in the cure, mitiga-|tion, treatment or prevention of coccidiosis, were false and misleading since|it would not be efficacious for such purpose.|On September 21, 1942, the defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere and|on October 2,1942, the court|imposed a fine of $100.|887. Misbranding of menstruation tablets, herb tea, and hair pomade. U. S. v. Bernard McBrady (J. E. McBrady & Co.). Pleas of guilty. Sentenced to 1 hour in the custody of the United States marshal.ddnj00887May 1944Bernard McBrady, trading as J. E. McBrady Co., Chicago, Ill.menstruation tablets, herb tea, and hair pomadeJuly 28 and 29 and December 12, 1941MichiganIllinoisMichiganNorthern District of Illinois887F. D. C. No. 7287. Sample Nos. 30484-E to 30487-E incl. , 47868-E, 47869-E, 47871-E, 47872-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00887ddnj|887. Misbranding of menstruation tablets, herb tea, and hair pomade. V. S. v.|Bernard McBrady (J. E. McBrady & Co.). Pleas of guilty. Sentenced to 1|hour in the custody of the United States marshal. (F. D. C. No. 7287.|Sample Nos. 30484-B to 30487-E incl., 47868-E, 47869-E, 47871-E, 47872-E.)|On September 15, 1942, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Illinois filed an information against Bernard McBrady, trading as J. E. McBrady|& Co., Chicago, HI., alleging shipment on or about July 28 and 29 and December|12,1941, from the State of Illinois into the State of Michigan of quantities of Men-|struation Tablets, Herb Tea, and Hair Pomade.|Examination of the Delayed Menstruation Tablets showed the article to contain|iron sulfate, extracts of plant drugs, including aloe, and an alkaloid-bearing drug,|and oil of savin, coated with calcium carbonate colored red. The article was|alleged to be misbranded in that the statements on the label, \"\"Delayed Menstrua-|tion,\"\" and \"\"For Painful, Suppressed, Profuse or delayed by Colds,\"\" were false and|misleading as the drug was not efficacious for these purposes.|Examination of the Herb Tea No. 107 showed that the product consisted of|senna leaves and pods, uva ursi, chamomile flowers, rosemary leaves, sage leaves,|comf rey root, oak bark, orange peel sweet, unicorn root, condurango bark, pepper-|mint leaves, and gentian root. The article was alleged to be misbranded in that|the statements appearing on the carton and label represented and suggested that|the drug was efficacious in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of|\"\"whites\"\"; that it would save health and prolong life, afford relief from many|ills and that it had great healing power, and would maintain life and good health|to mankind, were false and misleading as the product was not efficacious for|such purposes.|Analysis of Herb Tea No. 110 showed the product consisted essentially of|senna pods, malva flowers, horehound, tansy herb, chamomile flowers, comfrey|root, cinchona bark, rata herb, and sage. The article was alleged to be mis-|branded in that the following statements appearing on the label were false and|misleading as the product was not effective for the purposes represented or|suggested: \"\"For Delayed Menstruation Caused By Colds * * * Save Your|Health Prolong Your Life * * * Relief For Many Ills * * * Great|Healing Power * * * to maintain life and good health to man-kind * * *|Delayed Menstruation * * * To Aid in bringing back Menstrual Periods|delayed by Golds * * * Many Women Suffer more or less every month from|delayed menstruation usually caused by colds. This tea is very effective and|acts upon the conditions which cause the delays.\"\"|Analysis of Herb Tea No. 109 showed the product to consist essentially of|senna leaves and pods, cinchona bark, orange peel sweet, comfrey root, clover|tops red, sassafras bark, and sarsaparilla root. The article was alleged to be|misbranded in that the following statements appearing on the label and in the|circular accompanying the drug were false and misleading as the product was not|effective for such purposes: \"\"For Skin Eruptions For Minor Skin Eruptions and|Pimples, on Face and Body\"\" and \"\"Save Your Health Prolong Your Life * * *|For Skin Eruptions For Minor Skin Eruptions and Pimples, on Face and Body|* * * The Skin Is An Index To Health Eruptions rarely form upon the sur-|face unless there is something wrong with the system. It is sometimes necessary|to treat such eruptions with internal remedies * * * Relief For Many|His * * * Great Healing Power * * * to maintain life and good health|to man-kind.\"\"|Examination of Herb Tea No. 114 showed the article to consist essentially of|marsh mallow root, coltsfoot leaves, licorice root, mullein leaves, broom tops, and|linden flowers. This article was labeled in part: \"\"For Minor Chest Colds.\"\" It|was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements in the labeling represented|and suggested that the drug would be efficacious in the cure, mitigation, treat-|ment, or prevention of minor chest colds, would save health, prolong life, and|relieve many ills; that it had great healing power, would maintain life and good|health to mankind, be effective for congestion and pain in the chest, would|remove and prevent the feeling of oppression and tightness of congestion accom-|panying the pain in the chest, and irritating cough, were false and misleading as|the drug would not be so efficacious.|Analysis of Herb Tea No. 124 showed the product to consist essentially of|spearmint leaves, witch-hazel leaves, hops, chamomile flowers, red oak bark, uva|ursi leaves, and unidentified plant material. The article was represented by its|label \"\"* * * as a wash for Sores, Ulcers,\"\" and \"\"* * * also as a|wash for Ulcers and other Sores.\"\" It was alleged to be misbranded as the drug|was not efficacious in the cure,- mitigation, treatment, or prevention of sores and|ulcers, and it was not efficacious as a wash for sores and ulcers.|Examination of a sample of Herb Tea No. 104 showed the product to consist|essentially of senna leaves, chamomile, cascara sagrada, elder flowers, dill|seed, caraway, saffron (American), uva ursi, licorice root, peppermint, and|sassafras. It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements in the labeling|represented and suggested that the drug was efficacious in the cure, mitigation,|treatment or prevention of indigestion, poor appetite, sluggishness, gas, bloating,|and biliousness, would save health and prolong life, would clear the accumulated|poisonous gas from the colon, relieve a tired and \"\"dopey\"\" feeling, would make|developing and from being carried to every part of the body, were false and|misleading as the article was not so effective.|Analysis of a sample of McBrady's Hair Pomade showed the product to consist|essentially of a small proportion of a fatty acid such as stearic acid incorporated|in a petrolatum and wax base. The article was alleged to be misbranded in that|the statement in the circular accompanying the drug, which represented and|suggested that it was efficacious in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention|of stubborn and falling hair; that it would give the hair a better chance to grow|and cause it to grow faster, and would soften and limber the hair, were false and|misleading as the product would not be so effective.|On October 7, 1942, a plea of guilty having been entered, the court imposed|upon the defendant a sentence of 1 hour In the custody of the United States|marshal.|844. Misbranding of Bovosan. U. S. v. Robert Gisler. Plea of not guilty. Tried to the court. Judgment of guilty on charge of failure to declare active ingredients and not guilty on charges based upon therapeutic claims.ddnj00844December 1943Robert Gisler of San Francisco, Calif.BovosanDecember 16, 1940OregonCaliforniaOregonNorthern District of California844F. D. C. No. 6487. Sample No. 60023-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00844ddnj|844. Misbranding: of Bovosan. U. S. v. Robert Gisler. Plea of not guilty. Tried|to the court. Judgment of guilty on charge of failure to declare active|ingredients and not guilty on charges based npon therapeutic claims.|(F. D. a No. 6487. Sample No. 60023-E.)|On April 2, 1942, the United States attorney for the Northern District of Cali-|fornia filed an information against Robert Gisler of San Francisco, Calif., alleging|shipment on or about December 16, 1940, from the State of California into the|State of Oregon of a quantity of Bovosan which was misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of|small porportions of sulfur, phenolic compounds, and soap, incorporated in a|base of petrolatum.|It was alleged that the article was misbranded in that statements appearing|in the labeling which represented and suggested that it would be efficacious in|the treatment of vaginitis and related diseases and that it would be efficacious|to prevent infection of a healthy cow by a diseased bull or of a healthy bull by a|diseased cow, were false and misleading, since the article would not be efficacious|for such purposes. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that it was not|designated solely by a name recognized in an official compendium, and was fabri-|cated from two or more ingredients and its label did not bear the common|or usual name of each active ingredient.|On May 26, 1942, the defendant having entered a plea of not guilty, the case|came on for trial before the court without a jury. The trial having been con-|cluded on May 29,1942, the court entered judgment that the defendant was guilty|on the charge of failure to declare the active ingredients, but was not guilty on|the remaining charges. The court reserved sentence and on October 19, 1942, im-|posed a fine of $10.|845. Misbranding of cleaning powder, Bovostick, Powder No. 1, and Powder No. 2. U. S. v. 26 cans of Cleaning Powder, et al. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00845December 1943\Ncleaning powder, Bovostick, Powder No. 1, and Powder No. 2\NCaliforniaZug, SwitzerlandCaliforniaNorthern District of California845F. D. C. No. 5615. Sample Nos. 23602-E to 23005-E, incl.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00845ddnj|845. Misbranding of cleaning powder, Bovostick, Powder No. 1, and Powder|No. 2. U. S. v. 26 cans of Cleaning Powder, et al. Default decree of con-|demnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 5615. Sample Nos. 23G02-E to|23005-E, incl.)|On September 19, 1942, the United States attorney for the Northern District|of California filed a libel against 26 cans containing a product known as \"\"Clean-|large can of a product known as \"\"Powder No. 1,\"\" and as \"\"Pregnancy Powder,\"\"|and 2 paper bags containing a powder known as \"\"Powder No. 2,\"\" and as \"\"Rins-|ing Powder,\"\" alleging that the articles had been shipped in foreign and interstate|commerce from|Zug, Switzerland.|The articles, ^witn tne exception of Bovostick, were alleged to be misbranded|ing that they were drugs in package form and failed to bear labels containing|the name and place of business of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor; (2)|in that they failed to bear .labels containing an accurate statement of the quan-|tity of the contents; and (3) in that they were fabricated from two or more|ingredients and their labels failed to bear the common or usual name of each|active ingredient. The products, including the Bovostick, were alleged to be|misbranded in that their labels failed to bear adequate directions for use.|On October 24, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the products were ordered destroyed.|846. Misbranding of Near's Garjex Powder. U. S. v. 22 Packages of Wear's Garjex Powder. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00846December 1943Near's Food Co., Inc., and the Troy Chemical Co., Inc.Near's Garjex PowderFebruary 18, 1942Elgin, Ill.Binghamton, N. Y.Elgin, Ill.Northern District of Illinois846F. D. C. No. 7400. Sample No. 86226-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00846ddnj|846. Misbranding: of Near's Garjex Powder. U. S. v. 22 Packages of Wear's|Gar .lex Powder. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C.|No. 7400. Sample No. 86226-E.)|On May 2,1942, the United States attorney for the Northern District of Illinois|filed a libel against 22 packages of Near's Garjex Powder at Elgin, 111., alleging|that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about February|18, 1942, by Near's Food Co., Inc., and the Troy Chemical Co., Inc., from Bing-|hamton, N. Y.|Analysis snowed that the article consisted essentially of hexamethylenetetra-|mine, manganese, cobalt, copper, iron, sodium, potassium and magnesium salts|including iodides, sulfates, and chlorides, together with sulfur and plant|material.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the representation that the|article was a preventive and appropriate treatment for mastitis was false and|misleading, since the article was not a preventive or appropriate treatment for|mastitis.|On August 28, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|847. Misbranding of Apcoton and Apco Worm-Tabs. U. S. v. 21 Packages of Apcoton and 33 Bottles of Aped Worm-Tabs. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00847December 1943American Products Co., Inc.Apcoton and Apco Worm-TabsJune 13, 1942Houston, TexasShawnee, Kans.Houston, TexasSouthern District of Texas847F. D. C. No. 7961. Sample Nos. 11385-E, 11387-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00847ddnj|847. Misbranding of Apcoton and Apco Worm-Tabs. IT. S. v. 21 Packages of|Apcoton and 33 Bottles of Aped Worm-Tabs. Default decree of condem-|nation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 7961. Sample Nos. 11385-E, 11387-E.)|In addition to false and misleading curative and therapeutic claims in the|labeling of both of these products the \"\"Apcoton\"\" contained ? a smaller amount|of nicotine alkaloid than declared, and the Apco Worm-Tabs contained smaller|amounts of nicotine and copper sulfate than declared.|On July 29, 1942, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|Texas filed a libel against 21 packages of Apcoton and 33 bottles of Apco Worm-|Tib's~at Houston, Texas, alleging that the articles had been shipped in interstate|commerce on or about June 13, 1942, by the American Products Co., Inc., from|Sb_awjQeejJgan&.|Analysis of a sample of the Apcoton showed that it contained iron sulfate,|copper sulfate, nicotine 0.5 per cent, talc, and plant material, including capsicum.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements on the labeling: \"\"Flock|Treatment *| * * As tonic-stomachic * * * As a Flock treatment * * *|Contains * * * (Nicotine Alkaloid, 6?),\"\" were false and misleading since|they represented that the article was a flock treatment for diseased conditions of|poultry and was an effective tonic and stomachic for poultry, whereas it was|not so effective and it failed to contain the quantity of nicotine alkaloid declared.|Analysis of a sample of the Apco Worm-Tabs shows that it consisted of iron|oxide coated \"\"tablets, containing essentially kamala, nicotine 0.163 grain, copper|sulfate 1.89 grains, with small amounts of napthalene and nux vomica. It was|alleged to be misbranded in that the statements: \"\"For combatting infestation of|large round worms (Ascaris) and large tape worms (Infundibuliformis) in|poultry. Contains * * * Nicotine 1.4 gr., copper sulphate 2? gr.\"\" were false|and misleading, since the article did not contain sufficient amounts of any in-|gredient to be an effective treatment for any species of worms which infest poultry|and did not contain the quantity of nicotine and copper sulfate declared.|On September 17,1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|848. Misbranding of Korum. U. S. v. 38 Gallon Bottles, 22 1/2 -Gallon Bottles, 126 32-Ounce Bottles, 309 16-Ounce Bottles, and 36 8-Ounce Bottles of Korum and 500 copies of a circular entitled \"\"Russell Poultry Medicines and Biologies.\"\" Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00848December 1943I. D. Russell Co., from Kansas City, Mo.KorumJune 8, 23, and 24, 1942Lewisburg, OhioKansas City, Mo.Lewisburg, OhioSouthern District of Ohio848F. D. C. No. 8013. Sample No. 4601-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00848ddnj|848. Misbranding of Korum. U. S. v. 38 Gallon Bottles, 22 % -Gallon Bottles,|126 32-Ounce Bottles, 309 16-0unce Bottles, and 36 8-Onnce Bottles|of Eornm and 500 copies of a circular entitled /fRnssell Poultry Medi-|cines and Biologies.\"\" Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 8013. Sample No. 4601-F.)|On August 1, 1942, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|Qhio, filed a libel against the above-listed amounts of Korum, and accompanying|circulars, at Lewisburg, Ohio, alleging that the product, Korum, had been trans-|ported in interstate commerce on or about June 8, 23, and 24, 1942, and that|the copies of the circular hPd been transported in interstate commerce on or about|June 15,1942, both by I. D. Russell Co., from Kansas City, Mo.|Analysis of the sample of the Korum showed that it consisted essentially of|sodium chloride, potassium dichromate, small proportions of sodium chlorate,|potassium nitrate, Epsom salt, and water.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that certain statements appearing in the|booklet accompanying the article which represented and suggested that it con-|stituted an effective preventive and treatment for coccidiosis, mycosis, and respir-|atory diseases of poultry, when used as directed, were false and misleading since|it would not constitute an effective preventive or treatment for such conditions.|On September 15,1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the drug and circulars were ordered destroyed.|849. Misbranding of Wormo. U. S. v. 21 5/6 Dozen Bottles and 4 11/12 Dozen Bottles of Wormo. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00849December 1943Blaco Chemical Co.WormoJanuary 26, 1942Worthington Springs, Fla.Robstown, Tex.Worthington Springs, Fla.Southern District of Florida849F. D. C. No. 7855. Sample No. 70569-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00849ddnj|849. Misbranding: of Wormo. U. S. v. 21% Dozen Bottles and 4i%2 Dozen Bottles|of Wormo. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C.|No. 7855. Sample No. 70569-E.)|On or about July 14,1942, the United States attorney for the. Southern District|of Florida, filed a libel against 21? dozen 3-ounce bottles and i^fa dozen 6-ounce|bottles oTWormo at Worthington Springs, Fla., alleging that the article had been|shipped in interstate commerce on or about January 26, 1942, by Blaco Chemical|Co., from Robstownx Tex.|Ajaalysis^iEowea\"\" that it consisted essentially of chloroform, coal tar, cresols,|soap, and water.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that certain statements on the|bottle label and in an accompanying circular, which represented and suggested|that it would be efficacious for the treatment, relief, and expulsion of internal|parasites in poultry, and in dogs, cattle, sheep, swine, and, horses; and would|be efficacious in the treatment of colic and bots in horses, stomach and intestinal|worms in sheep, hogs, and dogs, and running fits in dogs, were false and mislead-|ing since it would not be efficacious for such purposes. It was alleged to be|misbranded further in that the declaration of the name and quantity or propor-|tion of chloroform and the designation of the active ingredients of the article,|required to appear in the labeling were not prominently placed thereon with|such conspicuousness (as compared with other words in the labeling) as to|render them likely to be read and understood by the ordinary individual under|customary conditions of purchase and use.|On August 6, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|902. Misbranding of ampuls of sodium salicylate and sodium iodide with colchicine, and adulteration and misbranding of thyroid and ovarian compound. U. S. v. Kenneth Gaylord Ziegler (Ziegler Pharmacal Co.). Plea of guilty. Fine, $450. Payment of fine suspended.ddnj00902October 1944Kenneth Gaylord Ziegler, trading as Ziegler Pharmacal Company, Buffalo, N. Y.ampuls of sodium salicylate and sodium iodide with colchicine; thyroid and ovarian compoundAugust 19 and September 16, 1941New YorkNew YorkPennsylvaniaWestern District of New York902F. D. C. No. 7740. Sample Nos. 40863-E, 42995-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00902ddnj|802. Misbranding' of ampuls of sodium salicylate and sodium iodide with colchi-|cine, and adulteration and misbranding of thyroid and ovarian compound.|IX. S. v. Kenneth Gaylord Ziegler (Ziegler Pharmacal Co.). Plea of|guilty. Fine, $450. Payment of fine suspended. (F. D. C. No. 7740. Sample|Nos. 40863-E, 42995-B.)|On November 23, 1942, the United States attorney for the Western District of|New York filed an information against Kenneth Gaylord Ziegler, trading as|Ziegler Pharmacal Company, Buffalo, N. Y., alleging shipment on or about August|19 and September 16, 1941, of the above-named products from the State of New|York into the State of Pennsylvania.|Analysis of a sample of the ampuls of sodium salicylate and sodium iodide|with colchicine showed that the volume of the contents varied from 18.8 to|20.5 cc. The average was 19.47 cc.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement, \"\"20 c. c. Plus,\"\"|borne on the label was false and misleading since it represented that the ampuls|contained 20 cc. of the article, plus an amount sufficient to insure a full dosage|of 20 cc. when administered in the manner that is customary and usual,|whereas a large proportion of the ampuls contained less than 20 cc. of said drug,|and all of the ampuls contained less than an amount sufficient to insure a full|dosage of 20 cc. when administered in a manner that is customary and usual.|Examination of a sample of the thyroid and ovarian compound showed the|tablets to contain 0.015 grain (?7 grain) of arsenic trioxide each.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from|that which it purported and was represented to possess, ?o grain of arsenic|trioxide.|It was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that the statement on the label,|\"\"Arsenic Trioxide Yso gr.,\"\" was false and misleading since the tablets were|found to contain not less than ?r grain of arsenic trioxide; (2) in that its|name, \"\"Thyroid and Ovarian (Compound),\"\" was false and misleading since it sug-|gested that the article was composed solely of thyroid and ovarian glandular|substances, wEfcreas, in addition, it contained strychnine sulfate and arsenic|trioxide; (3) in that the statement, \"\"Ovarian * * * Dose: One or two|tablets three times a day,\"\" borne on the label was false and misleading since|it suggested that in the dosages recommended the drug would supply the user|with a significant amount of the active principles of ovarian glands, whereas|it contained an inconsequential amount of the active principles of ovarian|glands; (4) in that it contained strychnine and, because of the presence of|strychnine, not more than the dosage recommended should be taken, its frequent|or continued use should be avoided, and its use by children and elderly persons|might be especially dangerous; (5) in that it contained arsenic and its labeling ,|did not bear adequate warning that continued or prolonged use of a preparation *|containing arsenic might result in serious injury; and (6) in that it contained|thyroid and would be dangerous to health when used in the dosage or with|the frequency of duration prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling.|On November 23, 1942, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to the 3 counts|in the information. He was- sentenced to pay a fine of $150 on each count, but|payment of the fine was suspended.|850. Misbranding of Knox-It. U. S. v. 20 Packages and 72 Packages of Knox-It. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00850December 1943Syracuse Pharmacal Co., Inc.Knox-ItJanuary 16, 1942Little Falls and Upper Montclair, N. J.Syracuse, N. Y.Little Falls and Upper Montclair, N. J.District of New Jersey850F. D. C. No. 6825. Sample No. 74195-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00850ddnj|850. Misbranding of Knox-It. U. S. v. 20 Packages and 72 Packages of Knox-It.|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 6825.|Sample No. 74195-E.)|On February 6,1942, the United States attorney for the District of New_ Jersey|filed a libel against 92 packages of Knox-It at Little Falls and Upper Montclair,|N. J., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or|about January 16, 1942, by the Syracuse Pharmacal Co., Inc., from Syracuse,|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of plant|material including a cereal, iodoform, methenamine, sulfur, lime, small propor-|tions of a copper compound, and an iodide.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that statements in the labeling|which represented that it was an appropriate treatment for common disturbances|of the mammary system of cattle, or garget, which result in thick, bloody, stringy|milk and that it was a suitable preventive of garget were false and misleading|since it would not be efficacious for such purposes.|On July 7,1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|851. Misbranding of Tescum Powders. U. S. v. Edna B. Brown (Tescum Company) . Plea of guilty. Fine, $100 and costs.ddnj00851May 1944Mrs. Edna B. Brown, trading as the Tescum Company, Cleveland, OhioTescum PowdersMarch 12, 1941West VirginiaOhioWest VirginiaNorthern District of Ohio851F. D. C. No. 6476. Sample No. 59339-EThe National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00851ddnj|DRUGS AND DEVICES \\|NOTICES OF JUDGMENT UNDER THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG,|AND COSMETIC ACT|[Given pursuant to section 705 of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act]|851-900|DRUGS AND DEVICES|The cases reported herewith were instituted in the United States district|courts by the United States attorneys acting upon reports submitted by direction|of the Federal Security Administrator.|WATSON B. MILLER, Acting Administrator, Federal Security Agency.|Washington, D. C, March 10,191&.|Page|Drags actionable because of potential danger|when used according to directions 77|Drags actionable because of failure to bear|adequate directions or warning statements.. 79|Drugs actionable because of deviation from|official or own standards | 82|CONTENTS*|Page|Drugs actionable because of false and mislead'|ing claims | 93|Human use- | 93|Veterinary use | 101|Index | 105|DRUGS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF POTENTIAL DANGER WHEN USED|ACCORDING TO DEtECTIONS|851. Misbranding of Tescnm Powders. IT. S. v. Edna B. Brown (Tescum Com-|pany) . Plea of guilty. Fine, f lOO and costs. (F. D. C. No. 6476. Sample|No. 59339rBaj^ \\|On Novambep^^l9Jg,'the United States attorney for the Northern District|of Ohio filed an^-mformation against Mrs. Edna B. Brown, trading as the Tescum|Company, Cleveland, Ohio, alleging shipment on or about March 12, 1941, of a|quantity of Tescum Powders from the State of Ohio into the State of West|Virginia.|Analysis of a sample of Tescum Powders showed each power to contain 0.56|grain tartar emetic, 2.12 grains ammonium chloride, a trace of a gold compound,|and sugar.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement, \"\"Tescum|Powders Tends to discourage drinking,\"\" appearing on the labeling was false and|misleading as the drug would not be efficacious to discourage addiction to the use|of alcoholic liquors. It was alleged to be further misbranded in that it contained|tartar emetic 'and would be dangerous to health when used in the dosage or|with the frequency or duration prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the|labeling, \"\"One powder twice a day in any food or liquid.\"\"|On October 30,1942, a plea of guilty having been entered, the court imposed a|fine of $100 and costs.|?For omission of accurate statement of quantity of contents, see Nos. 854, 876, 884, 896, 898; omission of,|or unsatisfactory/ingredients statements, Nos. 854, 856, 873, 884, 891, 895, 896, 898, 899; inconspicuousness|of required label information, Nos. 864,871; deceptive packaging, Nos. 873; filth, No. 861; failure to comply|with official compendium packaging requirements, No. 863.|580229?-44-|852. Adulteration and misbranding of Leunbach' Paste. U. S. v. Merz & Company Chemical Works, Inc., and Adolph G. Schickert. Plea of guilty by Adolph G. Scnlckert, sentence 18 months in jail. Plea of nolo contendere by corporation. Sentence suspended.ddnj00852May 1944Merz & Company Chemical Works, Inc., East Orange, N. J., and Adolph G. SchickertLeunbach' PasteMarch 16, 1989, to September 11, 1940Ohio, Georgia, California, PennsylvaniaNew JerseyOhio, Georgia, California, PennsylvaniaDistrict of New Jersey852F. D. C. No. 5505. Sample Nos. 5032-E, 5033-E, 12877-E, 14055-E to 14057-E, incl. 14059-E, 20127-E, 28933-E, 28934-E, 32419-E, S2420-E, 32473-E to 32475-E, incl. , 33525-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00852ddnj|852. Adulteration and misbranding of Leunbach' Paste. IT. S. v. Merz & Company|Chemical 'Works, Inc., and Adolph G. Schickert. Plea of guilty by Adolph|G. Scnlckert, sentence 18 months In jail. Plea of nolo contendere by cor-|poration. Sentence suspended. (F. D. C. No. 5505. Sample Nos. 5032-E,|5033-E,12877-E, 14055-E to 14057-E, incl.. 14059-E, 20127-E, 28933-E, 28934-E,|32419-E, S2420-E, 32473-E to 32475-E, incl., 33525-E.)|On October 31,1941, the United States attorney for the District of New Jersey|filed an information against Merz & Company Chemical Works, Inc., East Orange,|N. J., and Adolph G. Schickert, alleging shipment within the period from on or|about March 16, 1989, to on or about September 11, 1940, from the State of New|Jersey into the States of Ohio, Georgia, California, Pennsylvania, and the District|of Columbia, of quantities of Leunbach' Paste complete outfit and Leunbach' Paste|refill tubes which were misbranded. On March 31, 1942, the grand jury for the|District of New Jersey presented an indictment based on the same charges|against the defendants. (The information which had been filed on October 31,|1941, was dismissed at the conclusion of the case.)|Examination showed that the Leunbach' Paste complete outfit contained a|tube of paste and instruments for its application, and the refill tubes contained|the same paste. Analysis of a sample of this paste showed that it contained|potassium iodide, small proportions of thymol, benzoin, and myrrh incorporated|in a soap base, alcohol, and water.|Portions of the article were alleged to be adulterated in that its purity fell|below that which it purported and was represented to possess, in that the article|by virtue of the use for which it was recommended and the conditions under|which it was to be used, that is, injection into the cervix and pregnant uterus|under conditions of the strictest asepsis, purported and was represented to be|sterile, whereas it was not sterile but was contaminated with viable micro-|organisms.|All of the shipments were alleged to be misbranded in that the article was dan-|gerous to health when used in the dosage or with the frequency or duration pre-|scribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling. (The labeling of this product|is set out substantially in Drugs and Devices Notices of Judgment No. 607.)|It was alleged to be further misbranded in that its labeling was false and|misleading in its representations and suggestions that it was a safe and appro-|priate treatment for the therapeutic termination of pregnancy, whereas it was|not a safe and appropriate treatment for the therapeutic termination of preg-|nancy, but was unsafe and dangerous, and capable of producing serious and|even fatal consequences.|On October 14, 1942, Adolph Schickert entered a plea of guilty, and a plea of|nolo contendere was entered on behalf of the corporation. On October 30, 1942,|the court sentenced Schickert to serve 6 months on each of the 17 counts in the|indictment, the periods imposed on the first 3 counts to be served consecutively,|totaling 18 months, and the periods imposed on the remainder of the counts to|be served concurrently with that imposed on count 1. On November 6, 1942, the|court ordered sentence suspended as to the corporation.|853. Misbranding of Hunt's Salve. U. S. v. 5 1/2 Dozen Packages of Hunt's Salve. Default decree of condemnation. Product ordered destroyed.ddnj00853May 1944Allied Drug Products Co.Hunt's SalveMay 5, 1942Little Rock, Ark.Chattanooga, Tenn.Little Rock, Ark.Eastern District of Arkansas853F. D. C No. 7829. Sample No. 94230-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00853ddnj|863. Misbranding of Hunt's Salve. TJ. S. v. 5% Dozen Packages of Hunt's Salve.|Default decree of condemnation. Product ordered destroyed. (F. D. C|No. 7829. Sample No. 94230-E.)|On June 29, 1942, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Arkansas filed a libel at Little Rock, Ark., against 5? dozen packages of Hunt's|Salve, alleging that the article was shipped in interstate commerce on or about|May 5, 1942, by the Allied Drug Products Co. from Chattanooga, Tenn. The|article was labeled in part: \"\"Hunt's Salve Manufactured for A. B. Richards Med.|Co. Sherman, Texas.\"\"|Examination showed that the article consisted essentially of chrysarobin 0.43|percent, sulfur iodine, and carbolic acid, in an ointment base. The amount|of ointment contained in each can did not exceed 1? avoirdupois ounces.|The article was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that it would be dangerous to|health when used as recommended: \"\"Once or twice a day and always at bed time,|apply Hunt's Salve; rub it in thoroughly\"\"; (2) in that the statement, \"\"Con-|tents: 1? oz. av.,\"\" was false and misleading since the actual amount of oint-|ment did not exceed 1? avoirdupois ounces; and (3) in that the statements in|the labeling representing and suggesting that the article would be effective to|relieve itching and remove crusts associated with eczema, promote the healing|of cuts, burns, scratches, and skin abrasions, and would\"\" give relief from itching|caused by skin irritations, were false and misleading as the article was not|effective for these purposes.|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|DRUGS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO BEAR ADEQUATE|DIRECTIONS OR WARNING STATEMENTS|854. Misbranding of Indian Antiseptic Hair and Scalp Stimulator. Adulteration and misbranding of Eez-all Germicide for the Skin. U. S. v. Adolph F. Frick. Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $300.ddnj00854May 1944Adolph F. Frick, San Francisco, Calif.Indian Antiseptic Hair and Scalp StimulatorApril 3, 1941NevadaCaliforniaNevadaNorthern District of California854F. D. C. No. 6441. Sample Nos. 22596-E, 22597-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00854ddnj|854. Misbranding: of Indian Antiseptic Hair and Scalp Stimulator. Adulteration|and misbranding- of Eez-all Germicide for the Skin. U. S. v. Adolph F.|Frick. Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, 9300. (F. D. C. No. 6441. Sample|Nos. 22596-E, 22597-E.)|On April 1, 1942, the United States attorney for the Northern District of Cali-|fornia filed an information against Adolph F. Frick, San Francisco, Calif.,|alleging shipment on or about April 3, 1941, of a quantity of the above-named|products from the State of California into the State of Nevada.|Analysis of a sample of Indian Antiseptic Hair and Scalp Stimulator showed|that it consisted essentially of small proportions of a phenolic compound and|free ammonia, alcohol, and water.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements,|\"\"Indian * * * Hair and Scalp Stimulator for dandruff-itching scalp-fall-|ing hair-eczema, etc. * * * For itching scalp, dandruff, falling hair, ecze-|matous condition,\"\" and the designs of an Indian head, arrows, and Indian scenes|appearing on the label, were false and misleading since they represented and sug-|gested that the article consisted solely of substances used by the Indians, and|that it would be efficacious as a hair and scalp stimulator, in the treatment of|dandruff, itching scalp, falling hair, eczema, and other eczematous conditions,|whereas it contained ingredients unknown to the Indians and would not be|efficacious for the conditions represented.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that it was in package form and|the label did not bear an accurate statement of the quantity of contents. It was|also misbranded in that it was fabricated from two or more ingredients and its|label did not bear the common or usual name of each active ingredient.|Analysis of a sample of Eez-all Germicide for the Skin showed that it con-|sisted essentially of small proportions of a phenolic compound and free ammonia,|alcohol, and water. Bacteriological examination showed that the article was|neither an antiseptic nor a germicide. The article was alleged to be adulterated|in that its strength differed from that which it purported and was represented|to possess, and in that it purported and was represented to be a germicide,|whereas it was not a germicide. It was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that|the statement, \"\"Eez-all Germicide for the Skin For Cuts, Bruises, Burns, Itching,|Poison Oak, Athlete's Foot, Throat, and Gums,\"\" was false and misleading as it|represented that the article would bring about ease and relief from pain and|discomfort, implied in the expression \"\"Eez-all,\"\" and that it was a germicide and|effective for the conditions mentioned, whereas the drug was not a germicide and|was not effective for the conditions indicated; (2) in that it was fabricated|from two or more ingredients and its label did not bear the common name or|usual name of each active ingredient; and (3) in that its label did not bear|adequate directions for use.|On October 17,1942, after entry of a plea of nolo contendere, the defendant was|fined $100 on each of the 3 counts contained in the information.|855. Misbranding of Ru-Ma-Dol, McDades Prescription, Moe-Pep, and Allan's Red Wash. Adulteration and misbranding of Allan's Gland Capsules. U. S. v. Allan & Co., Inc., and John G. Ayars. Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $150.ddnj00855May 1944Allan & Co., Inc., St. Louis, Mo., and John G. AyarsRu-Ma-Dol, McDades Prescription, Moe-Pep, and Allan's Red Wash.; Allan's Gland CapsulesSeptember 18, 20, and 27, and October 1, 1941Arkansas and TennesseeMissouriArkansas and TennesseeEastern District of Missouri855F. D. C. No. 7298. Sample Nos. 67928-E, 67932-E, 71214-E, 71216-E, 71217-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00855ddnj|855. Misbranding: of Ru-Ma-Dol, McDades Prescription, Moe-Pep, and Allan's|Red Wash. Adulteration and misbranding- of Allan's Gland Capsules.|TJ. S. v. Allan & Co., Inc., and John G. Ayars. Plea of nolo contendere.|Fine, $150. (F. D. C. No. 7298. Sample Nos. 67928-E, 67932-E, 71214-E,|71216-E, 71217-E.)|On October 2, 1942, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Missouri filed an information against Allan & Co., Inc., St. Louis, Mo., and John|G. Ayars, alleging shipment on or about September 18, 20, and 27, and October 1,|1941, from the State of Missouri into the States of Arkansas and Tennessee of|quantities of the above named products.|Analysis of a sample of Ru-Ma-Dol showed that it consisted essentially of sodium|salicylate and extracts of plant drugs, including an alkaloid-bearing drug, alcohol,|glycerine, and water. The article was alleged to be misbranded in that state-|ments in the labeling regarding the efficacy of the drug in the cure, mitigation,|treatment, or prevention of rheumatism, neuralgia, neuritis, pain, and swelling,|and in the relief of symptoms of rheumatism, neuralgia, and neuritis, were false|and misleading, since the product was not efficacious for these purposes.|Examination of a sample of McDades Prescription showed that it consisted|essentially of extracts of plant drugs, including a laxative drug and a bitter|drug, glycerine, alcohol, and water. The article was alleged to be misbranded|in that the statement on the labeling, \"\"Vegetable Alterative An aid in the relief|of pain and discomfort arising from certain Rheumatism and Catarrhal affec-|tions,\"\" was false and misleading, as it was not efficacious for the purpose repre-|sented and suggested. It was further misbranded in that its label failed to bear|adequate directions for use, since the directions did not limit the duration of ad-|ministration of the drug.|Analysis of a sample of Moe-Pep showed that it consisted essentially of extracts|of plant drugs, including mix vomica and a laxative drug, a small proportion of an|arsenic compound, sugars, alcohol, and water. The article was alleged to be mis-|branded in that the name, \"\"Moe-Pep,\"\" was misleading, as it represented and sug-|gested that the drug would give the user more pep, whereas it would not give the|user more pep. The article was also misbranded in that the statement, \"\"Sexual|Power Stimulant For men or women suffering from low sexual power not due|to any disease, nor to natural frigidity, but to overwork, worry or advancing|years; up to a reasonable age. * * * until desired results are obtained|* * * Should you experience too much stimulation, * * *,\"\" were false and|misleading, since the drug would not be effective for these purposes. It was|further misbranded in that the label failed to warn that not more than the recom-|mended dosage should be taken since the drug contained strychnine and arsenic|compound, that frequent, continued, or prolonged use of the drug might result|in serious injury, and that use of the drug by elderly persons might be especially|dangerous.|Examination of a sample of Gland Capsules showed that it consistedly essentially|of an extract of nux vomica, extracts of organic material, and small proportions|of an arsenic compound, an iodine compound, and zinc phosphide. The article|was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from and its quality|fell below that which it purported and was represented to possess, as it was|represented to contain zinc sulfide, whereas, it did not contain zinc sulfide.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the following and similar statements|appearing on the labeling, \"\"Gland Capsules Each Capsule contains: * * *|Zinc Sulphide . * * * Sexual Power Stimulant For men or women suffering|from low sexual power not due to any disease nor to natural frigidity, but t<5|overwork, worry or advancing years. * * * until desired results are ob-|tained. * * * Should you experience too much stimulation * * * If re-|sults are not satisfactory your Physician should be consulted,\"\" were false and|misleading, as the product did not contain zinc sulfide and was not efficacious|for the purposes recommended. The article was further misbranded in that|its labeling did not bear adequate warning against its use, where such use|might be dangerous to health, or against unsafe dosage or methods of duration|of administration. The article contained nux vomica and arsenic, and its label|failed to warn that not more| than the recommended dosage should be taken,|that frequent continued or prolonged use might result in serious injury, and that|its use by elderly persons might be especially dangerous.|A sample of Allan's Red Wash Combination was found to be composed of a|bottle of \"\"Red Wash\"\" and a bottle of \"\"Sa-Ura Emulsion.\"\" Analysis of a sample|of the \"\"Red Wash\"\" showed that it consisted essentially of small proportions|of cresol, boric acid, compounds of aluminum, ammonium and zinc sulfates, glyc-|erine, and water. The \"\"Sa-Ura Emulsion\"\" consisted essentially of castor oil|and volatile oils, including sandalwood, turpentine, and balsam of copaiba.|The circular accompanying the drug carried the following statements: \"\"While|this treatment is rational and well known and will probably give you satisfaction,|it should be regarded as an emergency treatment. Then as soon as possible|you should see your Doctor and have a thorough Biological examination made.|What are commonly termed social diseases are not to be regarded lightly. If|infected, in fairness to your family and your fellow citizens, submit to early|biological examination that general infection may be checked and controlled.\"\"|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the quoted statements were|false and misleading, as they represented that the drug would be efficacious in|the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of social diseases, whereas it was|not efficacious for this purpose.|On December 3, 1942, a plea of nolo contendere having been entered, a fine|of $15 on each of the 6 counts in the information was imposed upon the cor-|poration, and a fine of $10 on each of the 6 counts was imposed upon the|individual defendant.|856. Adulteration and misbranding of cascara compound tablets and Pentabisarsen ampuls. U. S. v. Max Gold and Irving Levine (Gold Leaf Pharmacal Co.). Plea of guilty. Fine, $500 on counts 2 and 4. Sentence suspended and defendants placed on probation for 1 year on counts 1 and 3.ddnj00856May 1944Max Gold and Irving Levine, trading as the Gold Leaf Pharmacal Co., New Rochelle, N. Y.cascara compound tablets and Pentabisarsen ampulsMay 9 to 12, 1941ConnecticutNew YorkConnecticutSouthern District of New York856F. D. C. No. 6466. Sample Nos. 69921-E, 69925-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00856ddnj|866. Adulteration and misbranding of cascara compound tablets and Penta-|bisarsen ampuls. IT. S. v. Max Gold and Irving Levine (Gold Leaf Phar-|macal Co.). Plea of guilty. Fine, $500 on counts 2 and 4. Sentence sus-|pended and defendants placed on probation for 1 year on counts 1 and 3.|(F. D. C. No. 6466. Sample Nos. 69921-B, 69925-E.)|Both products were below their own standard. In addition, the cascara|compound tablets did not bear adequate directions for use or warning statements.|On October 2, 1942, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|New York filed an information against Max Gold and Irving Levine, trading|as the Gold Leaf Pharmacal Co., New Rochelle, N. Y., alleging shipments of|cascara compound tablets and of Pentabisarsen ampuls on or about May 9 to|12,1941, from the State of New York into the State of Connecticut.|Analysis of a sample of the cascara compound tablets showed that they con-|tained no strychnine sulfate, but did contain alkaloids of belladonna, aloin, podo-|phyllin, and extracts of plant drugs, including ginger, and a laxative drug.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements on the label|represented that each tablet contained 1/60 grain of strychnine sulfate, whereas|it did not contain any strychnine sulfate. It was further misbranded in that|the extract of belladonna, a constituent of the drug, contained the alkaloids|atropine, hyoscine, and hyoscyamine, and the label failed to bear the name and|quantity or proportion of those alkaloids. The article was also misbranded|in that the labeling failed to bear adequate warnings against use by children|and by persons in those pathological conditions wherein use of the drug may be|dangerous to health; against unsafe dosage, or methods or duration of admin-|istration, or application in such manner and form as are necessary for the|protection of users; and in that it did not bear warnings that the preparation|should not be used when abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, or other symptoms|of appendicitis are present, and that frequent or continued use may result in|dependence on laxatives.|.The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from|and its purity and quality fell below that which it purported and was repre-|sented to possess, since it was represented to contain strychnine sulfate, but con-|tained no strychnine sulfate.|Analysis of a sample of Pentabisarsen ampuls showed that the solution con-|tained 1.28 percent of bismuth and 0.311 percent of arsenic.|, It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements appearing on the label|representing the drug to contain 2 percent solution of sodium bismuth pentava-|lent, and organic ester of arsonic acid containing approximately 36 percent bis-|muth and 13 percent arsenic, were false and misleading as the quantities of said|elements, based upon the standard so declared, were thus represented to be not|more than 0.72 percent of bismuth and not more than 0.26 percent of arsenic,|whereas the drug contained more bismuth and arsenic than declared.|The Pentabisarsen ampuls were also alleged to be adulterated in that their|strength differed from and their purity and quality fell below that which they|were represented and purported to possess.|On October 14, 1942, the defendants entered a plea of guilty and were fined|$250 on counts 2 and 4 of the information, a total fine of $500. Imposition of|sentence was suspended on counts 1 and 3, and each of the defendants was|placed on probation for a period of 1 year.|857. Misbranding of Mrs. Price's special prepared boric acid. U. S. v. 92 Packages of Mrs. Price's Special Prepared Boric Acid. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00857May 1944Mrs. W. T. Price under the designation Price Compound Co.Mrs. Price's special prepared boric acidSeptember 16, 1942Harrisburg, Pa.Minneapolis, Minn.Harrisburg, Pa.Middle District of Pennsylvania857F. D. C. No. 8974. Sample No. 22616-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00857ddnj|857. Misbranding of Mrs. Price's special prepared boric acid. U. S. v. 92 Pack-|ages of Mrs. Price's Special Prepared Boric Acid. Default decree of con-|demnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 8974. Sample No. 22616-F.)|On December 11, 1942, the United States attorney for the Middle District of|Pennsylvania filed a libel against the above-named product at Harrisburg, Pa.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|September 16, 1942, by Mrs. W. T. Price under the designation Price Compound|Co., from Minneapolis, Minn.; and charging that it was misbranded in that it|was sold under a name recognized in the United States Pharmacopoeia, and|purported to be and was represented as an antiseptic, and its labeling failed to|bear adequate directions for use.|The article was also alleged to be misbranded under the provisions of the act|applicable to foods, reported in F. N. J. No. 4489.|On February 12, 1943, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|858. Misbranding of citrate of magnesia. U. S. v. 99 Cases of Citrate of Magnesia. Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered released under bond for relabeling.ddnj00858May 1944Benly Products Company, Philadelphia, Pa.citrate of magnesiaJune 24, 1941Philadelphia, Pa.Newark, N. J.Philadelphia, Pa.Eastern District of Pennsylvania858F. D. C. No. 7399. Sample Nos. 40679-E, 40680-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00858ddnj|868. Misbranding1 of citrate of magnesia. V. S. v. 99 Cases of Citrate of Mag-|nesia. Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered released under|bond for relabeling. (F. D. C. No. 7399. Sample Nos. 40679-E, 40680-E.)|On April 27,1942, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Penn-|sylvania filed a libel at Philadelphia, Pa., against 99 cases of citrate of magnesia.|On June 22, and September 18, 1942, amendments to the libel were filed. It was|alleged in the libel as so amended that the product had been shipped by the|United States Pharmacal Co. from Newark, N. J., on or about June 24, 1941.|The article was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that the labeling failed to|bear adequate warnings against use in those pathological conditions wherein its|use might be dangerous to health, since it failed to warn that the article was not|to be used when abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, or other symptoms of appendi-|citis were present; and (2) in that the labeling failed to bear adequate warning|against unsafe methods or duration of administration, since it failed to warn|that frequent or continued use of the preparation might result in dependence on|laxatives.|On September 18, 1942, Benly Products Company, Philadelphia, Pa., claimant,|having admitted the allegations of the libel and having consented to the entry|of a decree, judgment of condemnation was entered and it was ordered that the|product be released under bond for relabeling.|859. Misbranding of \"\"Q-T.\"\" U. S. v. 35 Packages and 23 Packages of \"\"Q-T.\"\" Default decrees of condemnation. Product ordered destroyed.ddnj00859May 1944Allied Pharmacal Co.Q-TMay 22 and July 4, 1942Pittsburgh, Pa.Cleveland, OhioPittsburgh, Pa.Western District of Pennsylvania859F. D. C. No. 8269. Sample Nos. 21719-F, 21720-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00859ddnj|859. Misbranding of ?Q-T.\"\" U. S. v. 35 Packages and 23 Packages of \"\"Q-T.\"\"|Default decrees of condemnation. Product ordered destroyed. (F. D. C.|No. 8269. Sample Nos. 21719-F, 21720-F.)|On August 31 and October 14, 1942, the United States attorney for the Western|District of Pennsylvania filed libels at Pittsburgh, Pa., against 23 4-ounce bottles,|and 35 2-ounce bottles of \"\"Q-T,\"\" alleging that the article had been shipped in|interstate commerce on or about May 22 and July 4, 1942, by the Allied Phar-|macal Co. from Cleveland, Ohio. The article was labeled in part: \"\"Q-T For Adults|Only, Contains Gold and Sodium Chloride and Ammonium Chloride. * * *|This preparation was formerly called Quits.\"\"|Examination of a sample of the article showed that it contained 0.16 grain of|gold and sodium chloride per fluid ounce, and 6.3 grains of ammonium chloride|per fluid ounce.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the labeling failed to bear|adequate directions for use since it did not state the conditions for which the|article was to be used.|On October 19, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgments of condemnation|were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|DRUGS AND DEVICES ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF DEVIATION FROM|OFFICIAL OR OWN STANDARDS*|860. Adulteration and misbranding of phenobarbital tablets. U. S. v. The Physicians' Chemical and Drug Co. and Melvin L. Berger. Plea of not guilty by the corporation. Verdict of guilty. Fine, $500. Case against Melvin L. Berger dismissed.ddnj00860May 1944Physicians' Chemical and Drug Co., Chicago, Ill., and Melvin L. Bergerphenobarbital tabletsOctober 8, 1941CaliforniaIllinoisCaliforniaNorthern District of Illinois860F. D. C. No. 7233. Sample No. 72204-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00860ddnj|860. Adulteration and misbranding of phenobarbital tablets. U. S. v. The Physi|cians' Chemical and Drug Co. and Melvin L. Berger. Plea of not guilty by|the corporation. Verdict of guilty. Fine, $500. Case against Melvin L.|Berger dismissed. (F. D. C. No. 7233. Sample No. 72204-E.)|On or about October 15, 1942, the United States attorney for the Northern|District of Illinois filed an information against the Physicians' Chemical and|Drug Co., Chicago, 111., and Melvin L. Berger, alleging shipment on or about|October 8,1941, from the State of Illinois into the State of California of a quantity|of phenobarbital tablets. The tablets were labeled in part: \"\"Phenobarbital ?,\"\"|and \"\"Phenobarbital-Gr. ?.\"\"|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the label statements repre-|sented and suggested that each tablet contained not more than y2 grain of|phenobarbital, whereas each tablet contained not less than 0.58 grain of|phenobarbital.|It was also alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to be and was repre-|sented as a drug, the name of which is recognized in the National Formulary,|its strength differed from the standard set forth in that compendium, and its|difference in strength was not plainly stated on the label. The National|Formulary provides that \"\"Tablets of Phenobarbital contain not more than 107.5|percent of the labeled amount of phenobarbital for tablets of more than 0.07|6m.,-and not more than 109 percent for tablets of 0.07 Gm. or less, including all|tolerances.\"\" In this case each tablet contained not less than 116 percent of the|labeled amount of phenobarbital.|?See also Nos. 852. 854-856.|The corporation was found guilty, and the court imposed a fine of $500. On|motion of the defendants the action against the individual defendant was dis-|missed by the court.|861. Adulteration and misbranding of triple distilled water. U. S. v. Kenneth Gaylord Zieglerddnj00861May 1944Kenneth Gaylord Ziegler, trading as Ziegler Pharmacal Co., Buffalo, N. Y.triple distilled waterMarch 6 and September 4, 1941MissouriNew YorkMissouriWestern District of New York861F. D. C. No. 6418. Sample Nos. 46751-E, 57061-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00861ddnj|861. Adulteration and misbranding: of triple distilled water. U. S. v. Kenneth|Gaylord Ziegler (Ziegler Pharmacal Co.). Plea of guilty. Fine, $460.|(P. D. C. No. 6418. Sample Nos. 46751-B, 57061-E.)|On April 20, 1942, the United States attorney for the Western District of New|York filed an information against Kenneth Gaylord Ziegler, trading as Ziegler|Pharmacal Co., Buffalo, N. Y., alleging shipment of a quantity of triple distilled|water on or about March 6 and September 4, 1941, from the State of New York|into the State of Missouri and the Territory of Puerto Rico.|Analyses of a sample of the article from the shipment made into the State of|Missouri showed that the product was not sterile and that it contained viable mold|micro-organisms.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it was a drug the name of|which is recognized in the National Formulary, and its quality and purity fell|below the standard set forth in that compendium since the ampuls did not con-|tain sterile redistilled water, but contained water that was contaminated with|viable mold. It was further adulterated in that it consisted in whole or in part|of a filthy substance.|Examination of a sample taken from the shipment into Puerto Rico showed|that the average net contents was less than 10 cc. per ampul, namely, 9.25 cc.|per ampul. The article was not a clear liquid since some of the ampuls examined|contained solid particles. The article did not meet the test for oxidizable sub-|stances in that when it was treated according to the test laid down in the|National Formulary the color of the liquid disappeared in less than 10 minutes|when 0.2 cc. of twentieth-normal potassium permanganate was added, indicating|that the article contained oxidizable substances in excess of the maximum toler-|ance permitted by the National Formulary.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to be and|was represented as a drug, the name of which is recognized in the National|Formulary, and its quality and purity fell below the standard set forth in|that compendium and its difference in quality and purity from such standard|was not stated on the label.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement, \"\"10 cc. Plus,\"\" borne|on the label was false and misleading as each of the ampuls contained materially|less than 10 cc. of the drug.|On November 23, 1942, a plea of guilty having been entered, the court imposed|a fine of $150 on each of the 3 counts of the information.|862. Adulteration and misbranding of triple distilled water. U. S. v. Diarsenol Company, Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $500.ddnj00862May 1944Diarsenol Company, Inc., Buffalo, N. Y.triple distilled waterMarch 29 to May 22, 1941TexasNew YorkTexasWestern District of New York862F. D. C. No. 6507. Sample Nos. 11275-E to 11277-E, Incl.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00862ddnj|862. Adulteration and misbranding- of triple distilled water. V. S. v. Diarsenol|Company, Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, 8500. (F. D. C. No. 6507. Sample|Nos. 11275-E to 11277-E, Incl.)|This product failed to conform to the requirements of the National Formulary.|On July 13, 1942, the United States attorney for the Western District of|New York filed an information against the Diarsenol Company, Inc., Buffalo,|N. Y., alleging shipment from on or about March 29 to May 22, 1941, from the|State of New York into the State of Texas of quantities of ampuls of triple|distilled water.|Analysis of a sample of the product showed that it did not comply with the|requirements 6f the National Formulary for purity in that the hydrogen-ion|concentration was above pH 7.0. It was found also that 14 percent of the|ampuls did not contain the quantity of contents declared on the label, nor did|it meet the National Formulary requirements for fill of 10-cc. ampuls, since|40 percent of the ampuls contained less than 10.50 cc. of liquid. Tests con-|ducted on the ampuls themselves showed that the glass failed to comply with|the National Formulary requirements for ampul glass. In addition, another|portion was found not to .comply with the National Formulary requirements|for triple distilled water in that it contained excessive oxidizable substances.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to be and|was represented as a drug recognized in the National Formulary and its|quality fell below the standard set forth in that compendium since it contained|a hydrogen-ion concentration of more than pH 7.0, which digression from the|standard was not plainly stated on the label. The article in the said two lots|was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that the statement \"\"10 cc.\"\" shown on the|label was false and misleading since each of the ampuls contained a less|amount; (2) in that it was not packaged as prescribed in the National For-|mulary, since the glass used for the ampuls did not pass the test for solubility|and reaction required by that compendium; and (3) in that the ampuls did|not contain the excess volume (0.5 cc.) which the National Formulary requires|should be measured into ampuls purporting to contain a 10-cc. dose of a mobile|solution. One of the shipments was alleged to be adulterated in that it fell|below the standard set forth in the National Formulary, since it contained an|excess of oxidizable substances, and this fact was not plainly stated on its label.|On October 26,1942, a plea of guilty having been entered, the court imposed a|fine of $100 on each of the 5 counts in the information.|863. Adulteration and misbranding of tincture of iron and elixir of iron, quinine and strychnine. U. S. v. L. Perrigo Company. Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $150.ddnj00863May 1944L. Perrigo Co., a corporation, Allegan, Mich.tincture of iron and elixir of iron, quinine and strychnineMarch 6 and May 2, 1941IndianaMichiganIndianaWestern District of Michigan863F. D. C. No. 7699. Sample Nos. 47545-E, 47547-E. 66255-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00863ddnj|863. Adulteration and misbranding of tincture of iron and elixir of iron, quinine|and strychnine. U. S. v. L. Perrigo Company. Plea of nolo contendere.|Fine, $150. (F. D. C. No. 7699. Sample Nos. 47545-E, 47547-E. 66255-E.)|On November 13, 1942, the United States attorney for the Western District|of Michigan filed an information against L. Perrigo Co., a corporation, Allegan,|Mich., alleging shipment of quantities of the above-named products on or about|March 6 and May 2,1941, from the State of Michigan into the State of Indiana.|The United States Pharmacopoeia provides that tincture of iron shall contain|an amount of ferric chloride corresponding to not less than 4.5 grams of iron.|Analysis of a sample of Tincture Iron U. S. P. showed that it contained an amount|of ferric chloride corresponding to not more than 3.15 grams of iron per 100 cc.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to be and was|represented as a drug the name of which is recognized in the United States|Pharmacopoeia, and its strength differed from and its quality fell below the|standard set forth in that compendium as the drug contained ferric chloride|corresponding to not more than 3.15 grams of iron per 100 cc. It was alleged to|be misbranded in that the statement, \"\"Tincture Iron U. S. P.,\"\" appearing on|the label was false and misleading when applied to a drug which did not conform|to the requirements of the United States Pharmacopoeia. *|A drug compounded in accordance with the formula for elixir of iron, quinine|and strychnine set forth in the National Formulary must contain an amount of|ferric citrochloride equivalent to not less than 5.60 grams of iron per 1,000 cc,|and must contain not less than 8 grams of quinine hydrochloride per 1,000 cc. Ex-|amination of a sample from each of 2 shipments of Elixir Iron, Quinine and|Strychnine, N. F., showed that the article in one shipment contained an amount|of ferric citrochloride equivalent to not more than 2.80 grams of iron per 1,000 cc.,|and not more than 4.90 grams of quinine hydrochloride per 1,000 cc. A sample|from the second shipment contained not less than* 9.5 grams of quinine hydro-|chloride per 1,000 cc. The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it pur-|ported to be and was represented as a product recognized in the National|Formulary and its strength differed from and its quality fell below the standard|set forth in such compendium. It was alleged to be misbranded in that the|statement, \"\"Elixir Iron, Quinine and Strychnine, N. F.,\"\" appearing on the label|was false and misleading when applied to an article which did not conform|to the requirements of the National Formulary.|On November 30, 1942, a plea of nolo contendere having been entered, the|court found the defendant guilty and assessed a fine of $25 on each count, or a|total of $150.|903. Misbranding of Ju-Van capsules. U. S. v. 292 Boxes of Ju-Van Capsules. Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered destroyed.ddnj00903October 1944Mid-West Drug Company, Inc.Ju-Van capsulesFebruary 8 to April 20, 1940Chicago, Ill.; Detroit, Mich.; Flint, Mich.Ft. Wayne, Ind.Chicago, Ill.; Detroit, Mich.; Flint, Mich.Northern District of Illinois and the Eastern District of Michigan903F. D. C. Nos. 1528, 1691, 1847, 1849, 1910. Sample Nos. 90103-D, 4003-E, 4119-E, 4437-E, 4442-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00903ddnj|803. Misbranding of Ju-Van capsules. TJ. S. v. 292 Boxes of Ju-Van Capsules.|Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered destroyed. (F. D. C.|Nos. 1528, 1691, 1847, 1849, 1910. Sample Nos. 90103-D, 4003-E, 4119-E, 4437-E,|4442-E.)|Within the period from on or about February 29 to May 5, 1940, the United|States attorneys for the Northern District of Illinois and the Eastern District|of Michigan filed libels against the following quantities of Ju-Van capsules: 85|boxes at Chicago, 111., 142 boxes at Detroit, Mich., 31 boxes at Flint, Mich., and|13 boxes at Lansing, Mich. The libel against the last-named shipment was|amended on May 14,1940, to include an additional 21 boxes of the product. The|libels alleged that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce within|the period from on or about February 8 to April 20, 1940., by the Mid-West Drug|Company, Inc.* from Ft. Wayne, Ind.; and charged that it was misbranded.|Examination, of samples of the article showed that in 4 of the 5 shipments|the capsules contained 1.5 grains of thyroid of United States Pharmacopoeia|potency, and plant material, and that in the fifth shipment they contained thyroid|equivalent to 1.3 grains of thyroid of the same potency, together with plant|material.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements and designs|appearing on the carton labels, \"\"For Overweight Caused by Myxedematous Hypo-|thyroidism (Advanced stage of thyroid deficiency) * * * DIRECTIONS:|One capsule after each meal and before retiring, or as directed by physician.|In the event distress such as nervousness, insomnia, palpitation, or increased|pulse develop, decrease number of capsules taken until condition disappears.|If these conditions persist, or if any symptoms of excess thyroid activity appear,|or when normal weight is approached, discontinue taking capsules. Advisability|of treatment should be determined by physician. WARNING: Not to be used|by children nor by persons with Heart Defects, Kidney Diseases, Pregnancy,|Diabetes, Goiter, Hyperthyroidism, or any disease or affliction other than over-|weight as mentioned above,\"\" together with further and similar statements con-|tained in the circular shipped with the article, were false and misleading in|that they created the impression that the article was a safe and appropriate|remedy for overweight, whereas it was not such a safe and appropriate remedy|for overweight, but was a dangerous drug, and its labeling failed to reveal the|material fact that the use of the article might result in harmful consequences|to the user.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that it was dangerous to health|when used in the dosage or with the frequency or duration prescribed, recom-|mended, or suggested in the labeling, \"\"One capsule after 'each meal and before|retiring, or as directed by physician.\"\"|On April 29, 1940, no claim having been entered at that time, judgment of|condemnation was entered with respect to 69 boxes of the product located at|Chicago, and the product was ordered destroyed. However, on May 1, 1940,|the Mid-West Drug Co., Inc., having entered an appearance, an order was entered|to vacate the default order and the claimant was given further time to answer.|On December 3, 1940, on motion of the claimant, the cases instituted in the|Eastern District of Michigan were ordered transferred to the Northern District|of Illinois for consolidation with the 2 libels filed in the latter District. On June|23,1943, the claimant having consented to the entry of a decree in the consolidated|case, judgment of condemnation was entered and the product was ordered|destroyed.|866. Adulteration and misbranding of medical carbon dioxide. U. S. v. 4 Cylinders of Medical Carbon Dioxide. Default decree of condemnation. Product ordered destroyed.ddnj00866May 1944Wall Chemicals Division of the Liquid Carbonic Corp.medical carbon dioxideMarch 12, 1942Milwaukee, Wis.Chicago, Ill.Milwaukee, Wis.Eastern District of Wisconsin866F. D. C. No. 7527. Sample No. 91275-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00866ddnj|866. Adulteration and misbranding: of medical carbon dioxide. U. S. v. 4 Cylinders|of Medical Carbon Dioxide. Default decree of condemnation. Product|ordered destroyed. (F. D. C. No. 7527. Sample No. 91275-E.)|On May 18, 1942, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Wis-|consin filed a libel at Milwaukee, Wis., against 4 cylinders of medical carbon|dioxide, alleging that the article had been shipped on or about March 12, 1942,|by Wall Chemicals Division of the Liquid Carbonic Corp., from Chicago, 111.|Carbon dioxide is an article described in the United States Pharmacopoeia as|an odorless gas. Examination of the gas contained in the cylinders showed that|it had a pronounced odor which was due to nitric oxide.|The article was alleged to be adultered in that it purported to be a drug the|name of which was recognized in an official compendium, but its quality or purity|fell below the standard set forth in such compendium. It was also adulterated|in that the article was a drug, and a substance, nitric oxide, had been mixed|with it so as to reduce its quality.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements|appearing on the tag attached to the cylinder were false and misleading as|applied to an article that did not conform to the approved specifications for such|gas: \"\"The Purity of the contents of this cylinder has been determined and re-|corded. It conforms to the approved specifications for this gas * * *.\"\"|On October 8, 1942, no claimant having appeared, decree of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|867. Adulteration and misbranding of sutures. U. S. v. 684 Tubes of Surgical Sutures. Default decree of condemnation. Product ordered destroyed.ddnj00867May 1944W. J. PrendergastsuturesMarch 28, 1942Brooklyn, N. Y.Chicago, Ill.Brooklyn, N. Y.Eastern District of New York867F. D. C. No. 8151. Sample No. 74663-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00867ddnj|867. Adulteration and misbranding: of sutures. U. S. v. 684 Tubes of Surgical|Sutures. Default decree of condemnation. Product ordered destroyed.'| (F. D. C. No. 8151. Sample No. 74663-E.)|On August 17, 1942, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|New York filed a libel at Brooklyn, N. Y., against 684 tubes of surgical sutures,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|March 28,1942, by W. J. Prendergast from Chicago, 111. The article was labeled|in part: \"\"Davis Surgical Gut U. S. P. C Medium Chromic (20-Day) Boilable|277 2.\"\"|Examination showed that the sutures were not sterile, but were contaminated|with living aerobic spore-bearing bacilli.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported and was repre-|sented to be a drug recognized in the United States Pharmacopoeia and its purity|fell below the standard set forth in such compendium, since the article was|not sterile.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement in the label-|ing, \"\"Guaranty Davis Sutures are guaranteed sterile,\"\" was false and misleading|since the article was not sterile.|On October 26, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|868. Adulteration and misbranding of sutures. U. S. v. 1,092 Sutures. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00868May 1944W. J. Prendergast Co.suturesMarch 23, 1942Brooklyn, N. Y.Chicago, Ill.Brooklyn, N. Y.Eastern District of New York868F. D. C. No. 7398. Sample No. 84939-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00868ddnj|868. Adulteration and misbranding: of sutures. U. S. v. 1,092 Sutures. Default|decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 7398. Sample No.|84939-E.)|Examination of this product showed it to be contaminated with viable spore-|. bearing bacteria.|On April 27, 1942, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of New|York filed a libel against 1,092 sutures at Brooklyn, N. Y., alleging that the article|had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about March 23, 1942, by W. J.|Prendergast Co. from Chicago, HI.; and charging that it was adulterated and|misbranded. The article was labeled in part \"\"Davis Sutures Surgical Gut|U.S. P. * * * Davis Sutures Inc. Chicago.\"\"|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to be and was|represented as a drug, surgical gut, the name of which is recognized in the United|States Pharmacopoeia, and its quality and purity fell below the standard set forth|in that compendium since the article was not sterile.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the two statements, (carton) \"\"Surgical|Gut U. S. P.,\"\" and (leaflet) \"\"Davis Sutures are guaranteed sterile, and to remain|sterile until tubes are opened,\"\" were false and misleading since the article did not|and the sutures were not sterile.|On August 14,1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|869. Adulteration of absorbent cotton. U. S. v. 2,500 Cartons of Absorbent Cotten. Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered released under bond to be reprocessed.ddnj00869May 1944Acme Cotton Products Co., Inc.absorbent cottonApril 6, 1942Washington, D. C.Dayville, Conn.Washington, D. C.District of Columbia869F. D. C. No. 7535. Sample No. 87171-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00869ddnj|869. Adulteration of absorbent cotton. V. S. v. 2,500 Cartons of Absorbent Cot-|ten. Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered released under|bond to be reprocessed. (F. D. C. No. 7535. Sample No. 87171-E.)|The quality and purity of this product fell below the pharmacopoeial standard|since it contained less than 60 percent of fibers 12.5 mm. or greater in length, and|more than 10 percent of fibers 6.25 mm. or less in length, and was not white and|had not been freed from adhering impurities, but contained hulls, shells, oil spots,|and gray streaks.|On May 21, 1942,,the United States attorney for the District of Columbia filed|a libel against 2,500 cartons of absorbent cotton at Washington, D. C, alleging|that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about April 6,1942,|by Acme Cotton Products Co. Inc., from Dayville, Conn.; and charging that it was|adulterated in that it purported to be and was represented as a drug the name of|which is recognized in the United States Pharmacopoeia, and its quality and|purity fell below the standard set forth therein. It was labeled in part: \"\"Grade A|Absorbent Cotton.\"\"|On October 22, 1942, the Acme Cotton Products Co., Inc., claimant, having ad-|mitted the allegations of the libel, judgment of condemnation was entered and the|product was ordered released under bond conditioned that it be reprocessed under|the supervision of the Food and Drug Administration.|927. Action to restrain and enjoin interstate shipment of Dolphin's Natural Barks. U. S. v. Byron J. Dolphin (Dolphin's Natural Barks). Tried to the court and jury. Verdict in favor of the Government. Permanent injunction granted.ddnj00927October 1944Byron J. Dolphin, doing business as Dolphin's Natural Barks at Seattle, Wash.Dolphin's Natural Barks\NWashingtonSeattle, WashingtonWashingtonWestern District of Washington927Inj. No. 44.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00927ddnj|927. Action to restrain and enjoin interstate shipment of Dolphin's Natural|Barks. XJ. S. v. Byron J. Dolphin (Dolphin's Natural Barks). Tried to|the court and jury. Verdict in favor of the Government. Permanent|injunction granted. (Inj. No. 44.)|On December 5, 1942, the United States attorney for the Western District of|Washington filed a complaint against Byron J. Dolphin, doing business as Dol-|phin's Natural Barks at Seattle, Wash., alleging that the defendant for many|years past had been engaged in the sale and distribution of an article of drug|22 See also Nos. 901-903, incl., 905-914, incl., 917-922, incl., 924-926, Incl.|called Dolphin's Natural Barks, and that the article was made up in liquid form|and sold and distributed by the defendant in small glass bottles enclosed in|cardboard cartons.|The complaint alleged further that the article was misbranded in that certain|statements appearing in its labeling were false and misleading. (The misbrand-|ing allegations in the complaint were sustained by the court's \"\"Findings of Fact\"\"|and \"\"Conclusions of Law\"\" set forth hereinafter.)|The complaint alleged further that the defendant and his agents had been|in the past and were then introducing and delivering the article for introduction|into interstate commerce, and prayed that judgment and decree be entered per-|manently restraining and enjoining the defendant, his agents and employees, and|all persons acting in concert with them, from continuing to do so, and prayed that|a preliminary injunction be granted restraining the defendant during the pend-|ency of the action. On the same date and pursuant to the motion of the United|States attorney, an order was entered for the defendant to show cause why he,|his agents, and employees should not be restrained and enjoined during the|pendency of the action.|On December 14, 1942, the case having come on for hearing, the court orally|ruled that the Government was entitled to the preliminary injunction on the|ground that its evidence, showing the article had no curative value, was uncon-|troverted, and on December 16, 1942, a restraining order pendente lite was en-|tered pursuant to such oral ruling.|The case came on for trial on March 7, 1944, at which time the court, upon its|own motion impaneled an advisory jury. On March 9, 1944, evidence having|been admitted on behalf of the parties and the cause submitted to such jury,|a verdict was returned in favor of the Government, together with a special|verdict finding that the product was misbranded. On March 20, 1944, the court|having duly considered the matter, made the following findings of fact and|conclusions of law:|BOWEN, District Judge:|FINDINGS OF FACT|\"\"That the defendant BYRON J. DOLPHIN is a resident of Seattle, Washing-|ton, and is doing business under the firm and trade name of Dolphin's Natural|Barks.|II.|\"\"That the defendant has been for some years past and is now engaged in the|manufacture, sale and distribution of a product and article of drug called 'Dol-|phin's Natural Barks,' and that said product is made up in liquid form and is sold|and distributed by the defendant in small glass bottles enclosed in cardboard|cartons.|III.|\"\"That there is attached and affixed to the said cartons and to the said bottles|-certain labels, and there is inserted in each carton a leaflet or circular, and that|such labels and leaflet make certain statements and representations concerning|said product, its constituents and the efficacy of said product as a treatment for|?diseases of the eye; that the leaflet contained in said carton constitutes a part of|the labeling of said product.|IV.|\"\"That the statements and representations appearing on the said labeling re-|garding the efficacy of said product in the cure, mitigation, treatment or pre-|vention of diseases of the eye are false and misleading in that they falsely rep-|resent and suggest: That said drug contains natural barks; that drops of said|?drug when applied to the eyes are wonderful for diseases of the eye; that said|drug is manufactured by a new process from tamarack bark, oak bark, and con-|tains minerals from organic and inorganic sources, to-wit, aluminum, iron,|manganese, calcium, magnesium, sodium and potassium; that the continued use|-of said drug will remove the sting from eyes which are in bad condition because|of disease; that said drug will restore eyesight and prevent blindness; that said|-drug is efficacious and beneficial in the cure, mitigation, treatment and prevention|of granulated eyelids and ulcers; that said drug has been efficacious and beneficial|\"\"in the cure, mitigation, treatment and prevention of disease of the eye after|doctors have failed to give relief; that said drug is a miraculous and mysterious|discovery revealed by Divine Providence.|\"\"That said drug does not constitute an appropriate or effective remedy for|the purposes stated, recommended and suggested in said labeling; that said|product and drug does not contain the ingredients it is represented to contain|in said labeling; that the said product is essentially water.|VI.|\"\"That the defendant has heretofore shipped the said product and drug with|the aforesaid labeling accompanying it in interstate commerce from Seattle,|\"\"Washington, to various parts of the United States.|\"\"From the foregoing FINDINGS OF FACT, the Court makes the following:|CONCLTJSIONS OF LAW|\"\"That the Court has jurisdiction of the parties to this action and of the subject|matter thereof.|\"\"That the product 'Dolphin's Natural Barks' is a drug within the meaning and|contemplation of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.|III.|\"\"That the printed matter affixed to the bottle which contains said drug and to|the carton in which said drug is packaged, and to the leaflet or circular inserted|in said carton constitutes and is the labeling of said product within the meaning|and contemplation of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.|IV.|\"\"That the said product and drug 'Dolphin's Natural Barks' is misbranded|within the meaning and contemplation of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic|Act.|???.|\"\"That the defendant has heretofore violated the provisions of the Federal|Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, and that said defendant, his agents and em-|ployees and any and all persons acting in concert with said defendant or his|agents or employees should be permanently restrained and enjoined from in-|troducing or delivering for introduction in interstate commerce, or from in any|manner aiding or assisting in'the introduction or delivery for introduction into|interstate commerce of the said product and drug 'Dolphin's Natural Barks.'|VI.|\"\"That the plaintiff should recover judgment against the defendant for its|costs herein incurred.\"\"|On the same date, March 20,1944, a decree was entered granting a permanent|injunction in accordance with the prayer of the complaint.|870. Adulteration of absorbent cotton. U. S. v. 80 Cartons of Absorbent Cotton. Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered released under bond for reprocessing and resterilizing.ddnj00870May 1944Seamless Rubber Co.absorbent cottonJuly 20, 1942Washington, D. C.Valley Park, Mo.Washington, D. C.District of Columbia870F. D. C. No. 8156. Sample No. 24108-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00870ddnj|870. Adulteration of absorbent cotton. U. S. v. 80 Cartons of Absorbent Cotton.|Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered released under bond|for reprocessing: and resterilizing-. (F. D. C. No. 8156. Sample No. 24108-F.)|On August 18,1942, the United States attorney for the District of Columbia filed|a libel against 80 cartons, each containing 50 1-pound packages, of absorbent cot-|ton at Washington, D. C, alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate|commerce on or about July 20,1942, by the Seamless Rubber Co., Valley Park, Mo.;|and charging that it was adulterated. The article was labeled in part: \"\"Absorbent|Cotton U. S. P. Standard.\"\"|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to be and was|represented as a drug, absorbent cotton, the name of which is recognized in the|United States Pharmacopoeia, and its quality and purity fell below the standard|set forth in that compendium since it had not been freed from adhering impurities,|but was contaminated with cotton plant tissues, leaf fragments, and seed coat|fragments; whereas the United States Pharmacopoeia states that absorbent cot-|ton shall be freed from adhering impurities.|On July 6,1943, the Seamless Rubber Co., claimant, having admitted the allega-|tions of the libel, judgment of condemnation was entered and it was ordered that|the product be released under bond, conditioned that it be reprocessed under the|supervision of the Food and Drug Administration.|871. Adulteration and misbranding of colloidum ipecacuanha, colloidum bella donna, Lloydrastis. U. S. v. Lloyd Bros., Pharmacists, Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $400.ddnj00871May 1944Lloyd Bros., Pharmacists, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohiocolloidum ipecacuanha, colloidum bella donna, LloydrastisOctober 24 and December 12, 1941, and January 31 and February 7, 1942Indiana, California, and MissouriOhioIndiana, California, and MissouriSouthern District of Ohio871F. D. C. No. 7671. Sample Nos. 72234-E, 73014-E, 80378-E, 80379-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00871ddnj|871. Adulteration and misbranding: of colloidum ipecacuanha, colloldum bella|donna, Lloydrastis. U. S. v. Lloyd Bros., Pharmacists, Inc. Plea of gruilty.|Fine, $400. (F. D. C. No. 7671. Sample Nos. 72234-E, 73014-E, 80378-E,|80379-E.)|On September 15, 1942, the United States attorney for the Southern District|of Ohio filed an information against Lloyd Bros., Pharmacists, Inc., Cincinnati,|Ohio, alleging shipment on or about October 24 and December 12, 1941, and|January 31 and February 7, 1942, from the State of Ohio into the States of|Indiana, California, and Missouri, of quantities of the above-named products.|Analysis of a sample of colloidum ipecacuanha, showed that it contained|not less than 1.32 percent of the ether soluble alkaloids of ipecac. The article|was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from that which it|purported and was represented to possess, that is, not more than 1 percent of|the ether soluble alkaloids of ipecac, whereas it contained 1.32 percent of the|either soluble alkaloids of ipecac. The article was alleged to be misbranded|(1) in that the statement, \"\"Standardized to contain one percent ether soluble|alkaloids,\"\" appearing on the label was false and misleading as applied to a|drug that contained not less than 1.32 percent of ether-soluble alkaloids of|ipecac; and (2) in that the statement, \"\"Ipecacuanha * * * Not U. S. P.|One-half the drug strength of the official product,\"\" appearing on the label, was|misleading, as the drug was more than one-half the strength of fluidextract of|ipecac as defined and described in the United States Pharmacopoeia.|Analysis of a sample of Lloydrastis showed the article to contain not more|than 0.029 percent of hydrastine. The article was alleged to be adulterated|in that its strength differed from that which it purported and was represented|to possess in that it was represented to contain 0.08 percent of hydrastine,|whereas it contained not more than 0.029 percent of hydrastine. The article|was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement on the labeling, \"\"It is|standardized to an hydrastine content of .08 percent,\"\" was false and misleading|as applied to an article that contained a smaller amount of hydrastine.|Analysis of samples from two shipments of colloidum belladonna showed that|one contained not less than 0.517 percent of the total alkaloids of belladonna,|and the other contained not less than 0.57 percent of the total alkaloids of bella-|donna. The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed|from that which it purported and was represented to possess. The article was|represented to be standardized to> contain not more than .45 percent of the total|alkaloids of belladonna root, but in both instances it contained more of the|total alkaloids of belladonna root than the amount declared. It was also alleged|to be misbranded in that the statement on the label, \"\"Standardized to contain|.45 percent total alkaloids,\"\" was false and misleading as applied to an article|containing a higher percentage of the total alkaloids. It was further alleged|to be misbranded in that the statement appearing on the label \"\"Colloidum|Belladonna * * * Not U. S. P. Same drug strength as Fluid Extract,\"\" was|false and misleading, since the drug yielded not less than 0.57 gram of the|alkaloids of belladonna root per 100 cc. in the sample from one shipment,|and not less than 0.525 gram of the alkaloids of belladonna root per 100 cc. in|the sample from the second shipment, whereas the United States Pharmacopoeia|provides that \"\"Fluidextract of Belladonna Root yields from each 100 cc,|* * * not more than 0.495 Gm. of the alkaloids of belladonna root.\"\"|On October 8, 1942, a plea of guilty having been entered, the court imposed|a fine of $50 on each of the 8 counts of lie information, making a total fine of $400.|872. Misbranding of thiamin chloride tablets, A and D vitamin concentrate tablets, and Valtiva. U. S. v. Harlow B. Boyle and Charles E. Boyle (Boyle Co.). Pleas of nolo contendere. Each defendant fined $100 on 1 count. Imposition of sentence suspended on remaining counts for 1 year, to become permanent at the end of 1 year in event of no further violation.ddnj00872May 1944Harlow B. Boyle and Charles B. Boyle, copartners trading as Boyle & Co., Los Angeles, Calif.thiamin chloride tablets, A and D vitamin concentrate tablets, and ValtivaNovember 15 and December 9, 1940, and May 12, 1941ArizonaCaliforniaArizonaSouthern District of California872F. D. C. No. 5545. Sample Nos. 32972-E, 32973-E, 53348-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00872ddnj|872. Misbranding1 of thiamin chloride tablets, A and D vitamin concentrate tab-|lets, and Valtiva. U. S. v. Harlow B. Boyle and Charles E. Boyle (Boyle|& Co.). Pleas of nolo contendere. Each defendant fined $100 on 1 count.|Imposition of sentence suspended on remaining counts for 1 year, to be-|come permanent at the end of 1 year in event of no further violation.|(F. D. C. No. 5545. Sample Nos. 32972-E, 32973-E, 53348-E.)|These thiamin chloride tablets and the A and D vitamin concentrate tablets|fell below their declared potency; and the thiamin chloride tablets and another|product, Valtiva, bore misleading curative and therapeutic claims.|On August 10, 1942, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|California filed an information against Harlow B. Boyle and Charles B. Boyle,|copartners trading as Boyle & Co., Los Angeles, Calif., alleging shipments on or|about November 15 and December 9, 1940, and May 12, 1941, from the State of|California into the State of Arizona of quantities of the above-named products|which were misbranded.|The thiamin chloride tablets were alleged to be misbranded (1) in that the|statement, \"\"Thiamin Chloride 1.0 Mgm. Vitamin Bi 333 International Units|per tablet,\"\" borne on the bottle label was false and misleading since each tablet|contained less than 1 milligram, namely, .06 milligram of thiamin chloride, the|equivalent of not more than 200 International Units of vitamin Bi; and (2) in|that the statement \"\"Lack of Vitamin Bi may result in retarded growth, mal-|nutrition, loss of appetite, constipation, and certain other abnormal conditions,\"\"|borne on the label was misleading since it represented and suggested and created|in the minds of the readers the impression that retarded growth, malnutrition,|loss of appetite, constipation, and the other abnormal conditions suggested by|the statement are commonly caused by lack of vitamin Bi, and that readers|might reasonably expect to obtain benefit from the use of the article in the|treatment of such conditions; whereas such renditions are rarely caused by lack|of vitamin Bi, and readers might not reasonably expect to obtain benefit from|the use of the article in their treatment since it would not ordinarily be efficacious|for such purposes.|The A and D vitamin concentrate tablets were alleged to be misbranded (1)|in that the statement, \"\"Each Tablet Contains: Vitamin A-6250 U. S. P. Units,|Vitamin D-625 U. S. P. Units,\"\" borne on the bottle label and carton was false|and misleading since each tablet contained not more than 140 U. S. P. units of|vitamin A and not more than 300 U. S. P. units of vitamin D; (2) in that the|statement, \"\"Each Boyle A and D tablet supplies 1? times the minimum daily|adult requirement and twice the minimum daily requirement for children, of|adults and children,\"\" borne on the carton was false and misleading since each|tablet would supply less than one-tenth the amount of vitamin A required daily|by an infant, and less than one-twenty-fifth the amount of vitamin A required|daily by a person 12 or more years of age, and would supply less than three-|fourths the amount of vitamin D required daily by any person irrespective of|age; and (3) in that the statement \"\"Each tablet is equal in vitamin potency|and therapeutic effect to about 2 teaspoonfuls of U. S. P. cod liver oil,\"\" borne|on the carton was false and misleading since the statement represented that|each tablet contained the vitamin potency equivalent in therapeutic effectiveness|to about 2 teaspoonfuls of cod liver oil, which would be approximately 6,200|U. S. P. units of vitamin A and not less than 620 U. S. P. units of vitamin D,|whereas each tablet contained not more than 140 U. S. P. units of vitamin A,|and not more than 300 U. S. P. Units of vitamin D.|The Valtiva was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements \"\"Latest|scientific research tells us that at times lack of sufficient dietary intake of vitamins|results in run down conditions in the system, such as certain nervous disorders,|skin troubles, loss of appetite, loss of weight, indigestion, constipation, sus-|ceptibility to colds or infection and general weakness. * * * Valtiva is|* * * rich in essential health-building vitamins,\"\" appearing in the labeling|were misleading in that they represented and suggested and created the im-|pression in the minds of the readers that nervous disorders, skin troubles, loss of|appetite, loss of weight, indigestion, constipation, susceptibility to colds or|infection, general weakness, and ill health, are commonly caused by the lack of|the vitamins A, Bi, G, and D contained in such article, and that readers might|reasonably expect to obtain benefit from the use of the article in the treatment|of such conditions, whereas these conditions are rarely caused by lack of|vitamins A, Bi, G and D, and readers might not reasonably expect to obtain|benefit from the use of the article in the treatment of such conditions since it|would not ordinarily be efficacious for such purposes.|On December 19, 1942, pleas of nolo contendere having been entered by the|defendants, the court imposed a fine of $100 on the count charging misbranding|of the thiamin chloride tablets, and suspended imposition of sentence on the|counts charging misbranding of the remaining products, such suspension to be|permanent after 1 year in the event of no further violations of the law by the|defendants.|873. Adulteration and misbranding ot citrate of magnesia with magnesium sulfate and misbranding of Pitcher's Castoria. U. S. v. Roma Extract Co., Inc., and Vincenzo Contrino. Plea of guilty. Fine, $50.ddnj00873May 1944Roma Extract Co., Inc., Boston, Mass., and Vincenzo Contrinomagnesia with magnesium sulfate; Pitcher's CastoriaSeptember, 23, 1940, to January 11, 1941Manchester, N. H.; Rhode IslandBoston, Mass.Manchester, N. H.; Rhode IslandDistrict of Massachusetts873F. D. C. No. 7300. Sample Nos. 51685-E, 75662-E, 90417-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00873ddnj|873. Adulteration and misbranding ot citrate of mag-nesla with magnesium sul-|fate and misbranding; of Pitcher's Castorla. TJ. S. v. Roma Extract Co.,|Inc., and Vincenzo Contrlno. Plea of gmllty. Fine, $50. (F. D. C. No.|7300. Sample Nos. 51685-E, 75662-E, 90417-E.)|On September 10,1942, the United States attorney for the District of Massachu-|setts filed an information against the Roma Extract Co., Inc., Boston, Mass., and|Vincenzo Contrino. It was alleged in the information that the defendants, within|the period from on or about September,23, 1940, to January 11, 1941, sold and|delivered to the Hanover Sales Co., Inc., of Boston, Mass., various consignments|of Castoria; that at the time of the sale and delivery the defendants in each in-|stance furnished to the Hanover Sales Co., Inc., an invoice containing a guaranty|that the article was not adulterated or misbranded within the meaning of the Fed-|eral Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; that on or about April 28, 1941, the holder of|the guaranty introduced and delivered for introduction into interstate commerce|a quantity of the said Castoria from Boston, Mass., to Manchester, N. H.; that|the guaranties delivered by the defendants were false since the product, when|sold and delivered by the defendants and introduced and delivered for introduc-|tion into interstate commerce by the holder of the guaranty, was misbranded.|The information further alleged that on or about September 11 and November|10, 1941, the defendants shipped from Boston, Mass., into the State of Rhode|Island a quantity of a product known as \"\"Citrate of Magnesia with Magnesia|Sulphate,\"\" which was adulterated and misbranded, and a quantity of Castoria|which was misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the Castoria showed that it consisted essentially of|small proportions of Rochelle salt, sodium bicarbonate, extracts of plant drugs,|including senna and wormseed, and sugar and water, flavored with aromatics, in-|cluding methyl salicylate.|The Castoria was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements appearing|in the labeling which represented that it was a reliable remedy for worms and|diarrhea due to constipation, and would promote sleep by overcoming these|disorders, were false and misleading since it was not effective for such purposes.|The Castoria was alleged to be misbranded further in that its label failed to|bear the common or usual name of each active ingredient, and in that its container|was so made, formed, and filled as to be misleading since the carton was materially|larger than necessary to contain the bottles.|The \"\"Effervescing Solution of Citrate of Magnesia with Magnesia Sulphate\"\"|was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from that which it|purported and was represented to possess, since its labeling represented and|suggested that it consisted of a solution of magnesium citrate to which magnesium|sulfate had been added, whereas it did not so consist but was predominantly a|solution of Epsom salts with a small proportion of magnesium citrate. It was|alleged to be misbranded in that the statement \"\"Effervescing Solution of Citrate|of Magnesia with Magnesia Sulphate,\"\" borne on the label was false and misleading|since the article was predominantly a solution of Epsom salts with a small pro-|portion|' of magnesium citrate, and not a solution of magnesium citrate to which|magnesium sulfate had been added.|On October 27, 1942, a plea of guilty having been entered, each defendant was|fined $25.|874. Adulteration and misbranding of Gold Bond Liquid Hog Medicine. U. S. v. Abraham Bartlet Carlsen (Mid-West Distributors). Plea of guilty. Fine, $25.ddnj00874May 1944Abraham Bartlet Carlsen, trading as Mid-West Distibutors, Sioux City, IowaGold Bond Liquid Hog- MedicineNovember 3, 1941NebraskaIowaNebraskaNorthern District of Iowa874F. D. C. No. 7674. Sample No. 73036-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00874ddnj|874. Adulteration and misbranding- of Gold Bond Liquid Hog- Medicine. V. 9. v.|Abraham Bartlet Carlsen (Mid-West Distributors). Plea of guilty. Fine,|$25. (F. D. C. No. 7674. Sample No. 73036-E.)|On October 20, 1942, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Iowa filed an information against Abraham Bartlet Carlsen, trading as Mid-West|Distibutors, Sioux City, Iowa, alleging shipment on or about November 3, 1941,|from the State of Iowa into the State of Nebraska of a quantity of the above-|named product.|Analysis of a sample of the Gold Bond Liquid Hog Medicine showed the prod-|uct to consist essentially of sodium sulfate, hydroxide, and carbonate; iron and|copper sulfates, carbonates, creosote, and water, and small amounts of plant|material containing .55 percent fluidextract of nux vomica, less than .03 percent|potassium iodide, namely 0.001 percent potassium iodide, and less than 9 percent|potassium arsenite, namely not more than 0.05 percent potassium arsenite.|It was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from that which|it purported or was represented to possess, 4 percent of fluid extract of nux|vomica, 0.03 percent of potassium iodide, and 9 percent of potassium arsenite, and|it did not contain the stated amount of these ingredients.|It was misbranded in that the quantitative statement of ingredients in the|labeling was false and misleading as applied to an article that contained smaller|amounts of the above-mentioned ingredients.|It was further misbranded in that the statements on the label which repre-|sented and suggested that the drug would be efficacious in the treatment of sick|hogs and would keep hogs well, were false and misleading, as the drug would|not be efficacious for these purposes.|On October 20, 1942, a plea of guilty having been entered, the court imposed|a fine of $25.|875. Adulteration and misbranding of first aid bandage. U. S. v. 11 1/2 Dozen Packages of Sterilastic First Aid Bandage. Consent decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00875May 1944Surgical Dressings, Inc.first aid bandageMay 25, 1942New York, N. Y.Boston, Mass.New York, N. Y.Southern District of New York875F. D. C. No. 7834. Sample No. 89775-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00875ddnj|8T5. Adulteration and misbranding of first aid bandage. U. S. v. 11% Dozen|Packages of Sterilastic First Aid Bandage. Consent decree of condemna-|tion and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 7834. Sample No. 89775-E.)|This product was not sterile but was contaminated with living micro-organisms.|On June 30, 1942, the United States attorney for the Southern District of New|York filed a libel against the above-described product at New York, N. Y., alleging|that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about May 25,|1942, by Surgical Dressings, Inc., from Boston, Mass.; and charging that it was|adulterated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its purity and quality fell|below that which it purported and was represented to possess since the name|\"\"Sterilastic\"\" implied that it was sterile, whereas it was not sterile.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statement on the label,|\"\"Sterilastic * * * The gauze supplied with the Sterilastic may be used in any|emergency,\"\" was false and misleading since it represented and suggested that the|article was sterile and might be used in emergency first-aid injuries, whereas|it was not sterile but was contaminated with living micro-organisms.|On December 5, 1942, Surgical Dressings, Inc., claimant, having consented to|the entry of a decree, judgment was entered ordering that the product be con-|demned and destroyed, and that the answer theretofore filed by the claimant|be stricken from the record.|(N. J. 5.) MISBRANDING OF VANILLA EXTRACT.fdnj00005August 13, 1908C. B. Woodworth SonsVANILLA EXTRACTAugust 7, 1907New YorkNew YorkOhioWestern district of New York5\NThe National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainfdnj00005fdnj|(ST. J. 5.)|MISBRANDING OF VANILLA EXTRACT.|In 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 that on |the 26th day of May, 1908, in the United States district court for |the western district of New York, in a criminal prosecution by the |United States against C. B. Woodworth Sons Company ^ a corpora- |tion conducting business in New York and elsewhere, for violations |of section 2 of the aforesaid act in shipping and delivering for ship- |ment from New York to Ohio an adulterated and misbranded |vanilla extract, the said C. B. Woodworth Sons Company entered |pleas of guilty, whereupon the court imposed upon it a fine of $100 |in respect to the shipment of misbranded extract, and suspended |sentence in respect to the shipment of adulterated extract.|The following is a statement of facts upon which the case is based: |On August 7, 1907, an inspector of the Department of Agriculture |purchased from Colter & Co., Cincinnati, Ohio, a sample of food |product labeled \"\" Double Extract of Vanilla, for flavoring ice creams, |custards, sauces, jellies, and pastry, C. B. Woodworth Sons Co., |Rochester, N. Y.\"\" The product was duly analyzed in the Bureau of |Chemistry, Department of Agriculture, and the following results |were obtained and stated:|Volume (cc) |122|Vanillin (per cent) |0.049|Resins |Practically none.|Coal-tar dye |Present.|In \"\" Standards of Purity for Food Products,\"\" Circular No. 19,|Office of the Secretary, Department of Agriculture, established under|authority of the act of March 3, 1903, vanilla extract is defined as|follows:|Vanilla extract is a flavoring extract prepared from vanilla bean, with or |without sugar or glycerin, and contains in one hundred (100) cubic centimeters |the soluble matters from not less than ten (10) grams of vanilla bean.|51196-08|It was thus apparent that the article was both adulterated and |misbranded; adulterated because it was not vanilla extract but a |mere imitation, colored with a coal-tar dye to make it resemble real |vanilla extract. It was also a substitution of an imitation for a |genuine food article.|It was misbranded because labeled \"\" Double Extract of Vanilla,\"\" |when it was in fact an imitation of that article, containing a mere |trace of vanilla and a coal-tar dye to impart the color of pure extract. |The Secretary of Agriculture having afforded the manufacturers |an opportunity to show any fault or error in the aforesaid analysis, |and they having failed to do so, the facts were duly reported to the |Attorney-General, who referred the case to the United States attor- |ney for the western district of New York, who filed two informations |against said C. B. Woodworth Sons Company, with the result herein- |before stated.|H. W. WILEY, |F. L. DUNLAP, |GEO. P. MCCABE, |Board of Food and Drug Inspection. |Approved:|W. L. MOORE,|Acting Secretary of Agriculture.|WASHINGTON, D. C, Jidy 17, 1908.|876. Adulteration and misbranding of first aid kits. U. S. v. 236 packages of White Cross All Purpose First Aid Kit. Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered released for relabeling and replacement of unsterile gauze and adhesive bandages.ddnj00876May 1944American White Cross Laboratories, Incfirst aid kitsMarch 16, 1942Hartford, Conn.New Rochelle, New YorkHartford, Conn.District of Connecticut876F. D. C. No. 7405. Sample No. 89176-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00876ddnj|876. Adulteration and misbranding of first aid kits. U. S. v. 236 packages of|White Cross All Purpose First Aid Kit. Consent decree of condemnation.|Product ordered released for relabeling1 and replacement of unsterile|gauze and adhesive bandages. (F. D. C. No. 7405. Sample No. 89176-B.)|On April 28, 1942, the United States attorney for the District of Connecticut|filed a libel at Hartford, Conn., against 236 packages of the above-named|product, alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on|or about March 16, 1942, by the American White Cross Laboratories, Inc.,|from New Rochelle, New York. The article was labeled in part: \"\"White Cross|All Purpose First Aid Kit.\"\" Each kit contained, among other things, a package|labeled \"\"Sterilized White Cross Surgical Gauze\"\" and a number of envelopes of|adhesive strips.|Bacteriological tests on samples from this consignment showed that the|gauze and adhesive strips were not sterile but were contaminated with viable|aerobic and anaerobic or facultative anaerobic micro-organisms.|It was alleged to be adulterated in that the purity and quality of the surgical|gauze fell below that which it was represented to possess, since the article was|not sterile but was contaminated with living micro-organisms.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement, \"\"First Aid|Kit,\"\" was false and misleading when applied to an article that was not sterile.|It was further misbranded in that the outside container, which was the retail|package, did not bear an accurate statement of the quantity of contents.|On November 9, 1942, the American White Cross Laboratories, Inc., having|appeared as claimant, judgment of condemnation was entered and the product|was ordered released under bond so that it could be relabeled and the surgical|gauze and adhesive bandages be replaced by sterile gauze and sterile bandages.|877. Adulteration and misbranding of vitamin A, B1, D, 6 capsules. U. S. v. 35 Dozen Bottles of Hyde Brand..Vitamins A, B1, D, G Capsules. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00877May 1944McCambridge and McCambridge Co.vitamin A, B1, D, 6 capsulesApril 18, 1942Northumberland, Pa.Washington, D. C.Northumberland, Pa.Middle District of Pennsylvania877F. D. C. No. 7812. Sample No. 54955-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00877ddnj|877. Adulteration and misbranding of vitamin A, Bi, D, 6 capsules. U. S. v.|35 Dozen Bottles of Hyde Brand..Vitamins A, Bi, D, G Capsules. Default|decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 7812. Sample No.|54955-E.)|On June 26, 1942, the United States attorney for the Middle District of|Pennsylvania filed a libel against the'above-named product at Northumberland,|Pa., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or|about April 18, 1942, by McCambridge and McCambridge Co., from Washington,|D. C.; and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from|and its quality fell below that which it was represented to possess since it|contained not more than 750 U. S. P. units of vitamin D per capsule.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement on the label, \"\"Each|capsule contains not less than * * * 1000 U. S. P. Units of Vitamin D,\"\" was|false as applied to an article that contained not more than 750 such units of|vitamin D per capsule. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the|prominent display of the letter \"\"G\"\" in the name of the article, \"\"Vitamin * * *|G Capsules,\"\" was misleading since the statement represented and suggested|that the article contained consequential amounts of Vitamin G, whereas it|did not It was alleged also to be adulterated and misbranded under the pro-|visions of the law applicable to foods reported In F. N. J. No. 4700.|On August 26, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|878. Adulteration and misbranding of \"\"Be\"\" Plex vitamin B-complex with minerals and Iron. U. S. v. 14 Cases of \"\"Be\"\" Plex Vitamin B-Complex With Minerals and Iron. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00878May 1944Hale Drug Co.\"\"Be\"\" Plex vitamin B-complex with minerals and IronJanuary 9, 1942St Louis, Mo.Birmingham, Ala.St Louis, Mo.Eastern District of Missouri878F. D. C. No. 7523. Sample No. 71436-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00878ddnj|878. Adulteration and misbranding of \"\"Be\"\" Plex vitamin B-complex with min|erals and Iron. U. S. v. 14 Cases of \"\"Be\"\" Plex Vitamin B-Complex With|Minerals and Iron. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 7523. Sample No. 71436-E.)|On May 18, 1942, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Missouri filed a libel against 12 1-pint bottles of the above-named product at|St Louis, Mo. On November 7, 1942, the libel was amended to change the|amount to 14 cases, each containing 12 1-pint bottles, of the said product|It was alleged in the libel as amended that the article had been shipped in|interstate commerce on or about January 9, 1942, by the Hale Drug Co. from|Birmingham, Ala.; and charged that it was adulterated and misbranded.|Examination of the article showed that it contained not more than 25 percent|of the vitamin Bi content declared on the label.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from|and its quality fell below that which it was represented on the label to possess,|namely, 660 International Units of vitamin Bi per fluid ounce.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements in the|labeling, \"\"Valuable (in cases of vitamin deficiency) as an aid to promote|appetite and in protecting the body from nerve disorder,\"\" and \"\"Indicated in|certain cases of retarded growth, constipation, migraine headaches, and helpful|promotion of greater vigor, functional digestion and wholesomeness of the|skin,\"\" were false and misleading in that they represented that the article was|valuable as an aid in promoting appetite and protecting the body from nerve|disorder, and was of value in retarded growth, constipation, and migraine head-|aches, and in promoting greater vigor, functional digestion, and wholesomeness|of the skin, whereas it would not be efficacious for such purposes.|The article was also alleged to be adulterated and misbranded under the pro-|visions of the law applicable to food reported in notices of judgment on foods.|On January 16, 1943, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|879. Adulteration and misbranding of Vi-Penta drops. U. S. v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $250 on count 1. Imposition of sentence suspended on remaining 15 counts.ddnj00879May 1944Hoffman-La Roche, Inc., Nutley, N. J.Vi-Penta dropsMarch 18, 1941, to January 15, 1942New YorkNew JerseyNew YorkDistrict of New Jersey879F. D. C. No. 7656. Sample Nos. 56804-E, 69145-E, 74168-E, 89116-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00879ddnj|879. Adulteration and misbranding of Vi-Penta drops. IT. S. v. Hoffman-La Roche,|Inc. Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $250 on count 1. Imposition of|sentence suspended on remaining IS counts. (F. D. C. No. 7656. Sample|Nos. 56804-E, 69145-E, 74168-E, 89116-E.)|On September 4, 1942, the United States attorney for the District of New|Jersey filed an information against Hoffman-^La Roche, Inc., Nutley, N. J.,|alleging shipment of Vi-Penta drops within the period from on or about March|18, 1941, to January 15, 1942, from the State of New Jersey into the State of|New York. The article was labeled in part: \"\"Each 0.6 cc. (approximately 10|minims) equals 1 Vi-Penta Perle and contains Vitamins: A . . . 9,000 (or|\"\"4,000\"\") U. S. P. Units.\"\"|Examination of samples taken from each of the 3 shipments labeled as con-|taining 9,000 U. S. P. Units of Vitamin A per 0.6 cc. showed the presence of not|more than 2,700, 4,500 and 4,500 U. S. P. Units of Vitamin A, respectively, per|0.6 cc. The shipment labeled as containing 4,000 U. S. P. Units of Vitamin A|per 0.6 cc. contained not more than 2,000 Units of Vitamin A per 0.6 cc.|Portions of the article were alleged to be misbranded in that the statements|in the labeling which represented and suggested that it was efficacious to bring|about normal growth and development of infants and children; that it was|efficacious in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of malnutrition,|lowered resistance, and rundown states, and for use during prolonged illnesses|such as infections, anemias, tuberculosis, and typhoid; that it was efficacious|in the treatment of gastro-intestinal conditions such as diarrhea and colitis, and|for use when restrictions in diet become necessary, as in obesity, diabetes, and|catarrhal jaundice, and whenever the total food intake must be increased as in|hyperthyroid conditions; that it was efficacious in the cure, mitigation, treat-|ment, or prevention of skin diseases such as eczema, for certain allergic condi-|tions such as those due to milk, eggs, and wheat, and for temporary or persistent|vomiting, especially during infancy, childhood, and pregnancy; and that it was|efficacious as a prophylaxis or treatment of abnormal dentition, or gum and|tooth conditions were false and misleading since the article was not efficacious|for the conditions indicated.|All shipments of the article were alleged to be adulterated and misbranded|in that its strength differed from and its quality fell below that which it pur-|ported and was represented to possess, and the labeling was false and mislead-|ing since it was represented to contain 9,000 (or 4,000) U. S. P. units of vitamin|A per 0.6 cc, whereas it contained in each 0.6 cc. less than the declared amount|of vitamin A.|The article was also alleged to be adulterated and misbranded under the pro-|visions of the law applicable to foods, as reported in notices of judgment on foods.|On November 6, 1942, a plea of nolo contendere having been entered, a fine of|$250 was imposed on the first count of the information and imposition of sentence|was suspended on the remaining 15 counts.|880. Misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 41 Gross of Midgets. Default decree of condemnation. Product ordered destroyed.ddnj00880May 1944Rubber Research Products CorporationprophylacticsJuly 10, 1942New York, N. Y.Jersey City, N. J.New York, N. Y.Southern District of New York880F. D. C. No. 7985. Sample No. 16834-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00880ddnj|880. Misbranding: of prophylactics. IT. S. v. 41 Gross of Midgets. Default decree|of condemnation. Product ordered destroyed. (F. D. C. No. 7985. Sample|No. 16834-F.)|This product purported to be a prophylactic, but would not be effective for|such purpose because it contained holes.|On July 25, 1942, the United States attorney for the Southern District of New|York filed a libel against 41 gross of an article labeled in part: \"\"Midgets the|Short Cap Type Sheath,\"\" at New York, N. Y., alleging that the article had been|shipped in interstate commerce on or about July 10, 1942, by the Rubber Research|Products Corporation from Jersey City, N. J.; and charging that it was adulter-|ated and misbranded.|which it purported land was represented to possess, since it contained holes and|was not suitable for use as a prophylactic.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements in the labeling,|\"\"Notice: The enclosed sheath has been 'Water Tested' by expanding, under water|pressure, to at least ten times its normal capacity-then examined closely for|any detectable leak,\"\" were false and misleading, since such statements repre-|sented and suggested that the article was free from defect, whereas it was not.|On August 24,.1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and it was ordered that the product be cut up and disposed of as|scrap rubber.|928. Alleged misbranding of Dolphin's Natural Barks. U. S. v. Byron J. Dolphin (Dolphin's Natural Barks). Plea of not guilty. Tried to a jury. Verdict of guilty. Motion for new trial granted and case subsequently dismissed.ddnj00928October 1944Byron J. Dolphin, trading as Dolphin's Natural Barks, Seattle, Wash.Dolphin's Natural BarksDecember 27, 1941TexasWashingtonTexasWestern District of Washington928F. D. C. No. 7243. Sample No. 11343-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00928ddnj|928. Alleged misbranding of Dolphin's Natural Barks. IT. S. v. Byron J. Dolphin|(Dolphin's Natural Barks). Plea of not guilty. Tried to a jury. Verdict|of guilty. Motion for new trial granted and case subsequently dismissed.|(F. D. C. No. 7243. Sample No. 11343-E.)|On July 16,1942, the United States attorney for the Western District of Wash-|ington filed an information against Byron J. Dolphin, trading as Dolphin's Na-|tural Barks, Seattle, Wash., alleging shipment on or about December 27, 1941,|from the State of Washington into the State of Texas of a quantity of a drug,|known as Dolphin's Natural Barks, which was misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of water|containing 0.0060 gram of solids per 100 cc.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that certain statements in its labeling|which represented and suggested that it contained natural barks; that drops|of the article, when applied to the eye, were wonderful for diseases of the eye;|that it was manufactured by a new process from tamarack bark and oak bark,|and contained minerals from organic sources, that is aluminum, iron, man-|ganese, calcium, magnesium, sodium, and potassium; that the continued use|of the article would remove the sting from eyes which were in bad condition|because of disease; that it would restore eyesight and prevent blindness; that it|was efficacious in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of granulated|lids and ulcers; that it was efficacious in the cure, mitigation, treatment or pre-|vention of disease of the eye after doctors failed to give relief; that it was a|mysterious and miraculous discovery revealed by Divine Providence; that it|was a perfect eye medicine, the sole ingredients of which were natural barks;|that it was a perfect, absolutely harmless eye medicine and would work mirac-|ulous cures of diseases of the eye were false and misleading since the drug was|neither an article of the nature represented nor was it efficacious or wonderful|for diseases of the eye as represented.|On October 29, 1942, the defendant having entered a plea of not guilty, the|case come on for trial before a jury which, after deliberation, returned a verdict|of guilty. Upon polling the jury, one member stated that he was not satisfied|as to the defendant's guilt although he had so voted, and on this basis the court|granted the defendant's motion for a new trial. On December 5, 1942, the case|was dismissed. (See also notice of judgment No. 927 this issue.)|(N. J. 6.) MISBRANDING OF CIDER.fdnj00006August 13, 1908O. L. Gregory Vinegar CompanyCIDERMay 19, 1908KentuckyOhioKentuckyWestern District of Kentucky6\NThe National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainfdnj00006fdnj|(N. J. 6.)|MISBRANDING OF CIDER.|In 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 that on |the 1st day of June, 1908, in the district court of the United States |for the western district of Kentucky, in a proceeding of libel for con- |demnation of cider, misbranded as to place of manufacture and name |of manufacturer, wherein the United States was libellant and the |O. L. Gregory Vinegar Company, a corporation, was claimant, the |said claimant having admitted the allegations, of the libel, a decree |of forfeiture and condemnation was rendered in substance and form |as follows:|In the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Kentucky.|THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA VS. TEN BARBELS OF CIDER, ETC.|Came the claimant and moved to the court to order that upon payment of the |costs of the libel proceedings herein and the execution and delivery of a good |and sufficient bond in the sum of $200.00, that the articles contained herein|shall not be sold or otherwise disposed of contrary to the provisions of the |Food and Drugs Act, or the laws of any State, Territory, district, or insular |possessions; said articles condemned herein shall be delivered to said claimant |as owner thereof, and the district attorney not objecting to the amount of said |bond, it is now ordered and adjudged that said motion be granted; and there- |upon said claimant produced and delivered to the court its bond with James P. |Gregory and Boyle G. Boyle as securities, which bond is approved by the court, |and it is ordered that upon payment of the costs taxed herein to the clerk, the |articles condemned herein shall be delivered to said claimant said O. L. Gregory |Vinegar Company. |Enter June 1, 1908. \"\"Walter Evans, Judge.|The case grew out of the following state of facts: |On or about May 19, 1908, an inspector of the Department of Agri- |culture located in course of transit a quantity of cider, consisting of |10 barrels, 75 half barrels, and 50 kegs, consigned by A. Schmidt, |Jr., & Bros. Wine Company, of Sandusky, Ohio, to the O. L. Gregory |Vinegar Company, Paducah, Ky. The cider was marked and branded |\"\" Blue Ribbon Apple Cider, containing one-tenth per cent benzoate |of soda, O. L. Gregory Vinegar Company, Paducah, Ky.\"\" Since |the cider was manufactured by the consignor, A. Schmidt, Jr., & Bros. |Wine Company, at Sandusky, Ohio, and the labels on the package |bore the name and address of O. L. Gregory Vinegar Company stated |in a manner purporting manufacture by that company at Paducah, |Ky., the product was misbranded in violation of section 8 of the act. |On May 20,1908, the facts were reported by the Secretary of Agri- |culture to the United States attorney at Louisville, Ky. Libel for |seizure and condemnation, under section 10 of the act, was duly filed |in the court aforesaid in session at Paducah, Ky., upon which seizure |was forthwith made and notice given to claimant, O. L. Gregory |Vinegar Company. The said claimant appeared and admitted that |the cider seized was subject to seizure by the United States for the |causes stated in the libel. \"\"Whereupon the court adjudged the cider |misbranded, and upon the filing of a good and sufficient bond, in |accordance with section 10 of the act and under the provisions of the |decree hereinbefore set forth, the goods were duly surrendered to the|claimant.|H. W. WILEY,|F. L. DUNLAP, |GEO. P. MCCABE, |Board of Food and Drug Inspection. |Approved:|W. L. MOORE,|Acting Secretary of Agriculture.|WASHINGTON, D. C, July 15, 1908.|881. Adulteration and misbranding of collodion. U. S. v. 1,476 Bottles, 6,000 Bottles, and 2,738 Bottles of Collodion U. S. P. Default decrees of condemnation. Portions of product ordered destroyed; remainder (2,738 bottles) ordered delivered to the Food and Drug Administration.ddnj00881May 1944Conray Products Co., InccollodionJune 11 to July 18, 1942St. Louis, Mo.; Columbus, OhioNew York, N. Y.St. Louis, Mo.; Columbus, OhioEastern District of Missouri, the Southern District of Ohio, and the Western District of Texas881F. D. C. Nos. 8043, 8076, 8270. Sample Nos. 5255-F, 6202-F, 9339-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00881ddnj|881. Adulteration and misbranding of collodion. TJ. S. v. 1,476 Bottles, 6,000|Bottles, and 2,738 Bottles of Collodion XT. S. P. Default decrees of con-|demnation. Portions of product ordered destroyed; remainder (2,738|bottles) ordered delivered to the Food and Drug: Administration. (F. D.|C. Nos. 8043, 8076, 8270. Sample Nos. 5255-F, 6202-F, 9339-F.)|On August 1, 10, and 28, 1942, the United States attorneys for the Eastern|District of Missouri, the Southern District of Ohio, and the Western District|of Texas filed libels against 1,476 bottles of collodion at St. Louis, Mo., 6,000 bottles|of collodion at Columbus, Ohio, and 2,738 bottles of collodion at San Antonio,|Tex., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce within|the period from June 11 to July 18, 1942, by the Oonray Products Co., Inc., from|New York, N. Y.; and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded. The|article was labeled in part: \"\"Collodion U. S. P.,\"\" or \"\"Conray 1 oz. Collodion|U. S. P.\"\"|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that a mixture containing an ester|such as amyl acetate had been substituted for collodion U. S. P.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement \"\"Collodion U. S. P.\"\"|was false and misleading since it did not have the composition specified by the|United States Pharmacopoeia for collodion.|On November 19 and December 24,1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment|of condemnation was entered and 7,476 bottles of the product were ordered de-|stroyed. On October 23, 1942, no claimant having appeared, the court ordered|that a default decree of condemnation be entered and the lot located at San|Antonio, Tex., delivered to the Food and Drug Administration.|882. Adulteration of cocoa butter. U. S. v. 35 Dozen Packages of Miami Cocoa Butter. Default decree of condemnation. Product ordered rendered for use in war purposes.ddnj00882May 1944Hampden Sales Association, Inc.cocoa butterAugust 4, 1942Cincinnati, OhioNew York, N. Y.Cincinnati, OhioSouthern District of Ohio882F. D. C. No. 8172. Sample No. 4721-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00882ddnj|882. Adulteration of cocoa butter. U. S. v. 35 Dozen Packages of Miami Cocoa|Butter. Default decree of condemnation. Product ordered rendered for|use In -war purposes. (F. D. C. No. 8172. Sample No. 4721-F.)|On August 20, 1942, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|Ohio filed a libel against 35 dozen packages of Miami cocoa butter at Cincinnati,|Ohio, which had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about August 4, 1942,|alleging that the article had been shipped by Hampden Sales Association, Inc.,|from New York, N. Y.; and charging that it was adulterated.|Analysis of a sample showed that it contained approximately 44 percent of|gome material other than cocoa butter, such as paraffin or petrolatum.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that a substance other than cocoa|butter, i. e. paraffin and petrolatum, had been substituted in part for the article,|and had been mixed and packed therewith so as to reduce its quality.|On November 18,1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and it was ordered that the cocoa butter be delivered to a rendering|firm for recovering the fats and oils for war purposes.|DRUGS AND DEVICES ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF FALSE AND|MISLEADING CLAIMS*|HUMAN USE|883. Action to restrain Interstate shipment of a misbranded device known as \"\"Magnetic Ray Appliance\"\" and \"\"Magnetic Ray Instrument\"\". U. S. v. Frank B. Koran (Magnetic Ray Co.). Permanent Injunction granted.ddnj00883May 1944Frank B. Moran, trading as The Magnetic Ray Co., at Dallas, Tex.a misbranded device known as \"\"Magnetic Ray Appliance\"\" and \"\"Magnetic Ray Instrument\"\"\NTexas\NTexasNorthern District of Texas883Inj. No. 19.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00883ddnj|883. Action to restrain Interstate shipment of a misbranded device known as|\"\"Magnetic Ray Appliance\"\" and \"\"Magnetic Ray Instrument\"\". U. S. v.|Frank B. Koran (Magnetic Ray Co.). Permanent Injunction granted.|(Inj. No. 19.)|This device consisted of an electric appliance which would produce a mag-|netic field. It was accompanied by labeling which recommended its application|to various parts of the body and represented that it would be of value in the|?See also Nos. 851-856, incl., 860-868, incl., 871-881, incl.|treatment of many disease conditions. Its physical properties are described in|the court's \"\"Findings of Fact.\"\"|On May 13, 1942, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Texas filed a complaint against Frank B. Moran, trading as The Magnetic Ray|Co., at Dallas, Tex., alleging that the defendant, for several months past, and|more particularly since May 1, 1940, up to and including the time of the filing|of the complaint, had been introducing or delivering for introduction into inter-|state commerce or causing such introduction or delivery for introduction into|interstate commerce a certain device under the names \"\"Magnetic. Ray Appliance\"\"|and \"\"Magnetic Ray Instrument\"\"; that accompanying each unit of the device|were certain circulars or folders entitled \"\"Directions for Taking Magnetic Ray|Treatments,\"\" and \"\"Magnetic Rays,\"\" respectively, which contained statements|which represented that it would produce a powerful, penetrating ray which|would prevent and relieve human ills, restore and preserve health, and fight|disease; that the rays so produced would prevent \"\"auto-toxemia\"\" due to faulty|elimination of poisons, or absorption of poison into the blood from sluggish or|?constipated intestine's, infected tonsils, teeth, sinuses, or other infections, colds,|influenza, pneumonia, overeating, improper diet or over-indulgences; that treat-|ment by the rays would eliminate the condition \"\"auto-toxemia,\"\" promote and|equalize circulation, relieve congestion in every part of the body, relieve pain|and other distressing physical sensations, produce marked relaxation, promote|sound and refreshing sleep, remove causes which may lead to surgical operations,|stimulate a normal functioning of the various glands and other organs of the|body, overcome fatigue, raise the vital tone of the system, thereby increasing|both mental and physical efficiency, exert a revitalizing influence upon the sexual|or procreative glands, and clear the complexion; that the rays were invaluable|as a beauty treatment and would cause absorption of abnormal growths and|other deposits such as goiter, tumors of various kinds, and blood clots resulting|from hemorrhage due to high blood pressure; that the rays would improve|circulation and elimination and thus result in a high state of vitality and a|greater resistance to every sort of disease; that the device would treat more|than one disease at a time; that the rays would exert a more direct influence|upon the large centers of the sympathetic nervous system and the nerve centers|of the spinal cord; and that the device and the rays produced were an adequate|and competent treatment for asthma, anemia, arthritis, Bright's disease, bladder|troubles, bronchitis, colds, constipation, catarrh, catarrhal deafness, diabetes,|disorders of the prostate, deafness, eczema, epilepsy, goiter, hay fever, hemor-|rhoids, heart disease, headache, high blood pressure, indigestion, insomnia,|impotence, low blood pressure, lumbago, menstrual troubles, neuralgia, neuritis,|nervous irritability, nervous troubles, organic heart disease, obesity, -pelvic|organ affections, painful menstruation, painful feet, swollen feet, severe pain,|paralysis, rheumatism, sciatica, sinus trouble, toxemia, tuberculosis, tumors,|ulcers, and varicose veins. The complaint alleged that such representations were|false and misleading in that they created the impression that the device when|used as directed in the labeling would be of substantial therapeutic value in the|treatment of the many and varied human ailments, disorders, and diseases named|in the labeling, whereas it was a low-frequency, coreless solenoid which would|produce a magnetic field of the same frequency as that of the electric current to|which it was attached, and had no therapeutic value.|The complaint alleged further that the defendant would continue to introduce|or deliver the device or a similar device for introduction into interstate com-|merce, misbranded as hereinbefore set forth, or would cause such acts, and|would continue to evade and defeat the provisions of the law to the injury of|the public unless restrained from so doing, and prayed that the court perpetually|enjoin and restrain him and all those acting on his behalf from such unlawful|acts; that an order be entered that the defendant show cause why injunction|should not issue, and that during the pendency of the action he be enjoined|and restrained, and that, upon hearing, a preliminary injunction issue pending|the termination of the issues.|On June 29, 1942, the motion for a preliminary injunction having been denied,|the case came on for trial on the merits before the court. Evidence was in-|troduced on behalf of the Government and of the defendant, the trial concluding|on June 30, 1942. Judgment was entered for the Government on June 30,1942;|the court made the following findings of fact, and conclusions of law:|\"\"I find that the belt with its auxiliary flashlight, is a device within the|meaning of Section 331 of Title 21, of the U. S. C. A.|\"\"That this device and the literature which accompanies it is harmless. There|is nothing about it that would hurt anyone or harm the citizen. There is|about it that which will be helpful to many as examples of the many have|been exhibited in this court. Even if one is not afflicted and one thinks one|is afflicted and suffers the pain of an affliction which really one does not have,|that one is a sufferer nevertheless, and that which remedies the suffering and|makes that one well, receives a benefit, so that the device is not only not harm-|ful, but it is beneficial.|\"\"It is misbranded within the meaning of the statute in that it mentions a|number of diseases which it manifestly will not cure, nor will it benefit the|patient who has them, by the eradication of those diseases, to any extent|whatever.|\"\"That it is a coreless solenoid. The larger part of the device is made up|of about six hundred coils of electric-carrying wire-that is, a wire which is|a conductor. These are tied together, and then covered by a sort of a leather|jacket- Running from this device is a cord, electric conductor, which punches|into an electric socket, and after that connection with the electric power is|made, in order to discover whether electricity is moving from the socket through|the device, and perhaps-which the court does not find-to work upon the|cupidity of the patient, a smaller circle, or, coil of wire is placed horizontally|with the larger coil of wire and then flashes from the inside of the smaller|coil a little light like a little electric light globe, showing that the current|passes and which did not pass before the cord was placed in the electric socket.|That the carrying capacity of this ? device is approximately forty watts. A|smaller amount than is found in the ordinary electric light globe in the ordi-|nary American home.|\"\"That the electricity which passes from the socket to this coiled wire does|just that and nothing else, save and except that it raises the temperature of the|device somewhat, but not to the extent of increasing circulation, or, increasing|gland activity, or, inducing pathology in the body which is enclosed within|this circle, as makes the presentment and exposition of this sort of heat to|the body, by other devices, effective.|\"\"I think I have said before, but I now find as a fact, that many think that|this has benefited, or cured, them of the ailment with which they were suffering,|and that they communicated that fact to the defendant and to others.\"\"|CONCLUSIONS OF LAW|\"\"From what I have said, it follows as a conclusion of law that the defendant|will be enjoined from shipping either the device itself, or, this literature relating|to it, or, in any other way, contributing to its sale or distribution in interstate|commerce, but not to be interfered with in any way in his continuity, so far as|this suit is concerned, in intrastate commerce.|\"\"You will prepare the decree, Mr. District Attorney, to be okayed by the|other side, saving such exceptions as they may desire.\"\"|On the same date, judgment was entered ordering that the defendant, his|agents, employees, representatives, and all others acting by or under his direc-|tion or authority, and all persons, firms, or corporations acting with or for|him, be perpetually enjoined and restrained from, in any manner or by any|device directly or indirectly, further introducing or delivering for introduction|into interstate commerce or causing such act, any device named \"\"Magnetic|Ray Appliance,\"\" or \"\"Magnetic Ray Instrument,\"\" or any similar device similarly|labeled in the manner as the said device.|884. Misbranding of Compound Syrup of White Pine and Tar, Medical Compound for Women, and VeDor No. 578 Injection. U. S. v. Primrose R. Devore (Drug Products Co.). Plea of guilty. Fine, $1,500 and 6 months In jail.ddnj00884May 1944Primrose R. Devore, trading as Drug Products Co., Columbus, OhioCompound Syrup of White Pine and Tar, Medical Compound for Women, and VeDor No. 578 InjectionJune 18 and September 4, 1941TexasOhioTexasSouthern District of Ohio884F. D. C. No. 7238. Sample Nos. 49046-E, 49048-E, 49049-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00884ddnj|884. Misbranding of Compound Syrup of White Pine and Tar, Medical Compound|for Women, and VeDor No. 578 Injection. U. S. v. Primrose R. Devore|(Drag Products Co.). Plea of guilty. Fine, 81,500 and 6 months In jail.|(F. D. C. No. 7238. Sample Nos. 49046-E, 49048-E, 49049-E.)|On June 29,1942, the United States attorney for the Southern District of Ohio|filed an information against Primrose R. Devore, trading as Drug Products Co.,|Columbus, Ohio, alleging shipment on or about June 18 and September 4, 1941,|from the State of Ohio into the State of Texas of quantities of the above-|named products.|Analysis of a sample of Compound Syrup of White Pine and Tar showed that|it consisted essentially of small proportions of ammonium chloride, pine tar, men-|thol and methyl salicylate, sugar, alcohol, and water. The article was alleged|to be misbranded (1) in that the name \"\"Compound Syrup of White Pine And|Tar Not U. S. P.\"\" was false and misleading as it created the impression that the|article was \"\"Compound Syrup of White Pine,\"\" recognized in the National For-|mulary, to which tar had been added; and (2) in that the following statements|were false and misleading since the article would not be efficacious for these|conditions: \"\"A Combination of Meritorious Ingredients Highly Beneficial in|Temporary Pulmonary Conditions Caused by Exposure,\"\, and \"\"A Successful|Preparation for the Treatment of * * * Ordinary Colds, Bronchial Irrita-|tions * * * Temporary Relief for * * * Colds * * * Bronchitis, etc.\"\"|Analysis of a sample of the Medical Compound for Women showed that it con-|sisted essentially of extracts of plant drugs, including an alkaloid-bearing drug,|sugar, and water, preserved with benzoic acid. The article was alleged to be mis-|branded in that the statement \"\"Medical. Compound for Women\"\" was false and|misleading as the drug was not efficacious in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or|prevention of diseases or ailments of women.|Analysis of a sample of VeDor No. 578 Injection showed that it consisted|essentially of small proportions of zinc sulfate, lead acetate, and water. The|article was alleged-to be misbranded (1) in that the statement \"\"Use in con-|nection with Anti-Gon Internal No. 578\"\" was false and misleading since it im-|plied that this article constituted a part of a treatment for gonorrhea and that|when used in connection with another drug, Anti-Gon Internal No. 578, it would|be efficacious in the treatment of gonorrhea, whereas the article had' no value|either alone or in conjunction with such other drug in the treatment of that dis-|ease; (2) in that the label failed to declare the common name of each active|ingredient since zinc sulfate was not declared; and (3) in that it was a drug|in package form and the label failed to bear an adequate statement of the quan-|tity of the contents.|On October 21,1942, the defendant entered a plea of guilty, whereupon the court|imposed a fine of $500 on each of the 3 counts, a total of $1,500, and 6 months|in jail on each of the 3 counts, the jail sentences to run concurrently.|885. Misbranding of Glucocinine. U. S. v. Eric M. Boehnke (Glucocinine Company of America). Plea of guilty. Fine, $300 and 4 months in jail.ddnj00885May 1944Eric Boehnke, trading as Glucocinine Co. of America, at Richmond Hill, N. Y.GlucocinineJanuary 23, 1941MichiganNew YorkMichiganEastern District of New York885F. D. C. No. 5581. Sample No. 31575-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00885ddnj|885. Misbranding of Glucocinine. U. S. v. Eric M. Boehnke (Glucocinine Com|pany of America). Plea of guilty. Fine, 8300 and 4 months in jail.|(F. D. C. No. 5581. Sample No. 31575-E.)|On May 13, 1942, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of New|York filed an information against Eric Boehnke, trading as Glucocinine Co. of|America, at Richmond Hill, N. T., alleging shipment on or about January 23,|1941, from the State of New York into the State of Michigan of a quantity of|Glucocinine which was misbranded.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that certain statements in the|labeling, and a graph purporting to show the reduction of blood sugar brought|about by use of the article in experimental animals, were false and misleading|in that they represented and suggested that the article would be efficacious in|the treatment of light and medium cases of diabetes mellitus, that it would be|efficacious as a preventative of diabetes, that it would act beneficially on the|pancreas and would arouse the pancreas to new activity, and that it would be|efficacious to clear the urine of sugar and reduce the blood sugar to a negative|point, whereas it would not be efficacious for such purposes.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the statements: \"\"Plant In-|sulin substances,\"\" \"\"Glucocinine * * * is PLANT INSULIN, i. e., substances|which occur in large quantities in certain plants and may be regarded as the|endorsed by Clinics, sanitariums and physicians,\"\" and \"\"free from carbohydrates,\"\"|appearing in the labeling, were false and misleading since they represented that|the article was plant insulin, i. e., an insulin-like substance obtained from plants;|that it consisted of substances which might be regarded as the origin of insulin;|that it was endorsed in general by clinics, sanitariums, and physicians; and|that it was free from carbohydrates, whereas it was not plant insulin; did not|consist of substances which might be regarded as the origin of insulin; was|not endorsed in general by clinics, sanitariums, and physicians; and was not|free from carbohydrates, since it contained starch which is a carbohydrate.|On May 6, 1943, a plea of guilty having been entered, the court imposed a fine|of $300 and a sentence of 4 months in jail.|886. Misbranding of Gluococinine. U. S. v. Eric M. Boehnke (Ericus Products Co.). Plea of guilty. Defendant given suspended sentence of 1 year and placed on probation for 2 years.ddnj00886May 1944Eric M. Boehnke, trading as the Ericus Products Co., at Jamaica, N. Y.GluococinineDecember 11, 1941IllinoisNew YorkIllinoisEastern District of New York886F. D. C. No. 7252. Sample No. 47691-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00886ddnj|886. Misbranding: of Gluococinine. TJ. S. v. Eric M. Boehnke (Ericus Products|Co.). Plea of guilty. Defendant given suspended sentence of 1 year and|placed on probation for 2 years. (F. D. C. No. 7252. Sample No. 47691-E.)|On April 3, 1943, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of New|York filed an information against Eric M. Boehnke, trading as the Ericus Products|Co., at Jamaica, N. Y., alleging shipment on or about December 11, 1941, from the|State of New York into the State of Illinois of a quantity of Glucocinine which|was misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of|powdered plant tissues, including starch.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that certain statements appearing in the|labeling were false and misleading in that they represented and suggested that|the articles would be efficacious in the treatment of mild and medium cases of dia-|betes mellitus, that it would be efficacious to build up the pancreas gland (islets of|Langerhans), that it would bring about gradual but lasting alleviation of diabetes;|that its use would prevent constitutional breakdown and gangrene in diabetes, that|it was more valuable than insulin in the treatment of diabetes, that it would act|beneficially on the pancreas and would stimulate the pancreas gland to produce|insulin of its own, and that by its use the diabetic could be more liberal in his|diet and the tolerance of diabetics for carbohydrates would become greater and|greater, whereas it would not be efficacious for such purposes.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the statements: \"\"Glycocinine|(Vegetable Insulin),\"\" \"\"The medical treatment as a whole in diabetes is for the|most part unsatisfactory, unbiological and unscientific,\"\" \"\"Honest and conscientious|physicians have dropped it for mild and medium cases long ago,\"\" \"\"Glucocinine|(Plant Insulin) * * * Unlike regular insulin it has the exceptional quality of|being able to be administered orally and still retain its full effectiveness. Indeed,|it works more slowly than Insulin, but its results are much more permanent and|hence more valuable. * * * in short the chief differences between Insulin|and Glucocinine are these:-Insulin (important for first aid in severe cases) brings|quick results but is habitual and by using it continuously the disease usually pro-|gresses. Whereas Glucocinine, on the other hand, works slowly but surely by|which the progress of the disease recedes more and more and the tolerance for|carbohydrates becomes greater and greater,\"\" were false and misleading since the|article was not an insulin-like substance obtained from plants; medical treatment|in diabetes is not for the most part unsatisfactory, unbiological, or unscientific;|honest and conscientious physicians have not dropped insulin for all mild or me-|dium cases of diabetes; the effects resulting from the use of the article were not|permanent and were not more valuable than those resulting from the use of in-|sulin ; and the article did not differ from insulin only in the respects set forth in|the statements aforesaid, but did differ from insulin in the further respect that|insulin has the capacity, property, and power of reducing blood sugar, whereas the|article Glucocinine did not have such capacity, property, or power.|On May 6,1943, the defendant having entered a plea of guilty, the court imposed|a suspended sentence of 1 year and placed the defendant on probation for 2 years.|888. Misbranding of saltpetre. U. S. v. Leon A. Achldnsy (Moore Drug Co.). Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $150 and 2 years' probation.ddnj00888May 1944Leon A. Achkinsy, trading as Moore Drug Co., New Orleans, La.saltpetreSeptember 19, 1941TexasLouisianaTexasEastern District of Louisiana888F. D. C. No. 7704. Sample No. 83806-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00888ddnj|888. Misbranding: of saltpetre. U. S. v. Leon A. Achldnsy (Moore Drug Co.).|Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $150 and 2 years' probation. (F. D. C. No.|7704. Sample No. 83806-E.)|On-October 19, 1942, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Louisiana filed an information against Leon A. Achkinsy, trading as Moore Drug|Co., New Orleans, La., alleging shipment on or about September 19, 1941,|from the State of Louisiana into the State of Texas of a quantity of saltpetre.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements on the carton,|representing and suggesting that it was \"\"Antiseptic, Diaphoretic, Diuretic, Use-|ful in Gastro-Intestinal Catarrh, Fevers, Asthma, Dropsy, Rheumatism, Etc.\"\"|were false and misleading since the drug was not an internal antiseptic, a dia-|phoretic, or diuretic, and it would not be efficacious in the cure, mitigation,|treatment, or prevention of the diseases mentioned, or the similar conditions sug-|gested by the abbreviation \"\"Etc.\"\"|On October 28, 1942, a plea of nolo contendere having been entered, the court|imposed a fine of $150. The imposition of a jail sentence was suspended and the|defendant placed on probation for a period of 2 years.|889. Misbranding of Crab Orchard concentrated mineral water. U. S. v. Crab Orchard Mineral Water & Crystal Co., Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $100 and costs.ddnj00889May 1944Crab Orchard Mineral Water Crystal Co., Inc., Crab Orchard, Ky.Crab Orchard concentrated mineral waterMarch 23, 1940OhioKentuckyOhioEastern District of Kentucky889F. D. C. No. 5572. Sample No. 27448-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00889ddnj|889. Misbranding: of Crab Orchard concentrated mineral water. tJ. S. v. Crab|Orchard Mineral Water A Crystal Co., Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $100|and costs. (F. D. C. No. 5572. Sample No. 27448-E.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-|ing its efficacy in the conditions indicated hereinafter.|On or about August 29, 1942, the United States attorney for the Eastern|District of Kentucky filed an information against Crab Orchard Mineral Water|& Crystal Co., Inc., Crab Orchard, Ky., alleging shipment in the name of L. H.|Goodwin & Co. on or about March 23, 1940, from the State of Kentucky to the|State of Ohio of a quantity of Crab Orchard concentrated mineral water.|Analysis of a sample of this product showed that it contained dissolved|mineral matter, chiefly magnesium and sodium sulfates, with smaller amounts of|other salts.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that statements in the labeling|which represented and suggested that it would be efficacious in the treatment|and alleviation of conditions for which a sojourn at a mineral spring health|resort is customarily prescribed; that it would be efficacious in the relief of in-|veterate chronic diseases and in the treatment of sickness and suffering; that|it would cleanse the system of poisonous toxins and waste matter, and remove|the menaces to health resulting from constipation; that it would be efficacious|In the treatment of diseases originating from disordered liver and kidneys,|and would prevent attacks upon the blood corpuscles by toxins engendered in|the system from defective filtration or cleansing; that it would prevent depletion,|of the nerve cells, and would safeguard beauty in women and keep men fit; that|it would be efficacious in the treatment of constipation, rheumatism, headaches,|influenza, auto-intoxication, sleeplessness, indigestion, and colds, and that it|would keep the blood stream pure, be efficacious for the treatment of skin|blemishes and eruptions, make the complexion youthful, clear, and smooth,|keep the system internally clean, improve the appetite, and enable one to sleep|and feel better, were false and misleading since the article would not be|efficacious for such purposes.|On November 9, 1942, a plea of guilty having been entered on behalf of the|defendant, the court imposed a fine of $100 and costs.|890. Misbranding of Glendage. U. S. v. 46 Packages of Glendage. Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered destroyed.ddnj00890May 1944Joseph A. PiumaGlendageAugust 1, 1941Indianapolis, Ind.Los Angeles, CalifIndianapolis, Ind.Southern District of Indiana890F. D. C. No. 5674. Sample No. 27854-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00890ddnj|800. Misbranding of Glendage. \\j. S. v. 46 Packages of Glendage. Consent de-|cree of condemnation. Product ordered destroyed. (F. D. G. No. 5674.|Sample No. 27854-E.)|The label of this product bore false and misleading representations that it|would be effective in the treatment of the conditions indicated below.|On September 11, 1941, the United States attorney for the Southern District|of Indiana filed a libel against 46 packages of Glendage at Indianapolis, Ind.,|alleging shipment on or about August 1, 1941, by Joseph A. Piuma, from Los|Angeles, Calif.|Analysis of a sample of the product showed that each tablet contained glandular|material, including ? grain of thyroid, nux vomica extract (containing strych-|nine), a phosphide such as zinc phosphide, and a laxative drug such as cascara|sagrada extract.|The product was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements|were false and misleading since the glandular substances, suprarenal, pituitary,|and orchic were not physiologically or therapeutically active when taken by|mouth as directed: \"\"Each tablet contains as active ingredients: ? grain desic-|cated Thyroid, ? grain Extract Nux Vomica, Suprarenal, Pituitary, Orchic sub-|stance, Extract Cascara Sagrada and Zinc Phosphide\"\"; \"\"Glendage is recom-|mended as a Tonic for conditions in which may be useful the medicinal bene-|fits of * * * the glandular substances which this preparation is com-|pounded\"\" ; \"\"DIRECTIONS Take one Tablet three time a day after meals with|a glass of water.\"\"|On March 24,1942, the court for the Southern District of Indiana directed the|entry of an order transferring this case for further proceedings to the United|States District Court for the District of Arizona.|On December 28, 1942, the court ordered that the request of the claimant for|leave to withdraw his answer and entry of judgment as prayed for in the com-|plaint be granted. Pursuant to this order, judgment of condemnation and de-|struction was entered on December 30,1942. It was further ordered that a copy|of the judgment be sent to the United States marshal for the Southern District|of Indiana as a warrant of destruction in accordance with the judgment.|891. Misbranding of Radiol. U. S. v. 6 Cans of Radiol. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00891May 1944Middlebrook Lancaster, Inc.RadiolOctober 31, 1941Bedminster Township, N. J.New York, N. Y.Bedminster Township, N. J.District of New Jersey891F. D. C. No. 7079. Sample No. 84320-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00891ddnj|891. Misbranding of Radiol. XT. S. v. 6 Cans of Radiol. Default decree of con|demnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 7079. Sample No. 84320-E.)|On March 21, 1942, the United States attorney for the District of New Jersey|filed a libel against 6 cans of Radiol at Bedminster Township, N. J., alleging|that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about October 31,|1941, from New York, N. Y., by Middlebrook Lancaster, Inc.; and charging that|it was misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of|isopropyl alcohol (64 percent), water, and volatile oil including peppermint oil|and eucalyptus oil.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that certain statements in the|labeling which represented that it would be efficacious in the cure, mitigation,|treatment, or prevention of atrophy of shoulder muscles, big knee, blemishes|(old and recent), bog spavin, bruises, bruised back and withers, capped elbow|(shoe boil), capped hock, coughing, curbs, enlarged glands, fistula and quittor,|girth galls, grease and mud fever, laryngitis, lymphangitis (big leg), mammitis or|garget, over-shot joints (knuckling over), rheumatism, roaring, shoulder and|other lameness, shoulder slip, sore back, sore shoulder, sore throat and colds,|soreness of back and loins, sprained fetlocks, splints, spavins, ringbones (newly|forming), stifle lameness (loose stifle), strain of back, strained tendons (recent),|thorough-pin, thick-wind, wheezing, whistling, windgalls (wind puffs), and|wounds in animals; and that for human use it would be \"\"marvelously quick in|allaying pain in cases of sprains and inflammation,\"\" were false and misleading|since it would not be efficacious for such purposes. It was alleged to be mis-|branded further in that its label failed to bear the common or usual name of|the active ingredients and a statement of the kind and quantity or proportion|of alcohol that it contained.|On July 7, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|892. Misbranding of Sill's Powder Treatment and Sill's Powder Foot Treatment. U. S. v. 21 Packages of Sill's Powder Treatment and 30 Packages of Sill's Powder Foot Treatment. Default decree of condemnation. Product ordered destroyed.ddnj00892May 1944Sills CompanySill's Powder Treatment and Sill's Powder Foot TreatmentFebruary 17 and March 27, 1942Topeka, Kans.Vinita, Okla.Topeka, Kans.District of Kansas892F. D. C. No. 7950. Sample Nos. 73844-E, 73845-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00892ddnj|892. Misbranding: of Sill's Powder Treatment and Sill's Powder Foot Treatment.|U. S. v. 21 Packages of Sill's Powder Treatment and 30 Packages of Sills|Powder Foot Treatment. Default decree of condemnation. Product or-|dered destroyed. (F. D. C. No. 7950. Sample Nos. 73844-B, 73845-E.)|On or about August 28, 1942, the United States attorney for the District of|Kansas filed a libel at Topeka, Kans., against 21 packages of Sill's Powder Treat-|ment land 30 packages of Sill's Powder Foot Treatment, alleging that the articles|had been shipped on or about February 17 and March 27, 1942, by the Sills|Company from Vinita, Okla.|Analysis of a sample showed that the composition of the two products was|the same, consisting essentially of salicylic acid, small proportions of bismuth|subcarbonate, ammonium alum, boric acid, and aspirin in a base of talc.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements made in the|labeling, which represented and suggested that it was an effective treatment|for the relief of feet that itch, scald, crack, blister, burn, ache, swell, and tire|quickly, for offensive perspiring feet, painful, calloused feet, and as a general|skin remedy; that it would check foot and skin disorders at their start; that it|would afford relief for externally caused skin disorders on any part of the body;|that it would gradually replace infected, germ-infested, growth-covered, and|offensive tissues with a normal epidermfs with unobstructed pores which would|allow an evenly divided inoffensive perspiration; and that it would be an effective|treatment for corns on top of toes, warts, and deeply embedded callouses, trench|foot, chillblains, tender spots on feet, ingrown nail discomfort, bunion discomfort,|sore corns, itch, water poisonings, poison ivy, impetigo, or 'summer sores,'|itching of eczema, scalp irritations, fever blisters, pimples, and irritations, itching|piles, checking boils, animal sores, and for mange or similar skin disorders on|cats and dogs, were false and misleading since it would not be effective for|such purposes.|On October 27, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|DRUGS FOR VETERINARY USE *|893. Misbranding of GarJEX and Bre-Tone. U. S. v. Wear's Food Co., Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $150.ddnj00893May 1944Near's Food Co., Inc., Binghamton, N. Y.GarJEX and Bre-ToneJuly 25, 1941, and February 18, 1942Illinois and New JerseyNew YorkIllinois and New JerseyNorthern District of New York893F. D. C. No. 7713. Sample Nos. 84365-E, 84366-E, 86226-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00893ddnj|893. Misbranding of GarJEX and Bre-Tone. V. S. v. Wear's Food Co., Inc. Plea|of gnilty. Fine, $150. (F. D. C. No. 7713. Sample Nos. 84365-E, 84366-E,|86226-E.)|On November 10, 1942, the United States attorney for the Northern District|of New York filed an information against Near's Food Co., Inc., Binghamton,|N. Y., alleging shipment on or about July 25, 1941, and February 18, 1942, from|the State of New York into the States of Illinois and New Jersey of quantities|of GarJEX and Bre-Tone which were misbranded.|Analyses of samples of the GarJEX showed that it consisted essentially of|hexamethylenetetramine, manganese, cobalt, copper, iron, sodium, magnesium|and potassium salts including iodides, sulfates and chlorides, together with|sulfur and plant material; one sample was found to contain some phosphate|and nitrate. It was alleged to be misbranded in that certain statements in its|labeling which represented and suggested that it would be efficacious in the|cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of mastitis or garget, were false and|misleading, since the article would not be efficacious for such purposes. It was|alleged to be misbranded further in that the name \"\"GarJEX,\"\" borne on the|label, was misleading since the article was recommended for use as a veterinary|drug for administration to cows, and the name suggested and created in the|minds of purchasers the impression and#belief that it would be efficacious in|the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of garget of cows, whereas it|would not be efficacious for such purpose.|Analysis of a sample of the Bre-Tone showed that it consisted essentially of|salt, epsom salt, calcium diphosphate, cobalt, copper, manganese probably as sul-|fates, iron probably as oxide, strychnine, potassium iodide and plant material.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that certain statements in the labeling|which represented and suggested that it would be efficacious as a breeding|tonic for catties, horses, and hogs; that it would be an efficacious treatment|for sterility in cattle, horses, and hogs which was not due to diseased con-|ditions of the reproductive organs, were false and misleading since it would|not be efficacious for such purposes. It was alleged to be misbranded further|in that the name \"\"Bre-Tone\"\" borne on the label and appearing in the circular|was misleading since the ai/ticle was recommended for use as a veterinary|drug for administration to horses, cattle, and hogs, and the name suggested|and created the impression in the mind of the reader that it would be efficacious|as a breeding tonic for horses, cattle, and hogs, whereas it would not be|efficacious for such purposes.|On January 26, 1943, a plea of guilty having been entered on behalf of the|defendant, the court imposed a fine of $150.|*See also Nos. 874, 891, 892.|894. Misbranding of Coxy Check. U. S. v. Clarence A. Near (Near Chemical Co.). Plea of guilty. Fine, $25.ddnj00894May 1944Clarence A. Near, trading as the Near Chemical Co. at Minneapolis, Minn.Coxy CheckDecember 18, 1941IowaMinnesotaIowaDistrict of Minnesota894F. D. C. No. 7279. Sample No. 58854-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00894ddnj|884. Misbranding: of Coxy Check. tJ. S. v. Clarence A. Near (Near Chemical Co.).|Plea of guilty. Fine, $25. (F. D. C. No. 7279. Sample No. 58854-E.)|On July 13, 1942, the United States attorney for the District of Minnesota|filed an information against Clarence A. Near, trading as the Near Chemical|Co. at Minneapolis, Minn., alleging shipment on or about December 18, 1941,|from the State of Minnesota into the State of Iowa of a quantity of Coxy Check|which was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of calcium carbonate,|protein, reducing sugar, citric acid, and cream of tartar.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the name \"\"Coxy Check\"\"|was false and misleading since it represented, suggested, and implied that the|article would be efficacious to check coccidiosis in poultry; whereas it would|not be efficacious for such purpose. It was alleged to be misbranded further|in that said name and the statement \"\"As a Preventive In a disease as serious|as this one, prevention is highly recommended rather than effecting a treatment|after the birds have contracted the organism, and the disease. * * * As a|treatment * * * Successful treatment depends on early diagnosis and ap-|plication. * * * How to Treat:-Mix thoroughly Three level tablespoonsful|of Coxy Check in each One-Half Gallon of mash consumed for Seven Days.|* * * This preparation is Antiseptic and astringent in nature\"\" were false|and misleading since they suggested, implied, and represented that when used|as directed, it would be efficacious in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or preven-|tion of coccidiosis in poultry, and that when used as directed it was an anti-|septic and astringent; whereas it would not be efficacious for such purposes.|On July 13, 1942, a plea of euilty was entered on behalf of the defendant and|the court imposed a fine of $25.|895. Misbranding of Glass Garget Ointment. U. S. v. Howard Glass (Glass Ointment Co.). Plea of guilty. Fine, $100 and costs.ddnj00895May 1944Howard Glass, trading as the Glass Ointment Co., Arlington, IowaGlass Garget OintmentMarch 5, 1941MinnesotaIowaMinnesotaNorthern District of Iowa895F. D. C. No. 6453. Sample No. 38667-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00895ddnj|895. Misbranding of Glass Garget Ointment. 17. S. v. Howard Glass (Glass Oint|ment Co.). Plea of guilty. Fine, $100 and costs. (F. D. C. No. 6453.|Sample No. 38667-E.)|On September 22, 1942, the United States attorney for the Northern District|of Iowa filed an information against Howard Glass, trading as the Glass Oint-|ment Co., Arlington, Iowa, charging shipment on or about March 5, 1941, from|the State of Iowa into the State of Minnesota of a quantity of Glass Garget|Ointment which was misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of|fatty oils, small proportions of turpentine and creosote incorporated in an oint-|ment base.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that certain statements in the|labeling which represented and suggested that it would be efficacious in the cure,|mitigation, treatment, or prevention of garget, would relieve hard and congested|tissues and local conditions which follow heavy feeding and freshening; that|its use in case of udder troubles would restore the udder and teats to normal|condition in a short time; that it would relieve caked or inflamed udders, would|be efficacious in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of cow pox, minor|cuts, black scab, harness galls, hardening of the quarters, wire cuts, sore hoofs,|bunches, collar boils, and swollen throats in cases of distemper and other injuries;|that it would remove inflammation from the udders of dairy cows, and would|control all kinds of udder trouble in a dairy herd, would be efficacious in the treat-|ment of chicken roup and, when used by man, would be efficacious in the cure,|mitigation, treatment or prevention of burns, pimples, boils, and swellings, were|false and misleading since the article would not be efficacious for such purposes.|The article was alleged to be misbranded further in that it was fabricated from|two or more ingredients including, among others, petroleum, kreyslinol (cresol|solution), and vegetable oil, and its label failed to bear the common or usual|name of each active ingredient.|On September 22,1942, the defendant having entered a plea of guilty, the court|imposed a fine of $100 and costs.|929. Misbranding of Tritolac, Alimentone Powder, and Alimentone Tablets. U. S. v. Thomas E. Collins (Thomas E. Collins Co.). Tried to the court. Defendant adjudged guilty and fined $200.ddnj00929October 1944Thomas B. Collins, trading as Thomas B. Collins Co., at San Francisco, Calif.Tritolac, Alimentone Powder, and Alimentone TabletsJuly 15, 1940ArizonaCaliforniaArizonaNorthern District of California929F. D. C. No. 6398. Sample Nos. 32623- E to 32626-E, lncl.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00929ddnj|929. Misbranding; of Tritolac, Alimentone Powder, and Alimentone Tablets.|U. S. v. Thomas E. Collins (Thomas E. Collins Co.). Tried to the court.|Defendant adjudged guilty and fined $200. (F. D. C. No. 6398. Sample|Nos. 32623- E to 32626-E, lncl.)|On February 27, 1942, the United States attorney for the Northern District|of California filed an information against Thomas B. Collins, trading as Thomas|B. Collins Co., at San Francisco, Calif., alleging shipment on or about July 15,|1940, from the State of California into the State of Arizona of quantities of|the above-named drugs which were misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the Tritolac showed that it consisted essentially of|embryonic tissues closely resembling wheat germ, a spray-dried product closely|resembling spray-dried skim milk, and an appreciable amount of wheat bran|particles. It was alleged to be misbranded in that statements in the labeling|which represented that it would be efficacious in the cure, mitigation, treat-|ment, or prevention of disease were false and misleading since they represented|and suggested that the article would be efficacious in restoring vitality and in|maintaining resistance; that it was an excellent tonic for the nervous person|and those in a run-down condition; that it would be efficacious in the correction|of functional and degenerative changes in the entire nervous system and similar|changes in the organs and tissues of the body; that it was efficacious in the|treatment of acidosis and other digestive disturbances; that it was a wonderful|rebuilder of those who were underweight due to malassimilation or wasting|diseases, and would be efficacious in producing increased growth and increased|weight in children, whereas the article would not be efficacious for such purposes.|Analysis of a sample of the Alimentone Powder showed that it consisted|essentially of a spray-dried product, such as spray-dried skim milk, embryonic|tissues, such as wheat germ, and dried green leafy or stemmy materials such|as garden vegetables. Analysis of a sample of the Alimentone Tablets showed|that they consisted essentially of embryonic tissues, such as wheat germ, and|dried green leafy and stemmy material, such as garden vegetables. The Ali-|mentone Powder and Tablets were alleged to be misbranded in that the state-|ments regarding their efficacy in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention|of disease, appearing in the circular which accompanied them, were false and|misleading in that they represented and suggested that the articles would be|efficacious in the treatment of overweight; that they would be efficacious to ex-|pel mucus and to relieve colds, nasal catarrh, asthma, bronchitis, mucus colitis,|and other catarrhal conditions; that they would be efficacious in the treatment|of inflammation of the mucus membranes and of congested and infected tissues;|that they would maintain the normal flow of secretions from the mucus mem-|branes and thus continuously flush away any impurities which might lodge in|the cell tissues; that they would maintain the defensive reaction against im-|purities and bacteria in the cell tissues and would increase the discharge from|the part affected and eliminate accumulated waste; that they would be effi-|cacious in the treatment of bronchial asthma and all types of catarrhal condi-|tions including nasal catarrh, mucus colitis, and vaginal catarrh; that they|would keep the membranes in a healthy condition, and would be efficacious in|the treatment of hay fever; and that they would heal inflammation and tone|the membranes, and would eliminate toxic deposits from the tissues, whereas|they would not be efficacious for such purposes.|On April 28, 1943, the defendant having entered a plea of not guilty and a|jury having been waived, the case came on for trial before the court. During|the course of the trial the information was amended in order to strike the cir-|cular alleged to have accompanied the Alimentone Powder and Tablets, and to|substitute a different circular. No amendment, however, was made to the|charges based on the stricken circular hereinbefore set forth. The case was|concluded on April 30, 1943, with a finding of guilt by the court. A fine of $200|was imposed.|896. Misbranding of Disentone. U. S. v. George D. Solomon and Martin Weinhart (Farm Disentone Company). Plea of guilty. Fines, $25 each and costs.ddnj00896May 1944George D. Solomon and Martin Weinhart, trading as Farm Disentone Company, Sioux City, IowaDisentoneDecember 17, 1941NebraskaIowaNebraskaNorthern District of Iowa896F. D. C. No. 7675. Sample No. 73037-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00896ddnj|896. Misbranding of Disentone. TJ. S. v. George D. Solomon and Martin Weln-|hart (Farm Disentone Company). Plea of guilty. Fines, $25 each and|costs. (F. D. C. No. 7675. Sample No. 73037-B.)|On October 20, 1942, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Iowa filed an information against George D. Solomon and Martin Weinhart,|trading as Farm Disentone Company, Sioux City, Iowa, alleging shipment on or|about December 17, 1941, from the State of Iowa into the State of Nebraska of|a quantity of Farm Disentone.|Analysis of a sample of Farm Disentone showed that It consisted essentially|of kerosene containing tar and creosote.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that statements in the label re-|garding the efficacy of the drug in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention|of disease in animals were false and misleading, since the product was not|effective for these purposes. The statements represented and suggested: (1)|That ailments of poultry and hogs would be practically eliminated (\"\"whipped\"\")|by the use of the drug. (2) That the article would be efficacious in preventing|germ infection in hogs, cattle, and poultry. (3) That it would be efficacious in|the treatment of coughs, colds, and flu in hogs. (4) That it would be efficacious|in the treatment of hog scurf, and would cure hog mange. (5) That the use|of the drug as directed would enable the user to avoid from 70 to 90 percent of|the losses caused by disease in poultry and hogs. And (6), that the drug would|be of value in the treatment of ring worms, grub worms, and wire cuts in hogs|and cattle.|The article was alleged to be further misbranded in that it was in package|form and its label failed to bear any statement of the quantity of contents; and|also in that its label failed to bear the common or usual name of each active|ingredient.|On October 20, 1942, a plea of guilty having been entered, the court imposed a|fine of $25 and half the costs against each defendant.|897. Misbranding of Red-Hed Coxol. U. S. v. Joseph Edward Layton (Production Laboratories). Plea of nolo contendere. Fine. $75.ddnj00897May 1944Joseph Edward Layton, trading as Production Laboratories, Seattle, Wash.Red-Hed CoxolAugust 7 and November 5, 1940CaliforniaWashingtonCaliforniaWestern District of Washington897F. D. C. No. 5512. Sample Nos. 21701-E, 21627-E, 26956-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00897ddnj|897. Misbranding: of Red-Hed Coxol. TJ. S. v. Joseph Edward Layton (Produc|tion Laboratories). Plea of nolo contendere. Fine. $75. (F. D. C. No.|5512. Sample Nos. 21701-E, 21627-E, 26956-E.)|On March 12, 1942, the United States attorney for the Western District of|Washington filed an information against Joseph Edward Layton, trading as|Production Laboratories, Seattle, Wash., alleging shipment on or about August 7|and November 5,1940, from the State of Washington into the State of California|of quantities of Red-Hed Coxol which was misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of an|unsaponifiable oil (mineral oil) 60.8 percent, a saponifiable oil consisting in part|of fish oil, turpentine 3 percent, a small amount of iodine, and a red coal-tar dye.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that statements in the labeling|which represented and suggested that it would be efficacious as a preventive,|treatment, and control for coccidiosis and blackhead in poultry were false and|misleading since it would not be efficacious for such purposes.|On October 27, 1942, the defendant having entered a plea of nolo contendere,|the court imposed a fine of $75.|898. Misbranding of Mineralized Molactas Block, Tork-A-Tox, Mineral Block, Marco Antiseptic Tablets, and Mineralized Molactas Block Hog Bricks with Nicotinic Acid. U. S. v. Lapp Laboratories, Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine. $125.ddnj00898May 1944Lapp Laboratories, Inc., Nevada, IowaMineralized Molactas Block, Tork-A-Tox, Mineral Block, Marco Antiseptic Tablets, and Mineralized Molactas Block - Hog Bricks with Nicotinic AcidApril 8 to September 17, 1940MissouriIowaMissouriSouthern District of Iowa898F. D. C. No. 5562. Sample Nos. 16166-E, 39119-E, 39121-E to 39123-E, incl. , 39125-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00898ddnj|898. Misbranding: of Mineralized Molactas Block, Tork-A-Tox, Mineral Block,|Marco Antiseptic Tablets, and Mineralized Molactas Block - Hog: Bricks|with Nicotinic Acid. U. S. v. Lapp Laboratories, Inc. Plea of guilty.|Fine. $125. (F. D. C. No. 5562. Sample Nos. 16166-E, 39119-E, 39121-E to|39123-E, incl., 39125-E.)|On May 4, 1942, the United States attorney for the Southern District of Iowa|filed an information against Lapp Laboratories, Inc., Nevada, Iowa, alleging|shipment from on or about April 8 to September 17, 1940, from the State of Iowa|into the State of Missouri of quantities of the above-named products that were|misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of Mineralized Molactas Block showed that the product|consisted essentially of mineral salts, carbohydrates, small proportions of nitroge-|nous matter, and charcoal. It contained not more than 5.5 percent of crude|protein, not more than 37 percent of nitrogen-free extract, 8.6 percent of calcium|compounds calculated as calcium, 0.5 percent of phosphorus, and 6.8 percent of|salt. Based on this analysis it was alleged that the following statement in a|circular accompanying the product was false and misleading: \"\"Nitrogen Free|Extract, not less than 63.0? * * * Potassium Iodide * * * Copper Sul-|phate * * * Calcium * * * 4.2? * * * Iodine * * * .04?, Salt|* * * not more than 2.5?.\"\" It was alleged to be further misbranded in that|the statements appearing on the circular regarding its efficacy in the cure, mitiga-|tion, treatment, or prevention of disease in animals were false and misleading,|since it would not be efficacious for such purposes. These representations and|suggestions were, in part, as follows: For keeping all livestock healthy, for wormy|hogs, as a preventive or control of intestinal parasites of hogs, as a preventive of|bloating of livestock, as an aid in the control of intestinal worms, as a source of|elements healing and soothing to the bruised intestine, and as efficacious in case|of necrotic enteritis due to nutritional deficiencies.|Analysis of a sample of Turk-A-Tox showed that it consisted essentially of|carbolic acid, gluconic acid, glycerine, and water. The article was alleged to be|misbranded in that the statements on the label: \"\"Prophylactic For Turkeys|*?* * An aid in the control of Blackhead in turkeys,\"\" were false and mis-|leading since the article would not be effective for such purposes.|Analysis of a sample of Mineral Block showed that the product consisted essen-|tially of compounds of calcium, and smaller proportions of compounds of sodium,|Iron, phosphorus, carbonates, chlorides, and sulfates, and contained not more|than 26.1 percent of calcium oxide, equivalent to 18.6 percent of calcium and|not more than 0.6 percent of phosphorus. Based on this analysis the following|statements on the label were alleged to be false land misleading: \"\"Calcium|Oxide * * * 30?, Calcium * * * not more than 25?, Phosphorus,|*?* * not less than 4?, * * * Potassium Iodide, .05?.\"\" It was alleged|to be further misbranded in that the therapeutic claims made for the article|were false 'and misleading since the article was not effective for such purposes.|The representations and suggestions were in part as follows: That the article|would improve the appetite and finish of livestock, would increase production of|livestock, and the health of livestock; that it would be efficacious in the treatment|of various breeding diseases, would stimulate the secretion of the thyroid glands|and have a beneficial effect upon the nervous system of the animal, and would|have value to the blood.|Analysis of a sample of Murco Antiseptic Tablets showed that the tablets|contained calcium, sodium and zinc phenolsulfonates, citric acid, bichloride of|mercury 4.2 grains per tablet, and talc. It was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In|that statements in the carton and in the label represented and suggested that|the article would act as internal antiseptic, prevent or control disease, guard|against and reduce the chances of spreading disease, keep the flock healthy,|prevent bowel disorders such as indigestion, constipation, pasting up of the|vent, and similar troubles; that it would prevent the spread of colds and|bronchitis and roupy conditions; that it would be efficacious and beneficial in|healing the intestines of the birds after the flock had been wormed; and that the|articles would be efficacious in cases of coccidiosis, fowl typhoid, cholera, and|worming, were false and misleading since the article would not be efficacious|for such purposes. (2) In that its label failed to bear accurate statements of|the quantity of the contents in terms of weight and measure. (3) In that its|label did not bear a statement of the quantity or proportion of bichloride of|mercury which it contained.|Examination of a sample of Mineralized Molactas Block-Hog Brick with|Nicotinic Acid, showed that the product consisted essentially of mineral salts,|carbohydrates, nitrogenous matter, charcoal, and moisture, and contained not|more than 39 percent of nitrogen-free extract, not more than 0.8 percent of|phosphorus, not less than 9 percent of calcium, and not less than 7 percent|of salt. Based on this examination the following statements, borne on the|carton, were alleged to be false and misleading: \"\"Analysis: * * * Nitrogen|Free Extract, not less than 63.0?. Potassium Iodide, * * * Calcium|*?* * 4.2?, Phosphorus * * * 1.4?, Iodine * * * .04?; Salt * * *|not more than 2.5?.\"\" It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the|statements appearing on the circular accompanying the article were false and|misleading since they represented and suggested that the article would be|efficacious for keeping all livestock healthy; for wormy hogs; for preventing or|controling intestinal parasites of hogs; as a preventive of bloating of livestock;|in the control of intestinal worms, and as a source of elements that are healing|and soothing to the bruised intestines, whereas the article would not be effective|for such purposes.|The Mineralized Molactas Block, Mineral Block, and Mineralized Molactas|Block with Nicotinic Acid were also misbranded as reported in notices of|judgment on foods.|On September 11, 1942, a plea of guilty having been entered to all counts|on behalf of the defendant, the court imposed a fine of $25 on each count; the|fines on the counts charging violation of the drug sections of the act amounting|to $125.|899. Misbranding of Pup-Up Tablets. U. S. v. 2 3/4 Gross Packages of Pup-Up Tablets. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00899May 1944Arner Co.Pup-Up TabletsMarch 28, 1941Chicago, Ill.Buffalo, N. Y.Chicago, Ill.Northern District of Illinois899F. D. C. No. 4836. Sample No. 47981-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00899ddnj|899. Misbranding of Pup-Up Tablets. IT. S. v. 2% Gross Packages of Pup-Up|Tablets. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No.|4836. Sample No. 47&81-E.)|On June 4, 1941, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Illinois filed a libel against the above-named product at Chicago, 111., alleging that|the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about March 28, 1941,|by Arner Co. from Buffalo, N. Y.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of|sodium phenobarbital, ephedrine hydrochloride, ephedrine sulfate, starch, and|milk sugar.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that statements in the labeling|which represented that it was an effective and appropriate treatment and|prophylactic for distemper in dogs were false and misleading since it would not|be an effective and appropriate treatment for such condition.|On July 17,1942, the claimant having withdrawn its claim and answer, judgment|of condemnation was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|900. Misbranding of poultry remedies. U. S. v. 19 Packages of Pratt's Poultry Regrulator and 12 Bottles of Pratt's Poultry Inhalant. Default decree of condemnation. Product ordered destroyed.ddnj00900May 1944Pratt Food Co.poultry remediesFebruary 27, 1942Trenton, N. J.Philadelphia, Pa.Trenton, N. J.District of New Jersey900F. D. C. No. 7413. Sample Nos. 54862-E, 54863-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00900ddnj|900. Misbranding of poultry remedies. IT. S. v. 19 Packages of Pratt's Poultry|Regrulator and 12 Bottles of Pratt's Poultry Inhalant. Default decree of|condemnation. Product ordered destroyed. (F. D. C. No. 7413. Sample|Nos. 54862-E, 54863-E.)|On April 29, 1942, the United States attorney for the District of New Jersey|filed a libel at Trenton, N. J., against 19 packages, each containing 2? pounds, of|Pratt's Poultry Regulator, and 8 pint bottles and 4 quart bottles of Pratt's Poultry|Inhalant, alleging that they were shipped in interstate commerce on or about|February 27,1942, by Pratt Food Co., from Philadelphia, Pa.|Examination of a sample of Pratt's Poultry Regulator showed that it consisted|essentially of peanut hull meal, iron oxide, calcium carbonate, bone meal, and|Epsom salt, together with small, amounts of gentian root, fenugreek and mix|vomica, and iodides.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements appearing in|the labeling were false and misleading since they represented and suggested|that the article was effective as a regulator, tonic, and appetizer for increasing|egg production, was effective for preventing food deficiency diseases, and was|effective for building greater vigor and disease resistance in poultry, whereas the|article was not so effective.|Examination of a sample of Pratt's Poultry Inhalant showed that it consisted|essentially of water, ethyl alcohol, methyl alcohol, formaldehyde, boric acid, and|oil of eucalyptus.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements appearing in|the labeling were false and misleading since they represented and suggested that|it was effective in the relief, treatment, and prevention of diseases, symptoms, and|conditions affecting the respiratory tract of poultry, whereas it was not so effective.|On December 8, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the article was ordered destroyed.|INDEX TO NOTICES OF JUDGMENT D. N. J. NOS. 851-900|PRODUCTS|N.J.No.|A and D vitamin concentrate tablets- 872|Abortifacients| 852|Alcoholism remedies|851, 859|Allan's Gland Capsules| 855|Allan's Red Wash| 855|Ammonia, aromatic spirit of? 864|Antiseptics|857, 864|Bandage, first aid|875, 876|\"\"Be\"\" Plex vitamin B-complex with|minerals and iron| 878|Belladonna, colloidum|__ 871|Boric acid| 857|Bre-Tone| 893|Carbon dioxide, medical|865, 866|with oxygen| S65|Cascara compound tablets| 856|Castoria| 873|Cocoa butter| 882|Cold remedies|884, 887|Collodion| 881|Compound Syrup of White Pine and|lVnv|? 884|Cotton, absorbent-imi|869,?870|Coxy Check|?894|Crab Orchard concentrated mineral|water|?889|Delayed menstruation tablets??887|N.J.No.|Devices|1880, 883|Diabetes remedies|885, 886|Disentone| 896|Eez-All Germicide for the Skin? 854|First aid bandage|875, 876|kits| 876|Foot remedies| 892|GarJEX| 893|Gauze bandage| 876|Germicide| 854|Glass Garget Ointment| 895|Glendage| 890|Glucocinine|885, 886|Gold Bond Liquid Hog Medicine? 874|Hair and scalp preparations?854, 887|Herb tea|-._ 887|Hunt's Salve| 853|Hyde Brand Vitamin A, Bi, D, G cap-|sules| 877|Hydrostine| 871|Indian Antiseptic Hair and Scalp|Stimulator|854|Intrauterine paste| 852|871|863|863|Ipecacuanha, colloidum.|Iron, quinine, and strychnine, elixir of -|Iron, tincture of-|Laxatives|- 856. 85S|1 Injunction issued. Contains findings of fact and conclusions of law.|901. Action to restrain Interstate shipment of \"\"Interferin,\"\" a misbranded drug. U. S. v. Don Curtis Keefer (Keefer Laboratories). Permanent injunction granted.ddnj00901October 1944Don Curtis Keefer, trading as the Keefer Laboratories at Chicago, Ill.InterferinNovember 3 and November 27, 1941Ilinois\NIlinoisNorthern District of Ilinois901Inj. No. 33The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00901ddnj|901. Action to restrain Interstate shipment of \"\"Interfering' a mlsbranded drug.|U. S. v. Don Curtis Keefer (Keefer Laboratories). Permanent injunction|granted. (Inj. No. 33.)|On June 29, 1942, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Ilinois filed a complaint against Don Curtis Keefer, trading as the Keefer Lab-|oratories at Chicago, 111., alleging that the defendant for several months past and|more particularly on or about November 3 and November 27, 1941, had been and|was introducing and delivering for intoduction into interstate commerce, a drug|labeled and designated \"\"Interferin\"\"; that the drug was compounded of potas-|sium soap, sodium soap, potassium iodide, benzoic acid, fats and oris, alcohol, and|water, and was so compounded and manufactured as to form a paste; that it was|sold in a collapsible tube of 60 cc. capacity, bearing a label and packed in a|cardboard carton together with implements to be employed in the injection of|the paste; that enclosed in the cardboard carton and accompanying the article|was a leaflet which contained certain statements in reference to the efficacy of|the drug and as to the quantity, dosage, and administration thereof; that the|statements appearing in the labeling represented, suggested, and engendered the|impression in the mind of the reader that the drug was a safe and effective|medicament for effecting abortion, whereas it was not such a safe and effective|medicament, but was a drug which has dangerous effects on the human body;|and that the article was further misbranded in that it was dangerous to health|i For omission of accurate statement of quantity of contents, see Nos. 908, 911, 914, 932, 934; omission of,|or unsatisfactory, ingredients statements, Nos. 907,908,911, 926,932, 935, 940,942; inconspicuousness of re-|quired label information, Nos. 913,923; deceptive packaging, Nos. 930,938; no new-drug application effective,\"\"|No. 910; presence of a habit-forming narcotic without warning statement, Nos. 904, 911, cosmetic, sub-|ject to the drug provisions of the Act, No. 942.|605900-44 1 |109|when used in the dosage and with the frequency and duration prescribed, recom-|mended, and suggested in the labeling.|The complaint alleged further that the defendant, unless restrained and en-|joined, would continue to introduce and deliver the article for introduction into|interstate commerce, misbranded in the manner aforesaid, and would similarly|continue to evade and defeat the provisions of the law to the injury of the public;|and prayed that the defendant, his agents, employees, and representatives, and|all others acting by or under his direction or authority, and all persons, firms,|companies, and corporations and their respective officers, servants, employees,|and representatives in active concert or participation with the defendant, be|perpetually enjoined and restrained from, in any manner of by any device,|directly or indirectly, further introducing or delivering the article, or a similar|article for introduction into interstate commerce, misbranded in the manner|aforesaid, or similarly, and that, upon hearing, a preliminary injunction be|granted restraining the defendant during the pendency of the action.|On July 3, 1942, the matter having come on before the court for hearing on|the complaint and affidavits filed by the United States attorney, the court|entered a preliminary injunction. On July 30,1942, a permanent injunction was|entered as prayed in the complaint.|930. Misbranding of Tonico Fir-Veta. U. S. v. Geneovevo Gonzales Garcia (El Modelo Medicine Co.) Plea of guilty. Fine, $25.ddnj00930October 1944Genevevo Gonzales Garcia, trading as El Modelo Medicine Co., at San Antonio, Tex.Tonico Fir-VetaNovember 25, 1940CaliforniaTexasCaliforniaWestern District of Texas930F. D. C. No. 6416. Sample No. 7617-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00930ddnj|930. Misbranding of Tonico Fir-Veta. U. S. v. Geneovevo Gonzales Garcia (El|Modelo Medicine Co.) Plea of guilty. Fine, $25. (F. D. C. No. 6416.|Sample No. 7617-E.)|On December 22, 1942, the United States attorney for the Western District|of Texas filed an information against Genevevo Gonzales Garcia, trading as El|Modelo Medicine Co., at San Antonio, Tex., alleging shipment on or about November|25, 1940, from the State of Texas into the State of California of a quantitiy of|Tonico Fir-Veta which was misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of|strychnine and quinine salts, small portions of iron, calcium, manganese and|potassium compounds including hypophosphites, alcohol, and syrup.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that certain statements appearing|in the circular accompanying the article were false and misleading since they|represented and suggested that the article would promote, restore, and insure|health; that it would be efficacious to increase resistance in children, relieve them|of over-tension, strengthen their bones and enable them to gain weight and|sleep more restfully, and would correct the causes of nervousness, poor health|and lack of energy in children; that it would be efficacious to stimulate the appe-|tite and give additional energy and would keep working girls physically fit, give|them a good appetite, and increase their vitality; that it would maintain a high|body resistance and ward off colds, croup, and other infections, and would be|efficacious in the treatment of tired, nervous, disordered stomach and sluggish|bowels, whereas the article would not be efficacious for such purposes.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the statements: \"\"El Modelo|Medicine Co. has complied with the new Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act,\"\"|and \"\"The laws regulating the manufacture and sale of Drugs and Medicines for|your protection, the new Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, have been fully|complied with by 'El Modelo Medicine Co.',\"\" appearing in the circular, were false|and misleading since they implied that the article complied with the Federal|Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, whereas it did not comply with such Act.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that its container, a carton, was|so made, formed, and filled as to be misleading, since the carton was much larger|than was necessary to hold the bottle contained in it.|On January 22, 1943, the defendant having entered a plea of guilty, the court|imposed a fine of $25.|904. Misbranding of Trems. U. S. v. 40 Packages of Trems. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00904October 1944Trems, Inc.Trems\NCleveland, OhioSt. Louis, Mo.Cleveland, OhioNorthern District of Ohio904F. D. C. No. 10171. Sample No. 32531-FEThe National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00904ddnj|904. Misbranding of Trems. U. S. v. 40 Packages of Trems. Default decree of|condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 10171. Sample No. 32531-F.)|This product consisted of tablets, each containing essentially 1 grain of pheno-|barbital, 3 grains of aspirin and ? grain of caffeine.|On July 7, 1943, the United States attorney for the Northern District of Ohio|filed a libel against 40 packages of Trems at Cleveland, Ohio, alleging that the|article had been shipped in interstate commerce by Trems, Inc., from St. Louis,|Mo.; and charging that it was misbranded.|The article was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that it was dangerous to|health when used in the dosage and with the frequency and duration prescribed,|recommended, and suggested in the labeling, \"\"Dosage: Sleeplessness-For Adults,|Two tablets 20 minutes before retiring. Other symptons-One or two tablets as|required,\"\" since it contained phenobarbital, a drug which cannot be administered|with safety except under competent supervision, and the directions which ap-|peared in the labeling did not provide for any limitation in the dosage, but|Implied that it might be taken as frequently as desired with safety; (2) in that|it was for use by man and contained a chemical derivative of barbituric acid,|phenobarbital, which derivative has been found by the Federal Security Ad-|ministrator, after investigation, to be, and by regulations designated as, habit-|forming, and (a) its label failed to bear the statement: \"\"Warning-May be habit|forming\"\" in juxtaposition with the name and quantity or proportion of such|derivative of barbituric acid, and (b) its label failed to bear, as such regulations|specify, the name and quantity or proportion of phenobarbital and the statement:|\"\"Warning-May be habit forming,\"\" immediately following, without intervening|written, printed, or graphic matter, the name by which such drug was titled.|On August 17, 1943, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|905. Misbranding of Ultra-Jel. U. S. v. 5 Boxes of Utra-Jel. Decree of condem nation and destruction.ddnj00905October 1944Pynosol Laboratories, Inc.Ultra-JelNovember 29, 1941Philadelphia, Pa.Chicago, Ill.Philadelphia, Pa.Eastern District of Pennsylvania905F. D. C. No. 6621. Sample No. 54631-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00905ddnj|905. Misbranding: of TJtra-Jel. U. S. v. 5 Boxes of Utra-Jel. Decree of condem|nation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 6621. Sample No. 54631-E.)|This product, in addition to being dangerous to health when used as directed,|bore statements on its labeling which created the false and misleading im-|pression that it was a safe and effective treatment for the conditions indicated?below.|On December 29, 1941, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Pennsylvania filed a libel against 5 boxes, each containing 4 tubes, of Utra-Jel at|Philadelphia, Pa., alleging that the article had been shipped on or about Novem-|ber 29, 1941, from Chicago, 111., by Pynosol Laboratories, Inc.; and charging that|it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of a castor oil soap, water,|pine oil, and combined iodine.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements|appearing on its labeling created the false and misleading impression that it was|a safe and effective treatment treatment for the conditions hereafter quoted,|whereas it was not a safe and effective treatment, but was a dangerous drug:|(Tube) \"\"Indicated As An Aid-In Treatment of Minor Infections Of The Cervix|And Cervical Canal. As a Uterine Evacuant,\"\" (carton) \"\"Indicated as an aid . . .|in the treatment of minor infections of the cervix and cervical canal. As a|uterine evacuant,\"\" (circular) \"\"Cervical Infections And Cervical Erosions|(minor) * * * Infections Of The Cervical Canal (Minor) * * * Cystic|Cervix * * * As A Uterine Evacuant.\"\"|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that it was dangerous to health|when used in the dosage or with|the frequency or duration prescribed, recom-|mended, or suggested in the labeling thereof, as follows: (Circular) \"\"take cotton|applicator saturated with UTRAJEL and apply to infected parts. If cervix is|extensively eroded, apply 1 cc. to 3 cc. on a wool tampon and place against cervix|and leave in place about 12 hours. * * * In addition to the same procedure|as outlined in the above paragraph, saturate a small gauze packing with|UTRAJEL and insert into the cervical canal, leaving a loose end so that the|patient may remove in about 12 hours. * * * Prepare field, gently insert|sterilized applicator into the external os and pass it careully along the canal|and into the mouth of the uterus remembering the position of the uterus as|determined by previous bimanual examination. DOSAGE: 5 cc. to 12 cc. the first|month, 15 cc. the second month, 20 cc. to 30 cc. the third month and over. The|dosages suggested may be varied slightly depending upon the individual case.|In all cases treatment should be administered slowly to eliminate as much|the possibility of shock * * *.\"\"|On November 10, 1942, an answer to the libel having been filed by Pynosol|Laboratories, Inc., and later withdrawn, judgment of condemnation was entered|and the product was ordered destroyed.|DRUGS AND DEVICES ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO BEAR|ADEQUATE DntECTIONS OR WARNING STATEMENTS2|906. Action to enjoin and restrain interstate shipments of a drug designated as Korjena. U. S. v. Jerome V. Gladke (Korjena Medicine Co.). Permanent injunction granted.ddnj00906October 1944Jerome V. Gladke, trading as the Korjena Medicine Company, Elmira, N. Y.Korjena\NNew YorkElmira, N. Y.New YorkUnited States District Court for the Western District of New York906Inj. No. 51.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00906ddnj|906. Action to enjoin and restrain interstate shipments of a drug: designated as|Korjena. U. S. v. Jerome V. Gladke (Korjena Medicine Co.). Perma-|nent injunction granted. (Inj. No. 51.)|On March 1, 1943, the United States attorney for the Western District of New|York filed a complaint for an injunction against Jerome V. Gladke, trading as the|2 See also No. 902.|Korjena Medicine Company, Elmira, N. Y., alleging among other things, that,|since 1931, the defendant had been engaged in the busines|s of vending through-|out the United States a product known as Korjena,. and labeled in part as fol-|lows: \"\"Korjena A dependable treatment for the reduction of excessive fat . . .|Korjena Medicine Co. Laboratories Elmira, N. Y. U. S. A. This treatment is|guaranteed dependable and may be taken with complete confidence. Contents|42 Korjena tablets . . . Active ingredients: phenolphthalein, calcium iodide,|sodium choleinate\"\"; that the article contained approximately 1 grain of phenol-|phthalein, approximately .44 grain calcium iodide, calcium carbonate, and bile|salts; and that it was misbranded: (a) In that it was recommended as a depend-|able, safe, and adequate treatment for the reduction of excess fact, which state-|ment was false and misleading since it was not a dependable, safe, and adequate|treatment for the reduction of excess fat. (b) In that its label failed to bear|adequate directions for use, since the article was a laxative and the directions|which appeared on the label provided for continuous administration, whereas a|laxative should not be used continuously, (c) In that its label failed to bear|such adequate warnings against use in those pathological conditions wherein|use of the article might be dangerous to health, or against unsafe dosage or dura-|tion of administration, in such manner and form as are necessary for the protec-|tion of users since the article was a laxative and its label failed to warn that a|laxative should not be used when abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, or other|symptoms of appendicitis are present, (d) That its label failed to disclose that|frequent or continued use of the article might result in dependence upon laxa-|tives, (e) That its label failed to disclose that, if a skin rash appeared, the use|of the article should be discontinued.|The complaint alleged further that on or about December 16, 1941, there was|filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York|an information charging a criminal violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and|Cosmetic Act against the defendant for shipment of Korjena in interstate com-|merce to Pittsburgh, Pa., and that on November 10, 1942, the defendant entered|a plea of guilty to count 1 of the information and was fined $200; and that while|the criminal information was pending as well as afterwards, the following|shipments of Korjena were made by the defendant from Elmira, New York:|On October 9, 11, and 27, 1942, and on November 25, 1942, shipments were made|to Los Angeles, Calif.; -on or about November 27, 1942, some 130 packages were|shipped to Tampa, Fla.; on or about December 12, 1942, some 63? dozen pack-|ages were shipped to Philadelphia, Pa.; on or about January 2, 1943, some 711|packages were shipped to Kansas City, Mo.; on or about January 2, 1943, some|11? dozen packages were shipped to Erie, Pa.; on or about January 9, 1943,|some 11 gross packages were shipped to Detroit, Mich.; on or about January 11,|1943, some 9? dozen boxes were shipped to Minneapolis, Minn.; and on or about|February 19, 1943, some 1 dozen boxes were shipped to St. Paul, Minn. It was|also alleged that the only difference in composition between the tablets in-|volved in the criminal case and those in the other shipments listed was that|the tablets in the criminal case contained the alkaloid strychnine, in addition|to the ingredients above set forth.|The complaint alleged further that on April 10, 1938, the Federal Trade Com-|mission directed the defendant and the Korjena Medicine Company to cease|and desist from certain unfair methods of competition in connection with the|sale of Korjena tablets, which were advertised as a fat-reducing agent and as|a remedy for obesity; and that an action was then pending in the United States|District Court for the Western District of New York, instituted on or about|October 21, 1941, demanding judgment in the sum of $10,000, and further de-|manding that this defendant be permanently enjoined from violating the terms|of the Federal Trade Commission order to cease and desist; and that the defend-|ant, with full knowledge that the labels constituted a violation of the Act, was|selling, and had no intention of discontinuing to sell, Korjena under its objec-|tionable label, but on the contrary was then, and so intended in the future,|continuing his business, 80 percent of which consisted in the shipping of the|product in interstate commerce; and that, unless restrained by the court, the|defendant would continue to' introduce and offer for introduction and delivery|in interstate commerce the misbranded article, and would in this manner con-|tinue to violate, evade, and defeat the purposes of the Act, with injury to the|public and to the plaintiff.|On March 1, 1943, an order to show cause and a temporary restraining order|were filed.|On March 30, 1943, no appearance, responsive affidavit, or pleading having|been filed, the court* ordered that the defendant, his agents, servants, and|employees, and all other persons in active concert or participation with him,|be permanently enjoined and restrained from directly or indirectly introducing|and delivering for introduction, and causing to be introduced and delivered for|introduction, into interstate commerce the article sold under the name Korjena.|as then labeled, in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.|907. Misbranding of Korjena. U. S. v. Jerome V. Gladke (Korjena Medicine Co.). Plea of guilty. Fine, $200.ddnj00907October 1944Jerome V. Gladke, trading as the Korjena Medicine Co., Elmira, N. Y.KorjenaSeptember 18, 1940, and January 10, 1941PennsylvaniaNew YorkPennsylvaniaWestern District of New York907F. D. C. No. 5517. Sample Nos. 19250-E, 19370-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00907ddnj|907. Misbranding of Korjena. U. S. v. Jerome V. Gladke (Korjena Medicine Co.).|Plea of guilty. Fine, $200. (F. D. C. No. 5517. Sample Nos. 19250-E,|19370-E.)|On December 16, 1941, the United States attorney for the Western District of|New York filed an information against Jerome V. Gladke, trading as the Korjena|Medicine Co., Elmira, N. Y., alleging shipment on or about September 18, 1940,|and January 10, 1941, from the State of New York into the State of Pennsylvania|of a quantity of Korjena which was misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it contained phenolphthalein,|compounds of calcium and magnesium, iodides, bile salts, and extracts of plant|drugs including a strychnine-bearing drug.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, \"\"A Dependable|Treatment for the Reduction of Excessive Fat * * * This Treatment is|Guaranteed Dependable and may be taken with Complete Confidence * * *|Especially in overweight cases of long standing these tablets should be faithfully|taken regularly as directed. Two or three packages are usually required for|the best results * * ? * This Treatment is dependable in normal conditions|* * * All normal cases of excessive weight may confidently follow above|directions,\"\" borne on the boxes containing the article, were false and misleading|since they represented and suggested that the article was a dependable, safe,|and adequate treatment for the reduction of excessive fat, whereas it was not|a safe, dependable or adequate treatment for such purpose but might produce|harmful results. The article was alleged to be misbranded further in that the|statement, \"\"Active Ingredients: Phenolphthalein, Calcium Iodide, Sodium|Choleinate,\"\" borne on the boxes, was false and misleading since the. said state-|ment represented and suggested that phenolphthalein, calcium iodide, and sodium|choleinate were the only active ingredients, whereas the article contained the|active ingredient strychnine in addition to those named; in that it was not|designated solely by a name recognized in an official compendium, and was fab-|ricated from two or more ingredients and its label did not bear the common or|usual name of each active ingredient, including the quantity or proportion of|strychnine contained in it; in that its label failed to bear adequate directions|for use since the directions, \"\"Take 1 tablet after each meal * * * Especially|in overweight cases of long standing these tablets should be faithfully taken|regularly as directed. Two or three packages are usually required for the best|results,\"\" were not suitable and appropriate directions for the drug, which was|essentially a laxative; in that its labeling did not bear adequate warnings against|use in those pathological conditions wherein its use might be dangerous to health,|or against unsafe dosage or methods or duration of administration, in such man-|ner and form as are necessary for the protection of users, since it was a cathartic|or laxative and contained phenolphthalein and should not be used when abdom-|inal pain, nausea, vomiting or other symptoms of appendicitis are present, and|frequent or continued use might result in dependence on laxatives, and that|it should be discontinued if a skin rash should appear|On December 28,1942, the defendant having entered a plea of guilty, the court|imposed a fine of $200.|908. Adulteration and misbranding of Bullock's System Self Treatment for Sinus and Catarrhal Infection. U. S. v. Henry Spangler (National Laboratories, Inc.). Plea of nolo contendere. Sentence of 180 days in jail conditionally suspended.ddnj00908October 1944Henry Spangler, trading as National Laboratories, Inc., Washington, D. C.Bullock's System Self Treatment for Sinus and Catarrhal InfectionJanuary 1 to March 1, 1941MarylandWashington, D. C.MarylandDistrict of Columbia908F. D. C. No. 7209. Sample No. 50930-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00908ddnj|90S. Adulteration and misbranding of Bullock's System Self Treatment for Sinus|and Catarrhal Infection. U. S. v. Henry Spangler (National Laboratories,|Inc.). Plea of nolo contendere. Sentence of 180 days in jail condi-|tionally suspended. (F. D. C. No. 7209. Sample No. 50930-E.)|This product, which was packed in a cardboard container, consisted of one can|of Bullock's Antiseptic Healing and Cleansing Tonic, one jar of Bullock's Nasal|Salve, one box of Bullock's Clear Head Tablets, one vial of Sneeze-It, and one|bottle each of King Cold Knockout, Ear Oil, Special Sea Salt, and Bullock's|Antiseptic Emollient, and a device which included a nasal atomizer of the common|variety, an aluminum can with hose connection for irrigating the sinus, a measur-|ing cup, and a thermometer.|On August 19, 1942, the United States attorney for the District of Columbia|filed an information against Henry Spangler, trading as National Laboratories,|Inc., Washington, D. C, alleging shipment within the period from on or about|January 1 to March 1, 1941, from the District of Columbia into the State of|Maryland of the above-described products which were misbranded, and portions|of which were adulterated.|Analysis of the Antiseptic Healing and Cleansing Tonic showed that it con-|sisted essentially of sodium bicarbonate, sodium chloride, and a small proportion|of potassium iodide. Bacteriological examination showed that the article failed|to kill Staphylococcus aureus at 37? C. and 45? C. in the concentration recom-|mended (1 heaping tablespoonful in 2 quarts of water), or in 10 times that|concentration.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements in the labeling|which represented that when used singly or with the device the article was an|antiseptic and a healing and cleansing tonic for the nasal cavities; that it was a|safe and efficacious treatment of both chronic and acute cases of nasal sinus and|catarrhal infection; that it would reduce the inflammation of the membrane and|tissue of the nasal cavities; that it would soothe, heal, and refresh the nasal|cavities in cases of sinus infection; that it would give-strength to the eyes and|eyesight; that it would be efficacious in the treatment of hay fever and chronic|head colds, and in the treatment of the membrane tissue of the bowel and colon;|that it would keep the head cavities clear of mucus and poisonous secretions; that,|when weakened as directed, it would be efficacious in the treatment of nasal|diseases in persons who have had nasal operations or where the tissues are|particularly sensitive; that it would be efficacious in the treatment of the dry|form of catarrh and of acid catarrh, and thereby remove the cause of sores in|the cavity regions, especially in the nostrils; that it would be invaluable in the|treatment of colds and would control the common cold completely; that its use|would avoid suffering, save time and obviate costly operations, clear up infec-|tion, reduce inflammation, heal irritation, antisepticize the infected part, remove|foul pus, mucus, and secretions, and sterilize the infected and diseased parts; that|it would automatically cause inflammation of the membrane to subside, and|remove obstructions from the mouth of the sinuses and produce a normal drain-|age ; that it would produce immediate relief in cases of acute attacks of sinus and|would cure chronic sinus and prevent blindness and deafness by curing sinus|diseases; that the article was a complete cure for colds in the head, and would|save human life, improve the hearing and promote sleep; that it was a per-|manent cure for sinus diseases and headaches, would remove from the system|poisons caused by sinus infections, and would prevent pneumonia and other|serious ills, were false and misleading since it was not an antiseptic and would|not accomplish the results claimed.|The article was alleged to be misbranded further in that it was in package|form and its label failed to bear an accurate statement of the quantity of contents.|The Antiseptic Healing and Cleansing Tonic was also alleged to be adulterated|in that its strength differed from and its quality fell below that which it purported|and was represented to possess, since it was represented to be an antiseptic,|whereas it was not an antiseptic within the meaning of the law in that it was|not a germicide when used in the dilutions recommended in the labeling thereof,|and did not purport to be, and was not represented as, an antiseptic for inhibitory|use as a wet dressing, ointment, dusting powder, or such other use as involves|prolonged contact with the body.|Analysis of the Antiseptic Emollient showed that it consisted essentially of|hexylresorcinol, glycerine, and water colored with a green dye. Bacteriological|examination showed that the article was not antiseptic and germicidal. It was|alleged to be misbranded in that the statements in the labeling which represented|that when, used singly or with the device it was an antiseptic and germicide|and would be efficacious in the cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of nasal|sinus were false and misleading, since it was not an antiseptic or germicide|and would not be efficacious for the said purpose.|Analysis of the Nasal Salve showed that it consisted essentially of menthol|and camphor incorporated in a base of white petrolatum. It was alleged to be|misbranded in that the statements appearing in its labeling which represented|and suggested that it was efficacious in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or pre-|vention of nasal sinus, and would protect the membrane and tissue from irrita-|tion ; that it had healing qualities and was efficacious in the treatment of the|dry form of catarrh, stubborn cases of catarrh and acid catarrh that cause sores|in a cavity region; and that it was efficacious in clearing the walls of the throat|of tight clinging secretion and in clearing blocked eustachian tubes were false|and misleading since it would not be efficacious for the purposes represented.|Analysis of the Clear Head Tablets showed that they contained acetanilid 0.90|grain per tablet, sodium salicylate, quinine hydrochloride, and cascara sagrada.|They were alleged to be misbranded in that the statements appearing in their|labeling which represented and suggested that the tablets were efficacious in|the cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of feverish condition, temperature,|headaches, and severe pain resulting from sinus infection, and would provide|quick relief in cases of severe sinus pains and headaches were false and misleading|since they were not efficacious for such purposes, and would not provide a quick|relief in such cases. They were alleged to be misbranded further in that their|labeling failed to bear adequate directions for use since the directions upon the|label did not provide for any limitation as to the quantity of the tablets to be|administered; and in that their label failed to bear adequate warnings against|use by children, or in those pathological conditions wherein their use might be|dangerous to health, or against unsafe dosage or duration of administration,|in such manner and form as are necessary for the protection of users since, by|reason of the presence of acetanilid in the tablets, frequent or continuous use|might be dangerous, causing serious blood disturbances, anemia, collapse, or a|dependence on the tablets, and not more than the recommended dosage should be|taken, and they should not be given to children.|Analysis \"\"of the King Cold Knockout showed that it consisted essentially of|sodium bicarbonate, alcohol, and oil of peppermint. It was alleged to be mis-|branded in that the statements appearing in its labeling which represented and|suggested that it was efficacious in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention|of common colds; that it would dissolve congestion due to common colds by|chemical reaction through the chemistry of the body; that it was harmless to|the system and would neutralize cold congestion and thereby avoid acute attacks|of sinus were false and misleading since it was not harmless to the system and|would not be efficacious for such purposes. It was alleged to be misbranded fur-|ther in that it was not designated solely by a name recognized in an official|compendium, and that it was fabricated from two or more ingredients and its|label failed to bear a statement of the quantity or proportion of alcohol con-|tained in the article.|Analysis of the Ear Oil showed that it consisted essentially of menthol and|camphor in a solution of olive oil. It was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that|the statements appearing in the labeling which represented and suggested that|it would be a safe and effective treatment for ear trouble resulting from sinus|or catarrhal infection were false and misleading since it would not be a safe|and effective treatment for such purpose; and (2) in that its label failed to|bear an accurate statement of the quantity of the contents of the article.|Analysis of the Special Sea Salt showed that it consisted essentially of ap-|proximately 95 percent of sodium chloride and slightly more than^l percent of|potassium iodide. It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements|appearing in its labeling which represented and suggested that it would be|efficacious in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of sinus and catarrh|if used as directed, and would be a valuable assistant in connection with the|treatment of chronic sinus and hay-fever were false and misleading since it|would not be efficacious or a valuable assistant for the purposes recommended.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that it was in package form and|its label failed to bear an accurate statement of the quantity of contents.|Analysis of the Sneeze-It showed that it consisted essentially of camphor and|ground-up plant material such as ginger or capsicum. It was alleged to be|misbranded in that the statements appearing in its labeling which represented|and suggested that it would create normal functioning of the membrane tissue,|would aid to throw off disease, would aid in obtaining speedy results in stubborn|and obstinate cases of sinus trouble, and would assist in removing congestion|were false and misleading since it would not be efficacious for such purposes. It|was alleged to be misbranded further (1) in that it was in package form and|its label failed to bear the name and place of business of the manufacturer,|packer, or distributor; and (2) its label failed to bear an accurate statement|of the quantity of the contents.|The antiseptic Healing and Cleansing Tonic, Antiseptic Emollient, Clear Head|Cold Tablets, Ear Oil, Special Sea Salt and Sneeze-It were alleged to be mis-|branded further Jn that they were not designated solely by names recognized|in an official compendium, and each was fabricated from two or more ingredients|and the label of each failed to bear the common or usual names of the active|ingredients and, in the case of the Clear Head Cold Tablets, failed to bear|a statement of the quantity or proportion of acetanilid present.|The device was alleged to be misbranded in that it was dangerous to health|when used in the dosage or with the frequency or duration prescribed, recom-|mended, or suggested in the labeling thereof, particularly the labeling for|Bullock's Antiseptic Healing and Cleansing Tonic, and the statements contained|in the circular entitled \"\"Directions for use of Bullock's System Home Treatment.\"\"|On January 12, 1943, the defendant having changed his original plea of not|guilty to a plea of nolo contendere, the court imposed a sentence of 180 days|in jail, which was suspended on condition that the defendant was not then|selling and would not again engage in the sale of the articles and the device|complained of in- the information.|909. Misbranding of Dr. Peter's Kuriko. U. S. v. Dr. Peter Fahrney & Sons Co. Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $250.ddnj00909October 1944Dr. Peter Fahrney & Sons Co., a corporation, Chicago, Ill.Dr. Peter's KurikoMay 15, 1941WashingtonIllinoisWashingtonNorthern District of Illinois909F. D. C. No. 6435. Sample No. 60224-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00909ddnj|909. Misbranding of Dr. Peter's Kurlko. U. S. v. Dr. Peter Fahrney & Sons Co.|Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $250. (F. D. C. No. 6435. Sample No.|60224-E.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading therapeutic claims and|failed to give adequate directions and warnings for use.|On May 12, 1942, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Illinois filed an information against Dr. Peter Fahrney & Sons Co., a corporation,|Chicago, 111., alleging shipment on or about May 15, 1941, from the State of|Illinois into the State of Washington of a quantity of a drug, known as Dr.|Peter's Kuriko, which was misbranded.|Analysis showed that this drug consisted of a brown liquid containing chiefly|plant extractives, emodin-bearing drugs, sugars, water, and alcohol.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements regarding|its efficacy in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease appearing|in the labeling were false and misleading since they represented and suggested|that the article was a stomachic and would be efficacious in strengthening the|stomach or stimulating its action; that it was a diuretic; that it was efficacious|in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of nervousness, indigestion, and|upset stomach, headaches, loss of sleep and appetite, and common colds; that it|would produce an excellent effect upon the general state of health and would|help the body eliminate waste products by way of the kidneys; that it would|aid digestion in the stomach and intestines and thus prepare all foods for use|in the body; that it would aid digestion in the intestines by preventing faulty,|elimination and thus help the entire digestive function, and would remove waste|products from the blood and from the tissues of the body; that the drug was|efficacious in the cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of a general feeling|of poor health; that it would act on the bowels without griping or purging, and|would effectively remove gas and irritating waste matter from the stomach;|that it was essential to good health; that it would prevent the many disorders|?which arise from constipation, such as headache, malaise, nervousness, irritabil-|ity, and loss of appetite; that it would prevent nervous conditions caused by|distress signals arising from the nerve endings in the lower bowel; that it would|prevent the serious illnesses resulting from common colds by preventing a|run-down condition caused by faulty elimination; that it was efficacious in the|cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of nervousness and weakness follow-|ing a surgical operation; and that it would improve the appetite, cure nervous|indigestion, promote sleep, aid the stomach to function, and regulate the bowels,|whereas the article was not a stomachic nor a diuretic, and it was not essential|to good health and would not be efficacious, with respect to the other matters|as described above.|The article was alleged to be misbranded further in that the label failed to bear|adequate directions for its use since the directions did not provide a limitation|for the duration of its administration; and in that the label failed (1) to warn|that the article should not be taken when suffering from nausea, vomiting,|abdominal pain, or other symptoms of appendicitis, and (2) that the frequent|or continued use of the article might result in dependence upon a laxative and, by|reason thereof, the label did not bear such adequate warnings against use in|those pathological conditions wherein its use might be dangerous to health, or|against unsafe dosage or methods or duration of administration, in such manner|and form as are necessary for the protection of users.|605900-44 2|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that certain information required|by law to appear in the labeling was not properly placed thereon in such terms|as to render it likely to be read and understood by the ordinary individual under|customary conditions of purchase and use, since the label contained representa-|tions in foreign languages and did not bear in such foreign languages adequate|directions or warnings.|On December 1, 1942, the defendant having changed its original plea of not|guilty to a plea of nolo contendere, the court imposed a fine of $250 without costs.|910. Adulteration and misbranding of Ridia and misbranding of Sa-Lax. U. S. v. Crawford Foods, Inc., and Harry A. Crawford. Pleas of nolo contendere. Sentences suspended. Defendants placed on probation for 2 years.ddnj00910October 1944Crawford Foods, Inc., Eagle Rock, Calif., and Harry A. CrawfordRidia; Sa-LaxJuly 26, 1940, to January 12, 1941Arizona, WashingtonCaliforniaArizona, WashingtonSouthern District of California910F. D. C. No. 7232. Sample Nos. 32621-E, 32622-E, 55392-E, 55743-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00910ddnj|910. Adulteration and misbranding of Ridia and misbranding of Sa-Lax. U. S. v.|Crawford Foods, Inc., and Harry A. Crawford. Pleas of nolo contendere.|Sentences suspended. Defendants placed on probation for 2 years. (F. D.|C. No. 7232. Sample Nos. 32621-E, 32622-E, 55392-E, 55743-E.)|On August 3, 1942, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|California filed an information against Crawford Foods, Inc., Eagle Rock, Calif.,|and Harry A. Crawford, alleging shipment within the period from on or about|July 26, 1940, to January 12, 1941, from the State of California into the States|of Arizona, Washington, and Oregon,' of a quantity of Ridia which was mis-|branded, and a portion of which was also adulterated, and a quantity of Sa-Lax|which was misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of Ridia showed that it consisted of tablets containing|material derived from plant sources, including alfalfa and a species of mint-|leaf. Portions of the article were alleged to be adulterated in that its strength|differed from and its quality fell below that which it purported and was repre-|sented to possess, since the following statements appearing in a folder entitled,|\"\"The Health Chronicle Nature's Printed Guide\"\, issued by the defendant, \"\"I|then was able to produce club-root in a tablet form so that each tablet contained|a potency equal to two insulin units. * * * Commercially the product will|be known as RIDIA and will be distributed exclusively by Crawford Foods, Inc.,|2775 Broadway, Eagle Rock, California,\"\" purported and represented that each|tablet of the article possessed a potency equal to two insulin units, whereas each|tablet of the article did not possess a potency equal to two insulin units.|All shipments of the Ridia were alleged to be misbranded in that certain|statements in the labeling regarding its efficacy in the cure, mitigation, treatment,|or prevention of disease were false and misleading since they represented and|suggested that the article, when taken as directed and in accordance with the|supplementary needs of the diet, would supply supplementary food for diabetics|and would act as a food adjuvant to diets regularly prescribed for persons suffer-|ing from diabetes, whereas it would not be efficacious for such purposes.|It was also alleged in the information that the Ridia was a new drug with|respect to which no application was effective.|Analysis of a sample of theJ3a-Lax showed that it consisted essentially of dried|plant materials, including rhubarb root, senna, Irish moss, okra, leafy materials|such as parsley, and traces of peanut hulls.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, \"\"The active principles|in this formula are parsley and asparagus. Parsley and asparagus appear to|maintain a higher alkalinity through the intestine and into the colon than do|other vegetables of higher initial alkaline content,\"\" and certain statements re-|garding the efficacy of the article in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or preven-|tion of disease, borne on the label, were false and misleading in that they repre-|sented and suggested that the active ingredients in the article were parsley and|asparagus; that parsley and asparagus would maintain a higher alkalinity|throughout the intestine and into the colon than do other vegetables of higher|initial alkaline content; that it would minimize the alkaline demand upon the liver,|that the article would conserve the alkaline demand upon the liver and would fa-|cilitate the liver's fabrication and secretion of a more alkaline or normal bile,|which would thereby result in more complete digestion, minimized fermentation,|and lowered putrefaction within the colon itself, whereas parsley and asparagus|were not active ingredients, and parsley and asparagus would not maintain a|higher alkalinity through the intestine and into the colon than do other vegetables|of higher initial alkaline content, and the article would not be efficacious for|the purposes claimed.|The Sa-Lax was alleged to be misbranded further in that its label failed to bear|adequate directions for use since the directions appearing on the label, \"\"The|dosage of Crawford's Sa-Lax must be determined by the severity of the case. The|adult dosage suggested is two tablets upon retiring, to be increased to one tablet|four times per day, with meals and upon retiring in the more severe cases. Chil-|dren in proportion to age,\"\" suggested continued use of the article, whereas it was|a laxative and should not be used continuously.|The Sa-Lax was alleged to be misbranded further in that its label failed to|bear such adequate warnings against use in those pathological conditions wherein|its use might be dangerous to health, or against unsafe dosage or methods or|duration of administration, in such manner and form as are necessary for the|protection of users, since the product contained laxative drugs and therefore|should not be used when abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, or other symptoms of|appendicitis are present; and that frequent or continued use of the article might|result in dependence on laxatives.|The Ridia was alleged to be misbranded further under the provisions of the|law applicable to foods reported in food notices of judgment.|On November 9, 1942, pleas of nolo contendere having been entered, imposition|of sentence was suspended as to both defendants and they were placed on 2|years' probation on each count, to run concurrently.|911. Adulteration and misbranding of salvaged drugs. U. S. v. 50 Cases of foods and Drugs. Consent decree of condemnation. Products released under bond for segregation and destruction of unfit portion.ddnj00911October 1944Dobson and Co.salvaged drugsApril 16, 1942Roanoke, Va.Rutherfordton, N. C.Roanoke, Va.Western District of Virginia911F. D. C. No. 7780. Sample Nos. 59789-E to 59800-E, incl. , 78301-E, 78302-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00911ddnj|911. Adulteration and misbranding of salvaged drugs. TJ. S. v. 50 Cases of foods|and Drugs. Consent decree of condemnation. Products released under|bond for segregation and destruction of unfit portion. (F. D. C. No. 7780.|Sample Nos. 59789-E to 59800-E, incl., 78301-E, 78302-E.)|These products consisted of approximately 2,500 pounds of fire- and water-|damaged and otherwise deteriorated salvaged drug store stock, and included,|among other things, baby foods, patent medicines, surgical dressings, and vita-|min capsules.|On June 23, 1942, the United States attorney for the Western District of|Virginia filed a libel against 50 cases of foods and drugs at Roanoke, Va., alleging|that the articles kad been shipped in interstate commerce on or about April 16,|1942, from Rutherford ton, N. O., by Dobson and Co.; and charging that the drug|items were adulterated and misbranded.|The drug items were alleged to be adulterated in that water and smoke had|been mixed therewith so as to reduce their quality.|They were alleged to be misbranded (1) in that the labeling of some of the items|contained statements regarding the curative or therapeutic effects of the articles|which were false and misleading; (2) in that some of the drugs and merchandise|failed to bear labels containing an accurate statement of the quantity of contents|of the packages; (3) in that the labels of some of the items did not bear the|common or usual name of each active ingredient of the articles; and (4) in that|the labeling of some of the items did not bear such adequate Warnings against|use in those pathological conditions wherein their use might be dangerous to|health, or against unsafe dosage or duration of administration, in such manner|and form as are necessary for the protection of users.|On September 2, 1942, Dobson and Co., claimant, having admitted the allega-|tions of the libel, judgment of condemnation was entered and the food and drugs|which had been seized were ordered released under bond for segregation and|destruction of the unfit portion under the supervision of the Food and Drug|Administration.|961. Adulteration of Dr. Fenton's Necrocide Special Prescription No. 2 and misbranding of Dr. Fenton's Nenmoade Special Prescription No. X, Special Prescription No. 4, Diarrhostringent Special Prescription No. 8, Special Prescription No. 11, and Ovotone. U. S. v. Lois Swarzentruber and Venita Smith (Dr. Fenton's Vigortone Co.). Pleas of guilty. Fines, $100 and costs.ddnj00961November 1944Lois Swarzentruber and Venita Smith, trading as Dr. Fenton's Vigortone Co., Cedar Rapids, IowaDr. Fenton's Necrocide Special Prescription No. 2; Dr. Fenton's Nenmoade Special Prescription No. X, Special Prescription No. 4, Diarrhostringent Special Prescription No. 8, Special Prescription No. 11, and OvotoneJanuary 7 and 20, and February 18, 1941MinnesotaIowaMinnesotaNorthern District of Iowa961F. D. C. No. 6473. Sample Nos. 38909-E, 38910-E, 38919-E, 5S422-E, 58423-E, 58425-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00961ddnj|961. Adulteration of Dr. Fenton's Necrocide Special Prescription No. 2 and mis-|branding: of Dr. Fenton's Nenmoade Special Prescription No. X, Special|Prescription No. 4, Diarrhostringent Special Prescription No. 8, Special|Prescription No. 11, and Ovotone. U. S. v. Lois Swarzentruber and Venita|' Smith (Dr. Fenton's Vigortone Co.). Pleas of guilty. Fines, $100 and|costs. (F. D. C. No. 6473. Sample Nos. 38909-E, 38910-B, 38919-E, 5S422-E,|58423-E, 58425-E.)|Dr. Fenton's Necrocide Special Prescription No. 2 exceeded its own declared|standard of strength. The labeling of the other veterinary products here in-|volved bore false and misleading therapeutic claims and, with the exception of|Dr. Fenton's Neumoade Special Prescription No. 1, failed to give the common|or usual names of the active ingredients. Dr. Fenton's Neumoade Special Pre-|scription No. 1 and Diarrhostringent Special Prescription No. 8 did not bear|proper statements on their labels in regard to the quantity o? contents.|On April 12, 1943, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Iowa filed an information against Lois Swarzentruber and Venita Smith, trading|as Dr. Fenton's Vigortone Co., Cedar Rapids, Iowa, alleging shipments on or|about January 7 and 20, and February 18, 1941, from the State of Iowa into|the State of Minnesota of various quantities of the above-named drugs, one of|which, the \"\"Dr. Fenton's Necrocide Special Prescription No. 2,\"\" was adulterated|and the remainder of which were misbranded.|Analysis of the Neumoade Special Prescription No. 1 showed that it consisted|essentially of copper sulfate, Epsom salt, naphthalene, small proportions of|iodide, chromate, silica compounds and plant material including capsicum and|anise.|? It was alleged to be misbranded in that certain statements appearing in its|labeling which represented and suggested that, when used as directed, it was|an antiseptic, antiferment, expectorant, resolvent, antipyretic, alterative, and|sedative, were false and misleading since, when used as directed, it was not an|antiseptic, antiferment, expectorant, resolvent, antipyretic, alterative, or seda-|tive. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the label affixed to|its container failed to bear a statement of the quantity of the contents of the|container in terms of weight, measure, or numerical count.|Analysis of the Necrocide Special Prescription No. 2 showed that it con-|tained not less than 50.6 percent of copper sulfate in addition to Epsom salt,|small proportions of methylene blue, plant material including capsicum, an|iodide, and a dichromate compound.|It was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from that which|it purported and was represented to possess since it was represented to contain|not more than 25 percent of copper sulfate, whereas it contained not less than|50.6 percent of copper sulfate.|Analysis of the Special Prescription No. 4 showed that it consisted essentially|of Epsom salt, copper sulfate (5.36 percent, sodium chromate, charcoal, and|plant material including capsicum and anise.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that certain statements appearing in its|labeling which represented and suggested that, when used as directed, it was|a heart stimulant, a stomachic, an alterative, a resolvent, a deobstruent, and|a diuretic; that another drug, \"\"Dr. Fenton's Santonin Powder No. 7,\"\" would|be efficacious in the removal of large and small roundworms infesting the|stomach and small intestines of hogs and pigs; and that another drug, \"\"Vigor-|tone,\"\" would increase the vigor and tone of the system, were false and mislead-|ing since the drug, when used as directed, was not a heart stimulant or a|stomachic, alterative, resolvent, deobstruent, or diuretic, and the other drugs|named would not be efficacious for the purposes claimed.|Analysis of the Diarrhostringent Special Prescription No. 8 showed that it|consisted essentially of charcoal, carbonate salt, brownish water-soluble organic|material, copper sulfate 0.93 percent, and a small proportion of Epsom salt.|?See also Nos. 953, 964.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that certain statements in its labeling|which represented and \"\"Suggested that, whei} mixed with feed as directed and|when administered together with another drug, \"\"Dr. Fen ton's Health Pep,\"\" it|would act as a tonic and would tone up the system of poultry and would act as|a diarrhostringent, that is, an astringent in diarrhea of poultry,' were false and|misleading since it would not be efficacious for such purposes. It was alleged|to be misbranded further in that it was in package form and its label failed to|bear an accurate statement of the quantity of the contents.|Analysis of Special Prescription No. 11 showed that it was in the form of|tablets which contained copper sulfate and mercuric chloride, approximately 2-|grains of each ingredient per tablet.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that certain statements in its labeling|which represented and suggested that, when used as directed, it would be|efficacious in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of some bowel affec-|tions in poultry; that it would act as an intestinal antiseptic, a stimulant, a|vermifuge, an hepatic stimulant, and as an alterative, and that another drug,|\"\"Vigortone,\"\" would increase the ,vigor and tone of the system, were false and|misleading since it and the other drug named would not be efficacious for the|purposes claimed.|Analysis of the Ovotone showed that it consisted essentially of sodium sul-|fate,, salt, sulfur, calcium carbonate, copper sulfate, small proportions of iron|oxide, Epsom salt, and plant material, including tobacco and anise.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that certain statements in its labeling|which represented and suggested that it was efficacious in the prevention or|removal of stomach worms in sheep and of large, small, and roundworms in|sheep, and that another drug, \"\"Vigortone,\"\" would increase the vigor and tone of|the system, were false and misleading since it and the other drug named would|not be efficacious for the purposes claimed.|The Special Prescription No. 4, Diarrhostringent Special Prescription No. 8,|Special Prescription No. 11, and Ovotone, were alleged to be misbranded further|in that they were not designated solely by names recognized in an official|compendium and were fabricated from two or more ingredients and their labels|failed to bear statements of the common or usual name of each active ingredient|thereof.|On April 12, 1943, the defendants having entered pleas of guilty, the court|imposed a fine of $50 and costs upon each of the 2 defendants.|4336. Misbranding of Massarelli's Salnate tablets. U. S. v. 6 Dozen Cartoned Bottles.ddnj04336March 1955Manhattan Drug Co., Inc., from Brooklyn, N. Y.Massarelli's Salnate tabletsJanuary 3, 1953Bayonne, N.J.Brooklyn, N. Y.Bayonne, N.J.District of New Jersey.4336F. D. C. No. 34669. Sample No. 51391-L.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj04336ddnj|4336. Misbranding of Massarelli's Salnate tablets. U. S. v. 6 Dozen Cartoned|Bottles * * *. (F. D. 0. No. 34669. Sample No. 51391-L.)|LIBEL FILED : February 17,1953, District of New Jersey.|ALLEGED SHIPMENT : On or about January 3,1953, by Manhattan Drug Co., Inc.,|from Brooklyn, N. Y.|PRODUCT: 6 dozen cartoned bottles of Massarelli's Salnate tablets at Bayonne,|N.J.|LABEL, IN PART: (Carton and bottle) \"\"Massarelli's Salnate For Relief of|Symptoms Arthritis Rheumatism Active Ingredients: Calcium Succinate|Acetylsalicylic Acid Ascorbic Acid 5 mg. Thiamin Chloride 1 mg. * * *|100 Tablets.\"\"|NATURE OF CHARGE: Misbranding, Section 502 (a), certain statements on the|bottle label, the bottle carton, and on a counter display box were false and|misleading. The statements represented and suggested that the article was an|adequate and effective treatment for arthritis, rheumatism and lumbago.|Further misbranding, Section 502 (e) (2), the article was fabricated from|two or more ingredients, and its label failed to bear the common or usual name|of each active ingredient since aspirin was an active ingredient of the article|and was declared as acetylsalicylic acid, which is not its common or usual|name.|DISPOSITION: Manhattan Drug Co., Inc., appeared as claimant and filed an|answer denying the allegations of the libel. A request for answers to written|interrogatories thereafter was served by the Government upon the claimant.|The claimant failed to object or respond to such interrogatories within the time|provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, on March 8,|1954, the court ordered that the Government's motion to strike the claimant's|pleadings be granted. On the same day, namely, March 8, 1954, the court|entered a decree of condemnation and ordered that the product be destroyed.|912. Misbranding of Analgesic Balm. U. S. v. 11 3/4 Dozen Packages of Analgesic Balm. Default decree of condemnation. Product ordered delivered to a charitable institution.ddnj00912October 1944Harris Chemical CorporationAnalgesic BalmAugust 23 and November 10, 1941Irvington, N. J.New York, N. Y.Irvington, N. J.District of New Jersey912F. D. C. No. 6728. Sample No. 74177-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00912ddnj|912. Misbranding of Analgesic Balm. U. S. v. 11% Dozen Packages of Analgesic|Balm. Default decree of condemnation. Product ordered delivered to a|charitable institution. (F. D. C. No. 6728. Sample No. 74177-E.)|On January 19,1942, the United States attorney for the District of New Jersey|filed a libel against 11? dozen packages of Analgesic Balm at Irvington, N. J.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|August 23 and November 10, 1941, by the Harris Chemical Corporation from|New York, N. Y.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of|volatile oils such as methyl salicylate, camphor, and menthol, incorporated in a|base composed of a mixture of petroleum derivatives, and lanolin.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that its labeling failed to bear|adequate directions for use, i. e., the labeling bore no directions for use.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the following statements in the|labeling: (Display carton) \"\"Relieves Cold and Rheumatic Pains, Neuralgia,|Simple Colds,\"\" (retail carton) \"\"For the Relief of * * * Bronchial Irrita-|tion,\"\" and (tube label) \"\"For the Relief of Rheumatism, Neuralgia, Gout, Head-|ache, etc.,\"\" were false and misleading since the product was merely a counter-|irritant and would not be capable of producing the effects implied or claimed in|the labeling.|On July 14, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered delivered to a charitable institution after|its labeling had been destroyed.|913. Misbranding of Ocean-Lax. U. S. v. 29 Bottles of Ocean-Lax. Decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00913October 1944removal. The Eastern District of Pennsylvania is a district of 'reasonable proximityOcean-LaxJuly 3 to August 11, 1941Philadelphia, Pa.Baltimore, Md.Philadelphia, Pa.Eastern District of Pennsylvania913F. D. C. No. 6368. Sample Nos. 40885-E, 40886-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00913ddnj|913. Misbranding of Ocean-Lax. XT. S. v. 29 Bottles of Ocean-Lax. Decree of|condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 6368. Sample Nos. 40885-E,|40886-E.)|On December 6, 1941, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Pennsylvania filed a libel against 29 bottles of Ocean-Lax at Philadelphia, Pa.,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce within the period|from on or about July 3 to August 11, 1941, by the Mineralized Foods, Inc., from|Baltimore, Md.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis of the article showed that it consisted essentially of senna pods,|purging cassia, rhubarb root, sea weed, and mint leaves. It contained a total|mineral matter of 0.18 grain per tablet and total iodine of 0.4 milligram per tablet.|The article was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that its labeling failed to|bear adequate directions for use since the directions on the label, \"\"If necessary|1 to 2 Ocean-Lax Tablets before or after each meal and before retiring, with|water or fruit juice, preferably unsweetened grapefruit juice, at least ? glassful.|Increase or decrease intake to meet individual requirements. For children over|4 years reduce intake to ? or less,\"\" did not constitute appropriate directions for|use of this laxative drug, since they provided for frequent and continued use|which might result in injury to the consumer by establishing dependence upon|laxatives to move the bowels; (2) in that the statement \"\"Bach Ocean-Lax Tablet|averages approximately 1? milligrams of natural organic food iodine,\"\" borne on|the label, was false and misleading since each tablet contained only 0.4 milligram|of iodine; (3) in that the designation \"\"Ocean Lax,\"\" borne*<m the label, was|false and misleading since the laxative ingredients in the article, senna pods,|purging cassia, and rhubarb root, are not obtained from the ocean; (4) in that|the statements on the label, \"\"More Than A Laxative. Mineralized With Imported|Sea Plants. Consists of an imported rare variety of Sea Vegetables, high in|alkalinity and food minerals carefully blended with Senna Fruit, Peppermint|Leaves, ripe fruits of Cassia Fistula and Chinese Ehubarb, U. S. P.,\"\" were false|and misleading because the alkalinity of the article and the amount of minerals|supplied by it were inconsequential, and because the label failed to reveal the|material fact that sea plants and peppermint leaves do not contribute in a|material respect to the effects of the article; and (5) in that the common or|usual name of each active ingredient, required by law to appear upon the label,|did not appear prominently placed thereon and in such terms as to render it|likely to be understood by the ordinary individual under customary conditions|of purchase and use, since the label did not show that the only active ingredients|in the preparation were senna pods, purging cassia, and rhubarb root.|The libel alleged that the article was also adulterated and misbranded under|the provisions of the law applicable to foods, reported in food notices of judgment.|On March 4,1942, the Mineralized Foods, Inc., claimant, having filed an answer|denying the adulteration and misbranding charges in the libel, and having filed|a motion for removal of the proceedings to the District of Maryland in which|District the claimant had its principal place of business, the court denied such|motion, handing down the following opinion:|MOOBE, District Judge: \"\"This is a suit by the United States of America under|the Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act of June 25th, 1938, to condemn twenty-nine|bottles more or less of a product called \"\"Ocean-Lax.\"\" The libel charges adultera-|tion and misbranding. The articles were seized in the city of Philadelphia, in|the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in the hands of Thomas Martindale and|Company, and are still in this District.|\"\"Motion has been filed by Mineralized Foods, Inc., claimant of the products|seized, for an order to remove the case for trial to the District Court of the|United States for the District of Maryland. The ground for the motion is that|the claimant, Mineralized Foods, Inc., is a corporation having its principal place|of business in the city of Baltimore, Maryland. The claimant relies upon the|provisions of the act set out in Section 394 (a) (21 U. S. C. A. sec. 334) of which|the pertinent portion is as follows: 'In any case where the number of libel for|condemnation proceedings is limited as above provided the proceeding pending|or instituted shall, on application of the claimant, seasonably made, be removed|for trial to any district agreed upon by stipulation between the parties, or, in|case of failure to so stipulate within a reasonable time, the claimant may apply|to the court of the district in which the seizure has been made, and such court|(after giving the United States Attorney for such district reasonable notice and|opportunity to be heard) shall by order, unless good cause to the contrary is|shown, specify a district of reasonable proximity to the claimant's principal|place of business, to which the case shall be removed for trial.'|\"\"It is contended by the claimant that because its place of business is located|in the District of Maryland and because the act provides that unless good|cause to the contrary is shown by the Government it is entitled to have the|Court specify a Court of 'reasonable proximity' to its principal place of busi-|ness as the place of trial, it therefore necessarily follows that a removal order|should be entered, and that the District Court for the District of Maryland is|the proper place to which the case should be removed. The Government con-|tends on the other hand that a proper interpretation of the Act, particularly|in view of its legislative history, does not permit the Court to remove the case|to the district of claimant's residence; in other words that the term 'reasonable|proximity' must be held to exclude the claimant's own district.|\"\"I do not find it necessary to decide this point in passing upon the motion.|The parties having failed to stipulate with reference to any district to which|the case should be removed, the Court's duty is to specify a district of 'reason-|able proximity' unless good cause to the contrary is shown. I am of the opinion|that whenever it appears that the seizure has been made and the libel filed|in a district which is itself of 'reasonable proximity' to the claimant's principal|place of business, that fact alone constitutes good cause against removal. The|Eastern District of Pennsylvania is a district of 'reasonable proximity' to the|claimant's principal place of business. The District Court for that district|sits in the city of Philadelphia which is approximately one hundred miles dis-|tant from claimant's principal place of business. It is imposing no hardship|upon the claimant in this instance to require the case to be tried in the district|where the libel is filed. It appears that the seized products are situated in|this district and were in the hands of a person other than the claimant when|seized; and it is further stated by the Government that many of the witnesses|are in this district.|\"\"Claimant's motion will be denied. An order may be prepared and entered|in accordance with this opinion.\"\"|On January 7, 1943, the claimant having withdrawn its claim and answer,|judgment of condemnation was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|DRUGS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF CONTAMINATION WITH FILTH|914. Adulteration and misbranding of milk of magnesia, chloroform liniment, ammonia water, and saturated solution of boric acid. U. S. v. Frank C. Garlett (Lee Drug Sales Co.). Plea of nolo contendere. Fine. $250.ddnj00914October 1944Frank C. Garlett, trading as the Lee Drug Sales Co., Denver, Colo.milk of magnesia, chloroform liniment, ammonia water, and saturated solution of boric acidMarch 28, April 28, and June 3, 1941New Mexico and WyomingColoradoNew Mexico and WyomingDistrict of Colorado914F. D. C. No. 6458. Sample Nos. 65058-E, 65126-E, 65127-E, 65129-E, 65170-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00914ddnj|914. Adulteration and misbranding of milk of magnesia, chloroform liniment,|ammonia water, and saturated solution of boric acid. U. S. v. Frank C.|Garlett (Lee Drug Sales Co.). Plea of nolo contendere. Fine. $250.|(F. D. C. No. 6458. Sample Nos. 65058-E, 65126-E, 65127-E, 65129-E, 65170-E.)|These products were sold under names recognized in the United States Phar-|macopoeia or National Formulary, official compendiums, and differed in strength|and quality from the standard prescribed therein. The boric acid was also|contaminated, one lot with an oily substance and the other lot with mold.|On August 4, 1942, the United States attorney for the District of Colorado|filed an information against Frank C. Garlett, trading as the Lee Drug Sales|Co., Denver, Colo., alleging shipments on or about March 28, April 28, and|June 3, 1941, from the State of Colorado into the States of New Mexico and|Wyoming of quantities of the above-named drugs which were adulterated and|misbranded. The drugs were labeled in part: (Bottles) \"\"Garlett's Milk of|Magnesia * * * Distributed by D. W. Garlett Drug Stores Cheyenne, Wy-|oming,\"\" \"\"Lee's Saturated Solution of Boric Acid,\"\" \"\"Hytest * * * Chloro-|form Liniment,\"\" or \"\"Hytest * * * Ammonia Water\"\"; (tags attached to|bottles of liniment and ammonia) \"\"Distributed By Hytest Drug Co. Denver,|Colo.\"\"|The milk of magnesia was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to|be and was represented as a drug, the name of which is recognized in the United|States Pharmacopoeia, but its strength differed from and its. quality fell below|the standard set forth therein since it contained not more than 6.11 percent|of magnesium hydroxide, whereas the Pharmacopoeia provides that milk of|magnesia shall contain not less than 7 percent of magnesium hydroxide; and its|difference in strength and quality from the official standard was not plainly|stated on the label. It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement|\"\"Milk of Magnesia U. S. P.,\"\" appearing in its labeling, was false and misleading.|The chloroform liniment was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported|to be and was represented as a drug, the name of which is recognized in the|United States Pharmacopoeia, but its strength differed from and its quality fell|below the standard set forth therein since it contained not more than 38.1|percent of alcohol by volume, whereas the Pharmacopoeia provides that it shall|contain from 43 to 47 percent of alcohol by volume; and its difference in strength|and quality from the official standard was not plainly stated on the label.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement \"\"Chloroform Lini-|ment * * * Alcohol 45? to 47?,\"\" appearing in its labeling, was false and|misleading. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that it was in package|form, and did not bear a label containing an accurate statement of the quantity|of contents since the bottle label bore the statement \"\"One Pint,\"\" whereas the|bottle contained not more than 14.6 fluid ounces of the drug.|The ammonia water was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to be|and was represented as a drug, the name of which is recognized in the United|States Pharmacopoeia, but its strength differed from and its quality fell below|the standard set forth therein since it contained hot more than 7.54 grams|of ammonia per 100 cc, whereas the Pharmacopoeia provides that ammonia water|shall contain not less than 9 grams of ammonia per 100 cc.; and its difference|in strength and quality from the official standard was not plainly stated on the|label. It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement \"\"Ammonia Water|U. S. P.,\"\" appearing in its labeling, was false and misleading; and in that it was|in package form and its label failed to bear the name and place of business of the|manufacturer, packer, or distributor of such drug.|The saturated solution of boric acid was alleged to be adulterated in that it|consisted in whole or in part of a filthy substance; and in that it purported to be|and was represented as a drug, the name of which is recognized in the National|Formulary, but its strength differed from and its quality fell below the standard|set forth therein since one shipment of the drug contained not more than 3.1|grams of boric acid per 100 cc. and the other shipment contained not more than|3.75 grams per 100 cc, whereas the Formulary provides that solution of boric|acid, which is a synonym for saturated solution of boric acid, shall contain not|less than 4.25 grams of boric acid per 100 cc, and its difference in strength and|quality from such standard was not plainly stated on the label. This drug was|also alleged to be misbranded in that the statements appearing on its label|\"\"Saturated Solution of Boric Acid,\"\" and \"\"As an eye wash, use full strength in an|eye cup as often as necessary,\"\" were false and misleading since they represented|that the drug was a saturated solution of boric acid and that the drug would be|suitable for use as an eye wash, whereas it was not a saturated solution of boric|acid and it would not be suitable for use as an eye wash by reason of the fact|. that one shipment of the drug was contaminated with an oily substance and the|other shipment was contaminated with a moldy substance.|On February 25, 1943, the defendant having entered a plea of nolo contendere,|the court imposed a fine of $25 on each of the 10 counts, totaling $250.|915. Adulteration of Athlete's Isopropyl Alcohol Compound. U. S. v. The Spark'l Paulette Co., Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $1,000.ddnj00915October 1944Spark'l Paulette Co., Inc., Brooklyn, N. Y.Athlete's Isopropyl Alcohol CompoundApril 20, 1942PennsylvaniaNew YorkPennsylvaniaEastern District of New York915F. D. C. No. 7677. Sample No. 77201-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00915ddnj|915. Adulteration of Athlete's Isopropyl Alcohol Compound. V. S. v. The Spark'l|Paulette Co., Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $1,000. (F. D. C. No. 7677. Sam-|ple No. 77201-E.)|On April 3, 1943, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of New|York filed an information against the Spark'l Paulette Co., Inc., Brooklyn, N. Y.,|alleging shipment on or about April 20, 1942, from the State of New York into|the State of Pennsylvania of a quantity of Athlete's Isopropyl Alcohol Compound|which was adulterated.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it consisted in whole or in|part of a filthy substance by reason of the presence therein of rodent hairs, human|hairs, insect larvae, metal fragments, rust, and miscellaneous dirt. It was al-|leged to be adulterated further in that it had been prepared and packed under|insanitary conditions whereby it might have become contaminated with filth.|On April 22, 1943, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant and|the court imposed a fine of $1,000.|916. Adulteration of Isopropyl Alcohol Compound. U. S. v. 40 Dozen and 80 Dozen Bottles of Isopropyl Alcohol Compound. Decrees of condemnation. Product ordered sold to be used for industrial purposes.ddnj00916October 1944Spark'l Co.Isopropyl Alcohol CompoundMarch 5 and April 20, 1942Philadelphia, Pa.Brooklyn, N. Y.Philadelphia, Pa.Eastern District of Pennsylvania916F. D. C. Nos. 7471, 7498. Sample Nos. 77124-E, 77201-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00916ddnj|916. Adulteration of Isopropyl Alcohol Compound. TJ. S. v. 40 Dozen and 80|Dozen Bottles of Isopropyl Alcohol Compound. Decrees of condemnation.|Product ordered sold to be used for industrial purposes. (F. D. C. Nos.|7471, 7498. Sample Nos. 77124-E, 77201-E.)|Examination showed that this product was contaminated with filth in the|form of rodent hairs, human hairs, insect larvae, metal fragments, dust, and|miscellaneous dirt. Inspection of the factory premises revealed the existence|of very filthy conditions.|On May 6 and 13, 1942, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Pennsylvania filed libels against 120 dozen bottles of Isopropyl Alcohol Com-|pound at Philadelphia, Pa., alleging that the article had been shipped on or|about March 5 and April 20, 1942, from Brooklyn, N. Y., by the Spark'l Co.; and|charging that it was adulterated in that it was contaminated with filth, and in|that it had been prepared and packed under insanitary conditions whereby it|might have become contaminated with filth. The article was labeled in part:|\"\"Athlete's Isopropyl Alcohol Compound.\"\"|On April 2, 1943, no claimant having appeared, judgments of condemnation|were entered and the product was ordered destroyed. On June 7, 1943, amended|decrees were entered ordering the product to be sold on condition that it be|used only for industrial purposes.|DRUGS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF DEVIATION FROM OFFICIAL OR|OWN STANDARDS3|917. Adulteration and misbranding of digitalis tablets, misbranding of cascara compound tablets, alleged adulteration of cascara compound tablets, and alleged adulteration and misbranding of posterior pituitary solution. U. S. v. Buffalo Pharmacal Co., Inc., and Joseph H. Dotterweich. Counts charging adulteration of cascara compound tablets and adulteration and misbranding of posterior pituitary solution nolle prossed. Pleas of not guilty. Tried to the court and jury. Verdict of guilty as to the individual defendant; disagreement as to the corporate defendant. Fine, 500 on each of 3 counts against individual defendant; payment of fines on counts 2 and 3 suspended and the individual defendant placed on probation. Judgment reversed on appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals. Petition for Writ of Certiorari granted and decision rendered by Supreme Court reversing the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals.ddnj00917October 1944Buffalo Pharmacal Co., Inc., and Joseph H. Dotterweich, secretary and general manager of the corporationdigitalis tablets; cascara compound tablets; cascara compound tablets; posterior pituitary solutionOctober 2, 1939, and January 8, 1940Pennsylvania and OhioNew YorkPennsylvania and OhioWestern District of New York917F. D. C. Nos. 951, 2087. Sample Nos. 78710-D, 78786-D, 78814-D.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00917ddnj|917. Adulteration and misbranding- of digitalis tablets, misbranding- of cascara|compound tablets, alleged adulteration of cascara compound tablets, and|alleged adulteration and misbranding of posterior pituitary solution.|U. S. v. Buffalo Pharmacal Co., Inc., and Joseph H. Dotterweich. Counts|charging- adulteration of cascara compound tablets and adulteration and|misbranding of posterior pituitary solution nolle prossed. Pleas of not|guilty. Tried to the court and jury. Verdict of guilty as to the indi-|vidual defendant; disagreement as to the corporate defendant. Fine,|$500 on each of 3 counts against individual defendant; payment of fines|on counts 2 and 3 suspended and the individual defendant placed on pro-|bation. Judgment reversed on appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals.|Petition for Writ of Certiorari granted and decision rendered by Supreme|Court reversing the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals. (F. D. C.|Nos. 951, 2087. Sample Nos. 78710-D, 78786-D, 78814-D.)|On April 29 and August 5, 1940, the United States attorney for the Western|District of New York filed informations against the Buffalo Pharmacal Co., Inc.,|and Joseph H. Dotterweich, secretary and general manager of the corporation,|alleging shipment on or about October 2, 1939, and January 8, 1940, from the|State of New York into the States of Pennsylvania and Ohio of a quantity of|digitalis tablets which were adulterated and misbranded, a quantity of cascara|compound tablets which were misbranded and were alleged to be adulterated,|and a quantity of posterior pituitary solution which was alleged to be adulterated|and misbranded.|The digitalis tablets were alleged to be adulterated in that their strength|differed from and their purity or quality fell below that which they purported|or were represented to possess since each tablet was represented to possess a|potency of one U. S. P. digitalis unit, whereas each tablet possessed a potency of|not more than 0.48' U. S. P. digitalis unit per tablet. They were alleged to be|misbranded in that the statement, \"\"Tablets Digitalis iy2 Grs * * * One USP|Unit Represents (0.1 gram equals 1.543 grains) Powdered Digitalis,\"\" borne on|the label attached to the bottle containing the article, were false and misleading|in that the statements represented that each tablet possessed a potency of 1|U. S. P. digitalis unit, whereas each tablet did not possess such potency.|The cascara compound tablets were alleged to be misbranded in that the state-|ment, \"\"Tablets Cascara Compound * * * (Hinkle),\"\" borne on the bottle|label, was false and misleading since it purported and represented that the|article consisted of tablets of compound cascara (Hinkle), a drug the name|of which, i. e., \"\"Compound Pills of Cascara\"\" and \"\"Hinkle's Pills\"\" is recognized in|the National Formulary, whereas it did not consist of tablets of compound cascara|(Hinkle) since it contained strychnine sulfate, an ingredient which is not in-|cluded in the formula set forth as the standard for compound pills of cascara|(Hinkle's Pills) in the National Formulary, official at the time of the investiga-|3 See also Nos. 902, 908, 910. 914.|tion of the article. The Tablets Cascara Compound were also alleged to be|adulterated on the ground that their strength and quality differed from the|standard set forth in the National Formulary for Compressed Pills of Cascara,|and Hinkle's Pills.|Adulteration and misbranding was also charged against a shipment of \"\"Pos-|terior Pituitary Solution\"\" on the ground that its potency exceeded by 50 percent|the potency of the product recognized under that name in the National|Formulary.|On March 11, 1941, the defendants were arraigned and pleas of not guilty|were entered on their behalf. On March 15, 1941, the defendants filed motions|to quash the informations on the grounds (1) that, with respect to the digitalis|tablets and posterior pituitary solution, alleged guaranties that the products|complied with the law had been received by the defendant company from the|vendors, and that the products had been repacked and sold without change in|strength and quality; (2) with respect to the cascara compound tablets that they|were labeled \"\"Tablets Cascara Compound No. 2 S. C. Pink, (Hinkle),\"\" and|were a different product than that recognized in the National Formulary under|the name of \"\"Compound Pills of Cascara\"\" and \"\"Hinkle's Pills\"\" and that there|is a distinction between pills and tablets; and (3) that the individual defendant|was in no way involved in any alleged adulteration and misbranding as charged|since his name did not appear in the labeling of the products.|On May 8, 1941, after arguments of counsel, the motions to quash were denied|by the court on the basis that objections to the informations were matters of|defense which should be brought up at the trial. Subsequently, on motion of|the United States attorney, the counts charging adulteration of the cascara com-|pound tablets and adulteration and misbranding of the posterior pituitary solu-|tion were nolle prossed. The two informations were consolidated for trial before|a jury on June 30, 1941, on which date the trial commenced. The taking of|testimony was concluded on July 2, 1941, the jury was charged and retired and,|after deliberation, returned, on the same day, a verdict of guilty on all counts|as to the individual defendant, and reported a disagreement as to the corporate|defendant. The individual defendant appeared for sentence on September 8,|1941, and at that time presented an argument in support of a motion to set aside|the verdict. Sentence was thereupon deferred for the purpose of considering|the merits of the motion and on October 17, 1941, the following opinion in denial|of the motion was handed down by Hon. Harold P. Burke, United States District|Judge:|BURKE, District Judge: \"\"The defendant, Joseph H. Dotterweich, moves to set|aside the verdict of the jury upon the ground that it was against the law and|against the weight of the evidence, that the verdict as to the defendant Dotter-|weich was inconsistent with the disagreement of the jury in regard to the corpo-|rate defendant and therefore an illegal verdict, and that the failure of the Govern-|ment to prove notice to the defendant Dotterweich of an intended prosecution|under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, June 25,1938, c. 675, 52 Stat. 1040 was a|condition precedent to the commencement of a proceeding against him, without|which there could be no valid proceeding.|\"\"There was sufficient evidence upon which the jury could base a verdict of|guilty. The verdict was not inconsistent with the jury's treatment of the cor-|porate defendant as to which it reached no verdict. Notice pursuant to Sec-|tion 335, Title 21, U. S. C. A. of a contemplated criminal proceeding was given|to the corporate defendant. Dotterweich was the General Manager and had|actual notice of the contemplated proceeding against the corporation. There is|nothing in the statute limiting prosecutions to those cases that have been re-|ported by the Secretary to the United States Attorney. Prosecution for violation|of the statute arising independently of any report by the Secretary would re-|quire no preliminary notice. The absence of such a limitation indicates that|the requirement for notice under Section 335 should be construed as an admin-|istrative provision imposing a duty upon the Secretary. The reasoning adopted|by the Supreme Court in United States vs. Morgan, 222 U. S. 274, in construing|a provision for preliminary notice under the former statute, Section 4, Pure|Food and Drug Act of June 30, 1906, 34 Stat. L. 768 C. 3915, applies with equal|force to the notice required Tinder the present statute.. It was there held that|the requirement for notice was not jurisdictional. I think the same reasoning|impels a like conclusion here.|\"\"Motion denied.\"\"|On October 27, 1941, the individual defendant was sentenced to pay a fine of|$500 on count 1 of the consolidated information. Fines of $500 were also imposed|on such defendant with respect to the other 2 counts of the information, but|payment thereof was suspended and the defendant was placed on probation for|60 days. The case was thereafter\"\" appealed to the United States Circuit Court|of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and on December 3,1942, the following decision|was handed down reversing the judgment of the District Court:|SWAN, Circut Judge: \"\"The appellant was prosecuted, together with Buffalo|Pharmacal Company, Inc., a New York corporation of which he was general|manager, for violations of section 301 (a) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cos-|metic Act, 21 U. S. C. A. S331 (a). Three counts of the informations were sub-|mitted to the jury. The first count was based on an interstate shipment on|October 2, 1939 of a bottle of cascara compound which was charged to be|misbranded, 21 U. S. C. A. S352 (a) ; the other two counts related to an interstate|shipment on January 9, 1940 of a bottle of digitalis tablets, one of the counts|charging adulteration, 21 U. S. C. A. 351 (c), and the other misbranding, 21|U. S. C. A. S352 (a). Each of the shipments was made in filling an order received|through the mails by Buffalo Pharmacal Company from a physician resident|in a state other than New York. The corporation had purchased the drugs from|a wholesale manufacturer; it repackaged them for the shipments under attack.|The appellant Dotterweich had no personal connection with either shipment,|but he was in general charge of the corporation's business and had given general|instructions to its employees to fill orders received from physicians. The jury|found guilty on all three counts. For some unexplainable reason it disagreed|as to the corporation's guilt. The sentence imposed on the appellant was a|fine of $500 on each count, with payment suspended on the second and thirdi|counts, and probation for 60 days on each count to run concurrently.|\"\"The bottle of cascara compound carried a label reading '1000 Tablets Cascara|Compound * * * (Hinkle),' followed by a list of the ingredients, one of|which was strychnine sulphate. The charge of misbranding was based on the|fact that this ingredient had been removed from the formula for Hinkle pills|stated in the official National Formulary * promulgated January 1,1989. The issue|left to the jury was whether the label was false and misleading in that it would|lead the purchaser or the general public to believe that the tablets contained|only the ingredients designated in the official formula for Hinkle pills. Since|intention to violate the statute is immaterial in a charge of misbranding,\"\" we think|the jury's finding that the label was false and misleading was not unsupported|by the evidence.|\"\"The label on the bottle of digitalis tablets represented that each tablet pos-|sessed a potency of one U. S. P. unit of digitalis, whereas in fact analysis proved|that the tablets were less than one-half of the represented potency. This was|so far below the standard that findings of adulteration and misbranding would|seem to be inevitable, unless the deterioration occurred after the bottle of tablets|was shipped. It was shipped on January 9, 1940 and its contents were analyzed|by government chemists in March 1940. While cross examination brought out|that digitalis tablets may deteriorate in potency by lapse of time if not properly|stored, there was some testimony to indicate that the bottle in question had|been properly cared for. We cannot say that the evidence was insufficient to|support the verdict of adulteration and misbranding.\"\"|\"\"Section 305 of the Act, set forth in the margin,6 provides that before the Admin-|istrator reports a violation to any United States, attorney for prosecution, 'the|person against whom such proceeding is contemplated' shall'be given notice|and a hearing. In the case at bar such notice was addressed only to the cor-|poration. In response thereto the appellant appeared on behalf of the corpora-|* See 21 U. S. C. A. S321 (j) and (n).|5 See Von Bremen v. United States, 192 F. 904, 906 (C. C. A. 2), Weeks v. United|States, 224 F. 64, 68 (C. C. A. 2), and Strong, Cobb & Co. v. United States, 103 F. 2d 671|674 (C. C. A. 6) construing the Food and Drugs Act of 1906. That intention is not neces-|sarily an element of the offense under the existing Act is made very clear by section 303|21 U. S. C. A. S333 (a) and (b) where different penalties are provided for simple viola-|tions and for violations \"\"with intent to defraud or mislead.\"\"|a 21 U. S. C. A. S335. Hearing before report of criminal violation. Before any viola-|tion of this chapter is reported by the Administrator to any United States attorney for|institution of a criminal proceeding, the person against whom such proceeding is contem-|plated shall be given appropriate notice and an opportunity to present his views, either|orally or in writing, with regard to such contemplated proceeding.|605900-44 3|tion. He contends that a notice addressed to him personally was a condition|precedent to his lawful prosecution. The district judge ruled that the provision|for notice and a hearing was an administrative direction to the Administrator|rather than a jurisdictional requirement for criminal proceedings. We agree|with this conclusion. Such was the authoritative construction placed upon a|similar provision in the Food and Drugs Act of 1906, 21 U. S. C. A. Sll. United|States v. Morgan, 222 U. S. 274; see also United States v. King & Howe, 78 F. 2d|693, 696 (C. C. A. 2). In our opinion the changes in phraseology introduced by|the 1938 Act are not such as to render obsolete these decisions. This appears|quite clearly from the Congressional debates. 83 Cong. Rec. pp. 7792, 7794, 75th|Cong., 3d sess. Articles by certain commentators are cited as expressing the|opposite view,7 but we are constrained to disagree with them.|\"\"The appellant further urges that the jury's failure to convict the corporation|is so inconsistent with the finding of guilt on the part of the appellant that|the verdict against Mm cannot stand. Assuming that the statute includes within|its prohibitions an agent who acts for his employer in shipping in interstate|commerce misbranded or adulterated articles, the contention is without merit.|No authority has been cited in support of the argument that failure to convict the|principal will avoid the conviction of an agent who has committed all the ele-|ments of a crime. We think the usual principle is applicable that error cannot|be asserted for inconsistency in the jury's verdict. See Dunn v. United States,|284 U. S. 390; United States v. PandoW, 110 F. 2d 736 (C. C. A. 2).|\"\"A more difficult question is presented by the appellant's contention that the|statute is aimed only at punishment of the principal and not at punishment of an|innocent agent who in good faith and in ignorance of the misbranding or adultera-|tion takes part in an interstate shipment of food or drugs. Section 301, 21 U. S.|C. A. S331, prohibits 'the following acts and the causing thereof,' namely '(a)|The introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of any|food, drug, device, or cosmetic that is adulterated or misbranded.' Section 333|(a) of Title 21 declares that 'any person' who violates any of the provisions of|section 331 shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction be subject to im-|prisonment or fine or both. The Act defines the term 'person' to include 'indi-|vidual, partnership, corporation and association.'' 21 U. S. C. A. S321 (e). Who|is the person causing 'the introduction or delivery for introduction' into interstate|commerce of a misbranded drug? Is the clerk who innocently packs or ships it|guilty of the offense, as well as the employer for whom he works? While the|statutory language seems literally to include all who have any part in causing|delivery for introduction into interstate commerce, there are serious objections|to so construing it. Subsection (c) of 21 U. S. C. A. S333 provides 'No person shall|be subject to the penalties of subsection (a) of this section * * * for hav-|ing violated section 331 (a) or (d), if he establishes a guaranty or undertaking|signed by, and containing the name and address of, the person residing in the|United States from whom he received in good faith the article, to the .effect, in|the case of an alleged violation of section 331 (a), that such article is not|adulterated or misbranded within the meaning of this chapter designating this|chapter * * *' Obviously such a guaranty, if given, will be obtained by the|drug dealer, not by his clerk who may later deliver the article for shipment in|interstate commerce; nor is such clerk literally within the protection of the|quoted section, since he is not the one who 'received' the article from the|guarantor. It is difficult to believe that Congress expected anyone except the|principal to get such a guaranty, or to make the guilt of an agent depend upon|whether his employer had gotten one. The agent's guilt, like his principal's, must|be independent of any scienter under section 331 (a). It would be extremely|harsh to charge him criminally with the risks of the business as the drug dealer|is himself charged. A majority pf the court is of opinion that this cannot have|been the congressional intent and that the statute must be construed to mean that|only the drug dealer, whether corporation or individual, is the 'person' who causes|the 'introduction' or 'delivery for introduction' of misbranded or adulterated|drugs into commerce. In support of this conclusion the appellant adverts to the|omission from the present Act of a provision which appeared in the 1906 Act|in 21 U. S. C. A. S4. This declared that in construing and enforcing the pro-|visions of sections 1 to 15 of Title 21 \"\"the act, omission, or failure of any officer,|agent or other person acting for or employed by any corporation * * * within|'See \"\"A Treatise on the Law of Food, Drugs and Cosmetics,\"\" 1942, p. 737; Law &|Contemporary Problems, published by the School of Law of Duke University, 1939, Vol. 6,|p. 74.|the scope of his employment or office, shall in every case be also deemed to be|the act, omission or failure of such corporation * * * as well as that of|the person.' In our opinion the omission of this provision adds nothing to the|argument already developed; it was doubtless omitted as unnecessary because it|states an obvious general principle of agency.|\"\"The foregoing discussion has proceeded upon the assumption that if the|statute is applicable to the appellant it must also apply to a shipping clerk or any|menial employee who was instrumental in causing the forbidden shipment, for we|can find no basis in the statutory language for drawing a distinction between|agents of high or low rank. We are not, however, to be understood to hold that|under no circumstances could an individual conducting a drug business in|corporate form be subjected to the penalties of section 331 (a). If an individual|operated a corporation as his 'alter ego' or agent he might be the principal; but|the evidence hardly went so far as to establish that such was the relationship|between the appellant and his corporation and in any event his guilt was not|made to turn on any such issue. Accordingly his conviction must be reversed.|\"\"The views above expressed in respect to the construction of the statute are|those of a majority of the court. I am not in accord with them. I believe that|the language of sections 331 (a) and 333 (a) is so inclusive as to render liable|all persons who take part in causing a shipment in interstate commerce of mis-|branded or adulterated articles, and that any insufficiency in the protection|afforded an agent by section 333 (c) is not an adequate reason for limiting the|statutory prohibitions to the dealer. The possibility that a literal interpretation|of the statute may lead to the prosecution of insignificant agents rather than|their employers is not, I believe, a serious risk and is a matter Congress was will-|ing to leave to the good sense of prosecuting officials and trial juries. See United|States v. Buffalo Cold Storage Co., 179 F. 865, 867 (D. G. W. D. N. Y.), where a|warehouseman who innocently shipped pursuant to instructions was ponvicted|under the 1906 Act; see also the charge given by Judge Grubb in United States v.|Mayfield, 177 F. 765 (D. C. Ala.).|\"\"Judgment reversed.\"\"|On January 3, 1943, a petition for a rehearing was denied by the Circuit Court|of Appeals and on February 8, 1943, a petition for a Writ of Certiorari was filed|with the United States Supreme Court. Such petition was granted on April 5,|1943, and on November 22,1943, the Supreme Court rendered the following opinion,|which reversed the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals:|FRANKFURTER, Associate Justice: This was a proseeution begun by two informa-|tions, consolidated for trial, charging Buffalo Pharmacal Company, Inc., and|Dotterweich, its president and general manager, with violations of the Act of|Congress of June, 1938, c. 675, 52 Stat. 1040, 21 U. S. C. ?? 301-392, known as|the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The Company, a jobber in drugs,|purchased them from their manufacturers and shipped them, repacked under its|own label, in interstate commerce. (No question is raised in this case regarding|the implications that may properly arise when, although the manufacturer gives|the jobber a guaranty, the latter through his own label makes representations.)|The informations were based on ? 301 of that Act (21 U. S. C. ? 331), paragraph|(a) of which prohibits 'The introduction or delivery for introduction into inter-|state commerce of any . . . drug . . . that is adultered or misbranded'. 'Any|person' violating this provision is, by paragraph (a) of ? 303 (21 U. S. C. ? 333),|made 'guilty of a misdemeanor'. Three counts were to the jury-two, for shipping|misbranded drugs in interstate commerce, and a third, for so shipping an|adulterated drug. The jury disagreed as to the corporation and found Dotter-|weich guilty on all three counts. We start with the finding of the Circuit Court|of Appeals that the evidence was adequate to support the verdict of adulteration|and misbranding. 131 F. 2d 500, 502.|Two other questions which the Circuit Court of Appeals decided against Dot-|terweich call only for summary disposition to clear the path for the main question|before us. He invoked ? 305 of the Act requiring the Administrator, before re-|porting a violation for prosecution by a United States attorney, to give the|suspect an 'opportunity to present his views'. We agree with the Circuit Court|of Appeals that the giving of such an opportunity, which was not accorded to|Dotterweich, is not a prerequisite to prosecution. This Court so held in United|States v. Morgan, 222 U. S. 274, in construing the Food and Drugs Act of 1906, 34|Stat. 768, and the legislative history to which the court below palled attention|abundantly proves that Congress, in the changed phraseology of 1938, did not|intend to introduce a change of substance. 83 Cong. Rec. 7792-94. Equally base-|less is the claim of Dotterweich that, having failed to find the corporation guilty,|the jury could not find him guilty. Whether the jury's verdict was the result|of carelessness or compromise or a belief that the responsible individual should|suffer the penalty instead of merely increasing, as it were, the cost of running the|business of the corporation, is immaterial. Juries may indulge in precisely such|motives or vagaries. Dunn v. United States, 284 U. S. 390.|\"\"And so we are brought to our real problem. The Circuit Court of Appeals,|one judge dissenting, reversed the conviction on the ground that only the cor-|poration was the 'person' subject to prosecution unless, perchance, Buffalo|Pharmacal was a counterfeit corporation serving as a screen for Dotterweich.|On that issue, after rehearing, it remanded the cause for a new trial. We then|brought the case here, on the Government's petition for certiorari, 318 U. S. 753,|because this construction raised questions of importance in the enforcement of|the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.|\"\"The court below drew its conclusion not from the provisions defining the|offenses on which this prosecution was based (?? 301 (a) and 303 (a)), but|from the terms of ? 303 (c). That section affords immunity from prosecution|if certain conditions are satisfied. The condition relevant to this case is a|guaranty from the seller of the innocence of his product. So far as here rele-|vant, the provision for an immunizing guaranty is as follows: 'No person shall|be subject to the penalties of subsection (a) of this section . . . (2) for having|violated section 301 (a) or (d), if he establishes a guaranty or undertaking|signed by, and containing the name and address of, the person residing in the|United States from whom he received in good faith the article, to the effect,|in case of an alleged violation of section 301 (a), that such article is not adul-|terated or misbranded, within the meaning of this Act, designating this Act|\"\"The Circuit Court of Appeals found it 'difficult to believe that Congress; ex-|pected ayone except the principal to get such a guaranty, or to make the guilt|of an agent depend upon whether his employer had gotten one.' 131 F. 2d 500,|503. And so it cut down the scope of the penalizing provisions of the Act to the|restrictive view? as a matter of language and policy, it took of the'relieving|effect of a guaranty.|\"\"The guaranty clause cannot be read in isolation. The Food and Drugs Act|of 1906 was an exertion by Congress of its power to keep impure and adulter-|ated food and drugs out of the channels of commerce. By the Act of 1938,|Congress extended the range of its control over illicit and noxious articles and|stiffened the penalties for disobedience. The purposes of this legislation thus|touch phases of the lives and health of people which, in the circumstances of|modern industrialism, are largely beyond self-protection. Regard for these|purposes should infuse construction of the legislation if it is to be treated as|a working instrument of government and not merely as a collection of English|words. See Hipolite Egg Co. y. United States, 220 U. S. 45, 57, and McDermott|v. Wisconsin, 228 U. S. 115, 128. The prosecution to which Dotterweich was|subjected is based on a now familiar type of legislation whereby penalties|serve as effective means of regulation. Such legislation dispenses with the|conventional requirement for criminal conduct-awareness of some wrong-|doing. In the interest of the larger good it puts the burden of acting at hazard|upon a person otherwise innocent but standing in responsible relation to a|public danger. United States v. Balint, 258 U. S. 250. And so it is clear that|shipments like those now in issue are 'punished by the statute if the article|is misbranded [or adulterated], and that the article may be misbranded [or|adulterated] without any conscious fraud at all. It was natural enough to|throw this risk on shippers with regard to the identity of their wares. . . .'|United States v. Johnson, 221 U. S. 488, 497-98.|\"\"The statute makes 'any person' who violates ? 301(a) guilty of a 'misde-|meanor'. It specifically defines 'person' to include 'corporation'. ? 201(e). But|the only way in which a corporation can act is through the individuals who act|on its behalf. New York Central R. R. v. United States, 212 U. S. 481. And|the historic conception of a 'misdemeanor' makes all those resposible for it|equally guilty, United States v. Mills, 7 Pet. 138, 141, a doctrine given general|application in ? 332 of the Penal Code (18 U. S. C. ? 550). If, then, Dotterweich|is not subject to the Act, it must be solely on the ground that individuals are|Immune when the 'person' who violates ? 301(a) is a corporation, although from|the point of view of action the individuals are the corporation. As a matter of|legal development, it has taken time to establish criminal liability also for a|corporation and not merely for its agents. See New York Central R. R. v. United|States, supra. The history of federal food and drug legislation is a good illus-|tration of the elaborate phrasing that was in earlier days deemed necessary|to fasten criminal liability on corporations. Section 12 of the Food and Drugs|Act of 1906 provided that, 'the act, omission, or failure of any officer, agent,|or other person acting for or employed by any corporation, company, society, or|association, within the scope of his employment or office, shall in every case be,|also deemed to be the act, omission, or failure of such corporation, company,|society, or association as well as that of the person.' By 1938, legal understand-|ing and practice had rendered such statement of the obvious superfluous. Dele-|tion of words-in the interest of brevity and good draftsmanship8-superfluous|for holding a corporation criminally liable can hardly be found ground for|relieving from such liability the individual agents of the corporation. To hold|that the Act of 1938 freed all individuals, except when proprietors, from the|culpability under which the earlier legislation had placed them is to defeat|the very object of the new Act. Nothing is clearer than that the later legis-|lation was designed to enlarge and stiffen the penal net and not to narrow and|loosen it. This purpose was unequivocally avowed by the two committees which|reported the bills to the Congress. The House Committee reported that the|Act 'seeks to set up effective provisions against abuses of consumer welfare|growing out of inadequacies in the Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 1906'. (H.|Rep. No. 2139, 75th Cong., 3d Sess., p. 1.) And the Senate Committee explicitly|pointed out that the new legislation 'must not weaken the existing laws', but|on the contrary 'it must strengthen and extend that law's protection of the con-|sumer.' (S. Rep. No. 152, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 1.) If the 1938 Act were|construed as it was below, the penalties of the law could be imposed only in|the rare case where the corporation is merely an individual's alter ego. Corpo-|rations carrying on an illicit trade would be subject only to what the House|Committee described as a 'license fee for the conduct of an illegitimate business.'9|A corporate officer, who even with 'intent to defraud or mislead (? 303b), intro-|duced adulterated or misbranded drugs into interstate commerce could not be|held culpable for conduct which was indubitably outlawed by the 1906 Act.|See, e. g., United States v. May field, 177 F. 765. This argument proves too much.|It is not credible that Congress should by implication have exonerated what is|probably a preponderant number of persons involved in acts of disobedience-|for the number of non-corporate proprietors is relatively small. Congress, of|course, could reverse the process and hold only the corporation and allow its|agents to escape. In very exceptional circumstances it may have required this|result. See Sherman v. United States, 282 U. S. 25. But the history of the|present Act, its purposes, its terms; and extended practical construction lead|away from such a result once 'we free our minds from the notion that criminal|statutes must be construed by some artificial and conventional rule'. United|States v. Union Supply Go., 215 U. S. 50, 55.|\"\"The Act is concerned not with the proprietory relation to a misbranded or an|adulterated drug but with its distribution. In the case of a corporation such|distribution nmst be accomplished, and may be furthered, by persons standing|in various relations to the incorporeal proprietor. If a guaranty immunizes|shipments of course it immunizes all involved in the shipment. But simply|because if there has been a guaranty it would have been received by the proprietor,|whether corporate or individual, as a safeguard for the enterprise, the want|of a guaranty does not cut down the scope of responsibility of all who are con-|cerned with transactions forbidden by ? 301. To be sure, that casts the risk|that there is no guaranty upon all who according to settled doctrines of criminal|law are responsible for the commission of a misdemeanor. To read the guaranty|section, as did the court below, so as to restrict liability for penalties to the|only person who normally would receive a guaranty-the proprietor-disre-|gards the admonition that 'the meaning of a sentence is to be felt rather than|to be proved'. United States v. Johnson, 221 U. S. 488, 496. It also reads an|exception to an important provision safeguarding the public welfare with a|8 'The bill has been made shorter and less verbose than previous bills. That has been|done without deleting any effective provisions.' S. Rep. No. 152, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 2|?In describing the penalty provisions of ? 303, the House Committee reported that the|Bill 'increases substantially the criminal penalties which some manufacturers have|regarded as substantially a license fee for the conduct of an illegimate business.' H. Rep.|No. 2139, 75th Cong., 3d Sess., p. 4.|liberality which more appropriately belongs to enforcement of the central purpose|of the Act.|\"\"The Circuit Court of Appeals was evidently tempted to make such a devitaliz-|ing use of the guaranty provision through fear that an enforcement of ? 301(a)|as written might operate too harshly by sweeping within its condemnation any|person however remotely entangled in the proscribed shipment. But that is|not the way to read legislation. Literalism and evisceration are equally to be|avoided. To speak with technical accuracy, under ? 301 a corporation may|commit an offense and all persons who aid and abet its commission are equally|guilty. Whether an accused shares responsibility in the business process resulting|in unlawful distribution depends on the evidence produced at the trial and its|submission-assuming the evidence warrants it-to the jury under appropriate|guidance. The offense is committed, unless the enterprise which they are serving|enjoys the immunity of a guaranty, by all who do have such a responsible share|in the furtherance of the transaction which the statute outlaws, namely to put|into the stream of interstate commerce adulterated or misbranded drugs. Hard-|ship there doubtless may be under a statute which thus penalizes the transaction|though consciousness of wrongdoing be totally wanting. Balancing relative hard,-|ships, Congress has preferred to place it upon those who have at least the op-|portunity of informing themselves of the existence of conditions imposed for|the protection of consumers before sharing in illicit commerce, rather than to|throw the hazard on the innocent public who are wholly helpless.|\"\"It would be too treacherous to define or even to indicate by way of illustration|the class of employees which stands in such a responsible relation. To attempt|a formula embracing the variety of conduct whereby persons may responsibly|contribute in furthering a transaction forbidden by an Act of Congress, to|wit, to send illicit goods across state lines, would be mischievous futility.|In such matters the good sense of prosecutors, the wise guidance of trial judges,|and the ultimate judgment of juries must be trusted. Our system of criminal|justice necessarily depends on 'conscience and circumspection in prosecuting|officers.' Nash v. United States, 229 U. S. 373, 378 even when the consequences|are far more drastic than they are under the provision of law before us. See|United States v. Balint, supra (involving a maximum sentence of five years). For|present purpose it suffices to say that in what the defense characterized as|'a very fair charge' the District Court properly left the question of the responsi-|bility of Dotterweich for the shipment to the jury, and there was sufficient|evidence to support its verdict.\"\"|Judgment reversed.|MURPHY, Associate Justice, dissenting: \"\"Our prime concern in this case is|whether the criminal sanctions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of|1938 plainly and unmistakenly apply to the respondent in his capacity as a|corporate officer. He is charged with violating ? 301(a) of the Act, which pro-|hibits the introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of|any adulterated or misbranded drug. There is no evidence in this case of any|personal guilt on the part of the respondent. There is no proof or claim that|he ever knew cf the introduction into commerce of the adulterated drugs in|question, much less that he actively participated in their introduction. Guilt is|imputed to the respondent solely on the basis of his authority and responsibilty|as president and general manager of the corporation.|\"\"It is a fundamental principle of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence that guilt is|personal and that it ought not lightly to be imputed to a citizen who, like the|respondent, has no evil intention or consciousness of wrongdoing. It may be|proper to charge him with responsibility to the corporation and the stockholders|for negligence and mismanagement. But in the absence of clear statutory|authorization it is inconsistent with established canons of criminal law to rest|liability on an act in which the accused did not participate and of which he had|no personal knowledge. Before we place the stigma of a criminal conviction|upon any such citizen the legislative mandate must be clear and unambiguous.|Accordingly that which Chief Justice Marshall has called 'the tenderness of the|law for the rights of individuals'10 entitles each person, regardless of economic|or social status, to an unequivocal warning from the legislature as to whether he|is within the class of persons subject to vicarious liability. Congress cannot be|deemed to have intended to punish anyone who is not 'plainly and unmistakably'|10 United States v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat, 76, 95.|within the confines of the statute. United States v. Lacher, 134 U. S. 624, 628;|United States v. Qmdvxll, 243 U. S. 476, 485.|\"\"Moreover, the fact that individual liability of corporate officers may be con-|sistent with the policy and purpose of a public health and welfare measure does|not authorize this Court to impose such liability where Congress has not clearly|intended or actually done so. Congress alone has the power to define a crime and|to specify the offenders. United States v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat. 76, 95. It is not|our function to supply any deficiencies in these respects, no matter how grave|the consequences. Statutory policy and purpose are not constitutional substi-|tutes for the requirement that the legislature specify with reasonable certainty|those individuals it desires to place under the interdict of the Act. United States|V. Harris, 177 U. S. 305; Sarlls v. United States, 152 U. S. 570.|\"\"Looking at the language actually used in this statute, we find a complete|absence of any reference to corporate officers. There is merely a provision in|? 303(a) to the effect that 'any person' inadvertently violating ? 301(a) shall|be guilty of a misdemeanor. Section 201(e) further defines 'person' as including|an 'individual, partnership, corporation, and association.11' The fact that a corpo-|rate officer is both a 'person' and an 'individual' is not indicative of an intent to|place vicarious liability on the officer. Such words must be read in light of their|statutory environment.12 Only if Congress has otherwise specified an intent to|place corporate officers within the ambit of the Act can they be said to be|embraced within the meaning of the words 'person' or 'individual' as here used.|Nor does the clear imposition of liability on corporations reveal the necessary|intent to place criminal sanctions on their officers. A corporation is not the neces-|sary and inevitable equivalent of its officers for all purposes.13 In many respects|it is desirable to distinguish the latter from the corporate entity and to impose|liability only on the corporation. In this respect it is significant that this Court|has never held the imposition of liability on a corporation sufficient, without more,|to extend liability to its officers who have no consciousness of wrongdoing.14|Indeed, in a closely analogous situation, we have held that the vicarious personal|liability of receivers in actual charge and control of a corporation could not be|predicated on the statutory liability of a 'company,' even when the policy and|purpose of the enactment were consistent with personal liability. United States v.|Harris, supra.? It follows that express statutory provisions are necessary to|n The normal and necessary meaning of such a definition of 'person' is to distinguish|between individual enterprises and those enterprises that are incorporated or operated as|a partnership or association, in order to subject them to the Act. This phrase cannot|be considered as an attempt to distinguish between individual officers of a corporation and|the corporate entity. Lee, 'Corporate Criminal Liability,' 28 Col. L. Rev. 1, 181, 190.|? Compare United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U. S. 600, 606, and Davis v. Pringle, 268|U. S. 315, 318, holding that the context and legislative history of the particular statutes|there involved indicated that the words \"\"any person\"\" did not include the United States.|But in Georgia v. Evans, 316 U. S. 159, and Ohio v. Helvering, 292 U. S. 360, these consid-|erations led to the conclusion that 'any person' did include a state. See also 40 Stat.|1143, which specifically includes officers within the meaning of 'any person' as used in the|Revenue Act of 1918.|13 In Park Bank v. Remsen, 158 U. S. 337, 344, this Court said, 'It is the corporation|which is given the powers and privileges and made subject to the liabilities. Does this|carry with it an imposition of liability upon the trustee or other officer of the corporation-|The officer is not the corporation; his liability is personal, and not that of the corporation,|nor can it be counted among the powers and privileges of the corporation.'|14 For an analysis of the confusion on this matter in the state and lower federal courts,|see Lee, 'Corporate Criminal Liability,' 28 Col. L. Rev. 1, 181.|M In that case we had before us Rev. Stat ? ? 4386-4389, which penalized 'any com-|pany, owner or custodian of such animals' who failed to comply with the statutory require-|ments as to livestock transportation. A railroad company violated the statute and the|government sought to impose liability on the receivers who were in actual charge of the|company. It was argued that the word 'company' embraced the natural persons acting|on behalf of the company and that to hold such officers and receivers liable was within|the policy and purpose of so humane a statute. We rejected this contention in language|peculiarly appropriate to this case (177 U. S. at 309) :|'It must be admitted that, in order to hold the receivers, they must be regarded as|included in the word 'company.' Only by a strained and artificial construction, based|chiefly upon a consideration of the mischief which the legislature sought to remedy, can|receivers be brought within the terms of the law. But can such a kind of construction be|resorted to in enforcing a penal statute? Giving all proper force to the contention of|counsel of the government, that there has been some relaxation on the part of the courts|in applying the rule of strict construction to such statutes, it still remains that the inten-|tion of a penal statute must be found in the language actually used, interpreted according|to its fair and obvious meaning. It is not permitted to courts, in this class of cases, to|attribute inadvertence or oversight to the legislature when enumerating the classes of|persons who are subjected to a penal enactment, nor to depart from the settled meaning of|words or phrases in order to bring persons not named or distinctly described within the|supposed purpose of the statute.'|satisfy the requirement that officers as individuals be given clear and unmistak-|able warning as to their vicarious personal liability. This Act gives no such|warning.|\"\"This fatal hiatus in the Act is further emphasized by the ability of Congress,|demonstrated on many occasions, to apply statutes in no uncertain terms to cor-|porate officers as distinct from corporations.\"\" The failure to mention officers|specifically is thus some indication of a desire to exempt them from liability.|In fact the history of federal food and drug legislation is itself illustrative of|this capacity for specification and lends strong support to the conclusion that Con-|gress did not intend to impose liability on corporate officers in this particular Act.|\"\"Section 2 of the Federal Food and Drugs Act of 1906, as introduced and passed|in the Senate, contained a provision to the effect that any violation of the Act|by a corporation should be deemed to be the act of the officer responsible therefor|and that such officer might be punished as though it were his personal act.17|This clear imposition of criminal responsibility on corporate officers, however,|was not carried over into the statute as finally enacted. In its place appeared|merely the provision that 'when construing and enforcing the provisions of this|Act, the act, omission, or failure of any officer, agent, or other person acting for|or employed by any corporation . . . within the scope of his employment or office,|shall in every case be also deemed to be the act, omission, or failure of such cor-|poration ... as well as that of the person.'1S This provision had the effect only|of making corporations responsible for the illegal acts of their officers and proved|unnecessary in view of the clarity of the law to that effect. New York Central &|E. R. R. Co. v. United States, 212 U. S. 481.|\"\"The framers of the 1938 Act were aware that the 1906 Act was deficient in|that it failed 'to place responsibility properly upon corporate officers.\"\"M In order|'to provide the additional scope necessary to prevent the use of the corporate|form as a shield to individual wrongdoers,' * these framers inserted a clear|provision that 'whenever a corporation or association violates any of the pro-|visions of this Act, such violation shall also be deemed to be a violation of the|individual directors, officers, or agents of such corporation or association who|authorized, ordered, or did any of the acts constituting, in whole or in part,|such violation.'21 This paragraph, however, was deleted from the final version|of the Act.|i? \"\"Whenever a corporation shall violate any of the penal provisions of the antitrust|laws, such violation shall be deemed to be also that of the individual directors, officers, or|agents of such corporation who shall have authorized, ordered, or done any of the acts|constituting in whole or in part such violation.\"\" 15 U. S. C. ? 24.|\"\"The courts of bankruptcy . . . are invested . . . with such jurisdiction at law and in|equity as will enable them to . . . (4) arraign, try, and punish bankrupts, officers, and other|persons, and the agents, officers, members of the board of directors or trustees, or other|similar controlling bodies, of corporations for violations of the provisions contained in this|title.\"\" 11 U. S. C. ? 11.|\"\"Any such common carrier, or any officer or agent thereof, requiring or permitting any|employee to go, be, or remain on duty in violation of the next preceding section of this|chapter shall be liable to a penalty .. .\"\" 45 U. S. C. ? 63.|\"\"A mortgagor who, with intent to defraud, violates any provision of subsection F, sec-|tion 924, and if the mortgagor is a corporation or association, the president or other|principal executive officer of the corporation or association, shall upon conviction thereof|be held guilty of a misdemeanor ....\"\" 46 U. S. C. ? 941 (b).|17 S. 88, 59th Cong., 1st Sess. Senator Heyburn, one of the sponsors of S. 88, stated|that this was \"\"a new feature in bills of this kind. It was intended to obviate the possi-|bility of escape by officers of a corporation under a plea, which has been more than once|made, that they did not know that this was being done on the credit of or on the responsi-|bility of the corporation.\"\" 40 Cong. Rec. 894.|u 34 Stat. 772, 21 U. S. C. ? 4.|19 Senate Report No. 493, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., p. 21.|20 Ibid., p. 22. This report also stated that \"\"it is not, however, the purpose of this|paragraph to subject to liability those directors, officers, and employees, who merely|authorize their subordinates to perform lawful duties and such subordinates, on their own|initiative, perform those duties in a manner which violates the provisions of the law.|However, if a director or officer personally orders his subordinate to do an act in violation|of the law, there is no reason why he should be shielded from personal responsibility|merely because the act was done by another and on behalf of a corporation.\"\"|21 This provision appears in several of the early versions of the Act introduced in Con-|gress. S. 1944, 73d Cong., 1st Sess., ? 18(b) : S. 2000, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., ? 18(b) : S.|2800, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., ? 18(b) ; S. 5. 74th Cong., 1st Sess., ? 709(b) ; S. 5, 74th Cong.,|2d Sess.. ? 707(b), as reported to the House, which substituted the word \"\"personally\"\" for|the word \"\"authorized\"\" in the last clause of the paragraph quoted above. A variation of|this provision appeared in S. 5, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., ? 2(f), and made a marked distinc-|tion between the use of the word \"\"person\"\" and the words \"\"director, officer, employee, or|agent acting for or employed by any person.\"\" All of these bills also contained the present|definition of \"\"person\"\" as including \"\"individual, partnership, corporation, and association.\"\"|\"\"We cannot presume that this omission was inadvertent on the part of|Congress. United States v. Harris, supra at 309. Even if it were, courts have|no power to remedy so serious a defect, no matter how probable it otherwise may|appear that Congress intended to include officers; 'probability is not a guide which|a court, in construing a penal statute, can safely take.' United States v. Wilt-|ierger, supra at 105. But the framers of the 1938 Act had an intelligent com-|prehension of the inadequacies of the 1906 Act and,of the unsettled state of the|law. They recognized the necessity of inserting clear and unmistakable lan-|guage in order to.impose liability on corporate officers. It is thus unreasonable|to assume that the omission of such language was due,to a belief that the Act|as it now stands was sufficient to impose liability on corporate officers. Such|deliberate deletion is consistent only with an intent to allow such officers to|remain free from criminal liability. Thus to apply the sanctions of this Act|to the respondent would be contrary to the intent of Congress as expressed in|the statutory language and in the legislative history.|\"\"The dangers inherent in any attempt to create liability without express Con-|gressional intention or authorization are illustrated by this case. Without any|legislative guides, we are confronted with the problem of determining precisely|which officers, employees and agents of a corporation are to be subject to this|Act by our fiat. To erect standards of responsibility is a difficult legislative task|and the opinion of this Court admits that it is 'too treacherous' and a 'mis-|chievous futility' for us to engage In such pursuits. But the only alternative|is a blind resort to 'the good sense of prosecutors, the wise guidance of trial|judges, and the ultimate judgment of juries.' Yet that situation is precisely|what our constitutional system sought to avoid. Reliance on the legislature to|define crimes and criminals distinguishes our form of jurisprudence from certain|less desirable ones. The legislative power to restrain the liberty and to imperil|the good reputation of citizens must not rest upon the variable attitudes and|opinions of those charged with the duties of interpreting and enforcing the|mandates of the law. I therefore cannot approve the decision of the Court|in this case.|\"\"Mr. Justice ROBERTS, Mr. Justice REED and Mr. Justice RTJTLEDGE join in this|dissent.\"\"|990. Misbranding of Viteen. U. S. v. 2,369 Jars and 929 Jars of Viteen. Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered released under bond for relabeling.ddnj00990November 1944L. N. LeBold & Co.ViteenAugust 15 to October 27, 1942Chicago, Ill.Rochester, N. Y.Chicago, Ill.Northern District of Illinois990F. D. C. No. 8862. Sample Nos. 1937-F, 1947-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00990ddnj|990. Misbranding: of Viteen. V. S. v. 2,369 Jars and 929 Jars of Viteen. Consent|decree of condemnation. Product ordered released under bond for re-|labeling. (F. D. C. No. 8862. Sample Nos. 1937-F, 1947-F.)|Examination showed that the article consisted primarily of dried skimmed|milk with smaller proportions of egg yolk, a sugar, cereal products, calcium and|phosphorus compounds, and flavoring material. It contained 27.8 percent pro-|tein, 10.3 percent mineral ash, 2.4 percent calcium, and 1.54 percent phosphorus.|On November 17, 1942, the United States attorney for the Northern District|of Illinois filed a libel against 2,369 jars, 8 ounce size, and 929 jars, 18-ounce size,|of Viteen at Chicago, 111., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate|commerce within the period from on or about August 15 to October 27, 1942,|from Rochester, N. Y., by L. N. LeBold & Co.; and charging that it was mis-|branded.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, designs, and devices|appearing in its labeling which represented and suggested that the article con-|stituted a suitable dietary supplement for use in restricted and unbalanced diets|of various types, and whenever disturbances were apt to occur due to nutritional|deficiencies, and that the use of the article would result in the reduction of|weight, were false and misleading since the article did not constitute a suitable|dietary supplement for use in such conditions, and its use would not result in the|reduction of weight. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the follow-|ing statements appearing in its labeling \"\"Analysis Each 100, grams of|Viteen * * * contains: * * * Proteins * * * 31.96 Mineral Ash|13.28 Calcium 3.19 Phosphorus 1.79\"\" were false and misleading since each|ICO grams of the article did not contain the represented amounts of the in-|gredients named.|It was also alleged to be misbranded under the provisions of law applicable|to foods, as reported in the notices of judgment on foods.|On December 1, 1942, L. N. LeBold & Co., claimant, having admitted the facts|set forth in the libel, judgment of condemnation was entered and the product|was ordered released under bond for relabeling under the supervision of the|Food and Drug Administration.|918. Adulteration and misbranding of elixir phenobarital. U. S. v. The Liebenthal Brothers Go. (Mario Products Co.). Plea of guilty. Fine, $500 and costs.ddnj00918October 1944Liebenthal Brothers Co., a corporation, trading under the name of Mario Products Co., Cleveland, Ohioelixir phenobaritalDecember 18, 1941MissouriOhioMissouriNorthern District of Ohio918F. D. C. No. 7274. Sample No. 71157-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00918ddnj|918. Adulteration and misbranding of elixir phenobarital. U. S. v. The Lieben-|thal Brothers Go. (Mario Products Co.). Plea of guilty. Fine, $500|and costs. (F. D. C. No. 7274. Sample No. 71157-B.)|This product was sold under a name recognized in the National Formulary, an|official compendium, and differed in strength and quality from the standard|prescribed in such authority.|On August 21, 1942, the United States attorney for the Northern District|of Ohio filed an information against the Liebenthal Brothers Co., a corporation,|trading under the name of Mario Products Co., Cleveland, Ohio, alleging shipment|on or about December 18,1941, from the State of Ohio into the State of Missouri|of a quantity of elixir phenobarbital which was adulterated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to be and was|represented as a drug, the name of which, elixir of phenobarbital, is recognized|in the National Formulary, an official compendium, and its strength differed from|and its quality fell below the standard set forth therein since it contained not|more than 0.107 gram of phenobarbital in each 100 cc, whereas the Formulary|provides that elixir of phenobarbital shall contain not less than 0.37 gram of|phenobarbital in each 100 cc.; and its difference in strength and quality from|the standard set forth in the compendium was not plainly stated on its label.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement, \"\"Elixir Phenobarbital|N. F. * * * Each fluid ounce contains 1.83 grains Phenobarbital,\"\" borne|on its label, was false and misleading since the statement represented that|the article consisted of elixir of phenobarbital which complied with the require-|ments of the National Formulary and that each fluid ounce thereof contained|1.83 grains of phenobarbital, whereas the article did not consist of elixir of|phenobarbital which complied with such requirements, and each fluid ounce|thereof contained not more than 0.49 grain of phenobarbital.|On April 13, 1943, the defendant having entered a plea of guilty, the court|imposed a fine of $500 and costs.|605900-44?4|919. Adulteration and misbranding of Hain Abgede Capsules. U. S. v. Harold Hain (Hain Pure Food Go.) Plea of not guilty. Tried to the court. Judgment of guilty. Fine, $200, $100 of which was suspended.ddnj00919October 1944Harold Hain, trading as the Hain Pure Food Co., Los Angeles, Calif.Hain Abgede CapsulesOctober 11, 1940ArizonaCaliforniaArizonaSouthern District of California919F. D. C. No. 4154. Sample No. 32640-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00919ddnj|919. Adulteration and misbranding of Haln Abgede Capsules. 17. S. v. Harold|Haln (Haln Pure Food Go.) Plea of not guilty. Tried to the court.|Judgment of guilty. Fine, $200, $100 of which was suspended. (F. D. C.|No. 4154. Sample No. 32640-E.)|On September 10,1941, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|California filed an information against Harold Hain, trading as the Hain Pure|Food Co., Los Angeles, Calif., alleging shipment on or about October 11, 1940,|from the State of California into the State of Arizona of a quantity of Hain|Abgede which was adulterated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from|or its quality fell below that which it purported or was represented to possess,|since it was represented to contain in each capsule 25 international units Of|vitamin Bi, equivalent to 45 Sherman units of vitamin Bi, whereas it contained|in each capsule not more than 15 international units of vitamin Bi, equivalent|to not more than 27 Sherman units of vitamin Bi.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement, \"\"Each Capsule Contains|Not Less Than * * * Vitamin Bi-45 Sherman (25 Int.) units,\"\" borne on|the boxes containing the article, was false and misleading since it contained not|more than 15 international units of vitamin Bi, equivalent to not more than 27|Sherman units of vitamin Bj. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that|the statement \"\"Vitamins A Bi G D,\"\" borne on the boxes, was misleading since|it represented that the article contained therapeutic amounts of vitamins Bi and|G, whereas the article, when taken in the maximum dosage recommended and|suggested, namely, 2 capsules per day, would supply not more than ?o of the|average therapeutic dose of vitamin Bi, and not more than ?o of the amount of|vitamin G required daily by an adult, which amounts of vitamins Bi and G would|be inconsequential for therapeutic purposes.|The article was also alleged to be adulterated and misbranded under the provi-|sions of the law applicable to foods reported in food notices of judgment.|On September 29,1941, the defendant entered a plea of not guilty. On April 15,|1943, the case having come on before the court on a stipulation of facts and briefs|submitted by the counsel for the defendant and the Government, the defendant|was adjudged guilty and fined $200 on the 2 counts involving violation of the|provisions of the law applicable to drugs, $100 of which, however, was suspended,|and not guilty on the counts charging violation of the provisions applicable to|foods. In announcing his decision, the court delivered the following memorandum|opinion:|JENNET, District Judge: \"\"This is a criminal prosecution by the United States|against Harold Hain, trading as the Hain Pure Food Company, for the violation|of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 (52 Statutes at Large 1040).|\"\"The case is before the court under a stipulation of facts.|\"\"In essence, the facts are as follows:|\"\"The Defendant purchased a quantity of vitamin capsules from the Interna-|tional Vitamin Corporation of New York, which company manufactured, packaged,|and labeled them. These were shipped to the defendant at his place of business|in Los Angeles, in April 1939. Later, in June 1940, defendant obtained a guar-|antee from the International Vitamin Corporation assuring compliance with the|Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of any vitamin products they might sell|to the defendant.|\"\"In October 1940, defendant sold and-shipped a quantity of these vitamin|capsules in interstate commerce.|\"\"In November 1940, a sample was taken from this shipment, which was tested|and analyzed by an agent of the Food and Drug Administration. The vitamin|potency, in respect to vitamin Bi, was found to be substantially below that repre-|sented on the labels of the boxes containing the capsules.|\"\"The defendant did not alter the contents of the vitamin capsules, the contents|of the boxes, nor the labels on the boxes.|\"\"The information charges defendant with the violation of the Federal Food,|Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938 (Hereafter called, the Act), in four counts.|\"\"The first count charges that the defendant delivered into interstate commerce|an adulterated food in violation of the act.|\"\"The third count charges that the defendant misbranded a food in violation of|the act.|\"\"The second count charges that the defendant delivered into interstate com-|merce an adulterated drug in violation of the Act.|\"\"The fourth count charges that the defendant misbranded a drug in violation of|the Act.|\"\"These will be discussed in the order just stated.|\"\"The apparent reason for drafting the information in four counts, and thereby|presenting duplicate charges against the defendant-one based on a violation|of the Act in respect to food, and the other in respect to drugs-is that there is|a question as to whether concentrated vitamins in capsules are to be considered|as a food or as a drug.|\"\"The commercial use of concentrated vitamins in the fields of medicine and|dietetics is a comparatively recent innovation. Experts in these fields disagree|as to the category in which such vitamins are to be classed. However, it is not|necessary for us to go into the subject extensively. Our inquiry is limited to the|question of how vitamins should be classified solely in applying the provisions|of the Act. In doing so, our first inquiry directs us to the definitions in the|Act itself.|\"\"In 21 U. S. C A. S21 {ff), it is stated: 'For the purposes of this chapter the|term 'Drug' means (1) articles recognized in the official United States Pharma-|copoeia, official Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the U. S., or official National|Formulary, . .. .'|\"\"The following vitamins are so recognized and listed in the Pharmacopoeia of|the United States, 12th Revision, 1943: Vitamins A, Bi, C, D, D2, D3, and G.|\"\"It is seen, therefore, that vitamins fall within the definition of 'drugs' insofar|as the application of the Act is concerned. It is therefore immaterial in the|determination of the case at bar how they are classified for other purposes.|\"\"This interpretation is supported by the case of United States v. Frank, 189 Fed.|195, (1911). Here the court in interpreting a section similar to ours in the 1906|Food and Drug Act states at page 199: 'Section 6. of the Act of 1906 provides:|\"\"That the term 'drug' as used in this Act, shall include all medicines and prep-|arations recognized in the United States Pharmacopoeia or National Formu-|lary for internal or external use, and any substance or mixture of substances|intended to be used for the cure, mitigation, or prevention of diseases of|either man or other animals . . .\"\" These are mere terms of description. If|the Pharmacopoeia or National Formulary says something is a drug, it is a drug|under the meaning of the Act. . . .'|\"\"The classification of vitamins as 'drugs' is logical in the light of analogous|cases. This is well exemplified by the case of Goodwin v. United States (C. C. A.,|6th Circuit) 2 Fed. (2nd) 200, where the court held that mineral water trans-|ported, not being in its original state, and processes of separation of the con-|stituent drug elements being carried to the extent that the commercial water|can no longer be used as a beverage, but only in small quantities as a drug, it is to|be classified as a 'drug', and not a 'food', within the Food and Drug Act.|\"\"We shall therefore deem concentrated vitamins as 'drugs' in the application|of the Act before us.|\"\"Since these vitamin products are 'drugs', count one and count three of the|information are unsupported by the facts.|\"\"Therefore, defendant is found not guilty as to counts one and three of the|information.|\"\"The allegations of violations of the Act in counts two and four, respectively,|are concerned with the unlawful shipping of adulterated drugs in interstate|commerce, and with the unlawful shipping of misbranded drugs in interstate|commerce.|\"\"In order that the prosecution may make out a prima facie case it is only|necessary to show that defendant violated the express requirements of the Act.|Good faith does not enter into the matter.|\"\"Strong, Cool and Co. v. United States, 103 Fed. (2d) 671. Here it was held|that in a prosecution for shipment in interstate commerce of adulterated cold|tablets in violation of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, intent of de-|fendant was not material, since statute requires specific statements as to con-|tent of acetanilid compound.|\"\"In 'Law of Foods, Drugs, and Cosmetics' by Toulman, 1942 Edition, it is|stated on page 75,: 'By the terms of the 1938 Act, good faith is a defence in crim-|inal prosecution, when the charge is the receiving of adulterated or misbranded|goods in interstate commerce. The good faith exemption does not apply when the|charge is the shipping of misbranded or adulterated goods in interstate com-|merce. Therefore, intent, or something very like intent, must be proved by the|government to secure a conviction when there is instituted a criminal prosecu-|tion for the receiving of adulterated or misbranded goods in interstate commerce.|By implication, the new law does not require intent to be proved in cases where|there is instituted a criminal prosecution for the shipping of adulterated or|misbranded goods in interstate commerce.'|\"\"The sections of the Food and Drug Act involved here|' are:|\"\"21 U. S. O. 331 (a), which states: 'The following acts and the causing thereof|are hereby prohibited: (a) The introduction or delivery for introduction into|interstate commerce of any food, drug, device, or cosmetic that is adulterated or|misbranded.'|\"\"21 U. S. 0. 351 (c), which states: 'A drug or device shall be deemed to be|adulterated if it is not subject to the provisions of paragraph (b) of this section|and its strength differs from or its purity or quality falls below, that which it|purports or is represented to possess.'|\"\"21 U. S. C. 352 (a), states: 'A drug or device shall be deemed to be misbranded|if its labeling is false or misleading in any particular.'|\"\"It is readily seen that these statutes cover the stipulated facts in our case,|and it is therefore unnecessary to repeat them.|\"\"Therefore, a prima facie case has been made out by the Government against|the defendant on both counts.|\"\"However, the Act permits a defense to prosecution thereunder if a valid|'guaranty' has been obtained.|\"\"This is set forth in 21 U. S. C. 333 (c), which states, 'No person shall be sub-|ject to the penalties of subscrion (a) of this section (2) for having violated|section 331 (a) or (d), if he establishes a guaranty or undertaking signed by,|and containing the name and address of, the person residing in the United States|from whom he received in good faith the article, to the effect, in case of an alleged|violation of section 221 (a ),that such article is not adulterated or misbranded,|within the meaning of this chapter, designating this chapter, or to the effect,|in case of an alleged violation of section 331 (d), that such article is not an|article which may not, under the provisions of section 344 or 355, be introduced|into interstate commerce; . . .'|\"\"In our case a purported guaranty was obtained fourteen months after|acquiring the product.|\"\"It is within the promise of the court to determine the legal meaning of|documents.|\"\"In United States v. Glaser, etc. (C. C. A. 7) 224 Fed. 84, it was held that the|question of whether or not a given instrument in writing is a guaranty is a|question of law, to be decided by the court.|\"\"Therefore, the question as to whether this guaranty is valid, as being within|the foregoing section and therefore exempting the defendant from liability is a|question of law for the court to determine from the document.|\"\"The object of this portion of the Act is to shift criminal responsibility rather|than to absolve all parties therefrom. The reason for this is that the primary|purpose of the Act is the protection of the public. It is only secondarily con-|cerned with the question of the identity of the person who is to bear the brunt of|the burden-i. e. between the manufacturer and the retailer-so long as there|is positive responsibility in some party. This interpretation is supported by|Stemhardt Bros, and Co. v. United States (C. C. A. 2nd). 191 Federal 798.,|United States v. Antikammia Co., 231 U. S. 654.|\"\"In United States v. Mayfield, et al., 177 Fed. 765, the court in construing the|counterpart of our section in the 1906 Food and Drug Act, states: \"\"The ninth|section provides that no dealer shall be prosecuted under the provisions of the|Act, when he can establish a guaranty, signed by the manufacturer from whom|he purchased such articles, to the effect that the same article is not adulterated|or misbranded within the meaning of the act; in which case, the manufacturer|shall be amenable to the prosecutions, fines, and other penalties, which would|otherwise attach to the dealer. The purpose of Congress was to place liability|for the violation of the law upon some one in each instance. Primarily the|liability is on the dealer who introduces the article into interstate commerce.|The liability can be shifted from the dealer only by imposing the same liability|upon the manufacturer. This can be done only by virtue of the manufacturer's|guaranty to the dealer. If, for any reason, the guaranty is insufficient to impose|liability upon the manufacturer, it remains where it primarily rested-upon|the dealer. To have the effect of releasing the dealer from liability for the|violation of the act, complained of in this prosecution, the guaranty must be of|a character to impose liability for the same violation upon the manufacturer, if|he were substituted for these defendants in this case; otherwise, both parties|would escape liability, and the purpose expressed by Congress would be de-|feated. The act says that the manufacturer who signs the guaranty shall be|subject to the same prosecution and penalties as the dealer. If a conviction|could not be sustained against the manufacturer upon its guaranty, if sub-|stituted for the defendants in this case, then the taking of the guaranty by|defendants would be no defense to their violation of the law in reference to the|shipment in question, though they had no knowledge that it was adulterated or|misbranded.'|\"\"Therefore, in order for the defendant to be absolved of liability he must|comply clearly with the Act.|\"\"Here, Exhibit 'A' is claimed by defendant to be such a guaranty.|\"\"The guaranty states that the International \"\"Vitamin Corporation guarantees|that no food, drug, etc., 'now or hereafter' made for defendant will 'at the|time of such shipment' be adulterated or misbranded within the meaning|of the Act. Further on, it states that, 'This guaranty shall be a continuing|.guaranty . . .'|\"\"This guaranty was given after the goods in question here were sold and|?delivered to the defendant.|\"\"In order for the guaranty to be valid as a defense, it must refer to the specific|goods and the specific sale in question.|\"\"As stated in United States v. Mayfield (supra), 'In order for the manufac-|turer's guaranty to be effective to impose any liability upon him for any violation|of law as to the article, which is the basis of this prosecution, the guaranty must|relate to the identical article introduced into interstate commerce by the defend-|ants as dealers. Otherwise the answer of the manufacturer to the prosecution|would be that he had never guaranteed the article shipped by the dealer, and|the answer would be complete.'|\"\"This is clearly not the case in this guaranty. The language is susceptible of|only one interpretation-that the guaranty was to be a 'continuing guaranty/|effective only from the date given, on into the future. Its meaning clearly does|not include a guaranty of any sales made in the past.|\"\"The apparent postscript on the document is claimed to have a retroactive|effect, and to throw the guaranty within the purview of the exemption section.|\"\"The postscript reads, 'The above guarantee applies to all merchandise shipped|by us against your contracts.' It is then signed by an unidentified 'F. Satz.'|\"\"This language may possibly be ambiguous. However, construed in the light|of the guarantee, it becomes apparent that it is capable of only one meaning.|That is, that the guaranty is a continuing guarantee.|\"\"However, assuming arguendo, that it meant all the defendant claims it means,|it still would not help him. Two interpretations may be made of this postscript.|One is that Satz is attempting to interpret the meaning of the guaranty; the|other that Satz is attempting to supplement the legal liability of the corporation.|The first view is of no effect here, because that is a question of law for the|court to determine. The second view'has no effect because there is no showing|that Satz had authority to bind the corporation, or even that he was attempting|to bind the corporation. Further, if he signed it with his personal backing, it|is fatal because, as stated in Regulation (g) under 21U. S. C. 303 (c), 'A guarantee|or undertaking, if signed by two or more persons, shall state that such persons|severally guarantee the article to which it applies.' This was not done here.|\"\"Therefore, under any of the foregoing interpretations it is seen that there is|no guaranty which would cover the goods in question.|\"\"Because of the foregoing, this guaranty fails in its validity for the purpose|of exempting the defendant from prosecution, and In effect is as though no|guaranty at all were given. This eliminates any defense defendant might have|in this respect.|\"\"Defendant is found guilty of count two and count four as charged in the|information.|\"\"The penalties under this act are: (21 U. S. C. A. 333 (a), (b))|\"\"(1) Imprisonment for not more than one year, a fine of not more than $1,000,|or both, as for a misdemeanor.|\"\" (2) If the accused has already been convicted once, under that statute, the|penalty is imprisonment for not more than 3 years, and a fine of not more than|$10,000, or both.|\"\"(3) If the violation is with intent to defraud and mislead, the penalty is the|same as if the accused had already been once convicted.\"\"|920. Adulteration and misbranding of Cow-Vet and misbranding of Willits ToneX, SprayX, and Powder WormX. U. S. v. G. D. Willits (G. D. Willits Co.). Pica of nolo contendere. Sentence suspended and defendant placed on probation for 6 months.ddnj00920October 1944G. D. Willits, trading as G. D. Willits Go., Salladasburg, Pa.Cow-Vet; Willits ToneX, SprayX, and Powder WormXAugust 26, 1941New JerseyPennsylvaniaNew JerseyMiddle District of Pennsylvania920F. D. C. No. 7256. Sample Nos. 54269-E to 54271-E, incl. , 54273-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00920ddnj|920. Adulteration and misbranding of Cow-Vet and misbranding of Willits|ToneX, SprayX, and Powder WormX. TJ. S. v. G. D. Willits (G. D.|Willits Co.). Pica of nolo contendere. Sentence suspended and defend-|ant placed on probation for 6 months. (F. D. C. No. 7256. Sample Nos.|54269-E to 54271-E, incl., 54273-E.)|In addition to the false and misleading therapeutic claims in' the labeling of|these products, the strength of the Cow-Vet differed from that which it purported|and was represented to possess.|On August 11,1942, the United States attorney for the Middle District of Penn-|sylvania filed an information against G. D. Willits, trading as G. D. Willits Go.,|Salladasburg, Pa., alleging shipment on or about August 26, 1941, from the State|of Pennsylvania into the State of New Jersey of quantities of the above-named|drugs, all of which were misbranded, and one of which, the Cow-Vet, was also|adulterated.|Analysis of a sample of the ToneX showed that it consisted essentially of small|proportions of potassium chlorate, potassium dichromate, potassium nitrate, mag-|nesium sulfate, and water.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements appearing in its labeling|which represented and suggested that the drug was a wonderful conditioner of|poultry, an antiseptic, a wonderful intestinal astringent, and was efficacious|in the cure, mitigation, treatment, prevention, or removal of all types of worms|from poultry; that it was a tonic; that it was scientifically compounded and would|prevent disease in poultry; that it would cause poultry to drink more water and|would thereby assist in the absorption of the yolk and would eliminate pasting;|that it would tone up the entire digestive system, and was an effective conditioner|of poultry; that it would be efficacious in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or|prevention of coccidiosis and internal parasites; that it would aid in healing the|intestinal lining of poultry and in flushing the mucous from the intestinal tract,|and would be efficacious in the cure* mitigation, treatment, or prevention of com-|mon diarrhea in poultry; and that the article, in addition to other drug products|of \"\"The Willits XLine\"\" of poultry and livestock health products, namely, \"\"Willits|SprayX,\"\" \"\"Willits WormX Powder,\"\" and \"\"Willits Cow-Vet,\"\" represented the|latest developments in the control of poultry and livestock diseases; that it|would promote the health of poultry; that it would assist in keeping the intestines|of poultry healthy, and was efficacious in the cure, mitigation, treatment, pre-|vention, or removal of roundworms and tapeworms; that it would be efficacious|in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of colds and roup in poultry,|and was efficacious in the cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention in poultry of|droopy plumage, unthriftiness, pale combs and legs, drooping wings and emacia-|tion, were false and misleading since the article would not be efficacious for|the purposes represented.|Analysis of a sample of the SprayX showed that it consisted -essentially of small|proportions of volatile oils, including menthol and camphor incorporated in a|base of mineral oil.|The SprayX was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements appearing|in its labeling which represented and suggested that the article was efficacious|for external and internal use as a soothing agent for the mucous membrane of|the mouth, nostrils, throat, and eyes of poultry; that it was efficacious as an|expectorant; and that, when used as directed, it was efficacious to loosen up|canker conditions of the mouth; that it would prevent disease in poultry; that|the article, in addition to other drug products of \"\"The Willits X-Line\"\" of poul-|try and livestock health products, as listed above, represented the latest devel-|opments in the control of poultry and livestock diseases; that the article was|efficacious in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of colds in poultry|and of injured or infected mucous membranes of the eyes, nostrils, mouth and\"\"|throat of domestic poultry; and that it would be efficacious in the cure, mitiga-|tion, treatment or prevention of colds and roup in poultry, were false and mis-|leading since the article was neither an article of the nature above-described,,|nor efficacious for the purposes represented.|Analysis of a sample of the Powder WormX showed that it consisted essen-|tially of copper sulfate, iron sulfate, plant material including nux vomica and|aniseed, and a small proportion of nicotine sulfate.|The Powder WormX was alleged to. be misbranded in that the statements|appearing in its labeling, which represented and suggested that the drug was a|nicotine kamala combination and was efficacious for expelling large round|ascaridia worms and desegmenting large tapeworms in chickens and turkeys;,|that it would promote health in poultry and would prevent losses; that, when|used as directed, the article was efficacious in the cure, mitigation, treatment,,|prevention, or removal of all types of worms in poultry; that it was scientifi-|cally compounded and would prevent disease in poultry; that it was efficacious|in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of coccidiosis and internal|parasites; that, when used as directed, it would desegment those species of|tapeworms that cause an irritation to the intestinal lining and absorb those|nutrients from the feed that are essential to the growth, development, and egg-|producing organs of pullets; that it was efficacious in the cure, mitigation,|treatment, prevention, or removal of tapeworms; that the article, in addition!|to other drug products of \"\"The Willits X-Line\"\" of poultry and livestock health|products, represented the latest developments in the control of poultry and|livestock diseases; that the article would expel ascaridia lineata and other|forms of roundworms, and would desegment large tapeworms in chickens and\"\"|turkeys; that it was efficacious in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or preven-|tion in poultry of droopy plumage, unthriftiness, pale combs and legs, drooping-|wings, and emaciation were false and misleading since the article would not be|efficacious for the purposes represented.|Analysis of a sample of the Cow-Vet showed that, in addition to not more|than 0.178 percent of potassium iodide, it contained saltpeter, Epsom salt,|and plant material, including nux vomica incorporated in a base of linseed meal.|The Cow-Vet was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements appearing|in its labeling which represented and suggested that the article had been in-|vestigated and approved by competent animal research authorities; that it had|a special tonic value; that it contained not less than 0.36 percent of potassium|Iodide; that it was a tonic for cows and a herd conditioner, and was an effective|treatment for cows that would not conceive and for bulls that had become|impotent; that it was scientifically compounded; that the article, in addition|to other drug products of \"\"The Willits X-Line\"\" of poultry and livestock health|products, represented the latest developments in the control of poultry and|livestock diseases; that the article would stimulate and nourish the glands that,|control reproduction, food assimilation, and milk production; that the ingredients|of the article had a definite function on the glands which control reproduction ;|that the article would supply vitamin E for dairy cattle and thereby correct|breeding troubles; that it was efficacious in the treatment of colds of the urinary|tract and of disease of the bladder; that it would increase perspiration in for-|mative stages of colds and in muscular ailments due to colds; that it was effi-|cacious in the treatment of uterine disorders such as after-pains and dysmenor-|rhea ; and that it was a gentle tonic were false and misleading since the article|contained less than 0.36 percent of potassium iodide and would not be effica-|cious for the purposes represented.|It was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from that which|it purported and was represented to possess since the statement \"\"Cow-Vet Con-|tains * * * Potassium Iodide .36 percent,\"\" appearing on its label, repre-|sented and suggested that the article contained not less than .36 percent of|potassium iodide, whereas it contained not more than 0.17 percent of potassium|iodide.|On January 20, 1943, the defendant having entered a plea of nolle contendere,,|the court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed the defendant oa|probation for 6 months.|921. Adulteration of chorionic gonadotropic hormone. U. S. v. Abraham J. Blaivas, Murray Blaivas, Benjamin W. Feldman, and Emanuel Mandelbaum (Kings County Research Laboratories). Pleas of guilty. Fines of $100 against Benjamin W. Feldman, $300 against Murray Blaivas, and 500 each against Abraham J. Blaivas and Emanuel Mandelbaum. Sentence against each of the defendants of 6 months in prison suspended, and the defendants placed on probation for 18 months.ddnj00921October 1944Abraham J. Blaivas, Murray Blaivas, Benjamin W. Feldman, and Emanuel Mandelbaum, copartners trading as the Kings County Research Laboratories, Brooklyn, N. Y.chorionic gonadotropic hormoneMarch 2, 1942PennsylvaniaNew YorkPennsylvaniaEastern District of New York921F. D. C. No. 7694. Sample- No. 54941-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00921ddnj|921. Adulteration of chorionic gonadotropic hormone. U. S. v. Abraham J.|Blalvas, Murray Blalvas, Benjamin W. Feldman, and Emanuel Mandel-|banm (Kings County Research Laboratories). Pleas of guilty. Fines|of $100 against Benjamin W. Feldman, $300 against Murray Blalvas, and|$500 each against Abraham J. Blalvas and Emanuel Bfendelbanm. Sentence|against each of the defendants of 6 months in prison suspended, and the|defendants placed on probation for 18 months. (F. D. C. No. 7694. Sample-|No. 54941-E.)|This article differed from its declared standard of strength and quality.|On April 3, 1943, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of New-|York filed an information against Abraham J. Blaivas, Murray Blaivas, Benjamin|W. Feldman, and Emanuel Mandelbaum, copartners trading as the Kings County-|Research Laboratories, Brooklyn, N. Y., alleging shipment on or about March 2,|1942, from the State of New York into the State of Pennsylvania of a quantity of|chorionic gonadotropic hormone which was adulterated.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from and|its quality fell below that which it purported and was represented to possess,|viz., a physiological activity of 5,000 rat units (equivalent to approximately e.OOO'|international units) of chorionic gonadotropic hormone in each 10 cci, and anterior|pituitary-like sex hormone having a physiological activity of 500 rat units in each|cubic centimeter, since it possessed a physiological activity, if any, of not more|than 280 rat units or not more than 280 international units of chorionic gonado-|tropic homone in each 10 cc, and contained in each cubic centimeter an amount of|anterior pituitary-like sex hormone having a physiological activity, if any, of not|more than 28 rat units.|On April 22, 1943, the defendants having entered pleas of guilty, the court|imposed fines of $100 against Benjamin W. Feldman, $300 against Murray|Blaivas, and $500 each against Abraham J. Blaivas and, Emanuel Mandelbaum.|Sentences against each of the defendants of 6 months in prison were suspended|and the defendants were placed on probation for 18 months.|922. Adulteration of Ladner's Improved Poultry Mixture. U. S. v. Ezra Everett Ladner (Ladner's Laboratories). Plea of guilty. Sentence, 6 months in Federal jail; sentence suspended and defendant placed on probation for 6 months.ddnj00922October 1944Ezra Everett Ladner, trading as Ladner's Laboratories at Mobile, Ala.Ladner'g Improved Poultry MixtureJanuary 3, 1941MississippiAlabamaMississippiSouthern District of Alabama922F. D. C. No. 4138. Sample No. 35410-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00922ddnj|922. Adulteration of Ladner'g Improved Poultry Mixture. U. S. v. Ezra Everett|Ladner (Ladner's Laboratories). Plea of guilty. Sentence, 6 months in|Federal jail: sentence suspended and defendant placed on probation for|6 months. (F. D. C. No. 4138. Sample No. 35410-B.)|On July 18, 1942, the United States attorney for the Southern District of Ala-|bama filed an information against Ezra Everett Ladner, trading as Ladner's|Laboratories at Mobile, Ala., alleging shipment on or about January 3, 1941,|from the State of Alabama into the State of Mississippi of a quantity of Ladner's|Improved Poultry Mixture which was adulterated and misbranded.|Analysis of the article showed that it contained 68 percent of hydrated lime|(calcium hydroxide), 11.96 percent of Epsom salt (magnesium sulfate), 7.68 per-|cent iron hydroxide (equivalent to 5.74 percent iron oxide), 11.11 percent sulfur,|and 1.95 percent acid-insoluble residue (which was chiefly sand and silica).|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from|that which it purported or was represented to possess, since it was represented|in its labeling as consisting of the following ingredients in the stated proportions:|\"\"Magnesium Sulphate .062-3?, Sulphur Lotum .062-3?, Calcium Hydroxide|.100?, Mineral Oxide of Iron .081?,\"\" whereas it did not consist of the ingre-|dients in the proportions stated, but did consist essentially as disclosed by the|analysis above.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements \"\"Contents|Magnesium Sulphate .062-3?, Sulphur Lotum .062-3?, Calcium Hydroxide|.100?, Mineral Oxide of Iron .081?,\"\" borne on the carton, were false and mislead-|ing since the article did not consist of the ingredients in the stated proportions.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that statements on the carton regard-|ing the efficacy of the article in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of|disease in poultry were false and misleading, since they represented that the|article would be efficacious in the treatment of cholera, roup, sorehead, white|diarrhea, worms, and limber neck; that it would restore the health of baby chicks;|that it would be beneficial in the breeding of fancy poultry, and would improve|and maintain the health of the flock and thus increase egg production, whereas|the article would not be efficacious for such purposes.|On January 18, 1943, the defendant having entered a plea of guilty, the court|imposed a sentence of 6 months in the Federal jail in New Orleans, but suspended|the sentence and placed him on probation for 6 months.|923. Adulteration and misbranding of aromatic spirit of ammonia, and sweet spirit of nitre. U. S. v. 18 Dozen Bottles of Aromatic Spirit of Ammonia and 18 Dozen Bottles of Sweet Spirit of Nitre. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00923October 1944Baker Drug Corporation, Norfolk, Va.aromatic spirit of ammonia, and sweet spirit of nitreMarch 21, 1942Littleton, N. C.Norfolk, Va.Littleton, N. C.Eastern District of North Carolina923F. D. C. No. 7518. Sample Nos. 87895-E, 87896-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00923ddnj|923. Adulteration and misbranding of aromatic spirit of ammonia, and sweet|spirit of nitre. V. S. v. 18 Dozen Bottles of Aromatic Spirit of Ammonia|and 18 Dozen Bottles of Sweet Spirit of Nitre. Default decree of con-|demnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 7518. Sample Nos. 87895-E,|87896-E.)|On May 23, 1942, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of North|Carolina filed a libel against the above-named products at Littleton, N. C, alleging|that the articles had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about March 21,|1942, by the Baker Drug Corporation, Norfolk, Va.; and charging that they were|adulterated and misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the aromatic spirit of ammonia showed that it con-|tained not less than 2.95 grams of total ammonia in each 100 cc. and not more than|58.2 percent of alcohol, whereas the United States Pharmacopoeia provides,|among other things, that each 100 cc. shall contain not more than 2.1 grams of|total ammonia and that the alcohol content shall be between 62 and 68 percent by|volume.|Examination of a sample of the sweet spirit of nitre showed that its specific|gravity was 0.8347 at 25? C. and that its ethyl nitrite content was extremely|variable, ranging from 0.77 percent to 2.09 percent, whereas the Pharmacopoeia|provides, among other things, that the article shall contain a specific gravity of|not more than 0.823 at 25? O. and shall contain not less than 3 percent of ethyl|nitrite.|The articles were alleged to be adulterated in that they purported to be drugs,|the names of which are recognized in an official compendium, and their strength|differed from the standards set forth in such compendium, and their difference|in strength from such standards was not stated on their labels.|They were alleged to be misbranded in that the name and address of the|manufacturer appeared in a very small size of type which, on some labels, was|practically illegible and was therefore not prominently placed upon the labels with|such conspicuousness, as compared with other words, statements, designs, or|devices, as to render it likely to be read and understood by the ordinary individual|under customary conditions of purchase and use.|On August 14, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the products were ordered destroyed.|924. Adulteration and misbranding of Azamine Capsules. U. S. v. 4 Boxes of Azamlne Capsules. Default decree of condemnation. Product ordered destroyed.ddnj00924October 1944Nepera Chemical Co., Inc.Azamine CapsulesJune 8, 1942Milwaukee, Wisc.Tonkers, N. YMilwaukee, Wisc.Eastern District of Wisconsin924F. D. C. No. 8018. Sample No. 7216-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00924ddnj|924. Adulteration and misbranding of Azamine Capsules. IT. S. v. 4 Boxes of|Azamlne Capsules. Default decree of condemnation. Product ordered|destroyed. (F. D. C. No. 8018. Sample No. 7216-F.)|This product contained the active ingredient in excess of the amount declared|on the label, and it would not be an effective treatment for various disease con-|ditions for which it was recommended in the labeling.|On July 31, 1942, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Wis-|consin filed a libel at Milwaukee, Wis., against 4 boxes of Azamine Capsules,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|June 8, 1942, by the Nepera Chemical Co., Inc., from Tonkers, N. Y.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that each capsule contained not|less than 5.89 grams (90.9 grains) of tolyl azo diamino pyridine hydrochloride.|It was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from that which|it purported and was represented to possess.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement \"\"5 Grams * * *|Each capsule contains 5 grams (77.2 grs. app.) of Tolyl-Azo-Diamino-Pyridine-|Hydrochloride,\"\" borne on the label, was false and misleading.|The article was also alleged to be misbranded in that statements made in the|labeling which represented and suggested that it was effective in the treatment|of various disease conditions were false and misleading since it was not|effective for these conditions. Some of the representations made were that|Azamine has been shown to possess marked bactericidal power in coccal and B.|coli infections, and that it was an antiseptic of proved value in a wide range|of infections in large and small animals. It was recommended for mastitis,|metritis, vesicular vaginitis, urinary infections, necrotic lesions, sinuses and|fistulae, as well as for acute septic metritis, cystitis, nephritis, coccidiosis, gas-|tritis, enteritis, septicemia and pyemia. It was also recommended as a topical|application for udder and teat injuries, keratitis, conjunctivitis, and traumata of|eye and associated tissues.|On October 1, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|925. Adulteration and misbranding of Paracelsus. U. S. v. 26 Boxes of Paracelsus. Default decree of condemnation. Product ordered destroyed.ddnj00925October 1944American Biochemical CorporationParacelsusMay 22, 1942Bedford, Ind.Cleveland, OhioBedford, Ind.Southern District of Indiana925F. D. C. No. 8161. Sample No. 4205-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00925ddnj|925. Adulteration and misbranding of Paracelsus. U. S. v. 26 Boxes of Para|celsus. Default decree of condemnation. Product ordered destroyed.|(F. D. C. No. 8161. Sample No. 4205-F.)|On or about August 23, 1942, the United States attorney for the Southern|District of Indiana filed a libel at New Albany, IncL, against 26 boxes of Paracel-|sus at Bedford, Ind., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate|commerce on or about May 22, 1942, by the American Biochemical Corporation|from Cleveland. Ohio.|The labeling of the article represented it to possess the following ingredients:|Phosphorus, 245 milligrams; calcium, 84 milligrams; iron, 12 milligrams; iodine,|2.40 milligrams; manganese, .09 milligram; magnesium, 8 milligrams; and|sulfur, 68 milligrams.|Analysis of the article showed that it was a mixture of chemical salts, prin-|cipally sodium phosphate, potassium chloride, table salt, magnesium sulfate,|calcium lactate, sodium bicarbonate, and lesser quantities of other chemical|salts. The article was approximately 93 percent deficient in phosphorus, 55|percent deficient in calcium, 90 percent deficient in iron, and contained no iodine.|It contained 211 percent more manganese, 181 percent more magnesium, and|63 percent more sulfur than was declared on the label.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from that|which it was represented to possess.|It was also misbranded in that the statements with respect to the mineral|content were false and misleading, since the statements were incorrect. It was|further misbranded since statements made in the labeling representing and sug-|gesting that the product was efficacious as a dietary supplement, as a body|builder, as a tonic, and to correct disorders arising from dietary deficiencies,|Tvere false and misleading. The product was also recommended in the labeling|as efficacious in the treatment of arthritis, rheumatism, neuritis, influenza, and|phlebitis, and was represented as a combination of inorganic minerals in their|most assimilable form, which would supply the minerals necessary to normal|nutrition in the most desirable amounts. In fact, the article was not efficacious|for the purposes recommended and was not a combination of inorganic minerals|in their most assimilable form, which would supply the minerals necessary to|normal nutrition in the most desirable amounts.|On October 9, 1942, no claimant having, appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|926. Adulteration of Mennen Antiseptic Oil. U. S. v. 38 Packages of Mennen Antiseptic Oil. Default decree of condemnation. Product ordered delivered to New York City Salvage Committee.ddnj00926October 1944Mennen Co.Mennen Antiseptic OilFebruary 16, 1942New York, N. Y.Newark, N. JNew York, N. Y.Southern District of New York926F. D. C. No. 8250. Sample No. 16841-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00926ddnj|926. Adulteration of Mennen Antiseptic Oil. IT. S. v. 38 Packages of Mennen|Antiseptic Oil. Default decree of condemnation. Product ordered de-|livered to New York City Salvage Committee. (F. D. C. No. 8250. Sample|No. 16841-F.)|On August 27, 1942, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|New York filed a libel against 38 packages of Mennen Antiseptic Oil at New|York, N. Y., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on|or about February 16,1942, by the Mennen Co., from Newark, N. J.|Bacteriological examination showed that the article was neither germicidal|nor self-sterilizing. Chemical examination showed that it consisted of a yellow,|perfumed, saponifiable oil containing small amounts of hydroxyquinoline, chloro-|butanol, hydroquinone, and benzoic acid. The article was alleged to be adul-|terated in that its strength differed from that which it was represented to.|possess in the labeling, \"\"Germicidal, * * * Self Sterilizing.\"\"|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements appearing|in the labeling were false and misleading since the article was not a germicide,|was not self-sterilizing, and was not efficacious for the symptoms and conditions|mentioned: \"\"* * * Germicidal * * * Self-Sterilizing * * * It is so|medicated as to make the oil * * * germicidal * * * self-sterilizing.|*?* * It has equal antiseptic and germicidal powers to the commonly used|ammoniated mercury ointments. * * * The oil is self-sterilizing, and auto-|claving is not necessary. * * * It helps kill and prevent the growth of pyo-|genic organisms as long as it is in contact with the skin. * * * It helps|maintain and conserve vital body temperature. It helps sterilize * * * the|diaper area. * * * Meets the widespread demand of hospitals, physicians,|nurses and mothers * * * germicidal * * * and self-sterilizing oil|*?* * offers protection against infection * * * Mennen Antiseptic Oil aids|in keeping the skin of the babies free from pyogenic organisms. * * * quickly|relieves * * * aggravated skin conditions. Prescribed where * * * ger-|micidal oil dressing is required.\"\"|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that it was fabricated from two|or more ingredients and its label failed to bear a statement of the quantity or|proportion of chlorobutanol, a chloroform derivative, contained therein.|On October 1, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the court ordered the marshal to deliver the article to the New|York City Salvage Committee for national defense and salvage purposes.|DRUGS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF FALSE AND MISLEADING CLAIMS28|DRUGS FOR HUMAN USE|1001. Action to enjoin and restrain distribution of Sekov products. U. S. v. Sekov Corporation and Hazel Ruth Vokes (Sekov Studios). Permanent injunction granted.ddnj01001March 1945counsel for the claimant, the Sekov Corporation, agreedSekov productsJuly 29, 1942California\NCaliforniaSouthern District of California1001Inj. No.53The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01001ddnj|FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION|1945|*ffi?Sj|APR|945|NOTICES OF JUDGMENT UNDER THE FEDEIfVl^OD/^lt&^AT^.,|AND COSMETIC ACT t_!l^* ^ SIAIIUN|[Given pursuant to section 705 of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act]|1001-1050|DRUGS AND DEVICES|The cases reported herewith were instituted in the United States district|courts by the United States attorneys acting upon! reports submitted by direction|of the Federal Security Administrator.|WATSON B. MILDER, Acting Administrator, Federal Security Agency.|WASHINGTON. D. C, December 12, 1944.|CONTENTS*|Page|Drags actionable because of potential danger|when used according to directions |187|Drags actionable because of failure to bear ade-|quate directions or warning statements 196|Drags actionable because of deviation from|official or own standards |204|Page|Drugs actionable because of false and misleading|claims | 218|Drags for human use |218|Drugs for veterinary use |232|Index |233|DRUGS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF POTENTIAL DANGER WHEN USED|ACCORDING TO DIRECTIONS|1001. Action to enjoin and restrain distribution of Sekov products. U. S. v. Sekov|Corporation and Hazel Ruth Vokes (Sekov Studios). Permanent injunc-|tion granted. (Inj. No. 53.)|On April 17, 1943, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|California filed a complaint for injunction against the Sekov Corporation and|Hazel Ruth Vokes, trading under the name of the Sekov Studios, Hollywood,|Calif. (The complaint also joined as party defendant Edwin Hoskin Vokes, but|after hearing, the court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction over that person.)|The complaint alleged: (1) That the defendants were engaged in the manu-|facture of various capsules which contained desiccated thyroid, which were|designated by the names \"\"Sekov,\"\" \"\"Sekov Reducer,\"\" \"\"Sekov Reducer for Men,\"\"|\"\"Sekov Formula P,\"\" \"\"Sekov Formula R,\"\" and \"\"Sekov Formula T,\"\" and which|were being introduced and delivered for introduction into interstate commerce|in capsule form, for sale to the general public for self-medication in the treatment|of obesity.|(2) That \"\"Sekov\"\" and \"\"Sekov Reducer\"\" each consisted of two types of capsules,|designated as Capsule No. 1 and Capsule No. 2; that the No. 1 capsules contained|glandular material including thyroid, the thyroid content varying from 1.87|grains to 2 grains per capsule, the recommended dosage suggested being 1 capsule|before the noon meal; that the No. 2 capsules contained rhubarb, cascara sagrada,|asafetida, and other ingredients, the recommended dosage being 1 capsule every|other night (just before retiring) ; that the \"\"Sekov Reducer for Men\"\" consisted|of 2 types of capsules, the No. 1 containing, in addition to other ingredients,|thyroid and aloin, the thyroid content varying from 1.84 grains to 1.95 grains|per capsule, the dosage recommended being \"\"One capsule morning and one|capsule evening (preferably half to one hour before meals)\"\"; that the No. 2|capsule was identical with the \"\"Sekov Reducer\"\" No. 2 capsule, and the dosage|recommended was \"\"One capsule every night (just before retiring)\"\"; that the|\"\"Sekov Formula P\"\" contained, in addition to other ingredients, thyroid in an|amount of approximately 1.73 grains per capsule; that/the \"\"Sekov Formula R\"\"|contained ingredients similar to the \"\"Sekov Formula P,\"\" with a thyroid content|of approximately 1 grain per capsule; that the \"\"Sekov Formula T\"\" contained|ingredients similar to the \"\"Sekov Formula P,\"\" with a thyroid content of 1.87|grains per capsule; and that the dosages recommended in the labeling of|formulas \"\"P,\"\" \"\"R,\"\" and \"\"T,\"\" were identical, \"\"One capsule per day-taken ? to 1|hour before morning meal.\"\"|*For omission of, or unsatisfactory, ingredients statements, see Nos. 1003,1005,1009,1010,1011,1022,1043.|1044; deceptive packaging, Nos. 1003,1011; failure to bear accurate statement of quantity of contents, Nos.|1003, 1009, 1010, 1033, 1034, 1040, 1043, 1047, 1049; contamination with filth, No. 1011; cosmetics, subject to|the drug provisions of the Act, Nos. 1021,1040,1043,1047.|625042-45 1 |187|(3)?That on February 17,1940, on complaint of the Federal Trade Commission ; {|a preliminary injunction was issued by the United States District Court for the j|Southern District of California, enjoining the Sekov Corporation, Edwin Hoskin|Vokes, and Hazel Ruth Yokes, as officers of the corporation and as individuals|trading as \"\"Sekov Reducing Studios,\"\" their agents, etc., from causing to be|disseminated any advertisement by any means tending to induce the purchase|in interstate commerce of the drug sold under the name of \"\"Sekov Reducer\"\, or|\"\"Sekov,\"\" or any other name, which advertisement represented directly or in-|directly that such preparations were a safe, competent, and scientific treatment|for obesity; and that on March 12, 1940, the Federal Trade Commission issued|a complaint against the Sekov Corporation, Edwin Hoskin Vokes, and Hazel|Ruth Vokes, as officers of the corporation and as individuals trading as \"\"Sekov|Reducing Studios,\"\" and on September 8, 1940, pursuant to a stipulation of facts,|the Federal Trade Commission issued its order against the defendants to cease and|desist from, directly or indirectly, doing, among other things, disseminating or|causing to be disseminated any advertisement, (a) by means of the United States|mail, or (b) by any means in commerce, as commerce is defined by the Federal|Trade Commission Act, which advertisement represented directly or through|individuals that said preparation was a safe, competent, and scientific treatment|for obesity.|(4)?That on July 21, 1941, a libel had been filed in the District Court of the|United States for the Southern District at Houston, Texas, against capsules|similar to those aforesaid, and on May 28,1942, final judgment was entered order-|ing the libeled articles destroyed. On June 5, 1942, a little more than a month|after the decision of the Texas court, the defendant shipped to Houston, Texas,|a stock of drug products similar to those condemned by the Texas court, and|a libel was filed by the United States against this shipment on July 29, 1942, to|which an answer was filed by the Sekov Corporation. At the pre-trial hearing|on October 24, 1942, counsel for the claimant, the Sekov Corporation, agreed to|stipulate that the facts alleged in the libel were true, excepting the question of|misbranding. On or about January 8, 1943, the defendants, trading as \"\"Sekov|Studios,\"\" shipped 6 cartons of Sekov to Reno, Nev., labeled \"\"Manufactured for-|Packed by-Sekov Corporation,\"\" and a libel was filed against this shipment on|March 6, 1943, in the District Court of the United States for the District of|Nevada.|(5)?That the products were misbranded as follows: (a) that the \"\"Sekov|Reducer,\"\" \"\"Sekov Formula T,\"\" and \"\"Sekov Reducer for Men\"\" were dangerous to|health when used in the dosage and with the frequency and duration prescribed,|recommended, or suggested in the labeling (this allegation was based on the fact|that the capsules, when taken according to the directions, would supply a danger-|ous amount of thyroid); (b) in that the label on the carton of each of the prepara-|tions, including the design of a slender female figure, was false and misleading|since it created the impression that the articles were safe and appropriate treat-|ments for the reduction of weight, whereas they were not safe and appropriate|treatments, but were dangerous drugs and could not be depended upon to reduce|weight; and (c) that the \"\"Sekov Formula P\"\" and \"\"Sekov Formula R\"\" were|misbranded in that the label on each carton, including the design of a slender|female figure, was false and misleading since it created the impression that the|articles were dependable and appropriate treatments for the reduction of weight,|whereas they were not dependable and appropriate treatments, and could not be|depended upon to reduce weight.|(6)?That the defendants had attempted and were still attempting to circumvent|the protection intended to be given for the health and welfare of the public, and|that the Government had endeavored to have the defendants refrain from shipping|the aforesaid products in interstate commerce, without success, over a period|of years, and, by reason of the failure of the defendants to refrain from shipping|the products, it became necessary for adequate protection to the general public|that the defendants be forever enjoined from shipping such misbranded products|in, or introducing or delivering them for introduction into, interstate commerce|to be used as food or drugs.|On April 19,1943, the court issued a temporary restraining order and an order|to show cause why, pending final determination, a preliminary injunction should|not be entered. On May 3, 1943, the court denied the motion for a preliminary?{|injunction and the case was sat for trial. On June 12, 1943, after hearing the?*|testimony, the court gave its opinion in the following minute order:|LEON R. YANKWICH, District Judge:|\"\"The above-entitled cause heretofore tried and submitted, is hereby decided|as follows:|\"\"Judgment is ordered entered for the plaintiff as prayed for in its complaint,|restraining and enjoining the defendants, their servants, agents, officers, em-|ployees, attorneys and assigns, and each of them, from the introduction or delivery|for introduction into interstate commerce of any of their said products herein|before designated and described as 'Sekov', 'Sekov Reducer', 'Sekov Reducer for|Men', 'Sekov Formula P\\ 'Sekov Formula R', and 'Sekov Formula T,' in violation|of or contrary to Title 21, U. S. C. A., Sections 301 to 392.|\"\"I am of the view that the evidence shows clearly that the preparation is mis-|branded because 'it is dangerous to health when used in the dosage or with the|frequency or duration prescribed and recommended or suggested in the label|thereof.' (21 U. S. C. A. Sec. 352 (j).) Even the physicians who testified for|the defendants admitted that the use of thyroid extracts in the quantity pre-|scribed by obese persons, whose obesity was not due to hypothyroidism, might|prove injurious to health. The physicians who testified for the Government, each|of whom is an expert in his field,-were emphatic in their statement that such use|not only might be detrimental, but in all likelihood would be so. If the defendants|limited sales to persons who are suffering from obesity due to hypothyroidism,-|either by requiring a physician's certificate to that effect, or by conducting an|examination of the person before making a sale, it could well be contended that,|with such precaution, any detrimental results would be only those incident upon|any selfmedication, which the law does not prohibit. As the sale is not made|through general outlets, but through agencies conducted by the defendants-|studios located in various cities throughout the United States, such safeguards|could easily be enforced. As it is, the record shows that any obese person who|calls at one of these studios can obtain the product without any inquiry as to|whether the conditions for which the product is intended as a remedy, co-existing|obesity and hypothyroidism,-are present. In view of this, the statement on the|carton that the preparation is 'a reducer for overweight due to a thyroid defi-|ciency' and similar statements in the pamphlet are inadequate to forestall the evil|inherent in the use of this preparation by persons whose hypothyroidism has not|been established by a competent physician. It is to be noted, as stated by me|during the argument, that nowhere is there a warning couched in imperative|negatives such as are found in products which may have a deleterious effect.|Nowhere is there a statement 'Do not use this unless a physician has told you that|your obesity is due to hypothyroidism'. The reference to the consultation of a|physician is ineffective. It reads: 'We recommend that you consult physician|to determine the cause of your overweight as the use of THYROID by a person|not deficient in THYROID may result in serious or irreparable injury to the|health of the user'.|\"\"I am also satisfied that the contra-indications are inadequate. In the light|of the expert testimony, I do not think that the average person seeking to reduce|would be competent to detect the evils resulting from its use. Bearing in mind|that the defendants in their advertising and literature, appeal especially to the|vanity of women, I am of the view that the average woman, in her desire to|achieve a beauty of form, would be more inclined to consider the manifestations|of ill effect as the natural price to pay for the results to be achieved. So that|if we consider the warnings in relation to the persons to whom they are ad-|dressed, as counsel bids us to, it is quite evident that they are ineffective for the|purpose.\"\"|On June 25, 1943, the court handed down findings of fact substantially sus-|taining the allegations in the complaint, and conclusions of law sustaining the|prayer of the complaint. On the same day a decree for permanent injunction|was filed, ordering the defendants forever restrained and enjoined from intro-|ducing or delivering for introduction into interstate commerce any of their prod-|ucts designated and described as \"\"Sekov,\"\" \"\"Sekov Reducer,\"\" \"\"Sekov Reducer for|Men,\"\" \"\"Sekov Formula P,\"\" \"\"Sekov Formula R,\"\" and \"\"Sekov Formula T.\"\"|931. Misbranding of Tuberculosis Compound. U. S. v. Emile Carpentier (Dr. Emile Carpentier, W. D.) Tried to court and jury. Verdict of guilty. Sentence, 1 year's imprisonment. Sentence suspended and defendant placed on probation for 5 years.ddnj00931October 1944Emile Carpentier, trading as Dr. Emile Carpentier, N. D., at Hillsdale, N. J.Tuberculosis CompoundOctober 1, 1941MassachusettsNew JerseyMassachusettsDistrict of New Jersey931F. D. C. No. 7193. Sample No. 51921-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00931ddnj|931. Misbranding: of Tuberculosis Compound. TJ. S. v. Emile Carpentier (Dr.|Emile Carpentier, W. D.) Tried to court and jury. Verdict of guilty.|Sentence, 1 year's imprisonment. Sentence suspended and defendant|placed on probation for 5 years. (F. D. C. No. 7193. Sample No. 51921-E.)|On July 17, 1942, the United States attorney for the District of New Jersey|filed an information against Emile Carpentier, trading as Dr. Emile Carpentier,|N. D., at Hillsdale, N. J., alleging shipment on or about October 1,1941, from the|State of New Jersey into the State of Massachusetts of a quantity of a drug,|described in the label as \"\"Tuberculosis Compound,\"\" which was misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of plant|material, sugars, a fatty substance, and water.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements in the labeling|which represented and suggested that it would cure, in from 6 weeks to 6 months|time, tuberculosis of the lungs, the larynx, the bones, the intestines, the kidneys,|and the brain, that it would be efficacious in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or|prevention of chronic bronchitis, congested lungs, colitis, chronic gastritis, ulcer-|ated duodenum, ulcerated stomach, and ulcerated intestines; that it contained|tested exhilarating and vitalizing herbs, roots, and ingredients which would elimi-|nate the germs (\"\"bugs\"\") of tuberculosis, were false and misleading, since the|article would not be efficacious for such purposes.|On April 7, 1943, the case came on for trial before the court and a jury. The|trial was concluded on April 8, 1943, and the jury returned a verdict of guilty.|The court imposed a sentence of 1 year in the custody of the Attorney General,|but suspended the sentence and placed the defendant on probation for 5 years.|932. Misbranding of \"\"SNL..\"\" U. S. v. Mrs. Cora Lee Wiley (The SNL. Co.) Plea of nolo contendere. Defendant placed on probation for 5 years.ddnj00932October 1944Mrs. Cora Lee Wiley, trading as the SNL Co., Adel, Ga.SNLMay 27 and July 19, 1941Florida and New JerseyGeorgiaFlorida and New JerseyMiddle District of Georgia932F. D. C. No. 7247. Sample Nos. 944-E, 37930-E, 48065-E, 69586-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00932ddnj|932. Misbranding of \"\"SNX..\"\" U. S. v. \"\"Mrs. Cora Lee Wiley (The SNT. Co.) Plea|of nolo contendere. Defendant placed on probation for 5 years. (F. D. C.|No. 7247. Sample Nos. 944-E, 37930-E, 48065-E, 69586-E.)|The labeling of this product contained false and misleading therapeutic claims|and did not bear an accurate statement of the quantity of the contents in terms|of measure, or a statement of the quantity or proportion of the alcohol in the|product.|On June 5,1942, the United States attorney for the Middle District of Georgia|filed an information against Mrs. Cora Lee Wiley, trading as the SNL Co., Adel,|Ga., alleging shipment on or about May 27 and July 19, 1941, from the State of|Georgia into the States of Florida and New Jersey of quantities of \"\"SNL\"\" which|was misbranded. Portions of the article were labeled in part: (Bottle) \"\"SNL|(Suffer No Longer).\"\"|Analysis of samples of this drug showed that it consisted essentially of iodine,|boric acid, organic silver compound, iodide, sulfate, a small amount of magnesium|compound, alcohol, glycerine, and water.|The drug was alleged to be misbranded in that it was in package form and its|label failed to bear an accurate statement of the quantity of the contents in|terms of measure; and in that it was not designated solely by a name recognized|in an official compendium and was fabricated from two or more ingredients and|its label failed to bear a statement of the quantity or proportion of alcohol|contained in the drug.|One shipment of the article was alleged to be misbranded further in that|certain statements appearing in the labeling which represented and suggested|that the article would end suffering; that it would be an effective relief for|female trouble, soreness in the abdomen, and aching hips; that, when used with|the positions described in the statements, it would aid in replacing the female|organs and would relieve strained sore muscles, and that it would be effective|as a dressing for the tenderest old sores and such were false and misleading|since it would not be efficacious for such purposes.|The remaining shipments were alleged to be misbranded further in that certain|representations in the labeling that the article would end suffering; that it was|an effective relief for female trouble, soreness in the abdomen and aching hips;|that it would prevent the aging process in the individual; that it would be|effective in the treatment of infected female organs, nervousness, muddy, sallow|complexions, aching headships, limbs, and other aches and pains; that it would|be effective in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of a weakened con-|dition due to female trouble; that it would protect women against every germ|including tuberculosis, and would enable the user to overcome despondency,|worry, poverty, half-aliveness, apathy, lethargy, resignation, and hopelessness;|that it would enable the user to build health, happiness, strength, beauty, and|to increase the length of life; that it would penetrate sore, congested organs at|once; would relieve discharge or painful menses; that it would condition the|female organs while in change of life; and that when used with the positions|described in the labeling, it would relieve bearing-down pains, sore muscles, and|would replace fallen wombs; and in that certain additional representations in the|labeling of two of such shipments that the drug would aid in replacing the female|organs and would relieve strained, sore muscles and that it would be effective|as a dressing for the tenderest old sores and such were false and misleading|since the drug would not be efficacious for such purposes.|On March 16, 1943, the defendant having entered a plea of nolo contendere,|the court placed the defendant on probation for 5 years, conditioned that she|should not deal in the above-named drug except with the consent of the Food|and Drug Administration.|933. Misbranding of coconut milk and powdered milk of soya bean. U. S. v. John Bruno Radcliffe (Radclifle Soya Products). Plea of guilty. Defendant placed on probation.ddnj00933October 1944John Bruno Radcliffe, trading as Radcliffe Soya Products, San Francisco, Calif.coconut milk and powdered milk of soya beanFebruary 8, 1940, to November 24, 1941Idaho and WashingtonCaliforniaIdaho and WashingtonNorthern District of California933F. D. C. No. 7260. Sample Nos. 13603-E, 13800-E, 21643-E, 21644-E, 63220-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00933ddnj|933. Misbranding of coconut milk and powdered milk of soya bean. IT. S. v.|John Bruno Radcliffe (Radclifle Soya Products). Plea of guilty. De-|fendant placed on probation. (F. D. C. No. 7260. Sample Nos. 13603-E,|13800-E, 21643-E, 21644-E, 63220-E.)|On August 11, 1942, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|California filed an information against John Bruno Radcliffe, trading as Radcliffe|Soya Products, San Francisco, Calif., alleging shipment within the period from|on or about February 8,1940, to November 24,1941, from the State of California|into the States of Idaho and Washington of a quantity of drug which was mis-|branded. The articles were labeled in part: (Cans) \"\"Radcliffe's Original|Powdered Milk of Soya Bean,\"\" or \"\"Tropical Coconut Milk.\"\"|The powdered milk of soya bean was alleged to be misbranded in that the|statements appearing in its labeling which represented and suggested that it|was endorsed by the U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C.; that|it was original powdered milk of soya bean, was especially valuable for infant|feeding, and was as good as or better than mother's milk; that it was rich in|vitamins; that it was a nerve, brain, and gland rejuvenator, and would be effica-|cious in the cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of diabetes were false and|misleading since the article was not endorsed by the U. S. Department of Agricul-|ture, Washington, D. C.; it was not original powdered milk of soya bean; it was|not especially valuable for infant feeding; it was not as good as or better than|mother's milk, and was not rich in vitamins; it was not a nerve, brain, or gland|rejuvenator, and would not be efficacious in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or|prevention of diabetes.|The coconut milk was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements appear-|ing in its labeling, which represented and suggested that it was a tropical coco-|nut milk; that it would provide energy, strength, and vitality to the user; that it|was efficacious for health building, and would be efficacious in the cure, mitiga-|tion, treatment, or prevention of colitis, underweight, weak stomach, stomach|ulcers, nerve exhaustion and sleeplessness, and in the treatment of convalescents;|and that it was rich in vitamins and minerals were false and misleading since|the article was not a tropical coconut milk and would not provide energy, strength,|or vitality to the user; it was not efficacious for health building, and would not|be efficacious in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of colitis, or|underweight, or weak stomach, stomach ulcers, nerve exhaustion or sleeplessness,|nor in the treatment of convalescents; and it was not rich in vitamins or|minerals.|The articles were also alleged to be misbranded under the provisions of law|applicable to foods as reported in the notices of judgment on foods.|On November 3, 1942, the defendant having entered a plea of guilty, the court|placed him on probation for 2 years.|934. Misbranding of Cruez Herb Douche and Cruez No. 9 and No. 10 Herb Tea. U. S. v. William H. Cruez, Sr. (St. Clair Herb Co.). Plea of guilty. Sentence suspended and defendant place on probation for 5 years.ddnj00934October 1944William H. Cruez, Sr., a partner in the firm of St. Clair Herb Co., East St. Louis, Ill.Cruez Herb Douche and Cruez No. 9 and No. 10 Herb TeaOctober 17, 19, and 24, 1942Indiana and MissouriIllinoisIndiana and MissouriEastern District of Illinois934F. D. C. No. 7314. Sample Nos. 1968-F, 7061-F to 7063-F, incl.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00934ddnj|934. Misbranding of Cruez Herb Douche and Cruez No. 9 and No. 10 Herb Tea.|U. S. v. William H. Cruez, Sr. (St. Glair Herb Co.). Plea of guilty. Sen-|tence suspended and defendant place on probation for 5 years. (F. D. C.|No. 7314. Sample Nos. 1968-F, 7061-F to 7063-F, incl.)|The labeling of these products contained false and misleading therapeutic|claims.|On April 24, 1943, the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of|Illinois filed an information against William H. Cruez, Sr., a partner in the firm|of St. Clair Herb Co., East St. Louis, 111., alleging shipment on or about October|17, 19, and 24, 1942, from the State of Illinois into the States of Indiana and|Missouri of quantities of the above-named drugs which were misbranded.|Analysis of the Cruez No. 10 Herb Tea showed that it consisted essentially of|small proportions of extracts of plant drugs, salicylic acid, and water. It was|alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, \"\"Remedies that Build|Health * * * Blood, Kidneys, Bladder, Rheumatism and Female Disorders,\"\"|appearing in its labeling, represented and suggested that it would be efficacious|to build health; that it would be efficacious in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or|prevention of disorders and diseases of the blood, kidneys, and bladder, and of|rheumatism and female disorders, and were false and misleading since it would|not be efficacious for such purposes.|Analysis of the Cruez Herb Douche showed that it consisted essentially of a|small proportion of ferric sulfate and smaller proportions of compounds of|magnesium and calcium, and plant extractives and water. It was alleged to be|misbranded in that the statements \"\"Remedies that Build Health * * * Rec-|ommended in the Relief of Infections and Growths of the Female Organs,\"\" ap-|pearing in its labeling, represented and suggested that it would be efficacious to|build health, and would be efficacious in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or|prevention of infections and growths of the female organs, and were false and|misleading since it would not be efficacious for such purposes.|Analysis of Cruez No. 9 Herb Tea showed that it consisted essentially of small|proportions of extracts of plant drugs, salicylic acid, and water. It was alleged|to be misbranded in that the statements \"\"Remedies that Build Health * * *|Blood, Gout, Kidneys, Bladder, Rheumatism and Run Down Manhood,\"\" appearing|in its labeling, represented and suggested that it would be efficacious to build|health, and would be efficacious in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention|of disorders and diseases of the blood, kidneys, and bladder, and gout, rheuma-|tism, and run-down manhood, that is, impaired sexual vigor, and were false and|misleading since it would not be efficacious for such purposes.|All three of these products were also alleged to be misbranded further in that|they were in package form and did not bear labels containing accurate state-|ments of the quantity of their contents in terms of measure.|On June 17, 1943, the defendant having entered a plea of guilty, the court|suspended imposition of sentence and placed the defendant on probation for 5|years, with provision that he should discontinue the sale or the giving away|of medicines.|935. Adulteration and misbranding of Domino Brand Antiseptic Rubbing Com pound with Isoprophyl Alcohol. U. S. v. 4,495 Dozen and 301 Dozen Bottles of Domino Brand Antiseptic Rubbing Compound with Isoprophyl Alcohol. Consent decree of condemnation. Product and labels ordered destroyed. Empty bottles returned to claimant.ddnj00935October 1944Halitosine Co., St. Louis, Mo.Domino Brand Antiseptic Rubbing Com pound with Isoprophyl AlcoholOctober 7 to 14, 1941Boston, Mass.St. Louis, Mo.Boston, Mass.District of Massachusetts935F. D. C. No. 6124, 6216. Sample Nos. 75757-E, 75775-E, 75776-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00935ddnj|935. Adulteration and misbranding of Domino Brand Antiseptic Rubbing Com|pound with Isoprophyl Alcohol. U. S. v. 4,495 Dozen and 301 Dozen|Bottles of Domino Brand Antiseptic Rubbing Compound with Isoprophyl|Alcohol. Consent decree of condemnation. Product and labels ordered|destroyed. Empty bottles returned to claimant. (F. D. C. No. 6124, 6216.|Sample Nos. 75757-E, 75775-E, 75776-B.)|This product was short-volume and was neither antiseptic nor a rubbing alcohol.|In addition, its label failed to bear a statement of the quantity of proportion|of isopropyl alcohol present.|On November 1 and 15, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of|Massachusetts filed libels at Boston, Mass., against 4,495 dozen bottles of Domino|Brand Antiseptic Rubbing Compound with Isoprophyl Alcohol, alleging that the|article had been shipped by Halitosine Co., St. Louis, Mo., from on or about|September 19 to October 9, 1941, and against 301 dozen bottles of the same|product shipped by Frank's Economy Store, Burlington, Vt, from on or about|October 7 to 14,1941.|Examination of samples taken from these consignments showed that the arti-|cle consisted essentially of water, isopropyl alcohol approximately 9 percent by|volume, methyl salicylate, boric acid, and menthol. The article was alleged to|be adulterated in that its strength differed from that which it purported or was|represented to possess since it was not antiseptic, as stated in the labeling. It was|alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that the statement \"\"1 Pint\"\" appearing on the|label was false and misleading as applied to an article that contained less than|1 pint. (2) In that the word \"\"Antiseptic\"\" appearing on the label was false and|misleading as the article was not antiseptic. (3) In that the following state-|ments appearing on the label created the false and misleading impression that|the article was rubbing alcohol or the equivalent of rubbing alcohol: \"\"Rubbing|Compound with Isoprophyl Alcohol * * * Used for Massaging, Sponging, After|Bathing, Cooling and Refreshing for Hospital and Home.\"\" And (4) in that the|label did not bear a statement of the quantity or proportion of isopropyl alcohol|present. One lot, 301 dozen bottles, was alleged to be misbranded further in|that the label did not bear a statement of the common or usual name of the drug|since the word \"\"Hexahydrothymol,\"\" borne on the label, is not the common or|usual name of the ingredient menthol.|On December 18, 1942, Harry Lepler, .trading as Lepler & Company, Boston,|Mass., the claimant, having admitted the allegations of the libel, a consolidated|decree of condemnation was entered and the court ordered that the contents|of the bottles and their labels be destroyed, and the empty bottles be returned|to the claimant.|936. Misbranding of aspirin tablets. U. S. v. 28 Dozen Packages of Aspirin Tablets. Default decree of condemnation. Product ordered distributed to charitable institutions.ddnj00936October 1944Halitosine Co.aspirin tabletsJanuary 29, 1941Houston, Tex.St. Louis, Mo.Houston, Tex.Southern District of Texas936F. D. C. No. 7517. Sample No. 83804-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00936ddnj|936. Misbranding of aspirin tablets. U. S. v. 28 Dozen Packages of Aspirin|Tablets. Default decree of condemnation. Product ordered distributed|to charitable institutions. (F. D. C. No. 7517. Sample No. 83804-E.)|On May 16,1942, the United States attorney for the Southern District of Texas|filed a libel against 28 dozen packages of aspirin tablets at Houston, Tex., alleging|that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about January 29,|1941, by the Halitosine Co. from St. Louis, Mo.; and charging that it was mis-|branded in that the statement on the label, \"\"100 Tablets,\"\" was false and mislead-|ing as applied to an article that was short-count, since the bottles did not contain|100 tables. The article was labeled in part: \"\"Domino 100 Tablets Aspirin USP|5 Grains Each.\"\"|On July 21,1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered distributed to a charitable institution.|937. Misbranding of Betene. U. S. v. 79 Packages of Betene. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00937October 1944Vegetable Juice & Products Co.BeteneMarch 3 and 26, 1943Faribault, Minn.Rochester, N. Y.Faribault, Minn.District of Minnesota937F. D. C. No. 10050. Sample No. 8127-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00937ddnj|937. Misbranding of Betene. TJ. S. v. 79 Packages of Betene. Default decree of|condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 10050. Sample No. 8127-F.)|Examination of this product indicated that it was essentially a mixture of|powdered skim milk, dried egg yolk, saccharin, cereal products, flavors, and com-|bined calcium and phosphorus.|On June 5, 1943, the United States attorney for the District of Minnesota filed|a libel against 79 packages of Betene at Faribault, Minn., alleging that the article|had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about March 3 and 26, 1943,|by the Vegetable Juice & Products Co. from Rochester, N. Y.; and charging that|it was misbranded. The article was labeled in part: \"\"Betene * * * A Special|Dietary Supplement * * * L. H. Steward Corporation Rochester, New York.\"\"|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements appearing on|the label and in the circular entitled \"\"Ive Found the Sure Way to Acquire Normal|Weight,\"\" which accompanied the article in interstate commerce, were false and|misleading since they represented and suggested and created in the mind of the|reader the impression that the article, when consumed as directed, would cause|an increase in weight and add to the vigor and vitality of the'user; and also|that when consumed as directed, it constituted a sure, sane, safe and effective|way to reduce, whereas it would not accomplish such results.|The article was also alleged to be misbranded under the provisions of the|laws applicable to foods, reported in food notices of judgment.|On July 27,1943, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|1002. Misbranding of Sekov Reducer. U. S. v. 15 Cartons of Sekov Reducer. Tried to the court without a jury. Judgment for the Government. Decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj01002March 1945Sekov Corporation or Sekov StudioSekov ReducerMay 24, 1941, to January 8, 1943Houston, Tex.Hollywood, Calif.Houston, Tex.Southern District of Texas and the District of Nevada1002F. D. C. Nos. 7992, 7993, 9500. Sample Nos. 11077-E, 11078-E, 11056-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01002ddnj|1002. Misbranding: of Sekov Reducer. TJ. S. v. 15 Cartons of Sekov Reducer.|Tried to the court without a jury. Judgment for the Government. De-|cree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 5167. Sample No.|11274-E.)|Misbranding: of Sekov and adulteration and misbranding: of Sekov Formula|\"\"P.\"\" TJ. S. v. 47 Cartons and 6 Cartons of Sekov and 7 Cartons of Sekov|Formula \"\"P.\"\" Default decrees of condemnation and destruction. (F. D.|C. Nos. 7992, 7993, 9500. Sample Nos. 11077-E, 11078-E, 11056-F.)|On July 21, 1941, July 29,1942, and March 6, 1943, the United States attorneys|for the Southern District of Texas and the District of Nevada filed libels against|62 cartons of a product labeled \"\"Sekov,\"\" or \"\"Sekov Reducer,\"\" and 7 cartons of|Sekov Formula \"\"P\"\" at Houston, Tex., and 6 cartons of Sekov at Reno, Nev., al-|leging that the articles had been shipped in interstate commerce within the period|from on or about May 24, 1941, to January 8, 1943, by the Sekov Corporation or|Sekov Studio, from Hollywood, Calif.; and charging that they were misbranded|and that the Sekov Formula \"\"P\"\" was also adulterated.|Examination showed that each carton of the Sekov, or Sekov Reducer, con-|tained two types of capsules, \"\"No. 1\"\" and \"\"No. 2,\"\" respectively. Analyses of|samples showed that the \"\"No. 1\"\" capsules consisted of glandular material in-|cluding thyroid in amounts ranging from 1.84 grains to 1.95 grains per capsule;|that the \"\"No. 2\"\" capsules contained rhubarb root, cascara sagrada bark, aloin, and|asafetida; and that the Formula \"\"P\"\" contained approximately 1.73 grains of|thyroid per capsule.|The products were alleged to be misbranded (1) in that the labeling was false|and misleading; (2) in that the articles were dangerous to health when used in|the dosage or with the frequency or duration prescribed, recommended, or sug-|gested in the labeling; and (3) (portions) in that their labelings failed to bear|adequate directions for use, and such adequate warnings as are necessary in|case of thyroid and laxative preparations. (The misbranding charges are more|fully set forth in the opinion of the court below.)|The Formula \"\"P\"\" was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed|from that which it purported and was represented to possess, since it was repre-|sented to contain \"\"Active Ingredients Thyroid; U. S. P. 1 Gr.,\"\" whereas it contained|more than 1 grain of U. S. P. thyroid per tablet.|The Sekov Corporation of Los Angeles, Calif., filed its claim and answer in the|Southern District of Texas to the libel involving 15 cases of \"\"Sekov Reducer,\"\"|and filed a motion for removal of the case to the Southern District of California.|On September 18, 1941, the court denied this motion, handing down the following|opinion:|KENNEELY, District Judge:|\"\"This is a suit by the United States of America to condemn under the Federal|Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of June 25, 1938 (Title 21, Sections 301 to 392,|U. S. C. A.), Fifteen Cartons, more or less, of articles called 'Sekov Reducer.'|Such articles were at the time of the riling of said suit, and are now, situated in|the City of Houston in this Division and District. They have been seized by the|Marshal. His Return shows that they were in possession of Sekov Reducing|Studio when seized.|\"\"Sekov Corporation, a claimant of such articles (for convenience called Claim-|ant), has filed a Motion to transfer the suit to the District Court of the United|States in the District in which Claimant says it has its principal place of busi-|ness, i. e., Hollywood, in the Southern District of California. This is a hearing|on such Motion under Local District Court Rule 25. The matter is to be deter-|mined from the pleadings of the parties which for the purpose of this hearing|will be regarded as stating the facts.|\"\"1:-The particular provision of such Act upon which Claimant relies to sup-|port such Motion is the following portion of Section 334, Title 21, U. S. C. A.:-|'In any case where the number of libel for condemnation proceedings is limited as|above provided the proceeding pending or instituted shall, on application of the|claimant, seasonably made, be removed for trial to any district agreed upon by|stipulation between the parties, or, in case of failure to so stipulate within a|reasonable time, the claimant may apply to the court of the district in which|the seizure has been made, and such court (after giving the United States attorney|for such district reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard) shall by order,|unless good cause to the contrary is shown, specify a district of reasonable proxi-|mity to the claimant's principal place of business, to which the case shall be re-|moved for trial.'|\"\"The Government answers the Motion with the claim that in this case the|number of libel for condemnation proceedings is not limited under that portion|of Section 334 which reads as follows:-|'(a) Any article of food, drug, device, or cosmetic that is adulterated or mis-|branded when introduced into or while in interstate commerce, or which may not,|under the provisions of section 344 or 355, be introduced into interstate commerce,|shall be1 liable to be proceeded against while in interstate commerce, or at any|time thereafter, on libel of information and condemned in any district court of|the United States within the jurisdiction of which the article is found: Provided,|however, That no libel for condemnation shall be instituted under this chapter,|for any alleged misbranding if there is pending in any court a libel for con-|demnation proceeding under this chapter based upon the same alleged mis-|branding, and not more than one such proceeding shall be instituted if no such|proceeding is so pending, except that such limitations shall not apply:- * * *|'(2) when the Secretary has probable cause to believe from facts found,|without hearing, by him or any officer or employee of the Department that the|misbranded article is dangerous to health, or that the labeling of the mis-|branded article is fraudulent, or would be in a material respect misleading to|the injury or damage of the purchaser or consumer.'|\"\"I think the Government is right, and that this is not a case that may be|transferred.|\"\"2:-It will be observed also from Section 334 that a claimant such as is the|Claimant here is not necessarily entitled to have the case transferred to the Dis-|trict in which it has its place of business, but only a District of 'reasonably prox-|imity' thereto. But that such transfer shall take place unless good cause to|the contrary is shown.|\"\"Not only is this a case where proceedings are not limited, but good cause is|shown why it should not be transferred.. It not only appears that the articles|are situated in this District, but were in the hands of a person other than claim-|ant when seized and that many of the witnesses are in this District.|\"\"Claimant's motion will be denied. Let an Order be prepared and presented|accordingly.\"\"|On April 13, 1942, the case against the 15 cartons at Houston, Tex., came on|for trial before the court, and on April 30,1942, the court found all issues of fact|and law for the Government, handing down the following opinion:|KENNEELT, District Judge:|\"\"This is a libel by the United States Government under the Federal Food, Drug|and Cosmetic act (Sections 301 to 392, Title 2,1, U.S. C. A.), to condemn Fifteen|Cartons, more or less, of Sekov Reducer, a claimed remedy for obesity, found|and situated in this District and Division, alleged to be misbranded within the|meaning of the Act, and to have been shipped on or about May 24, 1941, in Inter-|state Commerce by Sekov Corporation, Hollywood, California, to Sekov Reduc-|ing Studio, Houston, Texas, for sale by such Studio. The Sekov Corporation|(for brevity called Claimant) is here, claiming such articles, denying the allega-|tions of the Government, and contending for immunity here because, as it says,|the Federal Trade Commission in a proceeding before it has heretofore assumed|jurisdiction of and decided the questions here involved.|\"\"It has been stipulated that the articles sought to be condemned were shipped|in Interstate Commerce for sale in this District and Division as alleged, that|they have been seized, and the Complaint and Order in the proceedings before|the Federal Trade Commission are in evidence. Thus we are brought at once|to the questions to be determined.|\"\"1:-The Government complains with respect to such articles as follows:-|'Said article is misbranded in violation of the Act of June 25, 1938, known as|the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, in that the statement on the carton 'Reducer'|and the design of a slender female figure are false and misleading, since they|imply that the article is a safe and appropriate treatment for the reduction of|weight, when in fact the article is not such a safe and appropriate treatment but|is a dangerous drug and does not constitute an effective agent in reducing weight.'|\"\"This complaint is bottomed on that part of the Act- reading as follows (Sec-|tion 352 (a), Title 21, U.S. C. A.) :-'A drug or device shall be deemed to be|misbranded: * * * If its labeling is false or misleading in any particular.'|\"\"On the outside of the container or package of 'SEKOV are these words:-|'SEKOV Trade Mark Reg. U. S. Pat. Off. REDUCER (Then follows a picture of|a woman with a slender figure) Manufactured for-Packed by 6404 Hollywood|Blvd-Sekov Corporation-Hollywood, California.'|\"\" 'Sekov' comes in and is to be taken in two capsules, stated on the label to|contain and which- the evidence shows do contain ingredients as follows:-'No. 1|Capsule Active Ingredients Thyroid, U. S. P. 1.87 Gr. Whole Ovarian|Whole Pituitary Aloin No. 2 Capsule Active Ingredients Rhubarb Powder|Asafetida Cascara Sagrada Oleoresin Ginger Aloin-Bile Salts.'|\"\"I find the labeling false and misleading. The evidence clearly shows that|'Sekov' is not a reducer, i. e., that it is not a remedy for obesity and will not re-|duce the weight or figure of a heavy or stout woman to the slender proportions|shown in the picture on the container.|\"\"It is shown that the Sekov Reducing Studio, Houston, was furnished by Claim-|ant with a supply of printed booklets, the title of which is 'Sekov, A Path to|Slenderness'. These booklets were shipped to the studio in Interstate Com-|merce and kept on hand by the Studio in Houston and sent or delivered to persons|making inquiry by mail or in person with respect to 'Sekov'. The evidence is not|convincing that one of tnese booklets went to every purchaser of 'Sekov.' Citing|United States v. Research Laboratories, Inc. (U. S. 0. A. Ninth decided February|24,1942, - Fed. (2d) -), Claimant says that such booklets under Section 201 (m)|of the Act (Section 321 (m), Title 21, U. S. C. A.) must be considered as part of|the label. Citing United States v. 59 Tubes, 32 Fed Supp. 960, the Government|combats this view. Which is right, I do not find it necessary to decide, because|the booklets, if construed as part of the label, do not help Claimant, but support|the Government's contention. The front outside cover of the booklets intro-|duces 'Sekov' as 'A path to SLENDERNESS' and shows the same picture of a|slender woman shown on the container. It is then said, 'A Reducing Formula,' 'No|Rigid Diet,' 'No Strenuous Exercises.' The back outside cover and the inside of|the booklets contain similar statements, also two pictures of a very stout woman|and a very slender woman, purporting to show 'before' and 'after' use of 'Sekov.'|They also contain four strong testimonials from women, praising 'Sekov' as a|flesh reducer, one claims the writer was reduced from 212 to 128 pounds, another|from 149 to 130 pounds, another from 164? to 135 pounds, and still another from|145 to 123 pounds. There are some rather obscure statements in the booklets that|'Sekov' contains thyroid and is a treatment for obesity only when used by persons|suffering from hypothyroidism (lack of thyroid), but the booklets, considered as|a whole, strongly affirm 'Sekov' is a reducer and a cure for obesity generally.|\"\"Whether the label on the container is considered alone or in connection with|the booklets, it is false and misleading within the meaning of the Act.|\"\"Standing on George H. Lee & Co., v. Federal Trade Commission, 113 Fed. (2d)|583, Claimant says the order of the Federal Trade Commission renders it im-|mune here. The Government combats this view. I find it unnecessary to decide|the question thus raised, because a fair construction of the Order of the Com-|mission * and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law therein supports the|contention of the Government, and the finding here that the labeling is false and|misleading.|\"\"2:-The Government, in its Libel, also complains with respect to such articles|as follows: 'Said article is further misbranded in that it is dangerous to health|when used in the dosage, or with the frequence or duration prescribed, recom-|mended or suggested in the labeling thereof, namely, (on the carton) : '30-No. 1|Capsules THIRTY DAYS SUPPLY * * * No. 1 One Capsule before Noon|Meal.' This allegation is based on the fact that the capsules when taken in|accordance with the suggested directions will supply a dangerous amount of|thyroid.'|\"\"This complaint is bottomed on that part of the Act reading as follows (Sec-|tion 352(j), Title 21, U. S. C. A.) :-'A drug or device shall be deemed to be mis-|branded: * * * (j) If it is dangerous to health when used in the dosage or|with the frequency or duration prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the|labeling thereof.'|1A part of the Order of the Commission is as follows : \"\"The aforesaid statements, claims,|and representations used and disseminated by the respondents in the manner above de-|scribed are grossly exaggerated, misleading and untrue. In truth and in fact, said prepa-|ration advertised and known as \"\"SEKOV REDUCER\"\" and as \"\"SEKOV\"\" is not a scientific|treatment for obesity when administered without a thorough medical examination and|without scientific care and observation, and constitutes a treatment for obesity only when|used by persons suffering from hypothyroidism. Obesity may be due to several causes,|including the dysfunctioning of the pituitary gland and to excess intake of food, in which|cases the use of said preparation will be improper and ineffective. Said preparation will|not guard the health of the user and does not act on a corrective principle for the reason|that the effect of the intake of thyroid accelerates the rate of metabolism whereby the|tissues, especially fatty tissues, are burned more rapidly than is normal, and such a process|may be dangerous and may be injurious to the health and life\"\" of the user unless the extent|of such process is carefully coordinated to the exact needs of the person suffering from|hypothyroidism. The use of said preparation is a harsh or strenuous method of reducing|for the reasons herein set forth. Said preparation does contain cathartics and dangerous|drugs in that Capsule No. 1 of said preparation contains rhubarb, cascara sagrada, aloin|and bile salts, all of which are cathartics, and all of which tend to dehydrate the body tissues.|In addition said preparation contains the dangerous drug, extract of thyroid. Said prepa-|ration is not made for reaching the glands or nourishing the glands whose faulty function|is the cause of most overweight. The only gland substances in said preparation are whole|ovarian substance, whole pituitary substance and thyroid substance, and the effect of|thyroid gland substance is to supply thyroxin to the system but not to rejuvenate the|thyroid gland. Said preparation does not regulate the action of the glands gently and|gradually or at all. The use of said preparation, although it may result in taking off fat|by accelerating the rate of metabolism, may seriously weaken the body and the organs of|the body, including the heart. Said preparation is not effective in reducing practically all|cases of overweight for the reason that the drug extract of thyroid is effective only in|treatment of obesity in cases in which the patient is suffering from hypothyroidism.|Most overweight is caused by excessive intake of food. Said preparation does not accom-|plish reduction of weight or fat by normalizing the body.\"\"|\"\"The dosage and directions for taking 'Sekov' are found on the container, or|cover of the package. On the outside of the container, there are these direc-|tions :-*(30-No. 1 Capsules) Thirty Days Supply (15 No. 2 Capsules) Price $5*50|Adequate directions for use on inside cover of package.'|\"\"On the inside of the package or container, there are found these directions :-|'No. 1 One Capsule before Noon Meal (Preferably half to one hour before)|Not to be used by persons suffering from hyperthyroidism. No. 2 One Capsule|Every Other Night (Just before retiring) Important not to be used when ab-|dominal pain (stomach ache, cramps, colic), nausea, vomiting (stomach sick-|ness) or other symptoms of appendicitis are present'|\"\"The evidence supports and compels a finding and I find, that 'Sekov' is|dangerous to health when used in the dosage or with the frequency or duration|prescribed in the quoted directions on the label, and this is true whether the|patient is or is not suffering from hyperthyroidism or from hypothyroidism.|\"\"In the hereinbefore mentioned booklets which Claimant says must be con-|sidered as a part of the directions, it is said:-'Sekov contains Thyroid and con-|stitutes a treatment for obesity only when used by persons suffering from|hypothyroidism. (Lack of Thyroid) We recommend that you consult physician|to determine the cause of your overweight as the use of Thyroid by a person not|deficient in Thyroid may result in serious or irreparable injury to the health|of the user.'|\"\"If, as Claimant contends, the booklets must be looked to as part of the label,|there is no change in the findings. I do not think Claimant's case is helped when|the booklets are considered as a whole.|\"\"The question arises again as to the effect here of the Order of the Federal|Trade Commission in evidence and upon which Claimant relies upon for im-|munity. The Order contains findings that 'Sekov' is not a scientific treatment for|obesity as claimed, when administered without a thorough medical examination|and without scientific care and observation of the patient, and that it con-|stitutes a treatment for obesity at all only when used by persons suffering from|hypothyroidism. And that it may be dangerous and may be injurious to the|health and life of the patient unless carefully coordinated to the exact needs of|the person suffering from hypothyroidism. If, as Claimant insists, this Court is|bound by such Findings, Claimant's case is not helped.|\"\"It is not necessary to discuss other questions raised by the pleadings. From|what has been said, it follows that the Government is entitled to Judgment,|condemning such articles.\"\"|On May 28, 1942, judgment of condemnation was entered. The case was ap-|pealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and on December|8,1943, the judgment of the District Court was affirmed, the court handing down|the following opinion:|MCCOBD, Circuit Judge:|\"\"The appeal is from a judgment condemning fifteen cartons of Sekov Reducer,|an alleged remedy for obesity. The trial court found that the product had been|falsely labeled and misbranded and shipped in interstate commerce contrary to|the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 XJ. S. C. A. Par.|301 et seq., par. 334, par. 352 (a), (f) and (j). The findings of fact and con-|clusions of law of the trial court are included in a published opinion, United|States v. fifteen Cartons, more or less, of Sekov Reducer, D. C. F. Supp. 52.|\"\"The Sekov Reducer containers bore a picture of a woman with a slender|figure. Printed booklets intended for distribution with the product were titled|\"\"Sekov, A Path to Slenderness.\"\" The labels on the packages, and the booklets|which appellant alleges were distributed to purchasers, were false and mis-|leading in that they represented Sekov Reducer to be a safe and appropriate|treatment for the reduction of weight.|\"\"Properly admitted testimony of practicing physicians clearly establishes that|Sekov Reducer is not a remedy for obesity; that it will not, as claimed, reduce|the figure of a stout woman to the slender proportions shown in the picture on|the container; that directions for use of the product were inadequate; and that|its use is dangerous to health when used with the frequency or duration pre-|scribed in the directions on the label, 'and this is true whether the patient is or is|inot suffering from hyperthyroidism of from hypothyroidism.'|\"\"(1) Appellant Sekov Corporation contends that the fact that it had been|previously proceeded against by the Federal Trade Commission barred inquiry|!by the District Court into the questions presented by the Government's libel.|?There is no merit in this contention. The issues in that proceeding were not|identical with those here presented. Moreover, the power and duty of the District|Court to condemn the misbranded articles was not impaired or diminished by|the former proceeding. United States v. Research Laboratories, 9 Cir., 126 F.|2d 42, 45.|\"\"(2) The findings of the District Court are supported by the evidence and|its judgment is in accordance with the applicable law.|\"\"The judgment is affirmed.\"\"|On January 27, 1943, the case instituted in the District of Nevada and the|other action at Houston, Tex., having been consolidated and removed to the|District Court for the Northern District of California, and the claim and answer|of the Sekov Corporation having been withdrawn, judgments of condemnation|and forfeiture were entered and it was ordered that the clerk return the files|to the respective districts, together with copies of the decrees of condemnation,|forfeiture, and destruction, in order that the marshals for those districts might|destroy the product. In April 1944, a decree was entered ordering that the prod-|uct at Houston, Tex., be destroyed.|? .|938. Misbranding of Chagnon's Sirotar. U. S. v. 131 Bottles of Chagnon's Sirotar. Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered released under bond for relabeling.ddnj00938October 1944Chagnon's Family Drug StoreChagnon's SirotarMay 1, 1942Arctic , R. I.Worcester, Mass.Arctic , R. I.District of Rhode Island938F. D. C. No. 7858. Sample No. 90894-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00938ddnj|938. Misbranding of Chagnon's Slrotar. TJ. S. v. 131 Bottles of Chagnon's|, Slrotar: Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered released|under bond for relabeling. (F. D. C. No. 7858. Sample No. 90894-E.)|On July 13, 1942, the United States attorney for the District of Rhode Island|filed a libel against 131 bottles of Chagnon's Sirotar at Arctic (West Warwick),|R. I., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or|about May 1, 1942, from Worcester, Mass., by Brewer & Co., Inc.; and charging|that it was misbranded. The label of the article bore a conspicuous pictorial|design of a cod fish.|Examination of the article failed to reveal the presence of cod liver oil|concentrate.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement \"\"Cod Liver|Oil Concentrate,\"\" and the pictorial design of a cod fish borne on the label were|false and misleading as applied to an article which contained an inconsequential|amount, if any, of cod-liver oil concentrate as one of its ingredients. It was|alleged to be misbranded further in that its container was so made and filled|as to be misleading since the carton containing the bottle was excessively large.|On December 23, 1942, Chagnon's Family Drug Store, claimant, having ad-|mitted the allegations of the libel, judgment of condemnation was entered and|the product was ordered released under bond, conditioned that it be relabeled.|939. Misbranding of Effervescent Kruschen. U. S. v. 17-5/6 Dozen Packages of Effervescent Kruschen. Decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00939October 1944E. Griffiths Hughes, Inc.Effervescent KruschenAugust 22, 1941Pittsburgh, Pa.Rochester, N. Y.Pittsburgh, Pa.Western District of Pennsylvania939F. D. C. No. 6637. Sample No. 64647-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00939ddnj|939. Misbranding of Effervescent Kruschen. U. S. v. 17-5/6 Dozen Packages of|Effervescent Kruschen. Decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 6637. Sample No. 64647-E.)|Analysis showed that this product consisted essentially of 18.7 percent an-|hydrous Epsom salt (magnesium sulfate) with small proportions of common|salt (sodium chloride), potassium chloride, sodium sulfate, and potassium sul-|fate, with an effervescent base consisting of a mixture of sodium bicarbonate|and citric acid.|On January 3, 1942, the United States attorney for the Western District of|Pennsylvania filed a libel against 17 5/6 dozen packages of Effervescent Krus-|chen at Pittsburgh, Pa., alleging that the article had been shipped on or about|August 22, 1941, from Rochester, N. Y., by E. Griffiths Hughes, Inc.; and charg-|ing that it was misbranded in that the following statements appearing in the|circular accompanying the article were false and misleading since they created|the impression that the article constituted an effective agent for reducing|weight, whereas it did not constitute an effective agent for such purpose: \"\"As|an Assistant To Diet In Reducing Fat Kruschen Salts thru a wholesome stimu-|lating effect on the liver and bowels, and a mild diuretic effect on the kidneys|offers assistance to sensible eating in the problem of overweight. This has|similarities to the European Spa treatment for weight reduction and in a meas-|ure brings the so-called Spa treatment (sensible eating and mineral waters)|into the home without that extraordinary expense which accompanies visits|to such resorts.\"\"|On May 4, 1942, E. Griffiths Hughes, Inc., claimant, having submitted a peti-|tion for salvage, requesting the release of the product, an order was entered|that the product be released under bond for removal of the circular complained|of and for labeling in accordance with the requirements of the law, under the|supervision of the Food and Drug Administration. On August 3, 1943, the|claimant having consented to the vacating of the order and having stated that|it did not intend to defend, such order was cancelled and judgment of condem-|nation was entered, together with an order for the destruction of the product.|940. Misbranding of Eopa Home Remedies. U. S. v. 23 Packages of Eopa Home Remedies No. 75, 3 Packages of Eopa Tablets No. 58, 5 Packages of Eopa Home Remedies No. 234, and 2 Packages of Eopa Home Remedies No. 234. Default decree of condemnation. Products ordered destroyed.ddnj00940October 1944Eopa CompanyEopa Home RemediesJanuary 13, 1941, and January 2 and February 10, 1942Seattle, Wash.San Francisco, CalifSeattle, Wash.Western District of Washington940F. D. C. Nos. 7367 to 7370, incl. Sample Nos. 93402-E to 93405-E, incl.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00940ddnj|940. Misbranding of Eopa Home Remedies. IT .S. v. 23 Packages of Eopa Home|Remedies No. 75, 3 Packages of Eopa Tablets No. 58, 5 Packages of Eopa|Home Remedies No. 234, and 2 Packages of Eopa Home Remedies No. 234.|Default decree of condemnation. Products ordered destroyed. (F. D. C.|Nos. 7367 to 7370, incl. Sample Nos. 93402-E to 93405-E, incl.)|On April 23, 1942, the United States attorney for the Western District of|Washington filed a libel against the above-named products at Seattle, Wash.,|alleging that the article had been shipped into interstate commerce on or about|January 13, 1941, and January 2 and February 10, 1942, by the Eopa Company|from San Francisco, Calif.|Analysis of a sample of Eopa Home Remedies No. 75 showed that the article|consisted essentially of milk sugar and starch with small amounts of talc, mag-|nesium, and potassium phosphates. The article was alleged to be misbranded in|that the statements appearing the labeling were false and misleading since they|represented and suggested that it was efficacious in the treatment of neuritis,|neuralgia and sciatica, whereas the article was not so effective. It was alleged|to be misbranded further in that the label failed to bear the common or usual|name of the active ingredients.|Examination of a sample of Eopa Tablets No. 58 showed that the article con-|sisted essentially of milk sugar, starch, and sugar, with small amounts of plant|material. The article was alleged to be misbranded in that certain statements|appearing on the labeling which represented and suggested that it was efficacious|in the treatment of grip, infectious colds, head colds, tickling coughs due to colds,|hoarseness, spasmodic croup, coryza, and acute rhinitis, were false and mis-|leading, since the article was not so effective.|Analysis of a sample of the Eopa Home Remedies No. 234 showed that it|consisted essentially of milk sugar, starch, and sugar, with small amounts of|lithium and ammonium compounds including phosphates. 'The product was|alleged to be misbranded in that certain statements appearing on the labeling rep-|resented and suggested that it was efficacious in the treatment of a'rthritic|rheumatism (inflamed joints), severe pain, arthritis, chronic rheumatism, and|rheumatic gout, whereas the article was not so effective. Another lot of the|same product was alleged to be misbranded in that its labeling bore statements|that it was efficacious in the treatment of arthritis, stiff, aching joints, swollen,|gouty, inflamed and deformed joints, arthritis, chronic rheumatism, and rheu-|matic gout, whereas the article was not so effective. It was alleged to be mis-|branded further in that the label failed to bear the common or usual name of|the active ingredients of the product.|On October 30, 1942, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation|was entered and the court ordered the products destroyed.|941. Misbranding of first aid kit. U. S. v. 18 Dozen Packages of White Cross Emergency First Aid Kit. Default decree of condemnation. Product ordered destroyed.ddnj00941October 1944American White Cross Laboratories, Inc.first aid kitMay 8, 1942Chicago, Ill.New Rochelle, N. Y.Chicago, Ill.Northern District of Illinois941F. D. C. No. 7826. Sample No. 66260-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00941ddnj|941. Misbranding of first aid kit. IT. S. v. IS Dozen Packages of White Cross|Emergency First Aid Kit. Default decree of condemnation. Product|ordered destroyed. (F. D. C. No. 7826. Sample No. 66260-E.)|On July 2,1942, the United States attorney for the Northern District of Illinois|filed a libel at Chicago, 111., against 18 dozen packages of White Cross Emergency|First Aid Kit, alleging shipment in interstate commerce on or about May 8, 1942,|by the American White Cross Laboratories, Inc., from New Rochelle, N. Y.|Examination of samples taken from this consignment showed that the adhesive|bandages in the kits were not sterile, but were contaminated with living spore-|bearing bacilli and cocci.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, \"\"Emergency|First Aid Kit\"\" and \"\"Be Prepared,\"\" which appeared on the can, were false and|misleading for the following reasons: The adhesive was not sterile, but was|contaminated with living micro-organisms and was not suitable for first aid|purposes; it was not a first aid kit since it did not contain material for treating|any condition except minor cuts and abrasions, and the article was solely a|kit for minor cuts and abrasions.|On October 27, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|942. Misbranding of Presto for Blackheads. U. S. v. 11 Packages of Presto for Blackheads. Default decree of condemnation. Product ordered destroyed.ddnj00942October 1944McJohn Cosmetic Co.Presto for BlackheadsJuly 21, 1942Portland, Oreg.Hollywood, Calif.Portland, Oreg.District of Oregon942F. D. C. No. 8100. Sample No. 12815-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00942ddnj|942. Misbranding of Presto for Blackheads. U. S. v. 11 Packages of Presto for|Blackheads. Default decree of condemnation. Product ordered de-|stroyed. (F. D. C. No. 8100. Sample No. 12815-F.)|On August 14, 1942, the United States attorney for the District of Oregon filed|a libel at Portland, Oreg., against 11 packages, each containing 1 dozen sticks,|of an article labeled, \"\"Presto for Blackheads,\"\" alleging that the article had|been shipped in interstate commerce on or about July 21, 1942, by the McJohn|Cosmetic Co. from Hollywood, Calif.|Analysis of a sample of the product showed that it consisted essentially of a|mixture of ground pumice and titanium dioxide, incorporated in a hydrated waxy|base.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements|appearing in the labeling were false and misleading as applied to a product that|was not effective in removing blackheads and in keeping the pores of the skin|clean: \"\"Presto for Blackheads. Quick Aid for Blackheads * * * A clean|skin is the foundation for a beautiful complexion: don't allow your complexion to|be marred by unsightly Blackheads. Never squeeze or pinch Blackheads; squeez-|ing injures the skin and encourages large pores and Blackheads. Use Presto Stick|and Eliminate Squeezing * * * In case of stubborn Blackheads use Pflesto|Stick once daily for several days. Thereafter use from time to time, as re-|quired, to keep the pores clean.\"\"|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the label failed to bear the|common or usual name of the active ingredients.|The article was also .misbranded as reported in cosmetic notices of judgment.|On October 8, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|1003. Adulteration and misbranding of Kelson's Antacid Powder and misbranding of B-M Cold Caps and Fero-Tona. U. S. v. 30 1/2 Dozen Vials of B-M Cold Caps, 12 1/2 Dozen Bottles of Fero-Tona, and 17 Packages of Nelson's Antacid Powder. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj01003March 1945Ber-Mel [or 'Mels'] Inc.Kelson's Antacid Powder; B-M Cold Caps and Fero-TonaMay 25 and November 6, 1942, and January 2, 1943St. Louis, Mo.Cleveland, OhioSt. Louis, Mo.Eastern District of Missouri1003F. D. C. No. 9593. Sample Nos. 6597-F to 6599-F, incl.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01003ddnj|1003. Adulteration and misbranding of Kelson's Antacid Powder and misbranding|of B-M Cold Caps and Fero-Tona. U. S. v. 30% Dozen Vials of B-M Cold|Caps, 12% Dozen Bottles of Fero-Tona, and 17 Packages of Nelson's|Antacid Powder. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 9593. Sample Nos. 6597-F to 6599-F, incl.)|On March 22, 1943, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Missouri filed libels against 30? dozen vials of B-M Cold Caps, 12? dozen bot-|tles of Fero-Tona, and 17 packages of Nelson's Antacid Powder at St. Louis,|Mo., alleging that the articles had been shipped in interstate commerce, from|Cleveland, Ohio, by the Great Lakes Laboratories, on or about May 25 and|November 6,1942, and January 2,1943; and charging that they were misbranded|and that the Antacid Powder was also adulterated. The Cold Caps and the Fero-|Tona were labeled in part: \"\"Distributed by Ber-Mel [or \"\"Mels\"\"], Inc. Cleveland,|Ohio.\"\"|Examination of the Cold Caps showed that they consisted essentially of ace-|tanilid 1.72 grains and aspirin 4.47 grains per capsule, together with caffein,|laxative plant drugs, including aloin, capsicum, and alkaloids extracted from|belladonna. The product was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that it was|dangerous to health when used in the dosage and with the frequency and duration|prescribed, recommended, and suggested in the labeling, \"\"One capsule every|2 or 3 hours with a glassful or more of water,\"\" since, when taken in such manner,|it supplied a quantity of acetanilid which was dangerous to health; (2) in that|the statement in its labeling, \"\"For Temporary Belief of Minor Colds, JFlu,\"\" was|false and misleading since it would not afford temporary relief \"\"from flu|or all the symptoms of minor colds; (3) in that it was fabricated from two or more|ingredients and its label failed to bear a statement of the quantity or proportion|of atropine, hyoscine, or hyoscyamine contained therein; (4) in that its labeling|failed to bear adequate directions for use, since the directions which appeared,|upon the label provided for the administration of excessive amounts of acetanilid,|and were therefore not adequate; and (5) in that its labeling failed to warn that|frequent and continued use of a preparation containing acetanilid might be dan-|gerous, causing serious blood disturbances, anemia, collapse, or dependence upon|drugs, that frequent or continued use of a preparation containing belladonna|alkaloids should be avoided, that the article was to be used cautiously if dryness|of the throat occurred, and its use discontinued if rapid pulse or blurring of|vision occurred, and that frequent or continued use of a laxative might result in|dependence on laxatives.|Examination of the Fero-Tona showed that it consisted essentially of|hexamethylenamine, potassium iodide, ferric chloride, laxative plant drugs,|and strychnine sulfate. The bottle was contained in a carton much larger than|necessary, since the bottle was surrounded by a liner occupying 11.8 percent|of the volume of the carton, and there was 1? inch head space above the bottle.|It was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that the statements appearing in its|labeling which represented and suggested that it was effective as a diuretic and:|was effective to aid important organs of the body to function properly were|false and misleading since the article was not so effective; (2) in that its labeling|failed to bear adequate directions for use, since the directions which appeared in|the labeling provided for the continuous administration of a laxative and recom-|mended for children the use of a preparation containing strychnine, and were|therefore not adequate; and (3) in that its labeling failed to warn that a laxative|should not be taken in case of nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, or other symptoms|ef appendicitis, that frequent or contained use might result in dependence upon|a laxative, that an article containing potassium iodide should not be used in case|of goiter except upon the advice of a physician, that its use should be discontinued|if a skin rash appears, that no more than the recommended dose of a preparation|containing strychnine should be taken, that frequent or continued use should|be avoided, and that its use for children and elderly persons might be especially|dangerous. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that its container was|so made and filled as to be misleading, since the carton was much larger than|necessary for the size of the bottle.|Examination showed that the Antacid Powder consisted essentially of com-|pounds of sodium, calcium, and magnesium, including carbonate, and that it did|not contain bismuth compounds. It was alleged to be adulterated in that its|strength differed from that which it purported and was represented on its label|to possess, \"\"Bismuth Salts in the form of Carbonates Subnitrates.\"\" It was alleged|to be misbranded in that the following statements appearing in its labeling, \"\"Bis-|muth Salts in the form of Carbonates Subnitrates are widely prescribed for|gastric ulcer, gastralgia, gastritis, hyperacidity, acidosis, etc. They form a|soothing, protective coating over the highly inflamed mucous membranes of the|stomach; mildly astringent and sedative. Carica Papaya * * * converts all|protein foods such as meats and albumens into soluble and readily absorbed|peptones. Malt Diastase Converts all starchy foods into soluble dextrins and|sugars. Alkalinizer * * * Acidosis, * * * Functional Stomach Dis-|orders * * * Gastric Ulcer, Gastritis, Gastralgia, Indigestion. This prepara-|tion is built up on strictly scientific principles, offers a rational and effective|method of re-establishing the normal alkalinity of the body fluids without the|danger of systemic disturbance. * ~ * * instantly neutralize all stomach acids|* * * instant relief from acidity and gas pressure,\"\" were false and mis-|leading since such statements represented and suggested that the article contained|bismuth salts and was effective in the treatment of the conditions and symptoms|described and stated, whereas the article did not contain bismuth salts and was|not effective in the treatment of those conditions and symptoms. It was alleged|to be misbranded further in that it was in package form and its label failed to|bear an accurate statement of the quantity of its contents.|On April 17, 1943, no claimant having appeared, judgments of condemnation|were entered and the products were ordered destroyed.|1278. Misbranding of Paracelsus. U. S. v. 9 Cans, 2 Cans, and 9 Cans of Paracelsus. Default decree of destruction.ddnj01278October 1945American Biochemical CorporationParacelsusNovember 29 and December 16, 1943Kansas City, Mo.Cleveland, OhioKansas City, Mo.Western District of Missouri1278F. D. C. No. 11825. Sample Nos. 3786-F, 3787-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01278ddnj|1278. Misbranding: of Paracelsus. V. S. v. 9 Cans, 2 Cans, and 9 Cans of Paracelsus.|Default decree of destruction. (F. D. C. No. 11825. Sample Nos. 3786-F,|3787-F.)|On or about February 18, 1944, the United States attorney for the Western|District of Missouri filed a libel against 9.cans, each containing 160 grams, 2|cans, each containing 320 grams, and 9 cans, each containing 600 grams, of|Paracelsus at Kansas City, Mo., alleging that the article had been shipped on|or about November 29 and December 16, 1943, from Cleveland, Ohio, by the|American Biochemical Corporation; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis of samples disclosed that the article was a mixture of inorganic salts,|principally sodium phosphate, calcium lactate, potassium chloride, table salt,|magnesium sulfate, sodium bicarbonate, and lesser quantities of other chemical|salts.|The article was alleged to be misbranded because of false and misleading|statements on the can label and in the accompanying circulars entitled|\"\"Paracelsus Food and Health,\"\" \"\"Here's What They Say About Paracelsus,\"\"|\"\"Paracelsus Its Aim and Object,\"\" and \"\"The Active Life of These Two,\"\" which|represented and suggested that the article was of substantial value as a dietary|supplement in respect to the mineral elements, calcium, chlorine, iron, iodine,|lithium, manganese, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, sodium, sulfur, silicon,|and copper, and that these elements are not ordinarily present in adequate|amounts in the average diet; that the article was a body builder and a tonic;|that it would correct all disorders arising from dietary deficiencies; that it|was effective in the treatment of arthritis, rheumatism, neuritis, coughs, asthma,|and general debility; that it was of value in improving the functions of all body|organs; that it would provide vigor and vitality, aid digestion, and purify blood;|and that it was a combination of inorganic minerals in their most assimilable|form that would supply minerals necessary in normal nutrition in most desirable|portions.|The article was also alleged to be misbranded under the provisions of the law|applicable to foods, as reported in notices of judgment on foods.|On April 20, 1944, no claimant having appeared, judgment was entered order-|ing that the product be destroyed. '|943. Misbranding of Rel-Ka-Sol. U. S. v. 23 Packages of Rel-Ka-Sol. Default decree of condemnation. Product ordered destroyed.ddnj00943October 1944Rel-Ka-Sol Chemical Co.Rel-Ka-SolMay 27, 1942South Bend, Ind.Philadelphia, Pa.South Bend, Ind.Northern District of Indiana943F. D. C No. 8240. Sample No. 1812-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00943ddnj|943. Misbranding: of Rel-Ka-Sol. TJ. S. v. 23 Packages of Rel-Ka-Sol. Default|decree of condemnation. Product ordered destroyed. (F. D. C No. 8240.|Sample No. 1812-F.)|On August 31, 1942, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Indiana filed a libel at South Bend, Ind., against 23 packages of Rel-Ka-Sol. The|article had been consigned in interstate commerce on or about May 27, 1942,|by the Rel-Ka-Sol'Chemical Co. from Philadelphia, Pa.|Analysis of a sample showed that the article consisted essentially of water,|alcohol, and boric acid, together with small quantities of phenol and chlorthymol.|Bacteriological examination showed that the article was not an antiseptic when|diluted with two parts of water.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements|appearing in the labeling were false and misleading since it was not an antiseptic|in the dilution recommended and was not effective in the treatment of the con-|ditions represented: (Label) \"\"To Prevent and Treat Infection * * * diluted|with two parts water. Kill germs * * * For Sore Throat,\"\" (carton) \"\"To|Prevent and treat infection * * * Abscess or Boils * * * Tonsilitis|*?* * Sore Throat * * * Sore and Infected Gums, Abscessed Teeth|*?* * Ear Discharge * * * Scalp Infection and All Diseases of the|Scalp Infection of Any Kind,\"\" (circular) \"\"An Antiseptic Solution * * *|diluted with two parts water * * * Abscess or Stye of the Eye\"\" * * *|Treat all infections immediately with Rel-Ka-Sol * * * It kills germs (even|when diluted). * * * A large bottle when diluted with two parts of water|makes more than a quart of effective mouth-wash.\"\"|On October 1, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|944. Misbranding of Formula 8-12 Vitamins-Minerals. U. S. v. 30 Dozen Bottles of Formula 8-12 Vitamins-Minerals. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00944October 1944Universal Products Co.Formula 8-12 Vitamins-Mineralsfrom January 10 to 14, 1943Indianapolis, Ind.Cleveland, OhioIndianapolis, Ind.Southern District of Indiana944F. D. C. No. 9393. Sample No. 32614-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00944ddnj|944. Misbranding of Formula 8-12 Vitamins-Minerals. U. S. v. 30 Dozen|Bottles of Formula 8-12 Vitamins-Minerals. Default decree of condem-|nation and destruction. F. D. C. No. 9393. Sample No. 32614-F.)|On February 24, 1943, the United States attorney for the Southern District|of Indiana filed a libel against 30 dozen bottles of the above-described product at|Indianapolis, Ind., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate com-|merce within the period from on or about January 10 to 14,1943, by the Universal|Products Co. from Cleveland, Ohio; and charging that it was misbranded. ?The|article was labeled in part: \"\"Fornrala 8-12 Vitamins-Minerals Contains Soy|Bean Meal, Wheat Embryo, Gum Karaya, Brewer's Yeast, Kaolin, Kelp, Activated|Ergosterol, Natural Vitamin A Ester, Thiamin Hydrochloride, Riboflavin, Dical-|cium Phosphate, Iron Bihydrogen, Potassium Iodide and Oil of Orange.\"\"|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that statements which appeared|on the label which represented and suggested that the article was of significant|nutritional value by reason of the presence therein of Vitamin E, Vitamin B9,|and other factors of the B complex as found in brewer's yeast and the elements,|potassium, sulfur, sodium, magnesium, copper, zinc, chlorine, and manganese|were false and misleading since the product was not of significant value by reason|of the presence therein of such vitamin factors and elements.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that representations in the labeling|that consumption of the product would insure normal functioning of the brain,|eye, pituitary gland, parathyroid gland, thymus, heart, liver, and gall bladder,|stomach and digestive system, gastro-intestinal tract, pancreas, suprarenals and|adrenals, kidneys, bladder, gonads, prostate, nerves, arteries, veins, lymphatics|(blood and blood vessels), muscles, bones, and joints, ligaments, tendons, and mar-|row, pineal gland, the ear, eye, spinal cord, spleen, hair, skin, complexion, teeth and|gums, thymus, lungs, mammary gland, reproductive system (ovary, placenta,|prostate-gonads, etc), and the nails, and that the article would be efficacious in|the treatment or preventions of colds, infections of the lungs, formation of kidney|stones and infections, the formation of bladder stones, cystitis, and other bladder|infections, muscular spasms, cramps, exhaustion, inflammation, and paralysis,|ulcer of the eye, conjunctivits, cataracts, and night blindness, scaliness, dryness,|paleness of the skin and various skin sores, gum infections, scurvy, and loose|teeth, and would be efficacious to promote health, and cause the hair to be glossy|and healthy were false and misleading since consumption of the article would not|insure normal functioning of the various organs of the body as represented and|would not be efficacious in the treatment or prevention of the various disease|conditions mentioned and suggested.|The article was also alleged to be misbranded under the provisions of the law|applicable to foods reported in food notices of judgment.|On April 22, 1943, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|945. Misbranding of Vita Malt with Natura Calcium Compound. U. S. v. 51 Combination Packages of Vita Malt with Natura Calcium Compound. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00945October 1944Natura Remedy Co.Vita Malt with Natura Calcium CompoundMay 23, 1941Olympia, Wash.Los Angeles, Calif.Olympia, Wash.Western District of Washington945F. D. C. No. 5226. Sample No. 60296-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00945ddnj|945. Misbranding of Vita Malt with Natura Calcium Compound. II. S. v. 51|Combination Packages of Vita Malt with Natura Calcium Compound.|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 5226.|Sample No. 60296-E.)|These articles were represented as being effective in reducing body weight and|as valuable in the treatment of a wide variety of pathological conditions.|On July 30, 1941, the United States attorney for the Western District of Wash-|ington filed a libel against 51 combination packages of Vita Malt with Natura|Calcium Compound, alleging shipment on or about May 23,1941, from Los Angeles,|Calif., to Olympia, Wash., by the Natura Remedy Co., Los Angeles, Calif. In each|combination package were articles labeled in part: (Bottle) \"\"Vita Malt Contains|Vitamins,\"\" (package) \"\"Natura Calcium Compound,\"\" (circular) \"\"Do you know|that Vitamins Build Health,\"\" and (leaflet) \"\"Now You can Reduce Safely.\"\"|Analysis of a sample of Vita Malt showed that it was essentially a malt extract,|with small amounts of saponifiable oils, water, and sodium benzoate.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements on the label representing|and suggesting that it would be effective in reducing body weight were false and|misleading, since it was not effective for this purpose. It was alleged to be mis-|branded further in that the statements in the labeling representing and suggest-|ing that it would be of value in the treatment of a variety of pathological condi-|tions such as anemia, nervousness, sleeplessness, glandular disturbances, lack of|appetite, infections, rheumatism, neuritis, and arthritis were false and misleading|since it would be of no value in the treatment of such pathological conditions.|Analysis of a sample of \"\"Natura Calcium Compound\"\" showed that it was a|mixture of sodium bicarbonate and calcium salts.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that it was offered as effective in|the treatment of colds and grip, whereas it would not be effective for this purpose.|The Vita Malt was also alleged to be misbranded under the provisions of the|law applicable to food, as reported in food notices of judgment.|On December .1, 1941, the Natura Remedy Co. having intervened and petitioned|for removal of the case, the court entered an order removing it to the Southern|District of California. The Government thereupon filed a motion to remand|the case to the Western District of Washington on the ground that the parties|had stipulated for transfer to the Northern District of California and that the|Southern District of California had no jurisdiction. On March 24, 1942, the|Government's motion to remand the case was denied by the court without opin-|ion. On October 13, 1942, the petition of intervention and answer of the Natura|Remedy Co. having been withdrawn, a default judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|946. Misbranding of Vitaminerals. U. S. v. 6 Bottles of Vitaminerals VM No. 1, et al. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00946October 1944Vitaminerals Co.VitamineralsMay 5 to 27, 1942Denver, Colo.Los Angeles, Calif.Denver, Colo.District of Colorado946F. D. C. Nos. 7938, 7939, 7941, 7942. Sample Nos. 81451-E, 81452-E, 81454-E to 81456-EThe National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00946ddnj|946. Misbranding of Vitaminerals. TJ. S. v. 6 Bottles of Vitaminerals VM Ho. 1,|et al. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos.|7938, 7939, 7941, 7942. Sample Nos. 81451-E, 81452-E, 81454-E to 81456-E,|incl.)|On July 29, 1942, the United States attorney for the District of Colorado filed|a libel at Denver, Colo., against 6 bottles of Vitaminerals VM No. 1, 7 boxes of|Vitaminerals VM No. 1+, 8 bottles of Vitaminerals VM No. 100, and 35 bottles|of Vitaminerals VM No. 120. A part of one of the shipments consisted of some|booklets entitled \"\"Vitamineral Therapy\"\" and some cards entitled \"\"Therapy Chart|Doctors' Reference Chart.\"\" The article had been consigned in interstate com-|merce within the period from on or about May 5 to 27, 1942, by Vitaminerals|Co. from Los Angeles, Calif.|Examination of a sample of Vitaminerals VM No. 1 showed that the article|consisted mainly of rhubarb root with smaller proportions of other plant ma-|terials, including Irish moss, okra, cranberry fruit, and parsley leaf. The tab-|lets, including coating, weighed 0.7 gram each, of which 0.2 gram was mineral|matter. The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements in the|booklet entitled \"\"Vitamineral Therapy\"\" and upon the card entitled ''Therapy|Chart Doctors' Reference Chart,\"\" relating to the article, were false and mis-|leading since they represented and suggested that the preparation was essen-|tially a vitamin constipation tablet or a vitamin-mineral laxative, and was a|dietary supplement and a food. In fact, the preparation was not a vitamin con-|stipation tablet or a vitamin-mineral laxative but was essentially a rhubarb laxa-|tive, and was not a dietary supplement or food. It was alleged to be misbranded|further in that it was represented and suggested as a primary or secondary|supplement in cases of arthritis due to excess calcium, arthritis due to systemic|origins, colds, hemorrhoids, neuralgia, neurosis, obesity, and tonsilitis, whereas it|would not be effective for any of these conditions.|Examination of a sample of Vitaminerals VM No. 1+ showed that the article|consisted essentially of plant materials including rhubarb root, cascara sagrada,|Podophyllum, Irish moss, cranberry fruit, parsley leaf, okra, a pungent drug|such as cayenne pepper, and traces of peanut hull, and seed coat tissues. The|article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements appearing in the|booklet and the card referred to above concerning this article were false and mis-|leading since they represented and suggested that it was a vitamin laxative, or a|vitamin-mineral laxative, and a.dietary supplement, whereas it was essentially|a rhubarb, cascara, and Podophyllum laxative, and was not a dietary supplement.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that it was offered as a primary, or|secondary supplement in the treatment of cases of colds, intestinal cramps, hemor-|rhoids, systemic hypertension, biliary stasis, engorgement of the liver, jaundice,|malaria, neuralgia, neurosis, obesity, and tonsilitis, whereas it would not be|efficacious for these purposes.|Examination of a sample of Vitaminerals VM No. 100 showed that the article|was a vaginal suppository consisting of gelatin capsules confining mineral matter,|principally iron sulfate and aluminum sulfate with a small fraction of 1 percent|of a phosphate. The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement|appearing on the label, \"\"containing ferric sulfate, ferrous sulfate, and ferric|phosphate\"\" was false and misleading since the article did not contain any fer-|rous sulfate or any ferric sulfate, but did contain a material amount of aluminum|sulfate and but an insignificant proportion of ferric phosphate. It was alleged|ro be misbranded further in that the therapeutic claims made for it in the|booklet entitled \"\"Vitamineral Therapy\"\" and upon the card entitled \"\"Therapy|Chart Doctors' Reference Chart,\"\" were false and misleading since such state-|ments represented and suggested that the preparation would be beneficial in|the treatment, among other things, of endocervicitis, endometritis, vaginitis,|polypus, cysts, abnormal tissue, leucorrhea, dysmenorrhea, and amenorrhea,|whereas the preparation would not be effective for such conditions.|Examination of a sample of Vitaminerals VM No. 120 showed that the article|consisted essentially of aluminum sulfate (approximately 15 percent), iron sulfate|(approximately 9 percent), glycerine, and water. The article was alleged to be|misbranded in that the statements \"\"containing ferric sulphate\"\" appearing on the|carton and bottle labels, and \"\"Vitamineral No. 120 Ferric Sulphate, Ferrous|Sulphate and Ferric Phosphate,\"\" in the booklet entitled \"\"Vitaminerals Therapy,\"\"|were false and misleading since the article did not contain any ferric phosphate|and since such statements failed to reveal that the article contained a preponder-|ating proportion of the astringent drug, aluminum sulfate. It was alleged to be|misbranded further in that the therapeutic claims made for it in the booklet \"\"Vita-|mineral Therapy\"\" and upon the card \"\"Therapy Chart Doctors' Reference Chart\"\"|were false and misleading since the article was not efficacious for these purposes.|Some of the representations and suggestions made were that the article would|be effective for use in colonic therapy, as a mouth wash, gargle, and swab, for|use for trench mouth, and as a nasal douche. It was offered as an eye wash,|and for local infections of the ear canal, cuts, sores, hemorrhoids, and. gastric|ulcers. It was further offered as a primary or secondary supplemental treatment|in the following conditions: Acne, acidosis, albuminuria, alcoholic neuritis, ameba,|amenorrhea, anemia, angina pectoris, asthenia, asthma, boils, Bright's disease,|calculi of the bladder and kidneys, calcium in lenses, catarrh, colitis, colon dis-|eases, corneal ulceration, intestinal and uterine cramps, cystitis, diarrhea, faulty|digestion, dysmenorrhea, ear infections, eczema, empyema, endocervicitis, en-|dometritis, enteritis, eye infections, fistula, gall bladder inflammation, gall stone,|gastritis, gastro-intestinal disturbances, hay fever, hemeralopia, hemophilia,|uterine hemorrhage, hives, impetigo, influenza, intestinal disorders, keratomalacia,|kidney disorders, kidney inflammation, laryngitis, leg ulcers, leukorrhea, diseases|of the liver, lymph infections, mal petit grand, malaria, malnutrition, excessive,|deficient, or painful menstruation, miscarriage, nausea and vomiting of pregnancy,|neurasthenia, old age, ophthalmia, orchitis, polypus-vaginal, uterine, and rectal,|prostatis, proctitis, psoriasis, pterygium; pyorrhea, lack of resistance, respiratory|infections, septicemia, shingles, sinusitis, skin disorder, sty, loose teeth, tetany,|tonsilitis, trench mouth, tuberculosis, duodenal, gastric and stomach ulcers,|uterine prolapsis, vaginitis, varicose ulcers and veins, tape or helminth worms,|and xerophthalmia.|The articles, with exception of VM No. 100, were also alleged to be misbranded|under the provisions of the law applicable to foods as reported in food notices of|judgment.|On September 21, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the products were ordered destroyed.|947. Misbranding of Vitasol The 6-V Health Builder. U. S. v. 107 Jars of \"\"Vitasol The 6-V Health Builder.\"\" Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00947October 1944Vitasol CorporationVitasol The 6-V Health BuilderApril 28, 1942Boston, Mass.Brooklyn, N. Y.Boston, Mass.District of Massachusetts947F. D. C. No. 7484. Sample No. 90189-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00947ddnj|947. Misbranding of Vitasol The 6-V Health Builder. U. S. v. 107 Jars of|\"\"Vitasol The 6-V Health Builder.\"\" Default decree of condemnation and|destruction. (F. D. C. No. 7484. Sample No. 90189-E.)|On May 11, 1942, the United States attorney for the District of Massachusetts|filed a libel against 107 jars of the above-named product at Boston, Mass., alleg-|ing that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about April|28, 1942, by the Vitasol Corporation from Brooklyn, N. Y.; and charging that it|was misbranded.|The article was labeled in part: \"\"Vitasol * * * Approximate composition|of one ounce of Vitasol 1,000 U. S. P. Units Vitamin A, 150 International Units|Vitamin Bi, 50 Sherman Bourquin Units Vitamin B2 (G), 50 International Units|Vitamin C, 2,000 U. S. P. Units Vitamin D, added Vitamin B (Wheat Germ)|Minerals Grams Per Ounce Calcium-0.160, Iron-0.0067, Phosphorus-|0.170 *\"\" * * Ingredients Deliciously flavored and skillfully blended with|Pure Sugar, Cocoa, Dry Milk Solids, Malted Milk, Barley Malt, Dextrose, Yeast,|Soy Bean, Vanillin.\"\"|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements in|the labeling: \"\"Vitasol * * * The 6-V Health Builder * * * Dedicated|to the Betterment of Health * * * Vitamin A is vital to eyesight. Vitamins|Ba, B3 (G) stimulates the appetite, aids digestion. Vitamin C favors good bone|and tooth formation, prevent scurvy. The 'Sunshine Vitamin D' is important to|general health, utilizes calcium and phosphorus in building strong teeth and|bones. Organic Iron helps increase red corpuscle growth. Yeast as an aid to|good blood and body functions. Dextrose for restoring energy. Soy Bean|rich in Protein (strength food). * * * Vitasol is a * * * health|builder * * * prepared to provide a wide variety of protecting food elements|(not available in the ordinary diet) essential to abundant vitality and|health. * * * quick revitalizing food for all active adults. Vitamins Vigor|Vitality.\"\" were false and misleading since they represented and suggested that|the article was capable of building health, was vital to eyesight, would stimulate|the appetite, would aid digestion, would insure good bone and tooth formation,|would increase the red corpuscle content of the blood, would restore energy,|would insure strength and would provide nutritional elements not available in|the ordinary diet which are essential to vitality and health, whereas the|article would not accomplish the results or fulfill the promises of benefit repre-|sented or suggested for it.|The article was also alleged to be misbranded in violation of the provisions of|the law applicable to foods, reported in food notices of judgment.|On November 30, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|DRUGS FOR VETERINARY USE |948. Misbranding of Garmas Powder, Tulas Powder, and Knox-It. U. S. v. Syracuse Pharmacal Co., Inc. P of guilty. Fine, $150.ddnj00948October 1944Syracuse Pharmacal Co., Inc., Syracuse, N. Y.Garmas Powder, Tulas Powder, and Knox-ItJuly 5 and September 19, 1941, and January 16, 1942PennsylvaniaNew YorkPennsylvaniaNorthern District of New York948F. D. C. No. 7263. Sample Nos. 74195-E, 74939-E, 74940-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00948ddnj|948. Misbranding of Garmas Powder, Tulas Powder, and Knox-It. U. S. v.|Syracuse Pharmacal Co., Inc. Flea of guilty. Fine, $150. (F. D. C. No.|7263. Sample Nos. 74195-E, 74939-E, 74940-E.)|On November 10, 1942, the United States attorney for the Northern District|of New York filed an information against the Syracuse Pharmacal Co., Inc.,|Syracuse, N. Y., alleging shipment on or about July 5 and September 19, 1941,|and January 16, 1942, from the State of New York into the States of Pennsly-|vania and New Jersey of quantities of the above-named drugs which were mis-|branded. The articles were labeled in part: (Cartons) \"\"Garmas Powder * * *|Mastitis Powder * *' * Prepared For F. B. Miller & M. F. Miller Veterinar-|ians Montrose, Pa.,\"\" \"\"Veterinary Powder * * * Tulas Powder,\"\" or|\"\"Knox-It * * * Manufactured For Dairy Remedies Company Monroe,|Wisconsin Montclair, New Jersey.\"\"|Analysis of a sample of the Garmas Powder showed that it consisted essen-|tially of sulfur, methenamine, compounds of calcium, copper, and antimony,|plant material, including plant and cereal tissues, starch, and licorice root,|iodides, and a trace of iodoform.|The Garmas Powder was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements|appearing in its labeling \"\"Mastitis Powder * * * Garmas Powder Treat-|ment for Bloody and Stringy Milk. A well filled tablespoonful of Garmas|Powder should be given in each feeding * * * A week or more before|calving it is advisable to give once a day to each animal a tablespoonful of|Garmas Powder,\"\" were false and misleading since they represented and sug-|gested that the article would be efficacious in the cure, mitigation, treatment,|or prevention of mastitis in animals, whereas it would not be efficacious for|such purposes.|Analysis of a sample of the Tulas Powder showed that it contained 2.98 per-|cent of arsenous acid, salicylic acid, sulfur, and charcoal.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement appearing in its labeling,|\"\"An internal treatment for chronic suppurative conditions in animals,\"\" was false|and misleading since it represented and suggested that the article was efficacious|as an internal treatment for chronic suppurative conditions in animals, whereas it|was not efficacious as an internal treatment for such conditions.|Analysis of a sample of Knox-It showed that it consisted essentially of plant|material, including a cereal, iodoform, methenamine, sulfur, lime, and small|proportions of a copper compound, and an iodide.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements appearing in its|labeling, \"\"Knox-It For the treatment of common disturbances of the mammary|system resulting in thick milk, bloody milk, non-contagious Garget * * * A|combination of ingredients which tends to condition milch cows and is favor-|able in the treatment of disturbances which may result in bloody and stringy|milk and non-contagious garget * * * Also tends to build up the resistance|of animals against a tendency to simple garget and for this purpose a full|tablespoonful may be given daily or oftener, to each animal a week or ten days|before calving,\"\" were false and misleading since the statements represented and|suggested that the article would be efficacious in the cure, mitigation, treat-|ment or prevention of garget or mastitis, whereas it would not be efficacious|for such purposes.|23 See also Nos. 920, 922, 924, for other veterinary remedies.|On May 13, 1943, the defendant having changed its original plea of not|guilty to a plea of guilty, the court imposed a fine of $50 on each of the 3|counts, totaling $150.|949. Misbranding of Grange Poke Root and Salt Petre Compound. U. S. v. Dairy Association Co., Inc. Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $100.ddnj00949October 1944Dairy Association Co., Inc., Lyndonville, Vt.Grange Poke Root and Salt Petre CompoundAugust 30, 1941New HampshireVermontNew HampshireDistrict of Vermont949F. D. C. No. 7292. Sample No. 90155-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00949ddnj|949. Misbranding of Grange Poke Root and Salt Petre Compound. U. S. v. Dairy|Association Co., Inc. Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $100. (F. D. C.|No. 7292. Sample No. 90155-E.)|The labeling of this veterinary preparation contained false and misleading|therapeutic claims.|On August 8,1942, the United States attorney for the District of Vermont filed|an information against the Dairy Association Co., Inc., Lyndonville, Vt., alleging|shipment on or about August 30,1941, from the State of Vermont into the State of|New Hampshire of a quantity of Grange Poke Root and Salt Petre Compound|which was misbranded.|Analysis of the article showed that it consisted essentially of ground root and|potassium nitrate.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements appearing in|its labeling which represented and suggested that it would be efficacious in the|cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of garget, mastitis or fever, were false|and misleading since it would not be efficacious for such purposes.|On April 6, 1943, the defendant having entered a plea of nolo contendere, the|court imposed a fine of $100.|950. Misbranding of Wasa-Tusa. U. S. v. A. B. Seelye Medical Co. Plea of guilty. Fine, $10 and one-half of the costs.ddnj00950October 1944A. B. Seelye Medical Co., a corporation, Abilene, Kans.Wasa-TusaJanuary 21, 1942MissouriKansasMissouriUnited States district courts or the District of Kansas950F. D. C. No. 7747. Sample No. 73654-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00950ddnj|950. Misbranding of Wasa-Tusa. U. S. v. A. B. Seelye Medical Co. Plea of guilty.|Fine, $10 and one-naif of the costs. (F. D. C. No. 7747. Sample No.|73654-E.)|On December 12, 1942, the United States attorney for the District of Kansas|filed an information against the A. B. Seelye Medical Co., a corporation, Abilene,|Kans., alleging shipment on or about January 21, 1942, from the State of Kansas|into the State of Missouri of a quantity of the above-named drug which was mis-|branded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of small proportions of|volatile oils, including camphor, oil of sassafras, and oil of pine, ammonia, cap-|sicum, chloroform and alcohol colored with amaranth.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements appearing in|its labeling, \"\"Swellings, etc., on Animals. For Qolic in Horses, Bloating and|Diarrhoea in Cattle and Young Calves. Dose 1 teaspoonful to 3 tablespoonfuls in|pint of hot water, then repeat in 20 minutes if needed,\"\" were false and misleading|in that they represented and suggested that the article would be efficacious in|the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of swellings on animals, colic in|horses, and bloating and diarrhea in cattle and young calves, whereas it would|not be efficacious for such purposes.|On April 12, 1943, the defendant having entered a plea of guilty, the court|imposed a fine of $10 and one-half of the costs.|INDEX TO NOTICES OF JUDGMENT D. D. N. J. NOS. 901-950|PRODUCTS|N. J. No.|Abortifacients|* 901, 905|Alcohol, rubbing|915,916,935|Alimentone Tablets and Alimentone|Powder| * 929|Ammonia, aromatic spirit of? 923|water| 914|Analgesic Balm| 912|Antiseptics|926, 935, 943|Aspirin tablets| 936|Athlete's Isopropyl Alcohol Com-|pound|915, 916|Azamine Capsules| 924|Betene| 937|Boric acid, saturated solution of? 914|Bullock's System Self Treatment for|Sinus and Catarrhal Infection? JJ08|Cascara compound tablets| * 917|Chagnon's Sirotar| 938|1 Permanent injunction issued.|* Prosecution contested.|N. J. No.|Chloroform liniment|?914|Coconut milk|?933|Cod liver oil concentrate|?938|Cosmetics (subject to drug provisions|of the Act)|?942|Cow-Vet-|?920|Cruez Herb Douche, and Cruez Herb|Tea Nos. 9 and 10|?934|Devices|?908|Diabetes, remedy for|?910|Digitalis tablets|?s917|Dr. Peter's Kuriko|?909|Dolphin's Natural Barks?4 927,2 928|Domino Brand Antiseptic Rubbing|Compound with Isopropyl Alco-|hol|?935|Effervescent Kruschen|?939|s Prosecution contested. Contains opinion|of the court.|* Permanent injunction issued. Contains|findings of fact and conclusions of law.|951. Misbranding of Improved Cold Tablets. U. S. v. 126 Packages of Improved Cold Tablets. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00951November 1944Hygenol Co.Improved Cold TabletsSeptember 14, 1942Fort Wayne, Ind.Minneapolis, Minn.Fort Wayne, Ind.Northern District of Indiana951F. D. C. No. 8936. Sample No. 26201-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00951ddnj|FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION|NOTICES OF JUDGMENT UNDER THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG,|AND COSMETIC ACT|[Given pursuant to section 705 of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act]|951-1000|DRUGS AND DEVICES|The cases reported herewith were instituted in the United States district|courts by the United States attorneys acting upon reports submitted by direction|of the Federal Security Administrator.|WATSON B. MILLER, Acting Administrator, Federal Security Agency.|WASHINGTON, D. C, August 21,1944.|CONTENTS*|Page|Drugs actionable because of potential danger|when used according to directions 161|Drugs actionable because of failure to bear|adequate directions or warning statements.. 162|Drugs actionable because of contamination with|filth | 166|Drugs actionable because of deviation from|official or own standards |167|Page|Drugs actionable because of false and misleading|claims | 175|Human use . |175|Veterinary use | 183|Drugs actionable because of failure to bear ac-|curate statements of quantity of contents.. 184|DRUGS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF POTENTIAL DANGER WHEN USED|ACCORDING TO DIRECTIONS|951. Misbranding of Improved Cold Tablets. U. S. v. 126 Packages of Improved|Cold Tablets. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C.|No. 8936. Sample No. 26201-F.)|On December 2, 1942, the United States attorney for the Northern District|of Indiana filed a libel against 126 packages of Improved Cold Tablets at Fort|Wayne, Ind., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce|on or about September 14, 1942, by the Hygenol Co. from Minneapolis, Minn.;|and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of acetanilid 1? grains|per tablet, camphor monobromated, cinchonidine sulfate, capsicum, caffeine, and|extracts of plant drugs, including a laxative drug.|The article was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that the statements appear-|ing upon its label, \"\"Cold Tablets * * * For the Belief from Common Head|Colds, * * * For the relief of distress and discomfort due to Common|Head Colds, etc.,\"\" were false and misleading since such statements represented|and suggested that the article was effective in the treatment of head colds,|whereas it was not so effective; (2) in that its labeling failed to bear ade-|*For omission of, or unsatisfactory, ingredients statements, see Nos. 954, 956, 961, 991, 994; inconspicuous-|aess of required label information, No. 958; cosmetic, subject to the drug provisions of the Act, No. 982.|608091?-44 1 |161|quate directions for use since the directions appearing on the label provided/|for an excessive amount of acetanilid and were therefore not adequate for an(|article of such composition; (3) in that its labeling failed to bear such ade-|quate warnings against use by children, and in those pathological conditions|wherein its use might be dangerous to health, in such manner and form as are|necessary for the protection of users, since the article was a laxative and its|-labeling failed to warn that a laxative should not be taken in cases of nausea,|vomiting, abdominal pain,? or other symptoms of appendicitis, and since the|article contained acetanilid and its labeling failed to warn against use by|children; (4) in that its labeling failed to bear such adequate warnings against|.unsafe dosage and methods-and duration of administration in such-manner|and form as are necessary for the,protection of users, since its labeling failed|to warn that frequent or continued use of a preparation containing acetanilid|might cause serious blood disturbances, anemia, collapse, or a dependence on|the drug, and since its labeling also failed to warn that frequent or continued|use of a laxative might result in dependence upon laxatives; and (5) in \"\"that|it was dangerous to health when used in the dosage and with the frequency and|duration prescribed, recommended, and suggested in the labeling thereof, since|the article, when taken in accordance with the directions appearing on the|labeling, \"\"Directions Adults: Take 2 tablets every 2 or 3 hours until bowels|move freely, then take 1 or 2 tablets 3 or 4 times a day until relieved. \"\"Warning!|Do Not Take More Than Six Tablets In Any Twenty-Four Hour Period,\"\" would|provide, even with the limitation of 6 tablets a day, a maximum of 9 grains of|acetanilid a day for an indefinite period of time, and was dangerous to health.|On April 5, 1943, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|952. Misbranding of triple bromide tablets. U. S. v. 11 2/3 Dozen Packages of Triple Bromide Tablets. Decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00952November 1944Savoy Drug & Chemical Co.triple bromide tabletsSeptember 21, 1942Albany, N. Y.Chicago, Ill.Albany, N. Y.Northern District of New York952F. D. C. No. 8967. Sample No. 17109-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00952ddnj|952. Misbranding: of triple bromide tablets. TJ. S. v. 11% Dosen Packages of|Triple Bromide Tablets. Decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C.|No. 8967. Sample No. 17109-F.)|On December 5, 1942, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|New York filed a libel against 11? dozen packages of triple bromide tablets|at Albany, N. T., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate com-|merce on or about September 21, 1942, from Chicago, 111., by the Savoy Drug;|& Chemical Co.; and charging that it was misbranded. The article was labeled|in part: \"\"Wards 50 Triple Bromide Tablets * * * Distributed by Mont-|gomery Ward & Co.\"\"|Examination showed that the article contained a total of 15 grains per|tablet of the combined sodium, potassium, and ammonium bromides.|It was| alleged to be misbranded in that it was dangerous to health when|used in the dosage prescribed, recommended, and suggested in the labeling|thereof, \"\"Adult Dose: One tablet three times daily.\"\"|On January 23, 1943, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|DRUGS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO BEAR ADEQUATE|DIRECTIONS OR WARNING STATEMENTS*|953. Adulteration and misbranding of solution of magnesium citrate. U. S. v. 222 Bottles of Effervescing Solution Citrated Magnesia. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00953November 1944White-Stone Laboratoriessolution of magnesium citrateAugust 5, 1942Providence, R. I.Boston, Mass.Providence, R. I.District of Rhode Island953F. D. C. No. 8388. Sample No. 19441-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00953ddnj|953. Adulteration and misbranding: of solution of magnesium citrate. IT. S. v.|222 Bottles of Effervescing Solution Cltrated Magnesia. Default decree|of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 8388. Sample No. 19441-F.)|This product was sold under a. name recognized in the United States Pharma-|copoeia and its strength, quality, and purity differed from the standard pre-|scribed in such authority. It was a laxative and its labeling failed to warn|that it should not be taken in cases of nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, or|other symptoms of appendicitis, or that frequent or continued use might result|iii dependence upon a laxative to move the bowels.|On September 22, 1942, the United States attorney for the District of Rhode|Island filed a libel against 222 bottles of the above-named product at Providence,|R. I., alleging Jthat the article had been shipped on or about August 5, 1942, by the|White-Stone Laboratories from Boston, Mass.; and charging that it was adulter-|ated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to be and was|represented as a drug the name of which is recognized in the United States|Pharmacopoeia, an official compendium, and its strength differed from and its|?See also No. 951.|quality and purity fell below the standard set forth therein since it did not|?contain, in each 100 cc, magnesium citrate corresponding to not less than 1.6|grams of magnesium oxide, as provided in the Pharmacopoeia, but contained|Epsom salt (magnesium sulfate) corresponding to 1.14 grams of magnesium|oxide per 100 ce.; and it possessed ?e of the quantity of citric acid and approx-|imately ? of the quantity of sucrose required in the Pharmacopoeia for solution|of magnesium citrate.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that is labeling failed to bear adequate|warnings against use in those pathological conditions wherein its use might be|dangerous to health, or against unsafe dosage or duration of administration, in|such manner and form as are necessary for the protection of users.|On October 19, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|954. Adulteration and misbranding of miscellaneous drugs. U. S. v. 223 Vases of Miscellaneous Foods, Drugs, and Cosmetics. Decree of condemnation. Products ordered released under bond for reprocessing and relabeling good portion.ddnj00954November 1944John W. Harrismiscellaneous drugsSeptember 16, 1942Atlanta, Ga.Norfolk, Va.Atlanta, Ga.Northern District of Georgia954F. D. C. No. 8509. Sample No. 28246-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00954ddnj|?54. Adulteration and misbranding of miscellaneous drugs. U. S. v. 223 Vases of|Miscellaneous Foods, Drugs, and Cosmetics. Decree of condemnation.|Products ordered released under bond for reprocessing and relabeling|good portion. (F. D. C. No. 8509. Sample No. 28246-F.)|Some of these products had been water-damaged and others were very old|and deteriorated. They included, among other items, proprietary medicines|and surgical dressings.|On October 5, 1942, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Georgia filed a libel against 223 cases of miscellaneous foods, drugs, and cos-|metics at Atlanta, Ga., alleging that the articles had been shipped on or about|September 16, 1942, by Wells and Harris from Norfolk, Va.; and charging that|the drug items were adulterated and misbranded.|The drug items were alleged to be adulterated in that water had been mixed|therewith so as to reduce their quality.|They were alleged to be misbranded (1) in that the labeling of some of the|items contained false and misleading statements regarding the curative or|therapeutic effects of the articles; (2) in that some of the items failed to bear|labels containing an accurate statement of the quantity of contents of the pack-|ages; (3) in that the labels of some of the items did not bear the common or|-usual name of the active ingredients of the articles; and (4) in that the labeling|of some of the items did not bear adequate warnings against use in those patho-|logical conditions wherein their use might be dangerous to health, or against|unsafe dosage or duration of administration, in such manner and form as are|necessary for the protection of users.|The food and cosmetic items were alleged to be adulterated under the provisions|of the law applicable to foods and cosmetics as reported in the notices of judg-|ment on foods and on cosmetics.|On October 12, 1942, John W. Harris, claimant, having admitted the allega-|tions of the libel, judgment of condemnation was entered and the products were|ordered released under bond for segregation and destruction of the unfit portion,|and for reprocessing and relabeling of the good portion under the supervision of|the Food and Drug Administration.|955. Misbranding of Bi-Sal Tablets. U. S. v. 237 Bottles of Bi-Sal Tablets. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00955November 1944Oxford Products, Inc.Bi-Sal TabletsDecember 3, 1942Chicago, Ill.Cleveland, OhioChicago, Ill.Northern District of Illinois955F. D. C. No. 9051. Sample No. 37708-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00955ddnj|?55. Misbranding of Bi-Sal Tablets. U. S. v. 237 Bottles of Bi-Sal Tablets. De-|fault decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 9051. Sample|No. 37708-F.)|On December 24, 1942, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Illinois filed a libel against 237 bottles of Bi-Sal Tablets at Chicago, 111., alleging|that the article had been shipped on December 3, 1942, in interstate commerce|from Cleveland, Ohio, by Oxford Products, Inc.; and charging that it was mis-|hranded.|Analysis showed that the article contained phenolphthalein, extracts of plant|drugs, including capsicum (cayenne pepper), bile extract, and an alkaloid-bearing|drug, such as nux vomica.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the name \"\"Panogestic Enzymes|with Bile Salts Compound\"\" was misleading since the article was essentially a|laxative and its physiologic effect was due principally to phenolphthalein, which|is neither an enzyme nor a bile constituent, but is a coal tar derivative. The|article was alleged to be misbranded further (1) in that the statement appearing|in its labeling, \"\"This combination is used * * * in certain forms of Gall|Bladder and Bile Duct Infections,\"\" was false and misleading since the statement|represented and suggested that the article was effective in the treatment of cer-|tain forms of gall bladder and bile duct infections, whereas it was not an effective|treatment for any form of such infections, but was essentially a laxative; and|(2) in that, its labeling failed to bear adequate directions for use since the direc-|tions appearing in the Labeling \"\"2 tablets about 2 hours after Breakfast and-2|tablets at Bedtime\"\" represented and suggested that the article be taken repeatedly,|whereas a laxative should not be directed to be taken repeatedly and such repre-|sentation and suggestion was not corrected by the label statement \"\"To avoid the|'laxative habit'do not take continuously.\"\"|On March 29, 1943, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|956. Misbranding of My Prescription, and Pinketts. U. S. v. 23 Packages of My Prescription. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00956November 1944F. X. CrockenbergMy Prescription, and PinkettsOctober 27, 1942Newark, N. J.Honesdale, Pa.Newark, N. J.District of New Jersey956F. D. C. No. 8863. Sample No. 19021-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00956ddnj|956. Misbranding of My Prescription, and Pink-etts. U. S. v. 23 Packages of|My Prescription. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C.|No. 8863. Sample No. 19021-F.) .|On November 16,1942, the United States attorney for the District of New Jersey|filed a libel against 23 packages, each package containing a bottle of liquid labeled|in part \"\"My Prescription\"\" and an envelope containing 3 pills labeled in part|\"\"Pink-etts,\"\" at Newark, N. J., alleging that the.articles had been shipped in inter-|state commerce on or about October 27, 1942, from Honesdale, Pa., by F. X.|Crockenberg; and charging that they were misbranded.|Examination of samples of the articles showed that the \"\"My Prescription\"\"|consisted essentially of bismuth and ammonium compounds, including citrates,|sugar, gum, ginger, and water, and that the \"\"Pink-etts\"\" contained a laxative|plant drug.|The articles were alleged to be misbranded in that the statements appearing in|their labeling, (carton and bottle label) \"\"For Your Stomach A Remedy For|Stomach Ills * * * Corrective and Digestant, used in the treatment of|Gastric and. Duodenal Ulcers,\"\" (labels for Pink-etts) \"\"For * * * Liver|Trouble, Etc.,\"\" (circular) \"\"Stomach Disorders and Their Causes Gastric and|Duodenal Ulcers Gastritis Indigestion Gas Pains and all Stomach Disorders|'My Prescription' has been successfully used by hundreds of users. * * * We|recommend the use of at least three bottles for permanent relief. * * * The|story on the following pages gives you some idea as to the symptoms of stomach|disorders and how they are treated. In taking 'My Prescription' all that is|necessary is to avoid the things that you know are harmful, in order to give the|medicine a quicker and better action,\"\" and other circular statements discussing|stomach ulcer, were false and misleading since such statements represented and|suggested that \"\"My Prescription\"\" was effective in the treatment of diseases of|the stomach, and that the \"\"Pink-etts Pills\"\" were effective in the treatment of liver|trouble and various conditions included in the designation-\"\"etc\"\, whereas the|articles were not effective for such purposes.|Further misbranding was alleged in that both products were drugs in package|form and their labels failed to bear accurate statements of the quantity of the|contents contained therein; and in that the \"\"Pink-etts\"\" were fabricated from|two or more ingredients and the label failed to bear the common or usual name|of each active ingredient, and in that the labeling failed to bear such adequate|warnings against use of the article in those pathological conditions wherein its|use might be dangerous to health, and against unsafe dosage and methods and|duration of administration, in such manner and form as are necessary for the|protection of users, since the article was a laxative and its labeling failed to warn|that a laxative should not be taken in case of nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain,|or other symptoms of appendicitis, and that frequent or continued use might|result in dependence upon laxatives to move the bowels.|On January 4, 1943, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|957. Misbranding of Natur-Pep. U. S. v. 80 Bottles of Natur-Pep. Decree of destruction.ddnj00957November 1944Curts-Folse LaboratoriesNatur-Pep\NKansas City, Mo.Kansas City, Kans.Kansas City, Mo.Western District of Missouri957F. D. C. No. 8688. Sample No. 2642-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00957ddnj|957. Misbranding of Natur-Pep. U. S. v. 80 Bottles of Natnr-Pep. Decree of|destruction. (F. D. C. No. 8688. Sample No. 2642-F.)|. Examination showed that the article consisted essentially of Epsom salt|(30.9 percent), water, small amounts of iron phosphate, sodium and potassium|compounds, methenamine, a salicylate, and extracts of plant drugs including a|laxative plant drug.|On or about November 9, 1942, the United States attorney for the Western|District of Missouri filed a libel against 80 bottles of Natur-Pep at Kansas City,|Mo., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce from|Kansas City, Kans.^by the Curts-Folse Laboratories; and charging that it was /|misbranded.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that certain statements appear-|ing in its labeling which represented and suggested that the article was not|habit-forming, gave \"\"pep,\"\" was effective in the treatment of stomach, liver,|kidney, blood, nerve, and intestinal disorders, and was effective in the treatment|of constipation, swollen limbs, and indigestion, were false and misleading since|the article was capable of causing laxative-habit formation, did not give \"\"pep,\"\"|and was not effective in the treatment of the disorders and conditions above-|described ; and in that the statement appearing in its labeling, \"\"Natur-Pep Tonic|Is Prepared From Ingredients of Recognized Medicinal Value: Extract Cascara|Sagrada, Iron Pyrophosphate, Strontium Salicylate, Oleum Coriander, Methyl|Salicylate, Extract Gentian, Alcohol ??, Hexamethylenamine, Extract Gly-|cyrrhiza, Magnesium Sulphate, Potassium Acetate, Sodium Salicylate, Oleum|Anise, Glycerine,\"\" was misleading since such statement created the impres-|sion that the article provided significant Quantities of all the ingredients named,|whereas it did not provide significant quantities of such ingredients, but was|essentially an Epsom salt laxative. It was alleged to be misbranded further|in that its labeling failed to bear adequate directions for use since the article|was a laxative and the directions which appeared in the labeling provided for|continuous administration, whereas a laxative should not be used continuously;|and in that the labeling failed to bear adequate warnings against use in those|pathological conditions wherein its use might be dangerous to health, or adequate|warnings against unsafe methods and duration of administration, in such manner|and form as are necessary for the protection of users, since the labeling failed|to bear a warning that a laxative should not be taken in case of nausea, vomit-|ing, abdominal pain, or other symptoms of appendicitis, and that frequent or|continued use might result in dependence upon a laxative to move the bowels.|On December 16, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment was entered|ordering that the product be destroyed.|958. Misbranding of Ramazzotti. U. S. v. 3 Cases of Ramazzotti. Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered released under bond for relabeling.ddnj00958November 1944Banfi Products CorporationRamazzottiJuly 24. 1942Stamford, Conn.New York, N. Y.Stamford, Conn.District of Connecticut958F. D. C. No. 8615. Sample Nos. 17861-F, 18845-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00958ddnj|958. Misbranding; of Ramazzotti. tJ. S. v. 3 Cases of Ramazzotti. Consent decree|of condemnation. Product ordered released under bond for relabeling;*|(P. D. C. No. 8615. Sample Nos. 17861-F, 18845-F.)|On or about October 22, 1942, the United States attorney for the District of|Connecticut filed a libel against 3 cases, each containing 24 bottles, of Ramaz-|zotti at Stamford, Conn., alleging that the article had been shipped in inter-|state commerce on or about July 24. 1942, by the Banfi Products Corporation|from New York, N. Y.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Examination showed that, the article contained extracts of plant drugs, in-|cluding a laxative drug such as rhubarb, and 38.2 percent of alcohol.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement \"\"originated|by FLLI. RAMAZZOTTI, MILANO, ITALY\"\" and various other statements in|the Italian language, together with designs including the Papal seal and the|State seal of Italy, appearing in the labeling, were false and misleading since|they created the impression that the article was prepared in Milan, Italy, whereas|it was manufactured in New York, N. Y.|The article was alleged to be misbranded further (1) in that the statements|on the bottle label, \"\"FAMOUS SINCE 1815,\"\" and on the bottle wrapper, \"\"Used|throughout the World since 1815,\"\" were false and misleading since the article|had not been produced and marketed over the period since 1815; (2) in that|the name of each active ingredient, including the name and quantity or propor-|tion of alcohol contained in the article, required by law to be declared on the|label, was not prominently placed thereon with such conspicuousness (as com-|pared with other words, statements, designs, and devices in the labeling) and|in such terms as to render it likely to be read and understood by the ordinary|individual under customary conditions of purchase and use, since the names|of the active ingredients and the quantity or proportion of alcohol did not appear|on the bottle wrapper and did not appear in the Italian language in any of the|labeling; and (3) in that its labeling failed to bear adequate directions for|use since the directions in English, \"\"Dose: ? to 1 oz. taken straight, in black|coffee, or hot lemonade before or after meals, upon retiring or any time during|the day,\"\" and the directions in Italian \"\"puro e misto all'acqua, al seltz, alle|acque minerali, al Vermouth e col caffe\"\" (translation: \"\"pure and mixed with|water, seltzer, with mineral waters, with Vermouth and with coffee\"\"), did not|provide for a definite amount of frequency or duration of administration, but|were indefinite and therefore not adequate.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that-its labeling failed -jto bear|adequate warnings ^against use in those pathological conditions, or by children,|wherein its'use might be dangerous to health, or against unsafe dosage or duration|of administration, in such manner and form as are'necessary for the protection, of|thfe user, since its labeling bore no warning against use by children for. whom,|by reason of its large proportion of alconol, it would be especially unsuitable; its|labeling bore no warning against use in case of abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting,|or other symptoms of # appendicitis, whereas, by reason of its content of a laxa-|tive drug such as rhubarb it would be dangerous when used in such circum-|stances; and it bore no warning against frequent or continued use which might|result in the establishment of dependence upon laxatives to move the bowels.|On January 7, 1943, Banfi Products Corporation, claimant, having admitted|the allegations of the libel, judgment of condemnation was entered and the|product was ordered released under bond for relabeling under the supervision|of and in form satisfactory to the Food and Drug Administration.|959. Misbranding of Special SC Pink Tablets. U. S. v. 3 Drums of Special SC Pink Tablets. Product relabeled and ordered released to claimant.ddnj00959November 1944Charles H. Dietz, Inc.Special SC Pink TabletsFebruary 19, April 25, and June 23, 1942Nashville, Tenn.St. Louis, Mo.Nashville, Tenn.Middle District of Tennessee959F. D. C No. 8428. Sample Nos. 4628-F to 4630-F. incl.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00959ddnj|959. Misbranding: of Special SG Pink Tablets. U. S. v. 3 Drums of Special SC|Pink Tablets. Product relabeled and ordered released to claimant. (F. D. C|No. 8428. Sample Nos. 4628-F to 4630-F. incl.)| On September, 29, 1942, the United States attorney for the Middle District of|Tennessee filed a libel against 3 drums containing a total of approximately|140,000 Special SC Pink Tablets at Nashville, Tenn.,, alleging that the article|had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about February 19, April 25, and|June 23, 1942, by Charles H. Dietz, Inc., from St. Louis, Mo.; and charging|that it was misbranded.|Analyses of samples showed that the^article consisted essentially of acetanilid,|potassium bromide, laxative plant drugs, and cinchonidine sulfate.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that its labeling failed to bear|adequate directions for use, since there were no directions. It was alleged|to be misbranded further in that its labeling failed to bear adequate warnings|against use in those pathological conditions, or by children, wherein its use|might be dangerous to health, in such manner and form as are necessary for|the protection of users, since the article was a laxative and its labeling failed|to warn that a laxative should not be taken in cases of nausea, vomiting, abdom-|inal pain, or other symptoms of appendicitis; that frequent or continued use|of the article might result in dependence on a laxative; and that the article was|not to be given to children. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that|its labeling failed to bear adequate warnings against unsafe dosage or methods or|duration of administration or application, in such manner and form as are|necessary for the protection of users, since the labeling failed to warn that|frequent or continued use of acetanilid might be dangerous, causing serious|blood disturbances, anemia, collapse, or a dependence on the drug, and that not|more than the recommended dosage was to be taken.|On October 9, 1942, the product having been relabeled and the claimant, the|Gattis Chemical Co., Nashville, Tenn., having paid costs of the proceedings, the|product was ordered delivered to the claimant. ? s|DRUGS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF CONTAMINATION WITH FILTH*|960. Adulteration of sulfanilamide tablets. U. S. v. 3,000 Bottles of Sulfanilamide Tablets. Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered released under bond for segregation and destruction or reprocessing; of the contaminated portion.ddnj00960November 1944Maltbie Chemical Co.sulfanilamide tabletsNovember 18, 1942Brooklyn, N. Y.Newark, N. J.Brooklyn, N. Y.Eastern District of New York960F. D. C. No. 8962. Sample No. 18441-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00960ddnj|960. Adulteration of sulfanilamide tablets. V. S. v. 3,000 Bottles of Sulfanilamide|Tablets. Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered released|under bond for segregation and destruction or reprocessing; of the con-|taminated portion. (F. D. C. No. 8962. Sample No. 18441-F.)|Examination of a sample of this product showed that most of the tablets|were covered with live mold, a species of Aspergillus.|On December 9, 1942, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|New York filed a libel against 3,000 bottles, each containing 1,000 tablets, of|sulfanilamide at Brooklyn, N. T., alleging that the article had been shipped in|interstate commerce on or about November 18,1942, by the Maltbie Chemical Co.,|Newark, N. J.; and charging that it was adulterated in that it consisted in whole|or in part of a filthy substance.|On December 26,1942, the Maltbie Chemical Co., claimant, having admitted the|allegations' of the libel, judgment of condemnation was entered and the product|was ordered released under bond to be sorted according to codes and the portion|?For bacterial contamination see Nos. 970-977, 985, 986.|found contaminated either destroyed or reprocessed. Any of the product so|reprocessed was to be further examined and, if not fit for human or medical use,|to be destroyed.|DRUGS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF DEVIATION FROM OFFICIAL OR|OWN STANDARDS*|962. Adulteration and misbranding of Elixir Quinux. U. S. v. S.ddnj00962November 1944S. F. Durst & Go., Inc., Philadelphia, Pa., and Richard L. DurstElixir QuinuxMarch 20, 1942New JerseyPennsylvaniaNew JerseyEastern District of Pennsylvania962F. D. C. No. 8735. Sample No. 54944-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00962ddnj|962. Adulteration and misbranding of Elixir Quinux. TJ. S. v. S. F. Durst & Co.,|Inc, and Richard L. Durst. Pleas of nolo contendere. Fines, $205.|(F. D. C. No. 8735. Sample No. 54944-E.)|On December 30, 1942, the United States attorney for the Eastern District|of Pennsylvania filed an information against S. F. Durst & Go., Inc., Phila-|delphia, Pa., and Richard L. Durst, alleging shipment on or about March 20,|1942, from the State of Pennsylvania into the State of New Jersey of a quantity|of Elixir Quinux which was adulterated and misbranded.|The article was alleged1 to be adulterated in that its strength differed from|that which it purported and was represented to possess, since it purported and|was represented to contain 2 grains of quinine sulfate per fluid ounce, whereas|it contained not more than 0.42 grain of quinine sulfate per fluid ounce.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement borne on its label \"\"Each|fluid ounce represents: * * * Quinine Sulphate 2 grs.\"\" was false and|misleading.|On January 13, 1943, the defendants having entered pleas of nolo contendere,|the court found them guilty and imposed a fine of $200 against the corpora-|tion and a fine of $5 against the individual defendant.|963. Adulteration and misbranding of iron glycerophosphate compound. U. S. v. Associated Laboratories, Inc. Plea of nolo contendere. Defendant found guilty. Fine, $100.ddnj00963November 1944Associated Laboratories, Inc., Philadelphia, Pa.iron glycerophosphate compoundMay 14, 1942New JerseyPennsylvaniaNew JerseyEastern District of Pennsylvania963F. D. C. No. 8736. Sample No. 77054-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00963ddnj|963. Adulteration and misbranding of iron glycerophosphate compound. U. S.|v. Associated Laboratories, Inc. Plea of nolo contendere. Defendant|fonnd guilty. Fine, $100. (F. D. C. No. 8736. Sample No. 77054-E.)|On December 30, 1942, the United States attorney for the Eastern District|of Pennsylvania filed an information against the Associated Laboratories, Inc.,|Philadelphia, Pa.,'alleging shipment on or about May 14, 1942, from the State of|Pennsylvania into the State of New Jersey of a quantity of iron glycerophosphate|compound which was adulterated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from|and its quality fell below that which it purported and was represented to|possess, since it purported and was represented to contain, in each cubic centi-|meter, ? grain of iron cacodylate, whereas it contained in each cubic centimeter|not more than a trace of iron cacodylate.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement in its labeling \"\"1 cc.|Represents: * * * Iron Cacodylate * . * * ? gr.,\"\" was false and'|misleading.|On January 13, 1943, the defendant having entered a plea of nolo contendere,|the court found the defendant guilty and imposed a fine of $100.|964. Adulteration and misbranding of wheat germ. U. S. v. The Battle Creek. Food Co. Plea of guilty. Total fine, $600.ddnj00964November 1944Battle Creek Food Co., Battle Creek, Mich.wheat germJune 1 and 15 and August 28, 1942New York and IllinoisMichiganNew York and IllinoisEastern District of Michigan964F. D. C. No. 8800. Sample Nos. 91743-E, 16873-F, 16874-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00964ddnj|964. Adulteration and misbranding of wheat germ. XT. S. v. The Battle Creek.|Food Co. Plea of guilty. Total fine, $600. (F. D. C. No. 8800. Sample Nos.|91743-E, 16873-P, 16874-F.)|On March 23, 1943, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Michigan filed an information against the Battle Creek Food Co., Battle Creek,|Mich., alleging shipment oh or about June 1 and 15 and August 28, 1942, from|the State of Michigan into the States of New York and Illinois of quantities|of wheat germ that was adulterated and misbranded.|Examination of samples of the article showed that it contained not more|than 250 U. S-. P. units of vitamin Bi per ounce, which is approximately ? the|minimum daily requirement for an adult.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from,|that which it was represented to possess, 500 U. S. P. units of vitamin Bi per|ounce.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement in its labeling \"\"One|ounce (approx. ? cup) of Battle Creek Wheat Germ supplies 500 U. S. P. units|of vitamin Bt (Thiamin), (1? times the minimum daily requirement for an|adult),\"\" was false and misleading since the article did not contain 500 U. S. P.|units of vitamin Bi per ounce, and 1 ounce of the article would not furnish 1^|times the minimum daily requirement of vitamin Bi for an adult, but would|furnish only half that amount.|The article was alleged to be misbranded further in that the statement,|\"\"Wheat Germ fills a much needed place in the modern diet which is apt to|be deficient in Thiamin (vitamin Bi) and Riboflavin (vitamin G) * * *|Battle Creek Wheat Germ presents * * * economical source of these im-|portant vitamins,\"\" borne on its label, was misleading since the statement created|in the mind of the reader the impression that all modern diets were apt to be|deficient in thiamin and riboflavin, and that all modern diets should be supple-|mented by wheat germ or substances containing thiamin and riboflavin, and|that wheat germ is an economical and satisfactory source of riboflavin, whereas|thiamin and riboflavin are present in a wide variety of ordinary foods and are|present in many ordinary diets in adequate amounts, and all diets do not ordi-|narily require wheat germ to supplement the need for such vitamins and, in|those instances where the dietary intake of riboflavin is inadequate, wheat germ|does not provide an economical or satisfactory source of riboflavin.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the statement, \"\"Vitamin Bi|tends to make steady nerves, improves appetite, aids digestion and combats con-|stipation. Vitamin G promotes good nutrition; both vitamins help to build vital|resistance,\"\" borne on its label, was misleading since the statement suggested|and created in the mind of the reader the impression and belief that unsteady|nerves, poor appetite, poor digestion, constipation, poor nutrition, and low vital|resistance are frequently caused by lack of thiamin and riboflavin, and that the|reader might reasonably expect that the article would be efficacious to steady|the nerves, improve the appetite, aid digestion, combat constipation, promote|good nutrition, and build vital resistance, whereas such conditions usually result|from causes other than lack of thiamin and riboflavin and the reader might|not reasonably expect that the article would be efficacious to correct them since|it would rarely be efficacious for such purposes.|The article was also alleged to be adulterated and misbranded under the pro-|visions of the law applicable to foods as reported in the notices of judgment|on foods.|On April 7, 1943, the defendant entered a plea of guilty and the court imposed|a fine of $100 on each of the 6 counts, a total of $600.|965.. Adulteration and misbranding of amino acids parenteral. U. S. v. 115Dozen of Amino Acids Parenteral Stearns. Decree of destruction.ddnj00965November 1944Frederick Stearns and Co.amino acids parenteralSeptember 23, 1942Kansas City, Mo.Detroit, Mich.Kansas City, Mo.Western District of Missouri965F. D. C. No. 8643. Sample No. 2734-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00965ddnj|965.. Adulteration and misbranding of amino acids parenteral. U. S. v. 115-|Dozen of Amino Acids Parenteral Stearns. Decree of destruction. (F. D. C.|No. 8643. Sample No. 2734-F.)|This product was represented in its labeling as a 15-percent solution of aminc-|acids derived from the acid hydrolysis of casein fortified with tryptophan, and the-|608091?-i4?2|tryptophan content of the product was represented as 1 percent of the total|amino acids. Examination showed that the 'product contained approximately|one-third of the amount of tryptophan declared.|On or about Oetober 28,1942, the- United States attorney for the Western Dis-|trict of Missouri filed a libel against 11? dozen of the above-named product at|Kansas City, Mo., alleging that the article had been .shipped in interstate com-|merce on or about September 23, 1942, from Detroit, Mich., by Frederick Stearns|and Co.; and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its' strength differed from|that which it was represented to possess on its label, \"\"Amino Acids, 15 percent|solution, Tryptophane 1? of Amino Acids.\"\"|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements appearing in its|labeling, (carton) \"\"Amino Acids * * * 15 percent solution * . * * Trypto-|phane 1.0? of Amino Acids,\"\" (circular inside carton) \"\"Each batch of Amino|Acid Stearns is standardized according to the following average analysis Trypto-|phane added (1? total Amino Acids) 1?,\"\" were false and misleading since the|article did not contain the amount of tryphtophan stated.|On January 26, 1943, no claimant having appeared, judgment was entered|ordering that the product be destroyed.|966. Adulteration and misbranding of collodion. U. S. v. 10 cartons and 1,500 Bottles of Collodion. Decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00966November 1944Conray Products Co.collodionJune 11 to September 5, 1942Chicago, Ill.New York, N. Y.Chicago, Ill.Northern District of Illinois and the Eastern District of Virginia966F. D. C. No. 8247, 8858. Sample No. 77-F, 25102-F. 25119-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00966ddnj|966. Adulteration and misbranding of collodion. TJ. S. v. 10 cartons and 1,500|Bottles of Collodion. Decrees of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C.|No. 8247, 8858. Sample No. 77-F, 25102-F. 25119-F.)|On August 27 and November 12, 1942, the United States attorneys for the|Northern District of Illinois and the Eastern District of Virginia filed libels|against 1,500 bottles of collodion at Chicago, 111., and 10 cartons, each containing|250 1-ounce bottles, of collodion at Richmond, Va., alleging that the article had|been shipped within the period from on or about June 11 to September 5, 1942,|from New York, N. Y., by the Conray Products Co.; and charging that it was|adulterated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that a mixture containing the|ester, amyl acetate, had been substituted for collodion U. S. P.| was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement on its label \"\"Collodion|U. S. P.\"\" was false and misleading since the article did not have the composition|specified by the United States Pharmacopoeia for collodion.|On December 5,1942, and January 6, 1943, no claimant having appeared, judg-|ments of condemnation were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|967. Adulteration and misbranding of iron compound and yeast tablets. U. S. v. 4 Drums of Iron Compound and Yeast Tablets. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00967November 1944Keith Victor Pharmacal Co., St. Louis, Mo.iron compound and yeast tabletsFebruary 14, 1942Cleveland, OhioSt. Louis, Mo.Cleveland, OhioNorthern District of Ohio967F. D. C. No. 8S07. Sample No. 4811-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00967ddnj|867. Adulteration and misbranding of iron compound and yeast tablets. TJ. S. v.|4 Drums of Iron Compound and Yeast Tablets. Default decree of condem-|nation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 8S07. Sample No. 4811-F.)|On September 2, 1942, the United States attorney for the Northern District|of Ohio filed a libel against 4 drums, each containing approximately 47,300 of|the above-named tablets at Cleveland, Ohio, alleging that the|' article had been|shipped in interstate commerce on or about February 14,1942, by the Keith Victor|Pharmacal Co., St. Louis, Mo.; and charging that it was adulterated and mis-|branded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from and|its quality fell below that which it was represented to possess.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements on its label,|\"\"Each tablet contains Ba (Thiamin Chloride) 50 International Units B2 (Ribo-|flavin) 25 Gamma,\"\" were false as applied to an article that contained not more|than 25 International Units of vitamin Bi per tablet, and not more than 15 gamma|of riboflavin.|The article was also alleged to be adulterated and misbranded under the pro-|visions of law applicable to foods as reported in notices of judgment on foods.|On October 16, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|968. Adulteration and misbranding of DPS Formula 50. U. S. v. 120 Bottles of DPS Formula 50. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00968November 1944Dartell LaboratoriesDPS Formula 50June 19 and July 9, 1942Portland, Oreg.Los Angeles, Calif.Portland, Oreg.District of Oregon968F. D. C. No. 8407. Sample No. 13007-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00968ddnj|968. Adulteration and misbranding of DPS Formula 50. U. S. v. 120 Bottles of|DPS Formula 50. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. 0.|No. 8407. Sample No. 13007-F.)|Examination showed that this product contained 230 micrograms (gammas)|of riboflavin per tablet.|On September 26, 1942, the United|\"\" States attorney for the District of Oregon|filed a libel against 120 bottles, each containing 90 tablets, of DPS Formula 50 at|Portland, Oreg., alleging that the article had been shipped on or about June 19|and July 9, 1942, from Los Angeles, Calif., by the Dartell Laboratories; and|charging that it was adulterated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from and|its quality fell below that which it was represented to possess, namely, vitamin Ba|(riboflavin) 348 gammas (micrograms).|It wrs alleged to be misbranded in that the statement appearing on its label,|\"\"Each Tablet Contains .Not Less Than: * * * Vitamin B2 348 Gammas,\"\" was|false and misleading.|The article was also alleged to be adulterated and misbranded under the pro-|visions of law applicable to foods as reported in the notices of judgment on foods.|On November 4,1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|969. Adulteration and misbranding of pituitary solution posterior lobe. U. S. v. 332 Boxes of Pituitary Solution Posterior Lobe. Decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00969November 1944Parke, Davis and Co.pituitary solution posterior lobeSeptember 23, 1942Atlanta, Ga.Detroit, Mich.Atlanta, Ga.Northern District of Georgia969F. D. C. No. 8885. Sample No. 29212-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00969ddnj|969. Adulteration and misbranding of pituitary solution posterior lobe. U. S. v.|332 Boxes of Pituitary Solution Posterior Lobe. Decree of condemnation|and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 8885. Sample No. 29212-F.)|Examination of this product showed that 1 cubic centimeter produced an|activity upon the isolated uterus of the virgin guinea pig corresponding to 160|percent of that produced by 0.005 gram of standard powdered posterior pituitary,|whereas the eleventh revision of the United States Pharmacopoeia, which was|official at the time the goods described were shipped, provided that \"\"One cubic|centimeter of Solution of Posterior Pituitary produces an activity upon the|isolated uterus of the virgin guinea pig, corresponding to * * * not more|than 120 percent of that produced by 0.005 Gm. of the Standard Powdered Pos-|terior Pituitary.\"\"|On November 18, 1942, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Georgia filed a libel against 332 boxes, each containing 6 ampuls, of pituitary|solution posterior lobe at Atlanta, Ga., alleging.that the article had been shipped|or about September 23, 1942, from Detroit, Mich., by Parke, Davis and Co.; and|charging that it was adulterated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to be and was|represented as a drug, the name of which was recognized in an official com-|pendium, the United States Pharmacopoeia, Eleventh Revision, but its strength|differed from the standard set forth in such compendium since it produced an|activity in excess of the maximum permitted by the standard set forth therein.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement appearing in its label-|ing \"\"Pituitary Solution, Posterior Lobe, U. S. P.\"\" was false and misleading as|applied to the article since its potency was greater than the maximum permitted|by the United States Pharmacopoeia, Eleventh Revision.|On April 12, 1943, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|970. Adulteration and misbranding of absorbent cotton. U. S. v. 14 2/3 Gross Packages of Absorbent Cotton. Decree of condemnation. Product ordered delivered to a local hospital.ddnj00970November 1944New Aseptic Laboratories, Inc.absorbent cottonOctober 16, 1942Philadelphia, Pa.Columbia, S. C.Philadelphia, Pa.Eastern District of Pennsylvania970F. D. C. No. S932. Sample No. 22963-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00970ddnj|970. Adulteration and misbranding of absorbent cotton. IT. S. v. 14% Gross|Packages of Absorbent Cotton. Decree of condemnation. Product ordered|delivered to a local hospital. (F. D. C. No. S932. Sample No. 22963-F.)|On November 27, 1942, the United Stales attorney for the Eastern District of|Pennsylvania filed a libel against 14? gross packages of absorbent cotton at|Philadelphia, Pa., alleging that the article had been shipped on or about October|16, 1942, from Columbia, S. C, by New Aseptic Laboratories, Inc.; and charging|that it wos adulterated and misbranded. The article was labeled in part:|\"\"Sunerb Absorbent Cotton Sterlized After Packing.\"\"|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to be and was|represented as a drug, the name of which is recognized in the United States|Pharmacopoeia, but its quality and purity fell below the standard set forth|therein since it did not conform to the requirements of the test for sterility of|solids, as provided by the Pharmacopoeia, but was contaminated with viable gram-|positive bacilli.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement \"\"Sterilized After Pack-|ing,\"\" appearing on its label, was false and misleading since the article was con-|taminated as indicated above.|On January 2, 1943, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered delivered to a local hospital. The word|\"\"Sterilized\"\" was removed from the label and the product was dispensed as|unsterile cotton.|6495. Vitamin D in a soybean oil base.ddnj06495March 1962Fred Meyer, Inc.Vitamin D in a soybean oil base8-21-59 and 10-15-59Portland, Oreg.Santa Monica and South Pasadena, Calif., and Newark, N.J.Portland, Oreg.Dist. Oreg.6495F. D. C. No. 44191. S. No. 76-777 P.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj06495ddnj|6495. Vitamin D in a soybean oil base. (F.D.C. No. 44191. S. No. 76-777 P.)|QUANTITY: 3,760 100-capsule btls. and 338 500-capsule btls. at Portland,|Oreg., in the possession of Fred Meyer, Inc.|SHIPPED: Between 8-21-59 and 10-15-59, from Santa Monica and South Pasa-|dena, Calif., and Newark, N.J.|LABEL IN PART: (Btl.) \"\"Certified Capsules Lecithin with Vitamin D Dosage|* * * Distributed by Fred Meyer, Inc., Portland, Oreg. Each Capsule Con-|tains : Soy Lecithin 259.2 mg. Soy Bean Oil 170.2 mg. Vitamin D 150 USP|Units (Irradiated Ergosterol).\"\"|ACCOMPANYING LABELING : Placards entitled \"\"Stay Alive Longer! Lecithin\"\"|and newspaper clippings of advertisements placed in a Portland newspaper (|by Fred Meyer, Inc., reading in part \"\"Lecithin As Advised by Lelord Kordel,\"\" *|and \"\"Stay Alive Longer Lecithin.\"\"|RESULTS OP INVESTIGATION : Investigation indicated that the product was vita-|min D in a soybean oil base. The article was shipped in bulk as described|above, and after arrival at Portland, Oreg., was repacked and labeled by the|Stanley Drug Products, Inc., and then delivered to Fred Meyer, Inc.|LIBELED : 1-20-60, Dist. Oreg.; amended libel 8-11-60.|CHARGE: 502(a)-while held for sale, the accompanying labeling contained|false and misleading representations that the article was adequate and effec-|tive for the prevention of fatigue, irritability, brain fag, and nervous ex-|haustion ; that it nourished brain cells and supplied motive force; that it would|restore depleted brain power and waning activity of vital organs; and that it|would prevent globules from settling on the artery walls or infiltrating the|liver; 502(a)--the term \"\"Lecithin\"\" in the labeling designated for this article-|e.g. \"\"STAY ALIVE LONGER! LECITHIN * * * As Advised by LELORD|KORDEL,\"\" created a false and misleading impression in the minds of pros-|pective purchasers since the term \"\"Lecithin\"\" as used in the promotion of the|article was thereby associated with false and misleading information dis-|seminated to the public in a book and a series of newspaper articles by said|Lelord Kordel entitled \"\"Stay Alive Longer,\"\" which appeared in a Portland|newspaper commencing October 22, 1959, to the effect that lecithin-containing|capsules are effective in the treatment and prevention of atherosclerosis; pale|and drawn face; nervousness; weak, jangly nervous system; insomnia; irri-|tability; nervous, mental, and glandular overactivity; exhaustion; loss of|vitality; loss of cerebrospinal fluid; nerve and gland exhaustion; nervous|breakdown; headaches; brain fag; senility ; tension; shattered nerves; depleted|brain power; waning activity of vital glands; depletion of fatty myelin sheath|of nerves; sexual decline; and fat infiltration of the liver and other organs;|and would create a strong nervous system, endocrine glands, muscles of the|heart and kidneys; would neutralize body poisons of internal and external|origin; would prevent fat from settling on artery walls; and would restore life|forces; and 502(a)-the name of the article and the label declaration of|amounts of soy lecithin and soybean oil in the article were misleading in that|they represented and suggested that these ingredients were present in thera-|peutically significant quantities whereas the lecithin and soybean oil in the|article were therapeutically insignificant.|DISPOSITION: 11-18-60. Fred Meyer, Inc., claimant,: having consented to the|entry of a decree without admitting the allegations of misbranding, judgment|of condemnation was entered and the article was released under bond for|relabeling.|971. Adulteration and misbranding of absorbent cotton. U. S. v. Stym Gross Packages of Absorbent Cotton. Decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00971November 1944Hampton Manufacturing Co.absorbent cottonSeptember 25, 1942St. Louis, Mo.Carlstadt, N. J.St. Louis, Mo.Eastern District of Missouri971F. D. C. No. 8880. Sample No. 5757-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00971ddnj|\"\"871. Adulteration and misbranding of absorbent cotton. U. S. v. Stym Gross|Packages of Absorbent Cotton. Decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 8880. Sample No. 5757-F.) \"\"|On November 13, 1942, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Missouri filed a libel against 81:Yi2 gross packages of absorbent cotton at St. Louis,|Mo., alleging that the article bad been shipped in interstate commerce on or|about September 25, 1942, by the Hampton Manufacturing Co. from Carlstadt,|N. J.; and charging that It was adulterated and misbranded. The article was|labeled in part: \"\"Blue Cross * * * Sterilized Absorbent Cotton U. S. P.\"\"|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to be and was|represented as a drug-, the name of which is recognized in an official compendium,|the United States Pharmacopoeia, but its quality and purity fell below the|standard set'forth therein since it did not conform to the requirements of the test|for sterility of solids as provided in such compendium, but was contaminated with|\"\"viable aerobic and anaerobic or facultative anaerobic micro-organisms.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements appearing in its label-|ing 'Sterilized Absorbent Cotton U. S. P. Sterilizsd After Packaging the Cotton|in This Package Has Been Prepared Under Strict Sanitary Supervision, Carefully|Packed and Sterilized, Making It Safe for Surgical or Household Use\"\" were false|and misleading as applied to an article that was not sterilized.|On December 15,1912, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|\"\"was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|972. Adulteration and misbranding of bandage gauze compresses. U. S. v. 8,499 Packages of Bandage Gauze Compresses. Decree of condemnation. Product ordered released under bond for resterilization and repackaging.ddnj00972November 1944A. E. Halperin Co., Inc.bandage gauze compressesOctober 24, 1942Columbus, OhioBoston, Mass.Columbus, OhioSouthern District of Ohio972F. D. C. No. 9005. Sample No. 31618-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00972ddnj|972. Adulteration and misbranding of bandage gauze compresses. U. S. v. 8,499|Packages of Bandage Gauze Compresses. Decree of condemnation. Prod-|uct ordered released under bond for resterilization and repackaging.|? (F. D. C. No. 9005. Sample No. 31618-F.)|On December 14,1942, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|Ohio filed a libel against 8,499 packages of bandage gauze compresses at Columbus,|Ohio, alleging that the article hrd been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|'October 24, 1942, from Boston, Mass., by A. E. Halperin Co., Inc.; and charging|that it was adulterated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its purity or quality fell below|that which it purported or was represented to possess, namely, \"\"sterilized.\"\"|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement \"\"sterilized,\"\" appearing in|its labeling, was false and misleading since such statement represented and '|suggested that the article was sterile; whereas, it was not sterile but was con-|taminated with viable bacilli and cocci.|On April 16, 1943, A. E. Halperin Co., Inc., claimant, having admitted the|allegations of the libel, judgment of condemnation was entered and the product|was ordered released under bond to be resterilized and repackaged under the|supervision of the Food and Drug Administration.|973. Adulteration and misbranding of sutures. U. S. v. 2,880, 2,880, and 1,980 Tubes of Sutures. Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered released under bond to be resterilized.ddnj00973November 1944Flanders-Day Co.suturesAugust 25, 1942Binghamton, N Y.Boston, Mass.Binghamton, N Y.Northern District of New York fled973F. D. C. No. 8499. Sample No. 32801-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00973ddnj|-973. Adulteration and misbranding of sutures. U. S. v. 2,880, 2.880, and 1,980|Tubes of Sutures. Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered|released under bond to be resterilized. (F. D. C. No. 8499. Sample No.|32801-F.)|On October 6, 1S42, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|New York fled a libel against 7,7^0 tubes of sutures at Binghamton, N Y., alleging|that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about August 25,|1942, from Boston, M?ss., by F'anders-Day Co.; and charging that it was adulter-|ated and misbranded. The article was labeled in part: \"\"Flanders Standard|Sutures and Ligatures * * * U. S. P. Surgical Catgut Sterile.\"\"|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to.be and was|represented as a drug, the name of which is recognized in the United States|Pharmacopoeia, an official compendium, but its quality and purity fell bslow the|standard set forth in such compendium since the sutures did not meet the test|for sterility of solids, as required by that text, but were contaminated with living|aerobic, sponfating bacilli.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement on its label \"\"U. S. P.|Surgical Catgut Sutures Sterile\"\" was false and misleading as applied to an article|that was not sterile. *|On January 8, 1943, Flanders-Day Co., claimant, having consented to the entry|of a decree, judgment of condemnation was entered and the product was ordered|released under bond conditioned that it be resterilized under the supervision of|the Food and Drug Administration.|974. Adulteration and misbranding of Sterilastic first-aid bandage. U. S. v. 126 Packages of Sterilastic First Aid Bandage. Decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00974November 1944Surgieal Dressings. Inc.Sterilastic first-aid bandageSeptember 3, 1942PorIand, MaineBoston, Mass.PortIand, MaineDistrict of Maine974F. D.C. No. 8583. Sample No. 19313-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00974ddnj|4)74. Adulteration ? and misbranding of Sterilastic first-aid bandage. TJ. S. v.|126 Packages of Sterilastic First Aid Bandage. Decree of condemnation|and destruction. '<F. D.C. No. 8583. Sample No. 19313-F.)|On or about October 20, 1942, the United States attorney for the District of|Maine filed a libel against 126 packages of Sterilastic first aid bandage at Port-|Irnd, Maine, alleging that the article had been shipped on or about September 3,|1942, by Surgieal Dressings. Inc.* from Boston, Mass.; and charging that it was|adulterated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its purity and quality fell|\"\"below that which it purported and was represented to possess.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements ap-|pearing in its labeling,. \"\"Sterilastic * * * The gauze supplied with the|Sterilastic may be used in any emergency,\"\" were false and misleading since such|statements represented and suggested that the article was sterile and might be|used in emergency first-aid injuries, whereas the article was not sterile but was|?contaminated with living micro-organisms.|On December 4,1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|1502. Misbranding of Pancreas Cell Compound. U. S. v. 4 Bottles of Pancreas Cell Compound. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj01502July 1946Oak Balm Co., Inc.Pancreas Cell CompoundNovember 27, 1944San Francisco, Calif.South Bend, Ind.San Francisco, Calif.United States district courts for the Northern District of California1502F. D. C. No. 15281. Sample No. 29384-H.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01502ddnj|[D. D. N. J.|1502. Misbranding: of Pancreas Cell Compound. U. S. v. 4 Bottles of Pancreas Cell|Compound. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C.|No. 15281. Sample No. 29384-H.) |On February 23, 1945, the United States attorney for the Northern District|of California filed a libel against 4 bottles of Pancreas Cell Compound at San|Francisco, Calif., alleging that the article had been shipped on or about Novem-|ber 27, 1944, from South Bend, Ind., by the Oak Balm Co., Inc. The article was|labeled in part: \"\"Directions Take one or two tablets just before eating, three|times daily, or according to special directions from your doctor.\"\"|Examination of a sample showed that the article contained glandular material|including pancreatin and insulin.|The article was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that it was a tirug composed|partly of insulin that was not from a batch for which a certificate or release had|been issued; and (2) in that the statement on the bottle label, \"\"A pluri-endocrine|compound of carefully selected endocrine substances designed to act as a gland-|ular stimulant,\"\" was false and misleading since the article would not act as a|glandular stimulant. The article was alleged to be misbranded further in that|the label statement, \"\"Pancreas Cell Compound Each Tablet Contains Pancreas|Substance. ... 1 Grain Islets of Langerhans ... 2 Grains Parathyroid|Substance . . . ?o Grain And small amounts of Orchic, Spleen, Parotid and|Submaxillary Substances,\"\" was misleading in the absence of a revelation of|the fact, material in the light of such representation and material with respect|to the consequences which might result under the conditions of use prescribed in|the labeling, that none of the ingredients listed nor the combination of them|would have any therapeutic effect if consumed in accordance with the directions|stated upon the bottle label.|On March 31, 1945, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|DRUGS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO BEAR ADEQUATE|DIRECTIONS OR WARNING STATEMENTS|975. Adulteration and misbranding of Sani-Cross Waterproof First-Aid Treated Strips. U. S. v. 57 Cartons of Sani-Cross Waterproof First Aid Treated Strips. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00975November 1944Universal Merchandise Co.Sani-Cross Waterproof First-Aid Treated StripsSeptember 9, 1942New Orleans, La.New York, N. Y.New Orleans, La.Eastern District of Louisiana975F. D. C. No. 8598. Sample No. 9537-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00975ddnj|.975. Adulteration and misbranding of Sani-Cross Waterproof First-Aid Treated|Strips. U. S. v. 57 Cartons of Sani-Cross Waterproof First Aid Treated|Strips. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No.|8598. Sample No. 9537-F.)|On October 19, 1942, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Louisiana filed a libel against 57 cartons, each containing 36 packages, of the|above-named product at New Orleans, La., alleging that the article had been|shipped in interstate commerce on or about September 9, 1942, from New York,|N. Y., by Universal Merchandise Co.; and charging that it was adulterated and|misbranded. The article was labeled in part: \"\"Distributed by Gero Products,|Boston, Mass.\"\"|It was alleged to be adulterated in that its purity and quality fell below that|which it purported and was represented to possess, since by its form and nature|it purported and was represented to be of such purity and quality that it would|\"\"be suitable for use on cuts and other wounds, whereas it was not suitable for|such use since it was contaminated with living bacteria.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements appearing in its label-|ing, \"\"Sani-Cross * * * First Aid Treated Strips * * * Wash wound|with an antiseptic. Remove crinoline and apply gauze pad to the wound,\"\" were|false and misleading since they represented and suggested that the article was|a safe, sanitary, and appropriate bandage for first-aid use on minor cuts; wounds,|and abrasions, whereas it was not a safe, sanitary, and appropriate bandage for|such use in that it was contaminated with aerobic, anaerobic, or facultative|anaerobic micro-organisms. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that it|was in package form and its label failed to bear a statement of the quantity of|the contents contained therein.|On Djcember 14, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of cbndemnation|was entered and the product .was ordered destroyed.|976. Adulteration and misbranding of Sani + Cross Waterproof First Aid Treated Strips. U. S. v. 99 3/4 Gross Packages of Sani + Cross Waterproof First Aid Treated Strips. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00976November 1944Gero Products, Inc.Sani + Cross Waterproof First Aid Treated StripsJanuary 11, 1943New York, N. Y.South Boston, Mass.New York, N. Y.Southern District of New York976F. D. C. No. 9325. Sample No. 44466-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00976ddnj|.$76. Adulteration and misbranding of Sani +Cross Waterproof First Aid Treated|Strips. U. S. v. 99% Gross Packages of Sani-f Cross Waterproof First Aid|Treated Strips. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.' (F. D. C.|No. 9325. .Sample No. 44466-F.)|This product was contaminated with cocci and non-sporeforming rods.|On February 8, 1943, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|New York filed a libel against the above-named product at New York, N. Y., alleg-|ing that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about January|11, 1943, by the Gero Products, Inc., from South Boston, Mass.; and charging that|it was adulterated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to be a drug,|adhesive absorbent gauze (adhesive absorbent compress), the name of which is|recognized in the United S'.ates Pharmacopoeia, an official compendium, since it|consisted of an individual dressing prepared by affixing a number of layers of|absorbent gauze to a strip of adhesive plaster, and its quality and purity fell below|the standard set forth in such compendium since it was not sterile and did not|meet the requirement of the sterility tests for solids as required by the Phar-|macopoeia, but was contaminated with living bacteria and its difference in quality|and purity from such standard was not plainly stated on its label.|It was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that the statements, \"\"Sani-f Cross First|Aid Treated Strips for minor Cuts, wounds and abrasions,\"\" \"\"Directions: Wash|wound with antiseptic. Remove crinoline and apply gauze pad to wound,'' were|false and misleading since they represented and suggested that the article was|a safe, sanitary and appropriate bandage for first-aid use in minor cuts, wounds,|and abrasions, whereas it was not a safe and sanitary or appropriate bandage for|such use; (2) in that the designation \"\"Sani+Cross\"\" appearing in the labeling was|false and misleading since it created the impression that the article constituted|a sterile and sanitary dressing, whereas it did not; and (3) in that it was in|package form and its label failed to bear a statement of the quantity of the|contents.|On March 10, 1943, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|977. Adulteration and misbranding of firstaid dressings. U. S. v. 183,464 Packages of First-Aid Dressings. Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered released under bond to be brought into compliance with the law.ddnj00977November 1944Convenience, Inc.first-aid dressingsOctober 3, 1942Kansas City, Kans.Greenville, S. C.Kansas City, Kans.District of Kansas977F. D. C. No. 8903. Sample Nos. 3416-F, 3451-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00977ddnj|977. Adulteration and misbranding of first-aid dressings. TJ. S. v. 183,464 Pack|ages of First-Aid Dressings. Consent decree of condemnation. Product|ordered released under bond to be brought into compliance with the law.|(F. D. C. No. 8903. Sample Nos. 3416-F, 3451-F.)|On November 27, 1942, the United States attorney for the District of Kansas|filed a libel against 183,464 packages of first-aid dressings at Kansas City, Kans.,|alleging that the article had been shipped on or about October 3, 1942, in inter-|state commerce, by Convenience, Inc., Greenville, S. C.; and charging that the|article was adulterated and misbranded. The article was labeled in part: \"\"Small|First-Aid Dressing TJ. S. Army Carlisle Model Sterilized.\"\"|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its purity and quality fell below|that which it purported and was represented to possess, namely, \"\"Steriliz?d.\"\"|It was alleged to be misbranded in tbat the following statements appearing|on its label, \"\"Sterilized * * * Red Color Indicates Back of Dressing. Put|Other Side Next to Wound,\"\" were false and misleading since the statements|represented and suggested that the article was sterile, whereas it was not sterile|but was contaminated with aerobic and facultative anaerobic spore-bearing|bacilli.|On November 28, 1942, Convenience, Inc., claimant, having consented to the|entry of the decree, judgment of condemnation was entered and the product was|ordered released under bond to be destroyed or brought into compliance with the|law under the supervision of the Food and Drug Administration.|978. Adulteration and misbranding of fractionally distilled water. U. S. v. 17 10/25 Packages of Fractionally Distilled Water. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00978November 1944Cutter Laboratoriesfractionally distilled waterAugust 3, 1942Savannah, Ga.Berkeley, Calif.Savannah, Ga.Southern District of Georgia978F. D. C. No. 8395. Sample No. 29413-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00978ddnj|978. -Adulteration and misbranding of fractionally distilled water. U. S. v.|?* 17i%5 Packages of Fractionally Distilled Water. Default decree of con-|demnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 8395. Sample No. 29413-F.)|On September 22. 1942, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|Georgia filed a libel against the above-described product at Savannah, Ga., alleg-|ing that the article had been shipped on or about August 3, 1942, from Berkeley,|Calif., by the Cutter Laboratories; and charging that it was adulterated and mis-|branded. The article was labeled in part: '?Fractionally Distilled Water 50|<:. c. A-4163 Sterile, Pyrogen-free, Safety Tested.\"\"|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to be and was|represented as a drug, \"\"Water for Injection,\"\" the name of which is recognized|in the United States Pharmacopoeia, an cfiL-ial compendium, and its quality and|purity fell below the standard set forth therein since it was not free from|pyrogens.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement \"\"Pyrogen-Free, Safety|Tested,\"\" appearing on its label, was false and misleading since it contained|pyrogens and was not safe for injection.|O.i October 26, 1912, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|1004. Misbranding of Stero-Uteroids. U. S. v. 5 Cartons of Stero-Uteroids. Default decree of condemnation and destruction, with provision for the release of a portion of the product to the Food and Drue Administration.ddnj01004March 1945Charles A. Ainsworth, of Ainsworth Specialty Co.Stero-UteroidsJuly 24, 1941, to October 17, 1942Chicago, Ill.Kansas City, Mo.Chicago, Ill.Northern District of Illinois1004F. D. C. No. 9546. Sample No. 37824-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01004ddnj|1004. Misbranding of Stero-Uteroids. XT. S. v. 5 Cartons of Stero-Uteroids. De-|fault decree of condemnation and destruction, with provision for the re-|lease of a portion of the product to the Food and Drue Administration.|(F. D. C. No. 9546. Sample No. 37824-F.)|On or about March 24, 1943, the United States attorney for the Northern|District of Illinois filed a libel against 5 cartons, each containing 2 tubes, of Stero-|Uteroids at Chicago, 111., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate|commerce by Charles A. Ainsworth, of Ainsworth Specialty Co., from Kansas City,|Mo., within the period from on or about July 24, 1941, to October 17, 1942; and|charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of small proportions|of zinc sulfate, plant material (including alkaloid-bearing drugs), and a trace|of iodine incorporated in a base of ichthammol and wool fat.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that it would be dangerous to health when|used in the dosage and with the frequency prescribed, recommended, and sug-|gested in the labeling, in that the name of the article, \"\"Stero-Uteroids,\"\" and the|directions, \"\"Apply with catheter under aseptic conditions,\"\" which appeared in|the labeling of some of the packages, represented and suggested the introduction|of the article into the uterus, whereas the article, when introduced into the|uterus was dangerous to health. It was alleged to be misbranded further in|that the statement, \"\"Stero-Uteroids,\"\" appearing on all the packages, and \"\"Direc-|tions: Apply with catheter under aseptic conditions. For administration by|physician only,\"\" appearing on some of the packages, were misleading since the|statements represented and suggested that the article was a safe medicament|for introduction into the uterus, whereas it was not a safe medicament, and its|label failed to reveal the material fact that if so introduced it would endanger|health and life.|On May 8, 1943, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed. On June 30, 1943, an amended|order was entered which provided for the release of a portion of the product to|the Food and Drug Administration.|625042-45 2|1005. Misbranding of Pro-Nausea. U. S. v. 34 Bottles of Pro-Nausea. Decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj01005March 1945Dr. Thomas D. ThurmondPro-NauseaJanuary 28, 1943Phenix City, Ala.Griffin, Ga.Phenix City, Ala.Middle District of Alabama1005F. D. C. No. 9553. Sample No. 35117-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01005ddnj|1005. Misbranding of Pro-Nausea. tJ. S. v. 34 Bottles of Pro-Nausea. Decrees of|condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 9553. Sample No. 35117-F.)|On March 29, 1943, the United States attorney for the Middle District of|Alabama filed a libel against 34 bottles of Pro-Nausea at Phenix City, Ala.,|alleging that the article has been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|January 28, 1943, from Griffin, Ga., by Dr. Thomas D. Thurmond; and charging|that it was misbranded in violation of Sections 502 (a), 502 (e) (2), and 502 (j)|of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.|Examination showed that the article consisted essentially of sodium bromide,|110 grains per fluid ounce, and water.|The foregoing misbranding charges were based on the following recommenda-|tions made by the Federal Security Agency: Section 502 (j), that the article|was dangerous to health when used in the dosage and with the frequencjy and|duration prescribed, recommended, and suggested in the labeling, \"\"Dose for|Adult:-One table spoonful. Take one table spoonful of water after each dose.|PRO-NAUSEA Relieves Vomiting During Pregnancy. Dose:-One table spoonful|30 minutes before meals. Take one table spoonful of water after each dose,\"\"|since such directions provided for the taking of an excessive quantity of sodium|bromide; Section 502 (a), that the following statements appearing on the label:|\"\"PRO-NAUSEA * * * Nonpoisonous Remedy for Sick Stomach Sick Head-|ache Sea Sickness Nausea Following X-Ray Treatment * * * PRO-NAUSEA|Relieves Vomiting During Pregnancy,\"\"' were false and misleading since such|statements represented and suggested that the article was a safe and effective|treatment for the conditions described, whereas it was not a safe and effective|treatment for such conditions, and was a dangerous drug; and Section 502 (e) (2),|that it was fabricated from two or more ingredients and its label failed to bear|a statement of the quantity or proportion of sodium bromide contained therein.|On June 28,1943, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|DRUGS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO BEAR ADEQUATE|DIRECTIONS OR WARNING STATEMENTS*|NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 1258. (Given pursuant to section 4 of the Food and Drugs Act.) MISBRANDING OF VINEGAR.fdnj01258February 24, 1912Robinson Cider Vinegar CoVINEGAR\NKansasBenton Harbor, Mich.KansasDistrict of Kansas1258F. & D. No. 32-cThe National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainfdnj01258fdnj|F. & D. No. 32-c |Issued February 24, 1912.|United States Department of Agriculture,|OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY.|NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 1258.|(Giren pursuant to section 4 of the Food and Drugs let.)|MISBBANDING OF YINEGAB.|On November 26, 1909, the United States Attorney for the Districtof Kansas, acting upon a report of S. J. Crumbine, secretary of theState Board of Health of the State of Kansas, and as such com?missioned by the Secretary of Agriculture to cooperate in the collec?tion of samples under the Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 1906, filedin the District Court of the United States for said district a libelpraying condemnation and forfeiture of T8 casks of vinegar in thepossession of the Wichita Vinegar Works. The product was labeled:\"\" Warranted Cider Vinegar.\"\" The libel alleged that the vinegar,after shipment by the Robinson Cider Vinegar Co., of Benton Har?bor, Mich., from the State of Michigan into the State of Kansas, re?mained in the original unbroken packages, and was misbranded inviolation of the Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 1906, and was there?fore liable to seizure for confiscation. The libel charged misbrand?ing of the product in words and figures as follows: \"\" That each ofsaid 78 casks of so-called vinegar is misbranded in that each of saidcasks instead of containing cider vinegar contains, and at all timesherein mentioned did contain so-called vinegar, the same not beingcider vinegar, the same not being made wholly and entirely from theproduct of apples, but containing less than twenty-five one-hun-dredths gram of apples ash in 100 cubic centimeters, and less than30 cubic centimeters of decinormal acid to neutralize tne alkalinityof said contents of said casks, said so-called vinegar being in therespects above set forth below and different from a standard ofpurity for apple cider lawfully required by the Secretary of Agri?culture under and by virtue of Circular No. 19, lawfully promul?gated by the Secretary of Agriculture of the United States June 26,1906, and in full and lawful force and effect at all of the times hereinmentioned.\"\"|On September 16, 1909, the case coming on to be heard and theRobinson Cider Vinegar Co. having appeared as claimant, and filed|22541??No. 1258?12|answer to the libel, the court entered an order that upon the paymentof all the costs of the proceeding, and the giving of a bond by theclaimant in the sum of $1,000, conditioned that said product shouldnot be sold or otherwise disposed of contrary to law, the same shouldbe released and surrendered to the said Robinson Cider Vinegar Co.|JAMES WILSON,Secretary of Agriculture.WASHINGTON, D. C, December 19, 1911.|1258|979. Adulteration of carbon tetrachloride. U. S. v. 2,736 Bottles of Carbon Tetrachloride. Decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00979November 1944National Package Drugs, Inc.carbon tetrachlorideDecember 22, 1942Richmond, Va.St. Louis, Mo.Richmond, Va.Eastern District of Virginia fied979F. D. C. No. 9266. Sample No. 37441-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00979ddnj|979. Adulteration of carbon tetrachloride. U. S. v. 2,736 Bottles of Carbon Tetra|chloride. Decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 9266.|Sample No. 37441-F.)|On January 30, 1943, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|\"\"Virginia fi'ed a libel against 2,733 bottles of carbon tetrachloride at Richmond,|Va., alleging that the article had been shipped on or about December 22,1942, from|St. Louis, Mo., by National Package Drugs, Inc.; and charging that it was adul-|terated.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to be and was|represented as a drug, the name of which is recognized in the United States|Pharmacopoeia, an official compendium, but its quality and purity fell below the|standard set forth therein since this compendium establishes a standard for the|permissible amount of carbonizable substances in carbon tetrachloride and pro-|vides that the residue remaining after evaporation of the drug is odorless, whereas|the article Contained more carbonizable substances than permitted by the United|States Pharmacopoeia, and the residue remaining after evaporation had an odor|resembling that of paint.|On April 9, 1943, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|980. Adulteration of ground white pine bark. U. S. v. 5 Bass of Ground White Pine Bark. Consent decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00980November 1944S. B. Penick & Co.ground white pine barkMarch 6, 1942Jersey City, N. J.Asheville, N. C.Jersey City, N. J.District of New Jersey980F. D. C. No. 8410. Sample No. 17029-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00980ddnj|980. Adulteration of ground white pine bark. U. S. v. 5 Bass of Ground White|Pine Bark. Consent decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C.|No. 8410. Sample No. 17029-F.)|On September 24, 1942, the United States attorney for the District of New|Jersey filed a libel against 5 bags, each containing 200 pounds, of ground white|pine bark at Jersey City, N. J., alleging that the article had been shipped on or|about March 6, 1942, from Asheville, N. C, by S. B. Penick & Co.; and charging|that it was adulterated.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to be and was|represented as a drug, the name of which is recognized in the National Formulary,|an official compendium, and its purity fell below the standard set forth therein|since it was contaminated with fragments of insects and quantities of such foreign|matter as feather barbs, whole larvae, rodent hairs, and rodent excreta pellets,|whereas the formulary provides that vegetable drugs are to be as free as prac-|ticable from insects or other live animal matter and other excretion.|On January 18, 1943, the claimant having consented to the entry of a decree,|judgment of condemnation was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|DRUGS AND DEVICES ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF FALSE AND|MISLEADING CLAIMS*|HUMAN USE|981. Misbranding of R & R Ultra Violet Ray and Radiation Machine. U. S. v. August H. Riess (Lawndale Laboratories). Plea of not guilty. Tried to the court. Judgment of guilty. Fine, $250.ddnj00981November 1944August H. Riess, trading as Lawndale Laboratories, Lawndale, Calif.R & R Ultra Violet Ray and Radiation MachineJune 29, 1942MichiganCaliforniaMichiganSouthern District of California981F. D. C. No. 8750. Sample No. 1001-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00981ddnj|981. Misbranding of R & R Ultra Violet Ray and Radiation Machine. U. S. v.|August H. Riess (Lawndale Laboratories). Plea of not guilty. Tried to|the court. Judgment of guilty. Fine, $250. (F. D. C. No. 8750. Sample|No. 1001-F.)|On January 16, 1943, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|California filed an information against August H. Riess, trading as Lawndale|Laboratories, Lawndale, Calif., alleging shipment on or about June 29, 1942,|from the State of California into the State of Michigan of one of the above-named|devices which was misbranded.|Examination of this product showed that it was essentially a high voltage mer-|cury vapor discharge tube. A spectrograph^ examination indicated that the|gaseous discharge was in an ultraviolet transmitting tube, and that the character|of the radiations from the discharge was primarily of the spectrum of mercury|vapor. The intensity of ultraviolet light emitted was relatively of a weak order|of magnitude and was observed to be some 50 times weaker than an ultraviolet|lamp such as might customarily be used in normal routine of ultraviolet therapy.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements appearing in its|labeling which represented and suggested that it would be efficacious in the cure,|mitigation, treatment, or prevention of arthritis, acne, asthma, bronchitis, hay|fever, gout, dropsy, constipation, indigestion, jaundice, cold hands and feet, ane-|mia, carbuncles, boils, goiter, deafness, headache and eye trouble, lumbago, mumps,|pleurisy, measles, low blood pressure, liver disease, hardening of the liver, neu-|ritis, rheumatism, high blood pressure, nervousness, paralysis, palsy, locomotor|ataxia, erysipelas, neuralgia, menopause, sprains, stiff neck, quinsy, stiff muscles,|sinus disease, catarrh, varicose veins, psoriasis, fatigue, exhaustion, and female|trouble; would be efficacious in treating affections of the prostate, thyroid|glands, kidneys, bladder, heart, nerves, throat and tonsils, and disturbances of the|sacro-iliac joint; would be efficacious to improve the circulation and bring about|internal cellular massage; would build up the red corpuscles, improve the im-|poverished blood stream, increase glandular activity, and act as a natural tonic|to the entire body; would stimulate increased activity in the glands creating|the digestive juices; would produce an increase of the rapidity of the chemical|changes from which life results; would relieve congestion in a natural manner|?See also Nos. 951, 954-958, 961-978.|and stimulate activity where metabolism is'sluggish,' and \"\"rebuild the body to|healthfulness and happiness; would be invaluable to persons of advanced age or|those whose occupations fail to give sufficient exercise; would stimulate bodily|activity, improve digestion and elimination, restore bowel activity to normal,|improve the circulation of the blood, and generally improve health, were false and|misleading since it would not be efficacious for such purposes or accomplish the|results claimed.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the statements appearing in|its labeling, \"\"Ultra Violet Rays * * * Are a Source of Vitamin D, are very|beneficial to the upbuilding of the body, due to the difficulty in obtaining these|Rays in a sufficient quantity under modern conditions, due to indoor occupations,|and climatic conditions, our Laboratories have, after considerable research|and experimentation, produced the R & R Ultra-Violet Ray and Radiation|Machine,\"\" were misleading since such statements suggested and created the im-|pression in the mind of the reader that the device would produce ultraviolet rays|of sufficient intensity to produce in the body vitamin D in an amount sufficient to|compensate in an important respect for the deficiency of vitamin D resulting from|indoor occupations and unfavorable climatic conditions, whereas the device would|produce ultraviolet rays of very weak intensity and would produce little, if any,|vitamin D in the body.|On March 10, 1943, the defendant having entered a plea of not guilty, the case|came on for trial before the court. At the conclusion of the testimony the court|found the defendant guilty, and on March 22,1943, imposed a fine of $250.|982. Misbranding of light bulbs. U. S. v. 240 Light Bulbs. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00982November 1944Save Electric Corporationlight bulbsAugust 5, 1942Chicago, Ill.Toledo, OhioChicago, Ill.Northern District of Illinois982F. D. C. No. 8372. Sample No. 2063-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00982ddnj|982. Misbranding: of light bulbs. TJ. S. v. 240 Light Bulbs. Default decree of|condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 8372. Sample No. 2063-F.)|Examination of these light bulbs showed that with the exception of an all-over|decrease in the intensity of the light emanated from the bulb and the elimination|of light in the ultraviolet range, their light emission characteristics were not|different from those of the ordinary Mazda-type light bulbs.|On September 25, 1942, the United States attorney for the Northern District|of Illinois filed a libel against 120 60-watt and 120 ICOwatt light bulbs at|Chicago, 111.,-alleging that the articles had been shipped in interstate commerce|on August 5, 1942, from Toledo, Ohio, by the Save Electric Corporation; and|charging that they were misbranded. The articles were labeled in part: (Shipping|and individual cartons) \"\"Doctors Say Verd-A Ray,\"\" and (shipping carton only)|a design, a picture of a nurse.|The articles were alleged to be misbranded in that the statements and design|appearing in the labeling, which represented and .suggested that by their use in|lieu of ordinary lamps the body supply of vitamin A would be conserved, there-|fore reducing eye and body fatigue, conserving energy, avoiding poor skin and|poor vision, protecting the eyes, and aiding in the regulation of body metabolism,|were false and misleading since the articles would not be efficacious for such|purposes.|On May 5, 1943, no claimant having appeared, .-judgment of condemnation was|entered and the products were ordered destroyed.|983. Misbranding of rubbing compound and aspirin tablets. U. S. v. 49 Dozen Bottles of Rubbing Compound and 66 Dozen Packages of Aspirin Tablets. Decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00983November 1944Halitosine Co.rubbing compound and aspirin tabletsAugust 29 and October 8, 1942Peoria, IllinoisSt. Louis, Mo.Peoria, IllinoisSouthern District of Illinois983F. D. C. Nos. 9094, 9097. Sample Nos. 5962-F, 5963-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00983ddnj|983. Misbranding of nibbing: compound and aspirin tablets. TJ. S. v. 49^ Dozen|Bottles of Rabbins Compound and 66 Dozen Packages of Aspirin Tablets.|Decrees of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 9094, 9097. Sample|Nos. 5D62-F, 5963-F.)|On December 30, 1943, the United States attorney for the Southern District|of Illinois filed libels against 491/A dozen bottles of rubbing compound and 66 dozen|packages of aspirin tablets at Peoria, Illinois, alleging that the articles had been|shipped on or about August 29 and October 8, 1942, from St. Louis, Mo., by the|Halitosine Co.; and charging that the articles were misbranded. The articles|were labeled in part: \"\"Domino Brand Superior Rubbing Compound With|Isopropyl Alcohol,\"\" or \"\"Domino 100 Tablets Aspirin.\"\"|Examination showed that the rubbing compound consisted essentially of water|and isopropyl alcohol 23 percent, together with small amounts of boric acid,|thymol, menthol, and methyl salicylate. The number of aspirin tablets per bottle|varied from 94 to 105, averaging 96.4 tablets per bottle.|The rubbing compound was alleged to be misbranded in that the name of the|article and the statements appearing on its label, \"\"Superior Rubbing Compound|With Isopropyl Alcohol * * * Use for massaging, sponging, after bathing,|cooling and refreshing, for hospital and home,\"\" were misleading since such name|and statements created the impression that the article was a product extensively|marketed as rubbing alcohol compound, a product which contained approximately|70 percent of alcohol, or its equivalent, whereas the article was not such a|product but was a preparation containing only 23 percent of isopropyl alcohol.|The aspirin tablets were alleged to be misbranded in that the statement on|their label \"\"100 Tablets Aspirin\"\" was false and misleading since most packages|contained less than 100 tablets each, and the average contents of the packages was|less than 100 tablets.|On April 19, 1943, no claimant having appeared, judgments of condemnation|were entered and the products were ordered destroyed.|1006. Action to enjoin and restrain interstate shipments of Mrs. Price's Specially Prepared Package of Boric Acid. U. S. v. Metta T. Price (Price Compound Co.) Permanent injunction granted.ddnj01006March 1945Price Compound Co.Mrs. Price's Specially Prepared Package of Boric Acid\NMinnesota\NMinnesotaDistrict of Minnesota1006Inj. No. 57.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01006ddnj|1006. Action to enjoin and restrain interstate shipments of Mrs. Price's Specially|Prepared Package of Boric Acid. \"\"U. S. v. Metta T. Price (Price Compound|Co.) Permanent injunction granted. (Inj. No. 57.)|On June 21,1943, the United States attorney for the District of Minnesota filed|a complaint for the purpose of enjoining Metta T. Price, doing business as the|Price Compound Co., Minneapolis, Minn., from the sale and distribution of chem-|ical preservatives offered for use in home canning and food preservation, alleg-|ing, among other things:|That, since about the year 1937, the defendant had been engaged in the sale|and distribution in interstate commerce of a product known as \"\"Mrs. Price's|Specially Prepared Package of Boric Acid,\"\" which upon examination was found|to consist of 100 percent boric acid.|That, commencing on or about September 23,1942, and again about the middle|of May 1943, the product was the subject of numerous libel actions in various|Federal judicial districts throughout the United States, and that the article|so shipped was misbranded (1) in that the statements in the labeling which|represented, suggested, and engendered the impression in the minds of the read-|ers that the product, when used as directed in the canning of vegetables, fruits,|pickles, and preserves, was safe and appropriate for such use, and would effect|proper sterilization, conservation, and preservation of home-canned foods, were|false and misleading, since it was potentially dangerous to the health of the con-|sumer and would not insure proper sterilization, conservation, and preservation|of home-canned foods; (2) the statements in the labeling admonishing the home|canner to sterilize jars, and particularly the rubber rings, by boiling for 15 to|20 minutes were misleading, since these directions for sterilization are inade-|quate where heat-resistant, spore-forming bacteria are present; (3) in that the|statement in the labeling, \"\"Wash thoroughly as the most dangerous and the most|difficult bacteria to destroy are in the soil,\"\" was misleading, since it represented|and suggested that the thorough washing of vegetables would eliminate the most|dangerous and difficult bacteria to destroy, whereas such washing would not|insure that effect; (4) in that the statements in the labeling, \"\"If the foregoing|directions are followed and you have used good, fresh vegetables or fruits and the|amount of compound directed, jrou will have no trouble in securing the besf|?See also Nos. 1002,1003.|results. You may ask why we are so particular to have the cans perfectly tight.|The reason is that we wish you to do all you can mechanically to keep the goods,|and then by the use of the compound, get a perfect result that neither one alone|would secure,\"\" were false and misleading in that they represented and sug-|gested that the use of the article according to directions would assure the perfect|and best results in home canning, whereas the perfect and best results cannot|be obtained by such use, since heat-resistant, spore-forming bacteria, capable of|producing spoilage and toxins dangerous to health, would not be destroyed; and,|(5) in that its labeling failed to bear adequate directions for use.|On June 28, 1943, the court entered its findings of fact and conclusions of|law and order for permanent injunction, and on the same date judgment was|entered enjoining the defendant, her employees, agents, distributors, attorneys,|assigns, and any and all persons acting in concert with her, from introducing|or delivering for introduction, or causing the introduction or delivery for in-|troduction, into interstate commerce, of Mrs. Price's Specially Prepared Pack-|age of Boric Acid, or any similar article containing boric acid for any purpose|in violation of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.|The product was also alleged to be misbranded under the provisions of the|law applicable to foods, reported in food notices of judgment No. 5759, in which|also appear the court's findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to|the product and two other products, Mrs. Price's Compound and Price's No-Ice.|1536. Misbranding of Vitalex Perdiz Tonic. U. S. v. 105 Bottles of Vitalex Perdiz Tonic. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj01536July 1946Vitatlex LaboratoriesVitalex Perdiz TonicSeptember 27, 1944San Antonio, Tex.Buffalo, N. Y.San Antonio, Tex.Western District of Texas1536F. D. C. No. 15376. Sample No. 96819-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01536ddnj|1536. Misbranding of Vitalex Perdlz Tonic. V. S. v. 105 Bottles of Vitalex Perdiz|Tonic. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No.|15376. Sample No. 96819-F.)|On February 13, 1945,, the United States attorney for the Western District of|Texas filed a libel against 105 bottles of Vitalex Perdiz Tonic at San Antonio,|Tex., alleging that the article, which had been consigned by the Vitatlex Labora-|tories, had been shipped on or about September 27, 1944, from Buffalo. N. Y.|Analysis showed that the article was a pink, sugar- and calcium carbonate-|coated tablet containing nux vomica and zinc phosphide, with compounds of|sodium, calcium, and iron, including phosphates. Each tablet contained iron|compounds equivalent to not more than 7.1 milligrams of iron.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the label statements in the|English and Spanish languages, \"\"nutritional anemia, and in convalescence from|weight, nervousness and lack of energy,\"\" were false and misleading since the|article would not be efficacious in those conditions.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the statement on its labels,|\"\"Tonic Each tablet represents: Ext. Nux Vomica (Strychnine 0.00925 gr.)|Ferric Phosphate, Insol., Sodium Glycerophosphate, Calcium Glycerophosphate,|Brewer's Yeast and Zinc Phosphide,\"\" was - misleading since it failed to reveal|the material fact that the article was a tonic solely because of its content of nux|vomica, and that it did not, when used in accordance with directions, supply a|tonic dose of iron or any ingredient other than nux vomica.|On March 17, 1945, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|984. Misbranding of St. Joseph C-2223. U. S. v. 4 1/2 Dozen and 4 1/2 Dozen packages of St. Joseph C-2223. Decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00984November 1944Plough Sales CorporationSt. Joseph C-2223November 18, 1942St. Louis, Mo.Memphis, Tenn.St. Louis, Mo.Eastern District of Missouri984F. D. C. No. 9324. Sample No. 6587-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00984ddnj|984. Misbranding of St. Joseph C-2223. U. S. v. 4% Dozen and 4% Dozen pack-|ages of St. Joseph C-2223. Decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 9324. Sample No. 6587-F.)|On February 8, 1943, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Missouri filed a libel against 4? dozen 2-fluidounce packages, and 4? dozen|6-fluidounce packages of the above-named product at St. Louis, Mo., alleging that|the article had been shipped in. interstate commerce on or about November 18,|1942, by the Plough Sales Corporation from Memphis, Tenn.; and charging that|it was misbranded. The article was labeled in part: \"\"St. Joseph Laboratories|Division of Plough, Inc., New York, N. T. Memphis, Tenn.\"\"|Examination showed that the article consisted essentially of water, alcohol|22.3 percent, sodium salicylate, approximately 81 grains per fluidounce, potassium|iodide, approximately 15.4 grains per fluidounce, and glycerine, saccharin, anise,|and extracts from plant drugs.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement appearing in its labeling,|\"\"through its sedative action aids in lessening the discomfort and pain of Acute|Rheumatic Fever and through its antipyretic effect, reduces fever,\"\" was false|and misleading since such statement represented and suggested that the article|was a sedative and was effective in the treatment of acute rheumatic fever,|whereas it was not a sedative and was not so effective.|On May 14, 1943, no claimant having appeared and a total of 8? dozen 2-fluid-|ounce packages and 2? dozen 6-fluidounce packages of the product having been|seized, judgment of condemnation was entered and it was ordered that the product|so seized be destroyed.|985. Misbranding of gauze bandages. U. S. v. 39 Dozen Packages of Gauze Bandages. Decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00985November 1944Gotham Aseptic Laboratoriesgauze bandagesJuly 25 and October 1, 1942Jacksonville, Fla.Long Island City, N. Y.Jacksonville, Fla.Southern District of Florida985F. D. C. No. 9250. Sample No. 28690-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00985ddnj|985. Misbranding of ganze bandages. U. S. v. 39 Dozen Packages of Gauze|Bandages. Decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 9250.|Sample No. 286S0-F.)|On January 27, 1943, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|Florida fl ed a libel against 39 dozsn packages of gauze bandages\"\" at Jacksonville,|Fla., alleging that the article had been shipped on or about July 25 and October 1,|1942, from Long Island City, N. Y., by the Gotham Aseptic Laboratories; and|charging that it was misbranded. The article was labeled in part: \"\"Deane's Gauze|Bandage * * * Sterilized.\"\"|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement \"\"Sterilized\"\" ap-|pearing upon the prckage was false and misleading as applied to the article, since|it was not sterile but was contaminated with living micro-organisms.|On March 4,1943, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|986. Misbranding of gauze bandages. U. S. v. 600 Dozen and 120 Dozen Packages of Gauze Bandages. Default decree of condemnation. Product ordered released for sterilization and use by a public agency.ddnj00986November 1944Universal Merchandise Co.gauze bandagesJune 30, 1942San Juan, P R.New York, N. Y.San Juan, P R.District of Puerto Rico986F. D. C. No. 8895. Sample No. 27321-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00986ddnj|9S6. Misbranding of gauze bandages. V. S. v. 600 Dozen and 120 Dozen Packages|of Ganze Bandages. Default decree of condemnation. Product ordered|released for sterilization and use by a public agency. (F. D. C. No. 8895.|Sample No. 27321-F.)|On November 19, 1942, the United States attorney for the District of Puerto|Rico filed a libel against 600 dozen packages of 1-inch and 120 dozen packages|of 3-inch gauze bandages at San Juan, P R., alleging that the article had been|shipped on or about June 30, 1942, from New York, N. Y., by the Universal|Merchandise Co.; and charging that it was misbranded. The article was la-|beled in part: \"\"Gauze Bandage * * * Sterilized after packaging Distribu-|tors Chatham Sundries Co. New York, N. Y.\"\"|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement appearing in|its labeling \"\"sterilized after packaging\"\" was misleading since it created the im-|pression that the article was sterile, whereas it was not sterile but contaminated|with living micro-organisms.|On January 23, 1943, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered released to be sterilized and thereafter|used by the Emergency Medical Services (Civilian Defense) in Puerto Rico,|conditioned that the bandages be sterilized before use.|987. Misbranding of Sani-Caps. U. S. v. 20 Boxes of Sani-Caps. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00987November 1944Sani-CapsSani-CapsNovember 12, 1942Davenport, IowaRock Island, Ill.Davenport, IowaSouthern District of Iowa987F. D. C. No. 9498. Sample No. 6534-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00987ddnj|987. Misbranding: of Sani-Caps. U. S. v. 20 Boxes of Sani-Caps. Default decree|of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Np. 9498. Sample No. 6534-F.)|On March 8,1943, the United States attorney for the Southern District of Iowa f|filed a libel against 20 boxes of Sani-Caps at Davenport, Iowa, alleging that the|article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about November 12, 1942,|from Rock Island, 111., by Sani-Caps; and charging that it was misbranded.|Each carton of Sani-Caps contained a circular, 12 empty gelatin capsules, and|a collapsible metal tube. Analysis of the contents of the tube showed that the|article consisted essentially of glycerin and boric acid, with small amounts of an|iodide and a silver compound.| |The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements|appearing in its labeling: (Carton) \"\"A Marvelous Treatment to preserve Health,|Beauty, and Happiness. Instant Relief For Female Trouble,\"\" (circular) \"\"Fe-|male troubles will be quickly relieved if the DIRECTIONS are followed. Fill a|capsule and just before retiring insert into the vagina as far as possible. Allow|the capsule to remain over night (advisable to wear napkin to prevent soiling of|bed clothes); the next morning take a luke-warm water douche. If the ailment|is serious, repeat during the day. In Most cases the first box shows results.|If, in your case, Sani-Caps do not, don't get discouraged, as in cases of long stand-|ing it sometimes takes several boxes, but feel assured Sani-Caps wiH not fail.|When your health and happiness has returned, don't forget this marvelous rem-|edy, but adopt Sani-Caps for your personal hygiene. Use two or three capsules|every week and your old troubles will never return. Sani-Caps are cheap in-|surance. To prevent INFECTION of disease use as above, giving the capsule|time to thoroughly dissolve, 5 to 10 minutes. Afterwards use a douche if you|desire,\"\" were false and misleading since such statements represented and sug-|gested that the article was effective in the treatment and prevention of female|troubles, whereas it was not so effective. It was alleged to be misbranded|further in that its label failed to bear the name and place of business of the|manufacturer, packer, or distributor, and an accurate statement of the quan-|tity of its contents; and in that it was fabricated from two or more ingredients|and its label failed to bear the common or usual name of each active ingredient|On April 14, 1943, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered .and the product was ordered destroyed.|988. Misbranding of Stero-Uteroids. U. S. v. 67 Cartons of Stero-Uteroids. Decree of destruction.ddnj00988November 1944Ainsworth Specialty Co., Kansas City, Mo.Stero-UteroidsAugust 21 and November 16, 1942Kansas City, Mo.Kansas City, Mo.Kansas City, Mo.Western District of Missouri988F. D. C. No. 9216. Sample Nos. 3548-F, 3549-FThe National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00988ddnj|988. Misbranding of Stero-Uteroids. TJ. S. v. 67 Cartons of Stero-Uteroids. Decree|of destruction. (F. D. C. No. 9216. Sample NOB. 3548-F, 3549-F.)|On or about January 22, 1943, the United States attorney for the Western|District of Missouri filed a libel against 67 cartons of Stero-Uteroids at Kansas|City, Mo., which had been transported by the Ainsworth Specialty Co., alleging|that the article had been manufactured by the Curts-Folse Laboratories, Kansas|City, Kans., and transported to Kansas City, Mo., on or about August 21 and|November 16,1942; and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of small proportions of|zinc sulfate, plant material including alkaloid-bearing drugs, and a trace of iodine|incorporated in a base of ichthammol and wool fat.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements \"\"Stero-|Uteroids * * * To be used only by or on the prescription of a physician,\"\"|appearing in its labeling, were misleading since such statements represented and|suggested that it was safe and appropriate for introduction into the uterus by,|or as directed by, a physician, whereas it was not safe or appropriate for intro-|duction into the uterus by a physician or any other person.|On April 2, 1943, the Ainsworth Specialty Co., Kansas City, Mo., claimant,|having filed an answer to the libel, and later having withdrawn such answer and|filed a confession of judgment with respect to the product, judgment was entered|ordering that the product be destroyed and that the costs of the proceedings be|assessed against the claimant.|989. Misbranding of Bio-Mineral. U. S. v. 76 Gross of Bio-Mineral. Decree of destruction.ddnj00989November 1944Bio-Mineral Products Co.Bio-MineralDecember 21 and 22, 1942, and January 2, 1943Kansas City, Mo.Detroit, Mich.Kansas City, Mo.Western District of Missouri989F. D. C. No. 9270. Sample Nos. 3044-F, 3554-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00989ddnj|989. Misbranding: of Bio-Mineral. TJ. S. v. 76 Gross of Bio-Mineral. Decree of|destruction. (F. D. C. No. 9270. Sample Nos. 3044-F, 3554-F.)|On or about February 18, 1943, the United States attorney for the Western|District of Missouri filed a libel against 76 gross of Bio-Mineral at Kansas City,|Mo., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|December 21 and 22, 1942, and January 2, 1943, from Detroit, Mich., by the Bio-|Mineral Products Co.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Examination showed that the article consisted essentially of a water solution|of ferric sulfate (approximately 3.4 grains per teaspoonful) and smaller amounts|of aluminum sulfate, calcium sulfate, magnesium sulfate, and a phosphate.|The article was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that the statements, designs,|and devices appearing in its labeling which represented and suggested that it|was effective in the treatment of rheumatism, constipation, weak kidneys, ail-|ments of the colon leading to serious complications, piles, colitis, and appendi-|citis; that it was effective in keeping the colon clean and healthy and in eliminat-|ing accumulated poisonous matter therefrom; and that it was a solution of life-|giving minerals, were false and misleading since it was not so effective and was|not a solution of life-giving minerals; (2) in that the designation \"\"Bio-Mineral,\"\"|appearing in its labeling, was false and misleading since the article was not a|life-mineral; (3) in that the statement appearing on its label, \"\"A Natural Mineral|Aid To be taken as a supplement for Mineral Deficiency,\"\" was false and mislead-|ing since the article would not supply, when taken in accordance with the direc-|tions, any mineral with the exception of iron, which would serve in any sub-|stantial manner as a supplement for mineral deficiency; and (4) in that the|statement of chemical composition appearing on its label was misleading in the|absence of a statement of the material fact that of the various ingredients|mentioned none, except ferric sulfate, was of any material significance when the|article was consumed in accordance with the directions appearing on the label.|On April 18, 1943, no claimant having appeared, judgment was entered order-|ing that the product be destroyed.|991. Misbranding of double strength yeast extract and iron compounds U. S. v. 230 Bottles of Double Strength Yeast Extract and Iron Compound. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00991November 1944Columbia Medical Laboratoriesdouble strength yeast extract and iron compoundsJune 3, 1842Grand Rapids, Mich.New York, N. Y.Grand Rapids, Mich.Western District of Michigan991F. D. C. No. 8342. Sample No. 1103-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00991ddnj|991. Misbranding of double strength yeast extract and iron compounds 17. S. v.|230 Bottles of Double Strength Yeast Extract and Iron Compound. De-|fault decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 8342. Sample|No. 1103-F.)|On September 11, 1942, the United States attorney for the Western District|of Michigan filed a libel against 230 bottles, each containing 75 tablets, of the|above-named product at Grand Rapids, Mich., alleging that the article had been|shipped in interstate commerce on or about June 3,1842, from New York, N. Y., by|the Columbia Medical Laboratories; and charging that it was misbranded.|A chemical examination showed that the article consisted essentially of calcium|carbonate and a small quantity of yeast or yeast extract and sugar, and con-|tained, per tablet, 0.64 grain of iron and 0.0022 grain of strychnine. A bio-|logical examination showed that the article contained not more than 10 Inter-|national Units of vitamin Bi per tablet.|.. It was alleged to be mis6randed in that the statements appearing in its labeling,|\"\"Double Strength Yeast Extract * * * A Scientific formula combining the.|essential properties of Yeast Vitamines * . * * Made With Brewer's Yeast.'|These tablets contain vitamins B and G which are known to stimulate the appe-|tite,\"\" were false and misleading since they represented that the article, by|reason of its yeast content, was a valuable source of the vitamins of yeast and|that the vitamins B and G provided by the yeast would stimulate the appetite,|whereas tie article was not a valuable source of the vitamins of yeast in that|it contained only small quantities of vitamins ordinarily present in yeast, and|the vitamins B and G provided by the yeast would not stimulate the appetite.|The article was alleged to'be misbranded further in that it contained strychnine|and its label failed to bear the name and quantity thereof.|On October 15, 1942. no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|992. Misbranding of Dr. Wolff's Pro-cys-kera Ointment. U. S. v. 21 Jars and 2 Jars of Dr. Wolff's Pro-cys-kera Ointment. Decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00992November 1944Dr. George F. WolffDr. Wolff's Pro-cys-kera OintmentSeptember 3, 1942Milwaukee, Wis.Chicago, Ill.Milwaukee, Wis.Eastern District of Wisconsin992F. D. C. No. 8476. Sample No. 2093-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00992ddnj|992. Misbranding of Dr. Wolff's Pro-cys-kera Ointment. U. S. v. 21 Jars and 2|Jars of Dr. Wolff's Pro-cys-kera Ointment. Decree of condemnation and|destruction. (F. D. C. No. 8476. Sample No. 2093-F.)|Examination showed that this product consisted essentially of sulfur, sali-|cylic acid, menthol, camphor, and ichthyol, incorporated in a base of saponifiable|fat, lecithin, and cholesterin.|On October 1, 1942, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Wisconsin filed a libel against 21 jars, each containirg 1 ounce, and 2 jars, each|containing 4 ounces, of the above-named product at Milwaukee, Wis., alleging that|the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about September 3,|1942, from Chicago, 111., by Dr. George F. Wolff; and charging it was misbranded.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements appearing in|its labeling which represented and suggested that it eradicated scalp disorders,|and would nourish, strengthen, and promote the growth of the hair, penetrate|the scalp and prevent infection, were false and misleading since it was not|capable of eradicating scalp disorders and would not accomplish the results|claimed.|On November 11,1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered ^and the product was ordered destroyed.|993. Misbranding of Formula \"\"U.\"\" U. S. v. 73 6-Ounce Bottles and 18 12-0unce Bottles of Formula \"\"U.\"\" Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00993November 1944Universal Antiseptic & Research Laboratories, Inc., Bristol, Tenn.Formula \"\"U\"\"September 5, 1942Newburg, N. Y.Bristol, Tenn.Newburg, N. Y.Southern District of New York993F. D. C. No. 8680. Sample No. 18765-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00993ddnj|993. Misbranding of Formula \"\"IT.\"\" TJ. S. v. 73 6-Ounce Bottles and 18 12-0unce|Bottles of Formula \"\"IT.\"\" Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 8680. Sample No. 18765-F.)|Examination showed that this product consisted essentially of water, carbolic|acid, sugars, thymol, sage, alum, borates, and aromatic substances.|On November 10, 1S42, the United States attorney for the Southern District|of New York filed a libel against the above-listed amounts of Formula \"\"U\"\" at|Newburg, N. Y., alleging that the article had been shipped on or about September|5, 1942, by Universal Antiseptic & Research Laboratories, Inc., Bristol, Tenn.;|and charging that it was misbranded.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements and cuts appearing in|its labeling which represented and suggested that the article was an adequate|treatment for major burns, varicose ulcers, and infected gums were false and|misleading since the article was not an adequate treatment for such conditions.|On December 2, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|994. Misbranding of Adolorine. U. S. v. 31 Bottles of Adolorine. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00994November 1944John I. WeanAdolorineOctober 15, 1942Wooster, OhioEustis, Fla.Wooster, OhioNorthern District of Ohio994F. D. C. No. 8922. Sample No. 31703-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00994ddnj|994. Misbranding of Adolorine. TJ. S. v. 31 Bottles of Adolorine. Default decree|of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 8922. Sample No. 31703-F.)|On November 25, 1942, the United States attorney for the Northern District|of Ohio filed a libel against 31 bottles of Adolorine at Wooster, Ohio, alleging|that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about October 15,|1942, by John I. Wean from Eustis, Fla.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Examination showed that the article consisted essentially of mustard oil, oil|of thyme, and a low-boiling petroleum oil.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements appearing in its label-|ing which represented and suggested that it was an effective remedy for soreness|of muscles and joints from strain or overwork, for sprains, bruises, relief for|itching, and for nasal irritations, were false and misleading since the article was|not an effective remedy for such conditions. It was alleged to be misbranded|further in that it was fabricated from two or more ingredients and its label|failed to bear the common or usual name of each active ingredient since the|statement of composition which appeared on the label was given in Latin rather|than in the English language.|On February 5,1943, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|6496. Vitamin products.ddnj06496March 1962W. T. Rawleigh Co.Vitamin products7-31-67 and 7-15-60Oakland, Calif.Freeport, Ill.Oakland, Calif.N. Dist. Calif.6496F. D. C. No. 44902. S. Nos. 41-771 R, 42-301 R, 42-308 R, 42-310/3 R, 42-315/6 R, 42-318 R, 42-320 R.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj06496ddnj|6496. Vitamin products. (F.D.C. No. 44902. S. Nos. 41-771 R, 42-301 R, 42-308|R, 42-310/3 R, 42-315/6 R, 42-318 R, 42-320 R.)|QUANTITY: 2 cases of 96 160-tablet btls. of yeast and iron tablets; 4 cases of|96 200-tablet btls. of Multi-Mineral tablets; 6 cases of 96 200-tablet btls.|and 3 cases of 96 100-tablet btls. of vitamin A and D tablets; 1 case of 168|50-capsule btls. of vitamin A, Bi, D, O capsules; 4 cases of 96 100-tablet btls.|of vitamin B complex tablets; 5 cases of 6 600-tablet btls. of vitamin A and|D and Bn tablets; 4 cases of 96 120-capsule btls. of Junior Multi-Vitamins-|Mineral capsules; 3 cases of 108 45-capsule btls. of Geratric Multi-Vitamins-|Mineral capsules; 34 cases of 12 8-oz. btls. of liquid vitamin for infants and|children; and 4 cases of 144 60-tablet btls. of cold tablets with vitamin C,|at Oakland, Calif.|SHIPPED : Between 7-31-67 and 7-15-60, from Freeport, 111., by W. T. Rawleigh|Co.|LABEL IN PAKT: (Btl.) \"\"Rawleigh's Yeast and Iron Tablets\"\"; \"\"Rawleigh's|Multi-Mineral Tablets\"\"; \"\"Rawleigh's Vitamin A and D Tablets\"\"; \"\"Rawleigh's|Vitamins A, Bi, D, G\"\"; \"\"Rawleigh Vitamin B-Complex Tablets\"\"; \"\"Rawleigh's|Vitamin A and D and B-12 Tablets\"\"; \"\"Rawleigh's Junior Multi-Vitamin-|Mineral Capsules For Children 3 to .12 Tears of Age\"\"; \"\"Rawleigh's Geriatric|Multi-Vitamin-Mineral Capsules\"\"; \"\"Rawleigh Liquid Vitamin for Infants and|Children\"\"; and \"\"Rawleigh's Cold Tablets with Vitamin C.\"\"|ACCOMPANYING LABELING : Booklets entitled \"\"Rawleigh and today's homemaker\"\"|and \"\"Pocket Reference Booklet on Rawleigh Products\"\"; leaflets entitled \"\"Bet-|ter Health more vigor and zest for life,\"\" \"\"Who needs vitamin supplements,\"\"|and \"\"To help babies and children grow and be healthy\"\"; and looseleaf books|entitled \"\"Rawleigh's Sales Manuals.\"\"|LIBELED : 9-22-60, N. Dist. Calif.|CHARGE: 502(a)-when shipped, the labeling of the Multi-Mineral tablets con-|tained false and misleading representations that the article was adequate and|effective to prevent subnormal conditions and severe ailments, and to promote|growth and health;|502(a)-the label of the vitamin A and D tablets bore the false and mis-|leading statement \"\"to prevent and overcome soft bones in infants and early|childhood,\"\" and the article's labeling contained false and misleading repre-|sentations that the article was adequate and effective to promote sturdy bones|and teeth, healthy mucous membranes, skin and eyes of people of all ages,|good appetite, proper intestinal activity, sound nerves, and sense of well-being,|strong, well-shaped bones and teeth, and to increase the life span of adults:|502(a)-the labeling of the vitamin B complex tablets contained false and|misleading representations that the article was adequate and effective for the|treatment and prevention of insomnia; mental depression; depressed, restless|feelings and worry; and to promote sound nerves, digestion, skin and eyes,|good appetite and proper intestinal activity;|502(a)-the label of the vitamin A and D and B-& tablets bore the false and|misleading statement \"\"to prevent and overcome soft bones in infants and early|childhood,\"\" and the labeling contained false and misleading representations|that the article was adequate and effective to promote normal growth, sound|bones and teeth, healthy appetite, resistance to infection of eyes, nose and|throat; to protect eyesight from night blindness; and help thin children gain|weight;|502(a)-the labeling of the Junior Multi-Vitamin-Mineral Capsules con-|tained false and misleading representations that the article was adequate and|effective to promote growth and health, and to keep children from losing days|at school due to coughs and colds and other illnesses;|502(a)-the labeling of the yeast and iron tablets contained false and mis-|leading representations that the article was adequate and effective as a treat-|ment for and preventive of exhaustion during hard work, nervousness, pain|and weakness, neuritis, polyneuritis, progressive blindness, pellagra, and beri-|beri ; and to promote sound nerves and sense of well-being; to increase energy,|endurance, and morale; to stimulate appetite, digestion and intestinal activity|and elimination; to stimulate assimilation and utilization of nutrients; de-|velop clear skin and complexion; to maintain normal cell life and proper|function of glands; and as a tonic;|502(a)-the labeling of the vitamins A, Bi, D, G capsules contained false|and misleading representations that the article was adequate and effective|to promote good appetite, intestinal activity, sound nerves and sense of well-|being, strong, well-shaped bones and teeth, to keep eyes, mucous membranes|and skin healthy, and to increase the life span of adults;|502(a)-the labeling of the Geriatric Multi-Vitamin-Mineral capsules con-|tained false and misleading representations that the article was adequate|and effective as a treatment for and preventive of weakened capillaries and|capillary breakdown, heart and blood vessels, fatty livers, depressed or un-|stable conditions, all-tired-out feeling, poor night vision, upset digestion,|rough skin, sore itching eyes, poor teeth, weight loss, emotional instability,|lack of appetite, constipation, tired eyes, headaches, sore mouth, pink eye,|cataracts, lack of pep, worry, restlessness, anemia, premature aging, conditions|associated with stress and strain, weakness, vague muscle aches, \"\"spring|fever,\"\" tooth decay, poor sleep, inflammation of skin, loss of hair, failure of|liver function, weak bones, blood not up to par, bone deformities; and that|the article would lengthen life, promote growth, power reproduction, promote|general health, and proper functioning of stomach, intestines and skin, dilate|arteries to promote good circulation, build protein, fight infection, and develop|vigor and zest for life;|502(a)-the labeling of the liquid vitamin for infants and children con-|tained false and misleading representations that the article was adequate|and effective as a treatment for and preventive of infections, overweight, slow|growth, poor circulation; and that the article would keep eyes, mucous mem-|brane, and skin healthy; promote growth in children; increase life span of|adults; build strong, sturdy bones and teeth; promote good appetite and|digestion, sound nerves, sense of well-being, general health, strong, tough|blood vessels, normal gland functioning, height and weight in children, normal|cell life and sound nerves, proper functioning of the stomach and intestines;|improve the flow of blood of older persons; and promote energy;|502(a)-the labeling of the cold tablets with vitamin C contained false and|misleading representations that the article was adequate and effective to pre-|vent infection; increase physical endurance; lessen fatigue; secure proper|functioning of blood vessels, and keep resistance to illnesses caused by infec-|tious germs, including colds and influenza, at the highest level; and that fever|and infection require extra nutritional amounts of vitamin C.|The libel alleged also that the articles, except for the yeast and iron tablets,|the vitamin A, Bi, D, Q capsules, and the cold tablets with vitamin C, were|misbranded under the provisions of the law applicable to foods, as reported|in notices of judgment on foods.|DISPOSITION : 10-27-60. Default-delivered to county institutions for use under|a physician's instruction.|995. Misbranding of Ekzebrol. U. S. v. 12 Boxes and 5 Boxes of Ekzebrol. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00995November 1944E. Tosse and Co.EkzebrolOctober 23, 1942Los Angeles, Calif.Brooklyn, N. Y.Los Angeles, Calif.Southern District of California995F. D. C. No. 9138. Sample No. 14703-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00995ddnj|'995. Misbranding: of Ekzebrol. U. S. -v. 12 Boxes and 5 Boxes of Ekzebrol. De-|fault decree of condemnation and destruction. (P. D. C. No. 9138. Sample|No. 14703-F.)|On January 5, 1943, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|California filed a libel against 12 boxes, containing 6 ampuls each, and 5 boxes,|containing 25 ampuls each, of Ekzebrol at Los Angeles, Calif., alleging that the|article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about October 23, 1942,|by E. Tosse and Co. from Brooklyn, N. Y.; and charging that it was misbranded.|The article was labeled in part: \"\"Ekzebrol 10? Strontium Bromide in Sterile|Saline Solution For Intravenous Injection.\"\"|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements|appearing on the circular contained within the package: \"\"Bromine has been|given orally with success in support of external treatment of some forms of|eczema, particularly those caused by nervous conditions. It has, however, been|demonstrated that by parenteral injection its soothing influence is augmented|and quickened to such an extent, that especially in acute cases, this treatment|alone will suffice. In Ekzebrol, bromine is combined with strontium, the former|acting on the nerve centers, the latter on the peripheral nerves. Strontium prob-|ably exerts also a vascular constringent effect,\"\" and \"\"In Skin diseases caused by|an abundance of chlorides, the chlorides become free after a bromine injection|and are eliminated in a natural way,\"\, were false and misleading since strontium|bromide when administered by parenteral injection does not have its soothing|influence so augmented that it alone will be effective for acute cases of eczema;|strontium bromide does not act on the nerve centers and peripheral nerves', and|?does not have a vascular constringent effect; and Ekzebrol will not be effective in|the skin diseases caused by an abundance of chlorides.|On February 24,1943, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|996. Misbranding of double strength solution of posterior pituitary. U. S. v. 1 Litre and 2 Bottles of Double Strength Solution of Posterior Pituitary. One lot tried to the court. Decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00996November 1944Armour and Co. of Delawaredouble strength solution of posterior pituitaryNovember 18, 1941Brooklyn, N. Y.DelawareBrooklyn, N. Y.Southern and Eastern Districts of New York996F. D. C. Nos. 7807, 7815. Sample Nos. 89506-E, 89507-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00996ddnj|996. Misbranding: of double strength solution of posterior pituitary. IT. S. v.|1 Litre and 2 Bottles of Double Strength Solution of Posterior Pituitary.|One lot tried to the court. Decrees of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. Nos. 7807, 7815. Sample Nos. 89506-E, 89507-E).|On June 26 and 29,1942, the United States attorneys for the Southern and East-|ern Districts of New York filed libels against 1 litre, at Brooklyn, N. Y.,|and 2 bottles, each containing 1 litre, of double strength solution of posterier|pituitary, at New York, N. Y., alleging that the article had been shipped on or|about November 18, 1941, by Armour and Co., Chicago, 111.; and charging that|it was misbranded.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements on its label,|\"\"Double Strength Solution of Posterior [or \"\"Post\"\"] Pituitary U. S. P XI,\"\" and|\"\"20 I. U. per cc.\"\" were false and misleading since the strength of the article was|not double that of solution of posterior pituitary, as defined in the eleventh re-|vision of the United States Pharmacopoeia, and was not 20 International Units|per cc.|On February-5, 1943, Armour and Co. of Delaware, having appeared as claim-|ant for the lot at New York and having denied the allegation in the libel with|respect to misbranding and the case having come on for trial, the court, after|hearing the evidence and the arguments of counsel, handed down the following|memorandum opinion:|WHJJAM BONDY, District Judge: \"\"Assuming that there was sufficient evidence|of identity of the contents of the exhibits 1 and 3 in evidence, and of samples|from which the tests were made by the claimant; and assuming that all the|tests as to which evidence was given were properly made, as to which there is|a very serious question, there is no proof that any of the tests disclosed more|than 18.5 International Units. The Court believes that what might be called|the tolerance of 20 percent either way was a tolerance allowed in determining|whether the product complies with the requirements of the Food and Drug Act|and whether it may be transported in interstate commerce. The Act does not|authorize anyone to represent the strength of the solution in International|Units in the absence of reasonable certainty on the part of the person making|the representation.|two bottles that were seized was 'Double Strength Solution Posterior Pituitary|U. S. P. XI 20 I. U. per CC. For Manufacturing Use. Expiration date Sep-|tember 1948.'|\"\"The Court understands that to be a representation that the solution had a|strength of 20 International Units. The evidence of the experts on behalf of|the government, whom the Court believes to be very well qualified, testified that|it never was a double strength solution of 20 International Units, or, in other|words, that it never exceeded at any time 16.2 Units. The claimant's experts,|also men of unquestionable competence, testified that by the methods used by|them in making their assays which they claim were used in compliance with|the Pure Food and Drug Act, it at most equalled 18.5 Units.|\"\"The only issue is whether the solution was properly labeled or branded. The|evidence in the case shows that the solution never was a solution of 20 Inter-|national Units.|\"\"The Court is convinced that the claimant believed it was authorized to label|the solution containing 18.5 as a 20 International Units solution, in view of|the tolerance allowed by the Pharmacopoeia.|\"\"The claimant was mistaken in believing that it was entitled to use that|tolerance in making an absolute representation that the solution was one of|20 International Units.|\"\"The label or representation was not correct The two bottles were properly|seized and must be condemned.|\"\"There accordingly should be a decree in favor of the libellant, with costs.\"\"|, On March 4,1943, the court made the following findings of facts and conclusions|of law:|WILLIAM: BONDT, District Judge:|FINDINGS OF FACT|\"\"1. That the two bottles, each containing one litre of an article labeled in part|'Double Strength Solution of Posterior Pituitary U. S. P. XI 20 I. U. per CC con-|tained a solution of posterior pituitary the strength of which was not double the|strength of solution of posterior pituitary U. S. P.|\"\"2. That the two bottles described in finding No. 1 contained a solution of|posterior pituitary which did not contain more than 18.2 International Units|per cubic centimeter.|\"\"3. That at no time since its manufacture by the claimant herein did the two|bottles of solution of posterior pituitary herein contain 20 international units|per cubic centimeter.|\"\"4. The statement on the label of the product, 'Double Strength Solution of|Posterior Pituitary, U. S. P. XI 20 I. U. per cc.' was false and misleading.\"\"|CONCLUSIONS OF LAW|\"\"1. The product was misbranded while in interstate commerce.|\"\"2. The product must be condemned.\"\"|On March 9, 1943, judgment of condemnation was entered against the lot at|New York and it was ordered destroyed. On May 24, 1943, Pro-Medico Labora-|tories, Inc., Brooklyn, N. Y., claimant for the lot at Brooklyn, having filed an|answer denying the allegation in the libel with respect to misbranding and sub-|sequently having withdrawn its answer, judgment of condemnation was entered|and the lot was ordered destroyed.|997. Misbranding of Thompson's Daily Vitamin and Mineral Ration. U. S. v. 8 Cartons of Thompson's Daily Vitamin and Mineral Ration. Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered released under bond for relabeling.ddnj00997November 1944William T. Thompson Co.Thompson's i Vitamin and Mineral RationOctober 12, 15, and 20, 1942Seattle, Wash.Los Angeles, Calif.Seattle, Wash.Western District of Washington997F. D. C. No. 9040. Sample No. 13242-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00997ddnj|997. Misbranding: of Thompson's Dally Vitamin and Mineral Ration. TJ. S. v.|8 Cartons of Thompson's Daily Vitamin and Mineral Ration. Consent de-|cree of condemnation. Product ordered released under bond for relabel-|ing:. (F. D. C. No. 9040. Sample No. 13242-F.)|This product was represented in its labeling as supplying 1? times the mini-|mum adult daily requirements of vitamins A and D, the minimum adult daily|requirement of vitamin C and riboflavin, and 3 times the minimum adult daily|requirement of vitamin Bi. It was also represented as containing specified|amounts of vitamin B?, niacin amide, pantothenic acid, and biotin, as well as|calcium, phosphorus, iodine, iron, and copper.|On December 24, 1942, the United States attorney for the Western District of|Washington filed a libel against 8 cartons, each containing 100 boxes, of the above|named product at Seattle, Wash., alleging that the article had been shipped in|interstate commerce on or about October 12, 15, and 20, 1942, from Los Angelesv|Calif., by the William T. Thompson Co.; and charging that it was misbranded.|The article was alleged to be mlsbfanded in that the statements appearing on|the display card accompanying the article, \"\"Vitamins For Vitality Improve your|health! . . . Take the drudgery out of work . . . Put more pep in your play . . . ^|Reduce colds . . . Cut down fatigue . . . Improve appetite and digestion .|Build nervous stability . . . Prevent impaired eyesight due to Vitamin defi-|ciencies . . . Build up your blood count . . . Prevent dental cavities, bleeding|gums, due to deficiencies of Vitamins D, C, and Calcium,\"\" were false and mislead-|ing since such statements represented and suggested that the article would be|effective for the purposes and conditions stated and implied, whereas it would not.|be so effective.|The article was also alleged to be misbranded under the provisions of law|applicable to foods as reported in the notices of judgment on foods.|On January 14, 1943, William T. Thompson Co., claimant, having admitted the|allegations of the libel, judgment of condemnation was entered and the product|was ordered released under bond for relabeling under the supervision of the|Food and Drug Administration.|VETERINARY USE*|998. Misbranding of Mineralized Bloat Stock Salt. U. S. v. 15 Sacks and 10 Sacks of Mineralized Bloat Stock Salt. Default decree of condemnation. Product to be disposed of by destruction.ddnj00998November 1944H. L. Johnson & Co.Mineralized Bloat Stock SaltNovember 6, 1942Sioux Falls, S. Dak.Sioux City, IowaSioux Falls, S. Dak.District of South Dakota998F. D. C. No. 9039. Sample No. 7381-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00998ddnj|998. Misbranding of Mineralized Bloat Stock Salt. IT. S. v. 15 Sacks and 10-|Sacks of Mineralized Bloat Stock Salt. Default decree of condemnation.|Product to be disposed of by destruction. (F. D. C. No. 9039. Sample No.|7381-F.)|On January 6, 1943, the United States attorney for the District of South|Dakota filed a libel against 15 50-pound sacks and 10 100-pound sacks of the|above-named product at Sioux Falls, S. Dak., alleging that the article had been|shipped in interstate commerce on or about November 6, 1942, from Sioux City,.|Iowa, by H. L. Johnson & Co.; and charging that it was misbranded. The article-|was labeled in part: \"\"Mineralized Bloat Stock Salt with Potassium Iodide.\"\" *|Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of salt and calcium|carbonate with small amounts of sulfur, sodium bicarbonate, sodium and mag-|nesium sulfates, iron oxide, potassium iodide, phosphate, anise, and fenugreek.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the reference to \"\"Bloat\"\" in|the name of the article, and the directions for the prevention and treatment of|bloat in livestock, appearing in its labeling, were false and misleading since|such statements represented and suggested that the article was effective in the|prevention and treatment of bloat in livestock, whereas it was not. so effective.|On February 15,1943, no claimant having appeared and the court having found|that the product was misbranded and should be destroyed, judgment of condem-|nation was entered and the marshal was ordered to dispose of the product.|999. Misbranding of Van-X Ointment. U. S. v. 8 Tubes and 38 Tubes of Van-X. Ointment. Default deeree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj00999November 1944Totus Manufacturing Co.Van-X OintmentAugust 18, 1942Wilmington, Del.Philadelphia, Pa.Wilmington, Del.District of Delaware999F. D. C No. 8429. Sample No. 22489-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj00999ddnj|999. Misbranding of Van-X Ointment. V. S. v. 8 Tubes and 38 Tubes of Van-X.|Ointment. Default deeree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C|No. 8429. Sample No. 22489-F.)|On or about September 29, 1942, the United States attorney for the District of|Delaware filed a libef against 8 $1.00-size and 38 $.25-size tubes of Van-X|Ointment at Wilmington, Del., alleging that the article had been shipped on or|about August 18, 1942, from Philadelphia, Pa., by the Totus Manufacturing Co. j|and charging that it was misbranded.|Analysis of the article showed that it consisted essentially of a vegetable gum,|small amounts of salicylic acid, phenol, sulfur, zinc oxide, and 13.5 percent of|alcohol.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statement|appearing in its labeling: (Tube) \"\"Relief for Itch, Eczema, Skin Irritations-|For All Breeds of Dogs * * * Apply to affected parts frequently until healed.|In bad cases spread on sores and let dry. * * * Alcoholic contents not over|5?.,\"\" (carton) \"\"For the Relief of Eczema, Itching, Scratching, and Skin Irrita-|tions. Also for mange, blotchy coats, falling hair * * * injuries * * *|Stops itching immediately. * * * Active Ingredients * * * Alcoholic con-|tents not over 5?,\"\" were false and misleading since the article would not be an|effective relief for any known cause of eczema, itching, scratching, skin irrita-|tions, mange, blotchy coats, and all forms of injuries as was suggested and|represented by such statements. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that|the statement in its labeling, \"\"Alcoholic contents not over 5?,\"\" was false and|misleading since the article contained 13.5 percent of alcohol.|An April 12, 1943, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|?See also No. 961.|DRUGS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO BEAR ACCURATE .|STATEMENT'OF QUANTITY OF CONTENTS*|1000. Misbranding of tincture of iodine. U. S. v. 110 Dozen Bottles of Tincture of Iodine. Decree of condemnation. Product ordered delivered to a public institution.ddnj01000November 1944Peerless Pharmacal Co.tincture of iodineAugust 4, 1942Philadelphia, Pa.New York, N. Y.Philadelphia, Pa.Eastern District of Pennsylvania1000F. D. C. No. 8612. Sample No. 22927-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01000ddnj|11000. Misbranding of tincture of iodine. V. S. ?. 110 Dozen Bottles of Tincture|of Iodine. Decree of condemnation. Product ordered delivered to a|public institution. (F. D. C. No. 8612. Sample No. 22927-F.)|Examination showed that the average quantity of tincture of iodine contained|in the bottles was 2.065 drams. The maximum amount found was 2.49 drams,|.and the minimum quantity was 1.72 drams. .|On October 17, 1942, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Pennsylvania filed a libel against 110 dozen bottles of tincture of iodine at|Philadelphia, Pa., alleging that the article had been shipped on or about August|4, 1942, from New York, N. Y., by the Peerless Pharmacal Co.; and charging that|it was misbranded in that its label failed to bear an accurate statement of the|quantity of the contents. The article was labeled in part: \"\"U. S. P. Tincture|Iodine * * * 2? Dram.\"\"|On November 6,1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|-was entered and the product was ordered delivered to a public institution.|INDEX TO NOTICES OF JUDGMENT D. D. N. J. NOS, 951-1000|PRODUCTS|N. J. No.|Adolorine| 994|Amino acids parenteral?.? 965|Aspirin tablets?:| 983|Bandages|972, 974-977, 985, 986|Bi-Sal Tablets| 955|Bio-Mineral| 989|Bromide tablets, triple?--? 952|Burns, treatment for| 993|Carbon tetrachloride| 979|?Cold tablets| 951|Collodion?_| 966|Compresses, gauze?1| 972|Cosmetic (subject to drug provisions of|the Act)| 992|-Cotton, absorbent|970, 971|DPS Formula 50| 968|Devices|* 981, 982|JJkzebrol|.? 995|Elixir Quinux|.?,? 962|Formula \"\"U\"\"| 993|Hair and scalp preparation? 992|Iodine, tincture of| 1000|Iron compound and yeast tablets?967, 991|glycerophosphate compound? 963|laxatives|951, 953, 955-959|Light bulbs|^- 982|Hagnesium citrate, solution of? 953|Jliscellaneous drugs (water-damaged,|old)| 954|N. J. No.|My Prescription, and Pink-etts? 956|Natur-Pep| 957|Ointments?.|992 994|Pine bark, white____| 980|Pink-etts| 956|Pituitary solution, posterior?969,a 996|Pro-cys-kera Ointment| 992|R & R Ultra Violet Ray and Radiation|Machine| 1981|Ramazzotti|~ 958|Reducing aids__| 999|Rubbing compound|~ 983|St. Joseph C-2223| 984'|Sani-Caps| 987|Sedatives| 984|Special SC Pink Tablets| 959|Stero-Uteroids| 988|Sulfanilamide tablets|? 960|Sutures| 973|Thompson's Daily Vitamin and Mineral|Ration| 997|Veterinary remedies|961, 998, 999|Vitamin preparations, 964,967, 968, 991, 99V|Viteen| 990|Water, fractionally distilled? 978|Wheat germ| 964|Women's disorders, remedies for?987, 988|SHIPPERS AND MANUFACTURERS|Armour & Co.:|pituitary solution, posterior|Associated Laboratories, Inc.:|iron glycerophosphate compound-|?Banfi Products Corp.:|Ramazzotti|Battle Creek Food Co.:|wheat germ|Bio-Mineral Products Co.:|Bio-Mineral|Chatham Sundries Co.:|gauze bandages|Columbia Medical Laboratories:|yeast extract and iron compound|Conray Products Co.:|collodion|?Convenience, Inc.:|first aid dressings|J. No.|*996|. 963|958|964|989|986|991|966|977|Crockenberg, F. X.:|My Prescription, and Pink-etts_|Curts-FoLse Laboratories:|Natur-Pep|Stero-Uteroids|Cutter Laboratories:|fractionally distilled water|Dartell Laboratories:|DPS Formula 50?;|Dietz, Charles H., Inc.:|Special SC Pink Tablets|Durst, R. L.:|Elixir Quinux?,|Durst, S. F., & Co., Inc.:|Elixir Quinux-|Fenton's, Dr., Vigortone Co.|veterinary preparations-|N. J. No.|- 956|957|988|978|968|959|962|962|961|?See also Nos. 954, 956, 961, 976.|1 Prosecution contested.|* Seizure contested. Contains opinion of the court, findings of fact, and conclusions of|Jaw.|1009. Misbranding of McMillan's Nomoppin and Demytin, and adulteration and misbranding of effervescent solution of citrate of magnesia. U. S. v. William Cicero McMillan (McMillan Drug Co.). Plea of guilty. Fine, 1.ddnj01009March 1945William Cicero McMillan, trading as the McMillan Drug Co. at Columbia, S. CMcMillan's Nomoppin and Demytin; effervescent solution of citrate of magnesiaSeptember 10 and 24, 1940, March 3, 1941, and August 24, 1943GeorgiaSouth CarolinaGeorgiaEastern District of South Carolina1009F. D. C. Nos. 5486, 10584. Sample Nos. 254-E, 20499-E, 20925-E, 35609-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01009ddnj|1009. Misbranding of McMillan's Nomoppin and Demytin, and adulteration and|misbranding: of effervescent solution of citrate of magnesia. IT. S. v.|'William Cicero McMillan (McMillan Drug- Co.). Plea of guilty. Fine,|$1. (F. D. C. Nos. 5486, 10584. Sample Nos. 254-E, 20499-E, 20925-E,|35609-F.)|The products \"\"Nomoppin\"\" and \"\"Demytin\"\" were misbranded because of false|and misleading curative and therapeutic claims in the labeling, and the effer-|vescent solution of citrate of magnesia was adulterated and misbranded because|of failure to conform with the Pharmacopoeia requirements, and because the|labeling failed to bear such adequate warnings as are necessary for the protection|of users.|On September 9 and November 3, 1943, the United States attorney for the|Eastern District of South Carolina filed two informations against William Cicero|McMillan, trading as the McMillan Drug Co. at Columbia, S. C, alleging shipment|within the period from on or about September 10 and 24,1940, March 3, 1941, and|August 24, 1943, from the State of South Carolina into the State of Georgia of|quantities of McMillan's Nomoppin and McMillan's Demytin which were mis-|branded, and of a quantity of effervescent solution of citrate of magnesia which|was adulterated and misbranded.|Analysis of a sample of the \"\"Nomoppin\"\" showed that it consisted essentially|of potassium arsenite containing 2.01 grams of arsenic trioxide per 100 cc., and|water. Analysis of samples of \"\"Demytin\"\" showed that it consisted essentially of|calcium thiosulfate, calcium polysulfide, and water.|The Nomoppin was alleged to be misbranded in that representations on the|bottle label and in the accompanying circular to the effect that it would be|efficacious as a remedy, cure, or preventative for chicken sorehead (chicken pox) ;|that it would be efficacious to aid egg production, hasten molting, and brighten|plumage; that it would prevent loss of flesh and vigor from sorehead; that it was|an internal remedy which would be efficacious in the treatment of sorehead with-|out the necessity of catching, greasing, and other local treatment; that it would|protect little and big chicks from mites; and that it would increase egg production|and improve the health of the flock so that more and stronger chicks would be|raised were false and misleading since the article would not be efficacious to ac-|comlish such purposes. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that it was|in package form and did not bear a label containing an accurate statement of the|quantity of the contents, since the label of the container bore no statement of|the quantity of the contents; and in that its label did not bear the common or|usual name of the article, potassium arsenite. *|The Demytin was alleged to be misbranded in that representations on the bottle|label and in the accompanying circular to the effect that it would increase egg|yield by freeing hens from mites; that it would be efficacious in preventing|diarrhea; that it would promote prompter molting, and induce an earlier return|to laying conditions; that it would tend to brighten plumage; that it would protect|little and big chicks from mites; that it would increase egg production and im-|prove the health of the flock so that more and stronger chicks were raised; and|that it would supply a ration ingredient which is often absent and which is re-|quired to produce the egg, build bone, strength, and vigor, were false and mis-|leading since the article would not be efficacious for such purposes.|-The solution of citrate of magnesia was alleged to be adulterated in that it|purported to be and was represented as a drug the name of which is recognized|in the United States Pharmacopoeia, an official compendium, and its strength|differed from and its quality fell below the standard set forth in that compendium|since the article contained, in each 100 cc, an amount of magnesium citrate cor-|responding to not more than 0.653 gram of magnesium oxide, and 10 cc. of the|solution contained citric acid equivalent to not more than 13.1 cc. of half-normal|hydrochloric acid, whereas the Pharmacopoeia provides that solution of mag-|nesium citrate shall contain, in each 100 cc, an amount of magnesium citrate|corresponding to not less than 1.6 gram of magnesium oxide, and that 10 cc. of|the solution shall contain citric acid equivalent to not less than 26 cc. of half-|normal hydrochloric acid.|The solution of citrate of magnesia was alleged to be misbranded in that|its labeling did not bear adequate warnings against use in those pathological|conditions wherein its use might be dangerous to health, since it was a cathartic|or laxative drug and should not be used when abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting,|or other symptoms of appendicitis are present, and a statement that frequent and|continued use might result in dependence upon laxatives. It was alleged to be|misbranded further in that it was in package form and did not bear a label con-|taining an accurate statement of the quantity of the contents.|On November 3, 1943, the defendant having entered a plea of guilty, the court|imposed a fine of $1, which was applicable to the 2 informations, with the under-|standing that the defendant immediately discontinue interstate business and dis-|continue business entirely on or before January 1,1944.|1010. Misbranding of Iowa Worm Powder and Iowa Regulator for Hogs. U. S. v. Howard-Iowa Products Co. Demurrer to count 1 of the information filed and sustained. Pleas of guilty entered to remaining; counts. Fine of $100 on each of 2 counts, together with costs.ddnj01010March 1945Howard-Iowa Products Co., a corporation, Jefferson, IowaIowa Worm Powder and Iowa Regulator for HogsMarch 23, 1942IllinoisIowaIllinoisSouthern District of Iowa1010F. D. C. No. 8734. Sample Nos. 94545-E, 94546-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01010ddnj|1010. Misbranding: of Iowa Worm Powder and Iowa Regulator for Hogs. U. S.|v. Howard-Iowa Products Co. Demurrer to count 1 of the information|filed and sustained. Pleas of guilty entered to remaining; counts. Fine of|$100 on each of 2 counts, together with costs. (F. D. C. No. 8734. Sample|Nos. 94545-B, 94546-E.)|On January 8, 1943, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|? Iowa filed an information in 2 counts against the Howard-Iowa Products Co., a|corporation, Jefferson, Iowa, alleging shipment on or about March 23, 1942, from|the State of Iowa into the State of Illinois of a quantity of Iowa Worm Powder|and Iowa Regulator for Hogs.|Analysis of the Iowa Worm Powder showed that it consisted essentially of|sodium bicarbonate, compounds of calcium, magnesium, iron and aluminum,|santonin, charcoal, and plant material, including flaxseed.|Count 1 of the information alleged that the Iowa Worm Powder was misbranded|in that certain statements and designs borne on the carton containing the article,|and certain statements in the circular enclosed in the carton were false and mis-|leading since they represented and suggested that the article would be efficacious|in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of all species of worms that in-|fest hogs, and that it would correct unthriftiness in hogs resulting from all species|of worms, whereas the article would not be efficacious for the purposes recom-|mended.|Analysis of the Iowa Regulator for Hogs showed that it consisted essentially|of sodium sulfate, sodium bicarbonate, sodium chloride, ammonium chloride,|calcium carbonate, calcium phosphate, sulfur, a compound of iron, charcoal, and|unidentified plant material.|It was alleged to be misbranded (count 2), because of false and misleading|statements in its labeling which represented and suggested that it would be|efficacious as a regulator for hogs; that it would be an effective aid in keeping|hogs thrifty; that it would prevent indigestion and poisoning of the blood, and|would cause the bowels to become normal; that it would be efficacious as a|treatment for scours in young pigs; that it would clean the poison out of sows|and correct the sow's milk; that it was an expectorant which would act upon|the bronchial tubes and lungs; and that it would be efficacious in the treatment of|colds and congestion of the lungs; would prevent pneumonia in hogs, and was|an effective treatment for sick hogs that are thumping.|On May 22, 1943, the defendant pleaded guilty to count 2 of the information|and entered a demurrer to count 1, and on May 29, 1943, an order was entered|continuing the hearing on the demurrer and permitting the information to be|amended by adding additional counts. An amended information was accordingly|filed on August 30, 1943, in which was added a third count, alleging that the|Iowa Worm Powder was misbranded further (1) in that the statements appear-|ing in the aforesaid circular which represented and suggested that the Iowa|Regulator would be efficacious as a regulator of the physiological functions of|hogs, and that the Iowa \"\"Worm Powder and the Iowa Regulator, when used|together, would be efficacious to relieve congestion of the lungs in hogs, were|false and misleading, since the Iowa Regulator would not be efficacious as a regu-|lator for any physiological function of hogs and the Iowa \"\"Worm Powder and|the Iowa Regulator, whether used alone or together, would not be efficacious to|relieve congestion of the lungs in hogs; (2) in that the worm powder was in|package form and did not bear a label containing an accurate statement of the|quantity of the contents; (3) in that it was not designated solely by a name|recognized in an official compendium and was fabricated from two or more|ingredients and its label did not bear the common or usual name of each active|ingredient; and (4) in that its labeling did not bear adequate directions for|use, since the directions on the label did not state or indicate the quantity of the|article to be administered to each hog or to a given number of hogs.|On September 11, 1943, the defendant having entered a plea of guilty to the|third count of the information, the court proceeded with the hearing on the|demurrer, and on October 13, 1943, handed down the following ruling sustaining|the demurrer:|DEWEY, District Judge: \"\"To an Amended and Substituted Information the|defendant has filed a demurrer to Count 1, in effect, claiming that such count|does not charge an offense against it.|\"\"The charge is misbranding of drugs.|\"\"The drugs complained of are labeled 'IOWA WORM POWDER FOR ASOARIS|WORMS IN HOGS' and this statement appears on the outside of the package.|\"\"Accompanying the package and inside thereof is a circular directing the use|of the worm powder on hogs. The circular in its direction for use refers to 'the|Worm Powder' as being 'the Iowa Worm Powder' and it is difficult to see how it|refers to any other powder than that stated on the package as being 'Worm|Powder for Ascaris Worms in Hogs.'|\"\"The charge in Count 1 is that the label on the outside of the package showing|two hogs, one thin and unthrifty and the other fat and thrifty looking, with the|statement thereunder: 'Take Iowa Worm Powder and be Fat,' together with the|directions for the use of the powder contained in the package, which does not spe-|cifically refer to Ascaris Worms in hogs, but only to 'the Worm Powder' and to the|'Iowa Worm Powder,' is false and misleading in this: 'that the said statements|represented and suggested that said drug would be efficacious in the cure, mitiga-|tion, treatment or prevention of all species of worms that infest hogs.'|\"\"Specifically, then, the charge is that the label on the outside of the package,|together with the directions for the use of the worm powder, by suggestion and|inference, states and represents that the worm powder would be efficacious in|the cure of all worms that infest hogs instead of Ascaris Worms alone.|\"\"The court raised the question as to whether the circular enclosed in a package|should be considered on the question of misbranding, but the statement in the|new act of 1938 that 'the term 'labeling' means all labels and other written,|printed, or graphic matter * * * accompanying such article', and the case|of Eckman's Alterative v. United States, 239 U. S. 510, definitely determine that|the circular contained within the package is to be considered on the question of|whether the labeling was a misbranding.|\"\"However, I am unable to find anything in the label or in the statement|enclosed in the package that indicates, let alone, suggests or states, that the Iowa|Worm Powder in the package was efficacious in the cure or mitigation of all|worms in hogs.|\"\"The label in large type expressly states that it is 'Worm Powder for Ascaris|Worms in Hogs' and designates it as 'Iowa Worm Powder.' The directions for|the use of the powder refers to either 'the Worm Powder,' which certainly means|the Worm Powder contained in the package, or 'Iowa Worm Powder,' which|even more definitely refers to the Worm Powder in the package, and the worm|powder in the package is labeled as clearly and distinctly as it could be as a|Worm Powder for Ascaris Worms without any suggestion or inference that it|could be used or was efficacious in any manner or degree in destroying other|worms in hogs.|\"\"The defendant's demurrer to Count 1 of the Amended and Substituted Infor-|mation is sustained and said Count is dismissed as not stating an offense against|the defendant. The United States of America excepts. Signed at Des Moines,|Iowa, this 13th day of October, 1943.\"\"|On November 30, 1943, no appeal having been noted with respect to the ruling|on the demurrer, the court imposed a fine of $100 on each of counts 2 and 3, a|total of $200, together with costs.|1011. Misbranding of Speagolax, Hunt's Salve, Triple-X Medicine, Booth's Balm, Booth's Pills, Liver-Cure, Fem-Re-Ills, Targosine, Jew David's or Hebrew Plaster, B. P. Stomach and Intestinal Corrective, Irogen, and Colonex Tablets; and adulteration and misbranding of Tansy. U. S. v. Allen Dobson and Matt H. Dobson, Jr. (Dobson & Co.). Pleas of nolo contendere. Fine, $150 against each defendant.ddnj01011March 1945Allen Dobson and Matt H. Dobson, Jr., trading as Dobson & Co., at Nashville, Tenn., and Rutherfordton, N. C.Speagolax, Hunt's Salve, Triple-X Medicine, Booth's Balm, Booth's Pills, Liver-Cure, Fem-Re-Ills, Targosine, Jew David's or Hebrew Plaster, B. P. Stomach and Intestinal Corrective, Irogen, and Colonex Tablets; TansyApril 16, 1942VirginiaNorth CarolinaVirginiaWestern District of North Carolina1011F. D. C. No. 8766. Sample Nos. 59789-E, 59791-E to 59797-E, incl. , 59799-E, 78301-E, 78302-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01011ddnj|1011. Misbranding of Speagolax, Hunt's Salve, Triple-X Medicine, Booth's Balm,|Booth's Pills, Liver-Cure, Fem-Re-Ills, Targosine, Jew David's or Hebrew|Plaster, B. P. Stomach and Intestinal Corrective, Irogen, and Colonex|Tablets; and adulteration and misbranding of Tansy. U. S. v. Allen|Dobson and Matt H. Dobson, Jr. (Dobson & Co.). Pleas of nolo con-|tendere. Fine, $150 against each defendant. (F. D. C. No. 8766. Sample|Nos. 59789-E, 59791-E to 59797-E, incl., 59799-E, 78301-E, 78302-B.)|On February 18, 1943, the United States attorney for the Western District of|North Carolina filed an information against Allen Dobson and Matt H. Dobson,|Jr., trading as Dobson & Co., at Nashville, Tenn., and Rutherfordton, N. C,|alleging shipment on or about April 16, 1942, from the State of North Carolina|into the State of Virginia of quantities of the above-named products. The articles|were labeled in part: \"\"Speagolax * * * Put up and Guaranteed by Speago-|lax Medicine Co., Durham, N. C,\"\" \"\"Hunt's Salve * * * Manufactured by|A. B. Richards Med. Co., Sherman, Texas,\"\" \"\"Triple-X * * * Medicine|*?* * T/iple X Laboratories Scotland Neck, N. C,\"\" \"\"Booth's Balm * * *|[or \"\"Booth's Pills\"\"] * * * Booth's Hyomei Co., Ithaca, N. T.,\"\" \"\"Tansy|*?* * S. W. Gould & Bros. * * * Maiden, Mass.,\"\" \"\"Liver-Cure Munyon's|Homeopathic Home Remedies,\"\" \"\"Fem-Re-IUs * * * Guaranteed by the Henry|S. Wampole Company * * * Baltimore, Maryland,\"\" \"\"Targosine * * *|Manufactured and Guaranteed by the Targosine Co. Monroe, N. G,\"\" \"\"Jew David's|or Hebrew Plaster All Genuine. Signed B. Taylor Right Secured Comstock|& Co. Rochester, N. Y.,\"\" \"\"B. P. Stomach and Intestinal Corrective Burwell &|Dunn Co. * * * Charlotte, N. C,\"\" \"\"Irogen [or \"\"Colonex Tablets\"\"] * * *|Guardian Health Products Co. Incorporated Atlanta, Georgia.\"\"|Analysis of the Speagolax showed that it was a brown liquid, having a bitter|taste and consisting essentially of an iron salt, nux vomica extract, benzoates,|cascara, iodides, alcohol, sugar, and water. It was alleged to be misbranded|because of false and misleading statements in its labeling which represented and|suggested that the article would be efficacious as a tonic for the stomach and|blood; that it would be efficacious in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or pre-|vention of rheumatism, lumbago, indigestion, liver and kidney trouble, and dis-|eases due to impure blood; and that it would aid digestion and restore tone to|a run-down system. It was alleged to be misbranded further (1) in that its|labeling failed to bear adequate directions for use, since the directions on the|]abel, \"\"Dose:-One tablespoonful three times a day before meals,\"\" suggested|that the article should be used continuously, whereas it was a laxative and|should not be used continuously, and the direction, \"\"Children according to age,\"\"|was not explicit, whereas directions should be explicit; (2) in that its labeling|failed to bear adequate warnings against use in those pathological conditions|wherein its use might be dangerous to health, or against unsafe dosage or methods|or duration of administration, in such manner and form as are necessary for the|protection of users, since the article contained a laxative, cascara, and its labeling|did not warn that it should not be used when abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting,|or other symptoms of appendicitis are present, and that frequent or continued|use might result in dependence upon laxatives; and (3) in that its container was|so made, formed, or filled as to be misleading since the container was larger|than was necessary to contain the article.|Analysis of the Hunt's Salve showed that it was a greenish-brown ointment|consisting essentially of sulfur, oil of sassafras, a mercury salt present as a|sulfide, and resins incorporated in a petrolatum base, together with small amounts|of phenol, iodides, and chrysarobin. It was alleged to be misbranded in that the|statements in its labeling which represented and suggested that it would be|efficacious in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of itch, 7-year itch,|barber's itch, itch in all of its various forms, eczema, scald head, piles, old sores,|boil's and all skin diseases, including skin diseases of babies and small children,|were false and misleading since the product would not be efficacious for such|purposes. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that it was not designated|solely by a name recognized in an official compendium, and it was fabricated|from two or more ingredients, one of which was a mercury salt, and the labeling|failed to bear the common or usual name of each active ingredient, including|a statement of the quantity or proportion of the mercury salt contained in the|article.|Analysis of the Triple-X Medicine showed that it was a brown-colored emulsion|of copaiba and cubeb oils and a sugar solution, emulsified with a water-soluble|gum. It was alleged to be misbranded because of false and misleading state-|ments in its labeling which represented and suggested that it would be efficacious|in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of acute and chronic discharges.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that it was not designated solely by|a name recognized in an official compendium, and in that it was fabricated from|two or more ingredients and its label failed to bear the common or usual name of|each active ingredient.|Analysis of the Booth's Balm showed that it was a green ointment consisting|of chlorophyll containing plant extractives, a cresol-like substance, and a trace|of eucalyptol, all incorporated in a base of petrolatum and fatty material.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements appearing in its labeling|which represented and suggested that the article would be efficacious in the cure,|mitigation, treatment, or prevention of many forms of skin diseases, such as|dandruff, scalp irritation, pimples, blackheads, eczema, and itching skin; that|it would be efficacious in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of bron-|chial catarrh, head colds, spasmodic croup, aching and tender feet, tender breasts,|and sore nipples; and that it would be beneficial during pregnancy, were false|and misleading since the article would not be efficacious or beneficial for such|purposes.|Analysis of the Booth's Pills showed that they contained emodin-bearing drugs,|apparently aloes.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that its labeling failed to bear|adequate warnings against use in those pathological conditions wherein its use|might be dangerous to health, or against unsafe dosage or methods or duration|of administration, in such manner and form as fire necessary for the protection|of users, since the article contained aloes, a' laxative drug, and its labeling did|not bear a warning thatTit should not be used when abdominal pain, nausea,|vomiting, or other symptoms of appendicitis are present, and that frequent or|continued use might result in dependence on laxatives.|Analysis of Tansy showed that it consisted of dried plant material containing|the leaves and flower heads of the tansy plant. It was alleged to be adulterated|in that it consisted in whole or in part of a filthy substance by reason of the|presence therein of insects, insect fragments, and insect excreta, and because of|fire or water damage. It was alleged to be misbranded because of false and mis-|leading statements in its labeling which represented and suggested that the|article would be efficacious as a tonic, emmenagogue, and anthelmintic; and|that it would be efficacious in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of|amenorrhea and hysteria.|Analysis of the Liver-Cure showed that it consisted of small spherical sugar|pellets with no other ingredient detected. It was alleged to be misbranded|in that the statements in its labeling which represented and suggested that it|would be efficacious in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of jaun-|dice, and all diseases of the liver, including torpid liver, and all acute con-|gested conditions of the liyer, biliousness, constipation, bilious headache, and|sick headache; and that it would be efficacious to relieve bad taste in the mouth,|coated tongue, worn-out feeling, highly colored urine, soreness in the right side,|dull spirits, and restless nights, were false and misleading since it would not be|efficacious for such purposes.|Analysis of the Fem-Re-Ills showed that it was a white, sugar-coated elliptical|pill, consisting essentially of ferrous sulfate, calcium carbonate, oil of savin,|plant extractives including aloes, and sugar, together with small amounts of|ergot alkaloids. It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements appear-|ing in its labeling which represented and suggested that it would be efficacious|as an ideal remedy for amenorrhea, dysmenorrhea, and menstrual disorders; that|it would be efficacious in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of func-|tional derangement of the reproductive organisms; that it would assist nature|in its efforts to re-establish the menstrual flow at the regular period; and that|it would prevent difficult, painful, over-profuse, and other morbid, menstrual|conditions, and would keep those important functions normal, were false and|misleading, since it would not be efficacious for such purposes. It was alleged|to be misbranded further in that it was not designated solely by a name recog-,|nized in an official compendium; and that it was fabricated from two or more in-|gredients and its label failed to bear the common or usual name of each active|ingredient.|Analysis of the Targosine showed that it consisted essentially of turpentine,|kerosene, fatty material, a water-soluble gum, and water, together with a small|amount of chloroform. It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements;|appearing in its labeling which represented and suggested that it would be effi-|cacious as an .instant relief for eczema, old sores, skin diseases, burns, scalds,|and sunburn; that it would be efficacious in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or|prevention of pains in the back, stiff neck, rheumatic pains, soreness in the|chest, colds, croup, tansilitis, sore throat, poison oak, itch, barber's itch, eczema,,|boils, old sores, ulcers, eruptions, pimples, vaccination sores, breastcake, and sore|nipples, were false and misleading since it would not be efficacious for suck|purposes. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that it was not design|nated solely by a name recognized in an official compendium, and in that it|was fabricated from two or more ingredients and its label failed to bear the|common or usual name of each active ingredient.|Analysis of the Jew David's or Hebrew Plaster showed it to be a brown, trans-|lucent and somewhat plastic mass having an agreeable terebinthinate odor, the|odor, appearance, and physical properties resembling the oleoresin, Burgundy|pitch. It was alleged to be misbranded because of false and misleading state-|ments in its.labeling which represented and suggested that the article would be|efficacious i|ii the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of local inflamma-|tion, scrofulous fffections, gout, inflammatory and chronic rheumatism, and|lung and liver affections; and that it would be beneficial in cases of weakness,|such as weakness and pain in the stomach and affections of the spine.|Analysis of the B. P. Stomach and Intestinal Corrective showed that it was a|viscous mixture containing suspended solid material and a brown liquid, with|a mint odor and taste, consisting essentially of bismuth subsalicylate together|with a small amount of volatile oils including peppermint, sugar, and water.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements appearing in its labeling|which represented and suggested that would be efficacious as an antiferment:|that it would be efficacious for and would correct fermentation arising from|improperly prepared and infected food; and that it would be efficacious in the|cure, mitigation, treatment, and prevention of vomiting, diarrhea, dysentery,|flux, and cholera morbus in children and adults were false and misleading since|it would not be efficacious for such purposes. It was alleged to be misbranded|further in that it was not designated solely by a name recognized in an official|compendium; and in that it was fabricated from two or more ingredients and|its labeling failed to bear the common or usual name of each active ingredient.|Analysis of the Irogen showed that it was a dark brown liquid containing|considerable sediment and consisting essentially of alcohol, an iron salt, malt,|manganese salt, cinchona alkaloids, nux vomica alkaloids, wild cherry, emodin-|bearing drugs, phosphorus compounds, a sodium salt, sugar, and water. It was|alleged to be misbranded because of the false and misleading statements in its|labeling which represented and suggested that the article would be efficacious|as a prompt aid for enriching the blood; that it would be efficacious in building|up bodily strength and restoring impaired tissues; and that it would aid digestion|and restore tone to the system. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that|it was not designated solely by a name recognized in an official compendium;|and in that it was fabricated from two or more ingredients, including the ingre-|dient strychnine, and its labeling failed to bear the common or usual name of each|active ingredient, including the quantity or proportion of strychnine contained|in the article.|Analysis of the Colonex Tablets showed that the article consisted of sugar-|coated tablets containing phenolphthalein and emodin drugs. It was alleged to|be misbranded because of false and misleading statements in its labeling which|represented and suggested that the article would be efficacious as a stimulator|625042-45 3|of the liver cells ? that it would improve digestion and assimilation; and that it|would be efficacious in the prevention of premature old age, rheumatism, high|blood pressure, Bright's disease, diabetes, and constant headaches, and would|produce normal bowel movements. It was alleged to be misbranded further|in that its labeling failed to bear adequate directions for use since the directions|suggested continuous use of the article, whereas laxative preparations should not|be used continuously, and the directions were not explicit with respect to the|dosage for children; and in that its labeling failed to bear such adequate warn-|ings against use in those pathological conditions wherein its use might be dan-|gerous to health, or against unsafe dosages or methods or duration of adminis-|tration, in such manner and form as are necessary for the protection of users,|since the article contained laxatives, phenolphthalein and emodin-bearing drugs,|and its labeling failed to bear a warning that they should not be used when|abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, or other symptoms of appendicitis are present,|and it did not bear a warning that frequent or continued use might result in|dependence upon laxatives.|On November 8, 1943, the defendants having entered pleas of nolo contendere,|the court imposed a fine of $150 against each defendant.|DRUGS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF DEVIATION FROM OFFICIAL OR|OWN STANDARDS*|1012. Adulteration and misbranding of salicylate soda, strychnine sulfate, Rheumatic No. 3, phenobarbital tablets, and acetanilid, caffeine and sodium salicylate compound tablets. U. S. v. Charles Killgore Co., Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $1,000.ddnj01012March 1945Charles Killgore Co., Inc., Yonkers, N. Y.salicylate soda, strychnine sulfate, Rheumatic No. 3, phenobarbital tablets, and acetanilid, caffeine and sodium salicylate compound tabletsSeptember 8 and December 1 and 4, 1941Connecticut, New Jersey, and Rhode IslandNew YorkConnecticut, New Jersey, and Rhode IslandSouthern District of New York1012F. D. C. No. 7659. Sample Nos. 84880-E, 84881-E, 84943-E, 84944-E, 90441-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01012ddnj|1012. Adulteration and misbranding of salicylate soda, strychnine sulfate,|Rheumatic No. 3, phenobarbital tablets, and acetanilid, caffeine and|sodium salicylate compound tablets. U. S. v. Charles Killgore Co., Inc.|Plea of guilty. Fine, $1,000. (F. D. C. No. 7659. Sample Nos. 84880-E,|84881-E, 84943-E, 84944-E, 90441-E.)|The Rheumatic No. 3 Tablets and the acetanilid, caffeine and sodium salicylate|compound tablets differed from their own declared standards of strength and|quality. The remainder of the products were sold under names recognized in|the National Formulary and differed in strength from the standards prescribed|in that compendium.|On April 5, 1943, the United States attorney for the Southern District of New|York filed an information against the Charles Killgore Co., Inc., Yonkers, N. Y.,|alleging shipments on September 8 and December 1 and 4, 1941, from the State|of New York into the States of Connecticut, New Jersey, and Rhode Island of|quantities of the above-named drugs which were adulterated and misbranded.|The salicylate soda tablets were alleged to be adulterated in that they pur-|ported to be and were represented as a drug the name of which is recognized|in the National Formulary, but their strength differed from the standard set|forth in that compendium since each tablet contained the equivalent of not|more than 89 percent of the labeled amount of sodium salicylate, whereas the|National Formulary provides that tablets of sodium salicylate shall contain|not less than 91 percent of the labeled amount; and their difference in strength|from the standard was not plainly stated on the label. They were alleged to be|misbranded in that the statement \"\"Salicylate Soda 5 grains,\"\" appearing on the|label, was false and misleading.|The strychnine sulfate tablets were alleged to be adulterated in that they|purported to be and were represented as a drug the name of which, tablets of|strychnine sulfate, is recognized in the National Formulary, but their strength|differed from the standard set forth in that compendium since ea^ch tablet con-|tained the equivalent of not more than 79.2 percent of the labeled amount of|strychnine sulfate, whereas the National Formularly provides that tablets of|strychnine\"\" sulfate of this size shall contain not less than 91 percent of the labeled|amount of strychnine sulfate; and their difference in strength from the standard|was not plainly stated on their label. They were alleged to be misbranded in that|the statement \"\"Strychnine Sulph 1-30 gr.,\"\" appearing on the label, was false|and misleading.|The Rheumatic No. 3 Tablets were alleged to be adulterated in that their|strength differed from and their quality fell below that which they purported|and were represented to possess, since each tablet was represented to contain 7-|grains of soda salicylate, i. e., sodium salicylate, whereas each tablet contained|not more than 6.18 grains of sodium salicylate. They were alleged to be mis-|branded in that the statement \"\"Soda Salicylate 7? grs.,\"\" appearing on the|label, was false and misleading.|The phenobarbital tablets were alleged to be adulterated in that they purported|to be and were represented as a drug the name of which is recognized in the|?See also Nos. 1002, 1003.|National Formulary, but their strength differed from the standard set forth in|that compendium, since each table contained the equivalent of not more than|85.1 percent of the labeled amount of phenobarbital, whereas the National|Formulary provides that tablets of phenobarbital of this size shall contain not|less than 92.5 percent of the labeled amount of phenobarbital; and their difference|in strength from the standard was not plainly stated on the label. They were|alleged to be misbranded in that the statement \"\"Phenobarbital 1? gr.,\"\" appearing|on the label, was false and misleading.|The acetanilid, caffeine and sodium salicylate compound tablets were alleged|to be adulterated in that their strength differed from and their quality fell below|that which they purported and were represented to possess, since each tablet was|represented to contain 2? grains of acetanilid and 1? grains of sodium salicylate,|whereas each tablet contained not more than 2.22 grains of acetanilid and not|more than 1.19 grains of sodium salicylate. They were alleged to be misbranded|in that the statement, \"\"Acetanilid 21-2 grs. * * * Sodium Salicylate 1, 3-4|grs.,\"\" appearing on the label, was false and misleading.|On May 28,1943, the defendant having changed his original plea of not guilty|to a plea of guilty, the court imposed a fine of $1,000.|1013. Adulteration and misbranding of Sun-Glow Cod Liver Oil Concentrate Tablets. U. S. v. Brewer & Co., Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $150.ddnj01013March 1945Brewer & Co., Inc., Worcester, Mass.Sun-Glow Cod Liver Oil Concentrate TabletsJuly 15, 1941MaineMassachusettsMaineDistrict of Massachusetts1013F. D. C. No. 7306. Sample No. 75736-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01013ddnj|1013. Adulteration and misbranding of Sun-Glow God Liver Oil Concentrate|Tablets. U. S. v. Brewer & Co., Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $150. (F. D.|C. No. 7306. Sample No. 75736-E.)|On October 8, 1942, the United States attorney for the District of Massachu-|setts filed an information against Brewer & Co., Inc., Worcester, Mass., alleging|shipment on or about July 15, 1941, from the State of Massachusetts into the|State of Maine of a quantity of the above-named product.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from and|its quality fell below that which it purported and was represented to possess, since|it purported and was represented to contain not less than 3,140 U. S. P. XI units|of vitamin A and not less than 314 U. S. P. XI units of vitamin D per tablet,|whereas it contained not more than 2,740 U. S. P. XI units of vitamin A and not|more than 235 U. S. P. XI units of vitamin D per tablet. It was alleged to be|misbranded in that the statements in its labeling, \"\"Each tablet contains not less|than 3140 U. S. P. XI units Vitamin A and 314 units Vitamin D,\"\" and \"\"These|tablets are biologically standardized to contain not less than 3140 U. S. P. XI|units Vitamin A and 314 U. S. P. XI units Vitamin D per tablet. * * *,\"\"|were false and misleading; and in that the statements in its labeling which|represented and suggested that it would be efficacious in the prevention and treat-|ment of disease in man by increasing general resistance and toning the system,|and that it would develop strong bones and good teeth, were false and mislead-|ing since it would not be efficacious for such purposes.|The article was also alleged to be adulterated and misbranded under the pro-|visions of the law applicable to foods, as reported in the notices of judgment|on foods.|On October 5, 1943, the defendant having entered a plea of guilty, the court|imposed a fine of $150.|1014. Adulteration and misbranding of Analgesic Tablets, boric acid compound ointment, Boro-Oxyquinoline Compound Vaginal Suppositories, aspirin tablets, and Eye Unguent, and misbranding of Hexamide Compound No. 1. U. S. v. McDonald Pharmacal Co., Inc., and Edmund L. McDonald. Pleas of guilty. Fines, $50.ddnj01014March 1945McDonald Pharmacal Co., Inc., St. Paul, Minn., and Edmund L. McDonaldAnalgesic Tablets, boric acid compound ointment, Boro-Oxyquinoline Compound Vaginal Suppositories, aspirin tablets, and Eye Unguent; Hexamide Compound No. 1December 10, 1941, to April 15, 1942South DakotaMinnesotaSouth DakotaDistrict of Minnesota1014F. D. C. No. 8758. Sample Nos. 76713-E, 76714-E, 76735-E, 76890-E, 76893-E, 76928-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01014ddnj|1014. Adulteration and misbranding of Analgesic Tablets, boric acid compound|ointment, Boro-Oxyauinoline Compound Vaginal Suppositories, aspirin|tablets, and Eye Unguent, and misbranding of Hexamide Compound IVo.|1. U. S. v. McDonald Pharmacal Co., Inc., and Edmund L. McDonald.|Fl*?as of guilty. Fines, $50. (F. D. C. No. 8758. Sample Nos. 76713-E,|76714-E, 76735-E, 76890-E, 76893-E, 76928-E.)|The aspirin tablets differed from the requirements of the National Formulary;|the Hexamide Compound No. 1 bore on its labeling false and misleading thera-|peutic claims; and the remaining products differed from their declared standards.|On April 6, 1943, the United States attorney for the District of Minnesota filed|an information against the McDonald Pharmacal Co., Inc., St. Paul, Minn., and|Edmund L. McDonald, alleging shipment within the period from on or about|December 10,1941, to on or about April 15,1942, from the State of Minnesota into|the State of South Dakota of a quantity of Hexamide Compound No. 1 which|was misbranded, and into the State of Iowa of a quantity of Boro-Oxyquinoline|Compound Vaginal Suppositories, and into the State of Wisconsin of quantities|of the other above-named products which were adulterated and misbranded.|Adulteration of the Analgesic Tablets was alleged in that their strength|differed from and their quality fell below that which they were represented to|possess since they were represented to contain in each tablet 3 grains of aspirin,|2 grains of acetphenetidin, and ? grain of caffeine citrate, whereas they con-|tained in each tablet not more than 2.38 grains of aspirin, not more than 1.60|grains of acetphenetidin, and not more than 0.40 grain of caffeine citrate. They|were alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, \"\"Aspirin 3 grs., Aeetphene-|tidin 2 grs., Caffeine Citrate ? grs.,\"\" borne on the label, were false and|misleading.|Adulteration of the boric acid compound ointment was alleged in that its|strength differed from and its quality fell below that which it was represented to|possess since it was represented to be an antiseptic, whereas it was not. It was|alleged to be misbranded in that the statement \"\"An excellent antiseptic,\"\" borne|on the label, was false and misleading.|The Boro-Oxyquinoline Compound Vaginal Suppositories were alleged to be|adulterated in that their strength differed from that which they were represented|to possess since they were represented to contain 2 grains of quinine sulfate,|whereas they contained not more than 1.44 grains of quinine sulfate. They were|alleged to be misbranded in that the statement \"\"Quinine Sulphate 2 gr.,\"\" borne|on the label, was false and misleading.|The Eye Unguent was alleged to be adulterated. in that its strength differed|from that which it was represented to possess since it was represented to contain 2|percent of yellow oxide of mercury, whereas it contained not less than 2.3 percent|of yellow oxide of mercury. It was alleged to be misbranded in that the state-|ment '\"\"Yellow Oxide Mercury 2?,\"\" borne on its label, was false and misleading.|The aspirin tablets were alleged to be adulterated in that they purported to|be and were represented as a drug the names of which, tablets of acetylsalicylic|acid and aspirin tablets, are recognized in the National Formulary, an official|compendium, but their strength differed from the standard set forth in that com-|pendium since each tablet contained the equivalent of not more than 85.6 percent|of the labeled amount of acetylsalicylic acid, whereas the National Formulary|provides that tablets of acetylsalicylic acid or aspirin tablets shall contain not|less than 92.5 percent of the labeled amount of acetylsalicylic acid; and their|difference in strength from.such standard was not plainly stated on the label.|They were alleged to be misbranded in that the statement \"\"Aspirin Acid Ace-|tylsalicylic 5 Grains,\"\" borne on the label, was false and misleading.|Analysis of a sample of the Hexamide Compound No. 1 showed that it con-|sisted essentially of salol, methenamine, small proportions of benzoic acid and|methylene blue, and not more than 0.012 grain of sulfanilamide per tablet. It|was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, \"\"(Formerly Cystitis)|* * * Recommended in the treatment of Cystitis and Gonorrhea,\"\" borne on|its label, were false and misleading since the statements represented and sug-|gested that the article would be efficacious in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or|prevention of cystitis and gonorrhea, whereas it would not be efficacious for such|purposes. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the statement \"\"Sul-|fanilamide,\"\" borne on its label, was misleading since the statement suggested|and created in the mind of the reader the impression and belief that the article,|when used according to directions, \"\"One or two tablets three times a day,\"\" would|furnish the consumer with a therapeutically significant amount of sulfanilamide,|whereas the article, when used according to directions, would not furnish the|consumer with a significant amount of sulfanilamide, since the maximum daily|dosage of the article, 6 tablets, as provided by the directions, would furnish an|inconsequential amount of sulfanilamide.|On April 6, 1943, the defendants having entered pleas of guilty, the court|imposed a fine of $25 on each defendant.|1024. Adulteration of Special Enteric Tablets. U. S. v. 7,700 Special Enteric Tablets. Decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj01024March 1945Charles H. Dietz, Inc.Special Enteric TabletsJuly 30, 1942Omaha, Nebr.St. Louis, Mo.Omaha, Nebr.District of Nebraska1024F. D. C. No. 9599. Sample No. 3149-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01024ddnj|1024. Adulteration of Special Enteric Tablets. U. S. v. 7,700 Special Enteric|Tablets. Decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 9599.|Sample No. 3149-F.)|Analysis of a sample of this product showed that each tablet contained not|more than 1.01 grains of nicotine sulfate per tablet.|On March 23, 1943, the United States attorney for the District of Nebraska filed|a libel against 7,700 Special Enteric Tablets at Omaha, Nebr., alleging that the|article had been shipped on or about July 30, 1942, from St. Louis, Mo., by|Charles H. Dietz, Inc.; and charging that it was adulterated. The article was|labeled in part: \"\"Special Enteric SC Red Tablet Rx 2940 Each C. T. contains:|Nicotine sulphate?1.9375 gr.\"\" (the letters C. T. meaning compressed tablet).|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from|that which it was represented to possess.|On June 9, 1943, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|1015. Adulteration and misbranding of cod liver oil. U. S. v. The Swiftide Co. Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $100.ddnj01015March 1945Swiftide Co., Portland, Mainecod liver oilFebruary 7 and April 4, 1942Missouri and OhioMaineMissouri and OhioDistrict of Maine1015F. D. C. No. 8783. Sample Nos. 71520-E, 80695-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01015ddnj|1015. Adulteration and misbranding of cod liver oil. U. S. v. The Swiftlde Co.|Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $100. (F. D. C. No. 8783. Sample Nos.|71520-E, 80695-E.)|On January 18, 1943, the United States attorney for the District of Maine filed|an information against the Swiftide Co., Portland, Maine, alleging shipment on|or about February 7 and April 4, 1942, from the State of Maine into the States|of Missouri and Ohio of a number of drums of cod liver oil. The article was|labeled in part: \"\"Swiftide Brand Cod Liver Oil.\"\"|It was alleged to be adulterated in that it was represented as a drug the name|of which, cod liver oil, is recognized in the United States Pharmacopoeia, an|official compendium, but its quality fell below the standard set forth therein|since that compendium provides that cod liver oil does not have a ra,ncid odor,|that not more 1 cc. of tenth-normal sodium hydroxide is required to neutralize the|acids contained in 2 grams thereof, and that, when tested for non-destearinated|cold liver oil, the oil remains fluid and does not deposit stearin, whereas the|article had a rancid odor, required tenth-normal sodium hydroxide in amounts|varying from 1.8 to 5.18 cc. to neutralize the free acids contained in 2 grams of|the article, and the Missouri lot, when tested for non-destearinated cod liver oil,|produced a solid mass, indicating that such lot was non-destearinated, and the|standard of quality and purity was not declared on its label.|The Missouri lot was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement in its|labeling, \"\"Guaranteed to Contain Not Less Than 200 A. O. A. O. Units Vitamin|D Not Less Than 1000 Units Vitamin A per Gramme of Oil,\"\" was false and mis-|leading since it contained not more than 100 A. O. A. C. units of vitamin D and|not more than 700 U. S. P. units of vitamin A per gram.|The Ohio lot was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement in its label-|ing, \"\"Guaranteed to Contain Not Less Than 200 A. O. A. C. Units Vitamin|D * * * per Gramme of Oil,\"\" was false and misleading since it contained not|more than 85 A. O. A. C. units of vitamin D per gram.|On September 29, 1943, the defendant having entered a plea of nolo contendere,|the court imposed a fine of $100.|1016. Adulteration and misbranding of surgical catgut. U. S. v. Flanders-Day Co. Plea of guilty. Fine, $100.ddnj01016March 1945Flanders-Day Co., a corporation, Boston, Mass.surgical catgutAugust 25, September 17, and October 14, 1942New York and PennsylvaniaMassachusettsNew York and PennsylvaniaDistrict of Massachusetts1016F. D. C. No. 8821. Sample Nos. 22551-F, 32801-F, 32806-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01016ddnj|1016. Adulteration and misbranding of surgical catgut. U. S. v. Flanders-Day|Co. Plea of guilty. Fine, $100. (F. D. C. No. 8821. Sample Nos. 22551-F,|32801-F, 32806-F.)|On May 10,1943, the United States attorney for the District of Massachusetts|filed an information against the Flanders-Day Co., a corporation, Boston, Mass.,|alleging shipment on or about August 25, September 17, and October 14, 1942,|from the State of Massachusetts into the States of New York and Pennsylvania|of quantities of surgical catgut which was adulterated and misbranded. The|article was labeled in part: (Carton) \"\"Flanders Standard Sutures and Liga-|tures * * * U. S. P. Surgical Catgut Sterile,\"\" and (tubes in 2 of the ship-|ments) \"\"U. S. P. Surgical Catgut.\"\"|Examination of samples of the article showed that it was contaminated with|viable aerobic and, in 2 of the shipments, anaerobic, spore-bearing bacteria.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to be and was|represented as a drug, surgical catgut, the name of which is recognized in the|United States Pharmacopoeia (second supplement, eleventh revision), an official|compendium, but its quality and purity fell below the standard set forth therein|since it was not sterile and did not meet the test for sterility of solids described|in that compendium.|It was alleged to be misbranded in the statements in the labeling, (cartons)|\"\"U. S. P. Surgical Catgut Sterile,\"\" and (tubes) \"\"U. S. P. Surgical Catgut,\"\" were|false and misleading.|On May 25, 1943, the defendant having entered a plea of guilty, the court|imposed a fine of $100.|1017. Adulteration and misbranding of Codecol and ephedrine sulfate solution. U. S. v. Harvey Laboratories, Inc. Plea of nolo contendere. Total fine, 200.ddnj01017March 1945Harvey Laboratories, Inc., Philadelphia, Pa.Codecol and ephedrine sulfate solutionSsptember 22 and December 12, 1942New JerseyPennsylvaniaNew JerseyEastern District of Pennsylvania1017F. D. C. No. 8834. Sample Nos. 23000-F, 23326-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01017ddnj|1017. Adulteration and misbranding of Codecol and ephedrine sulfate solution.|U. S. v. Harvey Laboratories, Inc. Plea of nolo contendere. Total fine,|$200. (F. D. C. No. 8834. Sample Nos. 23000-F, 2332&-F.)|On April 30, 1943, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Penn-|sylvania filed an information against the Harvey Laboratories, Inc., Philadelphia,|Pa., alleging shipment on or about Ssptember 22 and December 12,1942, from the|State of Pennsylvania into the State of New Jersey of quantities of Codecol and|ephedrine sulfate solution that were adulterated and misbranded.|Adulteration of the articles was alleged in that their strength differed in the|following respects from that which they were represented to possess: The Codecol|was represented to contain, in each fluid ounce, 8 grains of ammonium chloride|and ? grain of antimony potassium tartrate, whereas it contained not more than|6.73 grains of ammonium chloride and not more than 0.1 grain of antimony|potassium tartrate per fluid ounce; the ephedrine sulfate solution was rep-|resented to contain 1 percent of ephedrine sulfate, whereas it contained not more|than 0.78 percent of ephedrine sulfate.|The articles were alleged to be misbranded in that the statements appearing in|the labeling of the Codecol, \"\"Ammonium Chloride . . . 8 err. Antimony Potassium|Tartrate . . . y2 gr. * * * qs. . . . 1 oz.,\"\" and, \"\"Ephedrine Sulfate 1?\"\"|borne on the bottle label of the ephedrine sulfate solution, were false and mis-|leading.|On June 2, 1943, the defendant having entered a plea of nolo contendere, the|court imposed a fine of $50 upon each of the 4 counts, a total of $200.|1018. Adulteration and misbranding of elixir of iron, quinine and strychnine phosphates. U. S. v. The Liebenthal Brothers Co. (Mario Products Co.). Plea of guilty. Fine, $500 and costs.ddnj01018March 1945Liebenthal Brothers Co., a corporation doing business under the name of the Mario Products Co., Cleveland, Ohioelixir of iron, quinine and strychnine phosphatesMay 7, 1942MissouriOhioMissouriNorthern District of Ohio1018F. D. C. No. 8772. Sample No. 5926-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01018ddnj|1018. Adulteration and misbranding of elixir of iron, quinine and strychnine|phosphates. IT. S. v. The Liebenthal Brothers Co. (Mario Products Co.).|Plea of guilty. Fine, $500 and costs. (F. D. C. No. 8772. Sample No.|5926-F.)|On January 29, 1943, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Ohio filed an information against the Liebenthal Brothers Co.. a corporation|doing business under the name of the Mario Products Co., Cleveland, Ohio, alleging|shipment on or about May 7, 1942, from the State of Ohio into the State of|Missouri of a quantity of elixir of iron, quinine, and strychnine phosphates which|was adulterated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to be a drug; the|name of which is recognized in the National Formulary, an official compendium,|but its strength differed from the standard set forth therein since it contained not|more than 4.22 grams of quinine phosphate per 1,000 cc, whereas it should have|contained 5 grams of quinine phosphate per 1,000 cc.; and the respect in which|it differed from the standard set forth in the Formulary was not plainly stated on|the label.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements in its labeling, \"\"Elixir|Iron Quinine and Strychnine Phosphates. * * * This is not the N. F. Formula.|It varies from the N. F. formula in that it contains 9.5? alcohol and 12-|glycerin by volume whereas the N. F. product contains approximately 24-|alcohol and 30? glycerine by volume,\"\" were false and misleading|since these statements represented and suggested that the strength of the|article conformed in all respects with the standard for elixir of iron, quinine|and strychnine phosphates set forth in the National Formulary with the excep-|tions indicated, whereas its strength did not conform to the standard with the|said exceptions, but differed from the standard in the further respect that it|was deficient in quinine phosphate.|On April 13, 1943, the defendant having entered a plea of guilty, the court|imposed a fine of $500 and costs.|1279. Misbranding of Food Ferrin, Kaba, and Lacto-Dextrin. U. S. v. 13 Jars of Food Ferrin, 5 Cartons of Kaba, and 70 Packages of Lacto-Dextrin. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj01279October 1945Battle Greek Food Co.Food Ferrin, Kaba, and Lacto-DextrinJuly 22, 1943, and January 31, 1944Chicago, Ill.Battle Creek, Mi,ch.Chicago, Ill.Northern District of Illinois1279F. D. C. No. 12107. Sample Nos. 39182-F to 3918-F, incl.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01279ddnj|1279. Misbranding of Food Ferrin, Kaba, and Lacto-Dextrin. V. S. v. 13 Jars of|Food Ferrin, 5 Cartons of Kaba, and 70 Packages of Lacto-Dextrin. De-|fault decrees of condemnation and destruction; (F. D. C. No. 12107.|Sample Nos. 39182-F to 3918?-F, incl.)|On April 13, 1944, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Illinois filed libels against the above-mentioned products at Chicago, 111., alleging|that the articles had been shipped by the Battle Greek Food Co. between the|approximate dates of July 22, 1943, and January 31, 1944, from Battle Creek,|Mi,ch.|Examination disclosed that the Food Ferrin yielded 1.34 percent of ash (total|mineral matter) ; and that 1 tablespoonful of the preparation weighed approx-|imately 16 grams and contained approximately 16 milligrams of iron. The|article was alleged to be misbranded in that a leaflet entitled \"\"Do You Need|Iron?\"\, which accompanied the article, contained the following statements: \"\"did|you know that 10,000,000 of your red blood cells die every second. If they aren't|replaced by fresh, new red blood cells, you may soon grow jpale, listless, lacking|energy and endurance and become an easy prey to disease,\"\" which statements|were misleading since the labeling of the_article failed to reveal the material|fact that the body normally replaces red blood cells that die, so that the death|of the cells does not ordinarily result in paleness, listlessness, lack of energy and|endurance, and increased susceptibility to disease.|The Food Ferrin was alleged to be misbranded further because of false and|misleading statements in accompanying leaflets entitled \"\"Do You Need Iron?\"\,|\"\"No More 'Menu Monotony',\"\" and \"\"Plan Your Meals for Health,\"\" and in an ac-|companying booklet entitled \"\"Healthful Living,\"\" which represented and implied|that the article, when taken in accordance with the directions on the package,|would supply sufficient iron to constitute an adequate treatment in iron-deficiency|conditions; that ordinary foodstuffs do not supply the body with ample supplies|of iron; that the article would round out the diet and encourage the growth of|new, vigorous, red blood; that it was a remedy for a fagged-out condition and for|absence of appetite; that it was rich in organic minerals other than iron, and|that it would supply significant amounts of minerals other than iron; that it|would constitute an adequate agent for nutritional anemia and increase the|hemoglobin content of the blood; and that its iron content was more readily|available than, iron in common foods. The article would not accomplish the|results claimed, suggested, and implied in the labeling; ordinary foodstuffs pro-|vide ample supplies of iron; and the iron content of the article was not more|readily available than is iron in common food.|Examination disclosed that the Kaba consisted essentially of a gum, milk sugar,|starch, yeast, and salt. The article was alleged to be misbranded because of false|and misleading statements in accompanying leaflets entitled \"\"Kaba,\"\" and \"\"You|Too Can Reduce,\"\" which represented and implied that use of the article would|cause regularity of the bowels, help to re-educate the constipated colon, serve|as a treatment for colitis, keep one feeling \"\"in the pink.\"\" remedy a furry tongue.|foul breath, \"\"loggy\"\" head, or a tight, \"\"unnatural feeling\"\" in the abdomen, and|cause reduction in weight. The article would not be effective to produce the|results claimed.|Examination disclosed that the Lacto-Dextrin consisted essentially of milk|sugar (approximately 80.5 percent) and dextrin (approximately 18.6 percent).|The article was alleged to be misbranded because of false and misleading state-|ments on the label and in accompanying leaflets entitled \"\"Tired?,\"\" \"\"Healthfur|Living,\"\" and \"\"Diet Suggestions for High Blood Pressure,\"\" which represented|and implied that the article would promote the growth of protective organisms,|prevent or relieve tiredness, a feeling of sluggishness, being under par, coated|tongue, foul breath, headaches, fatigue, a tired feeling, listlessness, excessive in-|testinal putrefaction, malaise, pains, etc.; and that it would eliminate toxins or|keep one free from toxic symptoms, remedy inability to concentrate, and be|effective in the treatment of high blood pressure. The article would not be|effective to produce the results claimed and implied in the labeling.|The articles were also alleged to be misbranded under the provisions of the|law applicable to foods, as reported in notices of judgment on foods.|On June 7, 1944, no claimant having appeared, judgments of condemnation|were entered and the products were ordered destroyed.|1019. Adulteration and misbranding of sterile solution of chorionic gonadotropic hormone. U. S. v. Tuteur & Co., Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $750.ddnj01019March 1945Tuteur & Co., Inc., New York, N. Y.sterile solution of chorionic gonadotropic hormoneAugust 26, 1942PennsylvaniaNew YorkPennsylvaniaSouthern District of New York1019F. D. C. No. 8775. Sample No. 22909-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01019ddnj|1019. Adulteration and misbranding' of sterile solution of chorionic gonadotropic|hormone. U. S. v. Tuteur & Co., Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $750.|(F. D. C. No. 8775. Sample No. 22909-F.)|On July 30, 1943, the United States attorney for the Southern District of New|York fi'ed an information against Tuteur & Co., Inc., New York, N. Y., alleging|shipment on or about August 26,1942, from the State of New York into the State|of Pennsylvania of a quantity of the above-named product which was adulterated|and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from and|its quality fell below that which it purported and was represented to possess,|since it purported and was represented to possess, in each 10 cc. thereof, a|physiological activity equivalent to 5,000 International Units of chorionic gonado-|tropic hormone, and, in each cubic centimeter thereof, a physiological activity|equivalent to 500 International Units of anterior pituitary-like sex hormone,|whereas the article possessed, in each 10 cc, a physiological activity equivalent|to not more than 1,650 International Units of chorionic gonadotropic hormone,|and, in each cubic centimeter, a physiological activity equivalent to not more|than 165 International Units of anterior pituitary-like sex hormone.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, \"\"10 cc. * * *|Package 5,000 International Units Sterile Solution Chorionic Gonadotropic Hor-|mone * * * Contains Anterior pituitary-like sex hormone standardized to a|potency of 500 International Units per cc,\"\" borne on the label, were false and|misleading.|On August 12, 1943, the defendant having entered a plea of guilty, the court|imposed a fine of $375 on each of the 2 counts in the information, a total of $750.|1020. Adulteration and misbranding of sterile solution of chorionic gonadotropic hormone. U. S. v. 99 Vials of Sterile Solution Chorionic Gonadotropic Hormone. Decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj01020March 1945Tuteur & Co., Inc.sterile solution of chorionic gonadotropic hormoneAugust 28, 1942Philadelphia, Pa.New York, N. Y.Philadelphia, Pa.Eastern District of Pennsylvania1020F. D. C. No. 8566. Sample No. 22909-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01020ddnj|1020. Adulteration and misbranding of sterile solution of chorionic gonadotropic|hormone. U. S. y. 99 Vials of Sterile Solution Chorionic Gonadotropic|Hormone. Decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 8566.|Sample No. 22909-F.)|Examination showed that the potency of this preparation was not greater than|165 International Units per cubic centimeter of chorionic gonadotropic hormone.|On October 13, 1942, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Pennsylvania filed a libel against 99 vials of the above-named product at Phila-|delphia, Pa., alleging that the article had been shipped on or about August 28,|1942, from New York, N. Y., by Tuteur & Co., Inc.; and charging that it was|adulterated and misbranded. Some of the vials were labeled in part: \"\"10-|cc. * * * Package 5,000 Internationa] Units * * * Contains Anterior|pituitary-like sex hormone standardized to a potency of 500 International Units|per cc.\"\" Other vials when shipped were labeled in part: \"\"10 cc. * * * Pack-|age 1,000 International Units * * * Contains Anterior pituitary-like sex hor-|mone standardized to a potency of 100 International Units per cc.\"\"; but after|their receipt the shipper represented to the consignee that the labels were in|error and that the product actually contained 500 International Units per cubic|centimeter.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from that|which it purported or was represented to possess, \"\"Anterior pituitary-like sex|hormone standardized to a potency of 500 International Units per cc\"\"|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, on its label, \"\"10|cc. * * * Package 5,C00 International Units * * * Chorionic Gonado-|tropic Hormone,\"\" and \"\"Contains Anterior pituitary-like sex hormone standardized|to a potency of 500 International Units per cc,\"\" were false and misleading since|the article had a potency materially less than 500 International Units per cubic|centimeter (5,000 International Units per 10 cc.) of chorionic gonadotropic|hormone.|On November 18,1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|1021. Adulteration of Akerite Glycerin Alternate. U. S. v. 1 Keg of Akerite (Alternate). Decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj01021March 1945Akerite Chemical Works, Inc.Akerite Glycerin AlternateJanuary 25, 1943Philadelphia, Pa.Norwood Park, Ill.Philadelphia, Pa.Eastern District of Pennsylvania1021F. D. C. No. 9463. Sample No. 23339-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01021ddnj|1021. Adulteration of Akerite Glycerin Alternate. U. S. v, 1 Keg of Akerite|(Alternate). Decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No.|9463. Sample No. 23339-F.)|On March 1, 1943, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Pennsylvania filed a libel against 1 keg containing approximately 48 pounds of|Akerite Glycerin Alternate at Philadelphia, Pa., alleging that the article had been|shipped on or about January 25, 1943, from Norwood Park, 111., by the Akerite|Chemical Works, Inc.; and charging that it was adulterated.|The product was alleged to be adulterated (1) in that its purity and quality|fell below that which it purported or was represented to possess, (on the invoice)|\"\"Glycerin Alternate,\"\" since it was not an alternate for glycerin but was a|poisonous mixture containing Diethylene glycol; and (2) in that a poisonous|chemical compound, Diethylene glycol, had been substituted in part for the article,|(in a folder entitled \"\"Akerite Glycerin Substitute,\"\" supplied to the consignee)|\"\"Akerite Glycerin Substitute is an aqueous solution derived from dextrin, starch|and corn sugar by a special process.\"\"|The article was also alleged to be adulterated under the provisions of the law|applicable to foods as reported in the notices of judgment on foods, No. 5762. |On March 23, 1943, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|1022. Adulteration and misbranding of Brom-Acet. U. S. v. 19 Dozen Packages of Brom-Acet. Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered released under bond for relabeling.ddnj01022March 1945Purity Drug Co., Inc.Brom-AcetJune 18 and 23 and July 11, 1942Los Angeles, Calif.New York, N. Y.Los Angeles, Calif.Southern District of California1022F. D. C. No. 8457. Sample Nos. 13914-F, 13922-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01022ddnj|1022. Adulteration and misbranding of Brom-Acet. TT. S. v. 19 Dozen Packages|of Brom-Acet. Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered re-|leased under bond for relabeling. (F. D. C. No. 8457. Sample Nos. 13914-F,|13922-F.)|Analyses of samples of this product showed the presence of sodium bromide in|amounts ranging from 10.4 to 11.9 grains per ounce.|On September 29, 1942, the United States attorney for the Southern District|of California filed a libel against 19 dozen packages of Brom-Acet at Los Angeles,|Calif., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or|about June 18 and 23 and July 11, 1942, by the Purity Drug Co., Inc., from New|York, N. Y.; and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from|that which it was represented to possess. It was alleged to be misbranded in that|it was fabricated from two or more ingredients and its label failed to bear a|statement of the quantity or proportion of sodium bromide contained therein|since the statement on the label, \"\"Each Ounce contains Sodium Bromide 16|Grains,\"\" was not correct.|On March 2, 1943, the Purity Drug Co., Inc., claimant, having admitted the|allegations of the libel, judgment of condemnation was entered and the product|was ordered released under bond for relabeling or reprocessing in compliance|with the law. The product was satisfactorily relabeled.|1023. Adulteration and misbranding of calomel. U. S. v. 7 Cartons and 14 Cartons of Calomel. Decrees of condemnation. Product ordered released undei bond for reprocessing.ddnj01023March 1945F. W. Berk & Co., Inc., New York, N. YcalomelOctober 10 and 12, 1942Richmond, Va.Newark, N. J.Richmond, Va.Eastern District of Virginia and the District of Colorado1023F. D. C. Nos. 8901, 8951. Sample Nos. 16413-F, 16512-F, 25410-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01023ddnj|1023. Adulteration and misbranding of calomel. U. S. v. 7 Cartons and 14 Cartons|of Calomel. Decrees of condemnation. Product ordered released undei|bond for reprocessing. (F. D. C. Nos. 8901, 8951. Sample Nos. 16413-F,|16512-F, 25410-F.)|Examination showed that the chloride (mercury bichloride) content of one|portion of this product (7 cartons) was from 2 to 4 times the limit permitted by|the United States Pharmacopoeia, and that of the other portion was from 3.5 to|8 times such limit.|On November 20 and December 18, 1942, the United States attorneys for the|Eastern District of Virginia and the District of Colorado filed libels against 7|cartons of calomel at Richmond, Va., and 14 cartons at Denver, Colo., each car-|ton containing 100 bottles, alleging that the article, which had been consigned by|the Day Chemical Co., had been shipped on or about October 10 and 12, 1942,|from Newark, N. J.; and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded. The|article was labeled in part :\"\"4 Oz. * * * Calomel (Mild Mercurous Chloride)|U. S. P. XI Poison Mfd. by F. W. Berk Co., Inc., Wood Ridge, N. J. Day|Chemical Co., * * * Contractor.\"\"|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to be and was|represented as a drug, the name of which is recognized in the United States|Pharmacopoeia, an official compendium, but its purity fell below the standard set|forth therein since the Pharmacopoeia provides that, when tested as prescribed,|the ether extract from 2 grams of calomel shall show no more chloride (mercury|bichloride) than corresponds to 0.1 cc! of 50th normal hydrochloric acid, whereas|the article, when tested by the method prescribed in that compendium, contained|more chloride than corresponded to 0.1 cc. of 50th normal hydrochloric acid.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement appearing on its label,|\"\"Calomel (Mild Mercurous Chloride) U. S. P. XI,\"\" was false and misleading since|the article was not calomel (mild mercurous chloride) U. S. P. XI.|On January 18 and 28, 1943, F. W. Berk & Co., Inc., New York, N. Y., having|appeared as claimant for the lot at Richmond, and F. W. Berk & Co., Inc., and the|Day Chemical Co. having appeared as claimants for the lot at Denver, and having|admitted the allegations of the libels, judgments of condemnation were entered and|the product was ordered released under bond for reprocessing under the super-|vision of the Food and Drug Administration.|1041. Misbranding of Vitaminerals VM No. 1, VM No. 150, VM 100, VM 120, and VM No. 204 Pneumatic Dilator. U. S. v. John Francis Gorman (Vitaminerals Co.). Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $1,000 on 2 counts, and probation for 1 year on 3 counts.ddnj01041March 1945John Francis Gorman, trading as the Vitaminerals Co., Los Angeles, Calif.Vitaminerals VM No. 1, VM No. 150, VM 100, VM 120, and VM No. 204 Pneumatic DilatorMay 5, 1942ColoradoCaliforniaColoradoSouthern District of California1041F. D. C. No. 8791. Sample Nos. 81451-E, 81453-E to 81455-E, incl.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01041ddnj|1041. Misbranding of Vitaminerals VM No. 1, VM No. 150, VM 100, VM 120,|and VM No. 204 Pneumatic Dilator. U. S. v. John Francis Gorman (Vita-|minerals Co.). Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $1,000 on 2 counts, and|?J??ation *?*. i*ye,ar on^3 c?i??*S' (F. D. C. No. 8791. Sample Nos. 81451-E,?81453-E to 81455-E, incl.)|On April 30', 1943, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|California filed an information against John Francis Gorman, trading as the|Vitaminerals Co., Los Angeles, Calif., alleging shipment on or about May 5,|1942, from the State of California into the State of Colorado of a quantity of|the above-named products which were misbranded.|Examination of Vitaminerals VM No. 1 disclosed that this article was in the|form of orange-colored tablets containing a large proportion of rhubarb root|tissues together with Irish moss tissues (Chondrus), okra tissues, cranberry fruit|tissues, parsley leaf tissues, and acid-insoluble material. It was alleged to be|misbranded in that the statements in its labeling which created in the mind|of the reader the impression that the article was a supplement in the dietary|treatment of constipation; that the ingredient rhubarb root was a food; and|that the article derived its physiological activity principally from concentrates|and extracts from common vegetables used for food purposes, and from vitamins,|were misleading since the article was not a supplement in the dietary treatment|of constipation, but was a laxative drug; the ingredient rhubarb root is not a|food but is a drug; and the article did not derive its physiological activity|principally from concentrates and extracts from common vegetables used for|food purposes, and from vitamins, but derived its physiological activity princi-|pally from the plant drug rhubarb. It was alleged to be misbranded further (1)|in that the statements in its labeling which represented and suggested that the|article would be efficacious as a dietary treatment of constipation; that it|possessed anti-infective value; that it would be an efficacious tonic treatment|for the smooth muscle; that it would facilitate the changing of the colonic flora|so as to reduce the colonic bacilli count and the resulting inflammation of the|colonic mucosa; that it would promote peristaltic activity, and act practically|in the treatment of constipation; that it would produce normal elimination; that|it would be efficacious in the primary treatment of hemorrhoids; and that it|would be efficacious in the secondary treatment of arthritis due to excess calcium,|and arthritis due to systemic origin, colds, neuralgia, neurosis, obesity, and|tonsilitis were false and misleading since the article would not be efficacious|for the purposes recommended or accomplish the results claimed; (2) in that|the name \"\"Vitamineral\"\" was misleading since the name suggested and created|the impression in the mind of the reader that the article derived its physiological|activity solely from vitamins and minerals and contained no other physiologi-|cally active ingredient, whereas the article contained rhubarb root, from which|it derived its principal physiological activity; and (3) in that the statements|in its labeling, \"\"Ash (Mineral matters*) 22.20?,\"\" and \"\"Mineral Matter includes:|Calcium 2.18? Phorphorus 0.84? Potassium 1.15? Sodium 0.67? Mag-|nesium 0.34? Chlorine 0.03? Sulphur 0.51? Manganese 0.0023? Iron|0.115? Copper 0.0013? Iodine 0.002?,\"\" were misleading since those state-|ments suggested and created the impression in the mind of the reader that|the article contained the minerals listed therein in amounts which, when taken|in accordance with directions on the label, \"\"Two to four tablets, one or two|before breakfast and upon retiring,\"\" would furnish the minerals in quantities|sufficient to contribute in an important respect to the daily requirements of the|body for those minerals, whereas the article, when taken according to the|directions, would not furnish such quantities of the minerals because the article|contained inconsequential amounts of potassium, sodium, chlorine, magnesium,|sulfur, manganese, and copper; and 4 tablets, the maximum amount recom-|mended in the directions, would furnish less than one-thirtieth the minimum|daily requirement of the body for phosphorus, less than one-tenth the minimum|daily requirement for calcium, less than one-fifth the minimum daily requirement|for iodine, and less than one-third the minimum daily requirement for iron.|Analysis of Vitaminerals VM No. 150 showed that it consisted of a brownish-|yellow, perfumed ointment containing benzocaine. It was alleged to be mis-|branded (1) in that the statements in its labeling, \"\"fortified with 8? Benzocaine|Benzoate and Benzocaine,\"\" were false and misleading since the article contained|no benzocaine benzoate and not more than 5.19 percent of benzocaine; (2) in that|the statements in the labeling which represented and suggested that the article|would be efficacious in the treatment of skin conditions, wounds, burns, hemor-|rhoids, ear infections, and tetany were false and misleading since the article|would not be so efficacious; and (3) in that the name \"\"Vitaminerals\"\" was|misleading since that name suggested and created the impression in the mind|of the reader that the article derived its physiological activity solely from|vitamins and minerals, whereas it derived its physiological activity from the|physiologically active drug benzocaine.|Examination of the Pneumatic Dilator disclosed that this device was com-|posed of 2 red rubber bulbs connected to each other through a one-way valve,|and then through a foot of black rubber tubing to a steel tube partly covered|with soft white rubber. This steel tube was equipped with a protective hard|rubber or plastic cap at one end and a hard rubber or plastic, flanged shield|near the other end in such a manner that the intervening portion of steel|tubing was completely covered with the soft white rubber. This rubber covering|could be inflated to a diameter of at least 2 inches by squeezing the first rubber|bulb several times. The second rubber bulb produced a further inflation when|compressed and was equipped with a release valve allowing for complete|deflation when desired. The device was packed in a box containing 1 dozen|white rubber finger cots and 1 jar of VM No. 150. The device was. alleged to|be misbranded because of the false and misleading statements in its labeling|which represented and suggested that the device would be an efficacious and|appropriate treatment for external and Internal hemorrhoids, thrombotic type|of simple varicosities with or without ulceration, prolapsed varicosities, benign|anal strictures, post-operative or post-injection strictures, spastic anal sphincters|associated with inflammatory conditions of the intestinal tract, and with|fissures, cryptitis, anal ulcers, anal excoriations, anal dermatosis, neurological|conditions, genito-urinary conditions (prostatitis, uterine retroflexion, cervicitis,|endometritis), pruritis and associated conditions, spastic constipation, also|vaginismus, vaginodynia, prostatic disorders, spastic sphincters, proctitis, and|other pathologies of the anorectal region; that the device was rapidly sup-|planting manual dilation, divulsion, and the use of solid or semi-solid dilators|and digital prostatic massage; that the device would eliminate many unsatis-|factory operations which are painful and injurious to inflamed tissues; that it|would be efficacious to increase local metabolism and neuromuscular function;|that it would bring about rapid healing, and would help progressively to|re-establish normal physiological action in the rectum, anus, and contiguous|structures; and that it would be an efficacious and appropriate treatment or|prevention of nervous headaches, spastic colitis, low back pain or lumbago,|biliousness, indigestion, dysmenorrhea, sciatica, lumbo-sacral soreness, nervous-|ness, and neurasthenia.|Analysis of Vitaminerals VM 100 Vaginal Suppositories disclosed that the|article consisted of plain gelatin capsules containing a mineral substance com-|posed largely of sulfate, aluminum, acid-insoluble matter, and ferric iron, along|with a small amount of ferrous iron and a possible trace of phosphate. It|was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement in its labeling, \"\"containing|ferric sulfate, ferrous sulfate, and ferric phosphate,\"\" was false and misleading|since it represented and suggested that the article contained significant amounts|of ferric sulfate, ferrous sulfate, and ferric phosphate, and that it contained no|aluminum sulfate, whereas the article contained no ferric sulfate or ferrous|sulfate, and an insignificant proportion of ferric phosphate, and did contain a|material amount of aluminmn sulfate. It was alleged to be misbranded further|because of false and misleading statements in its labeling which represented|and suggested that the article would be efficacious to produce toning and|granulation of new tissues; that it would cause pathological tissue to slough|with every indication of a natural reaction, leaving no scar tissue; that it was|an efficacious and appropriate treatment for endocervicitis, endometritis, vagi-|nitis, polypus-vaginal and uterine, cysts, leucorrhea, dysmenorrhea, and ame-|norrhea ; that it would be efficacious in the treatment of abnormal tissue|growths; that it would be an efficacious and appropriate treatment in cases of|hemorrhage; and that it was an efficacious and appropriate primary treatment|for uterine cramps, dementia, and deficient menstruation.|Analysis of Vitaminerals VM 120 disclosed that it consisted of an acidic, aque-|ous solution containing sulfate, aluminum, glycerin, ferric iron, and a trace of|ferrous iron. It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements in its|labeling, \"\"An Astringent and detergent liquid concentrate containing Ferric Sul-|phate derived from natural sources,\"\" and \"\"Ferric Sulphate, Ferrous Sulphate and|Ferric Phosphate,\"\" were false and misleading, since those statements repre-|sented and suggested and created the impression in the mind of the reader that|the article contained ferric phosphate and derived its astringent properties solely|from ferric sulfate, ferrous sulfate and ferric phosphate, whereas the article con-|tained little, if any, ferric phosphate, and did not derive its astringent properties|solely from ferric sulfate, ferrous sulfate and ferric phosphate, but did contain a|large amount of aluminum sulfate, from which its astringent properties were|largely derived. It was alleged to be misbranded further because of false and|misleading statements in its labeling which represented and suggested that the|article would be efficacious to build tone and resistance to infection; that it would|produce results in various colon disorders, and would combat colitis and other|complicated diseases; that it would be efficacious in the treatment of stomatitis,|tonsilitis, and kindred infections of the throat, pyorrhea and trench mouth; that|it would be efficacious as a nasal douche in the treatment of nasal congestion,|head colds, sinus, and like infections; that it would be efficacious as an eye|wash to produce a soothing and healing action on the delicate membrane of the|eye; that it would be efficacious in the prophylaxis of pterygium and in the|treatment of local infections of the ear canal, cuts, sores, open wounds, ulcers,|burns, and similar conditions, indicated by the abbreviation \"\"etc.\"\"; that it|would be efficacious in .relieving inflammation, reducing pain, and restoring|normal tissues in hemorrhoid cases, and would bring prompt relief and promote|rapid healing in gastric ulcers; that the article would serve as a general body|tonic; that it would be efficacious when administered orally in the primary|treatment of albuminuria, anemia, cramps, diarrhea, enteritis, excessive men-|struation, gastritis, uterine hemorrhage, influenza, intestinal disorders, kidney|disorders, kidney inflammation, disorders of the liver, such as catarrhal gall|ducts, cirrhosis (alcoholic) and enlargement, malaria, nausea and vomiting,|orchitis, lack of resistance, tentany, duodenal, gastric, stomach, and peptic ulcers,|intestinal ulcers, and tape and helminth worms; that it would be efficacious when|used topically in the primary treatment of acne, boils, exzema, empyema, and|hives; that the article would be efficacious in the primary treatment by pack|method of hemorrhages, including uterine hemorrhages; that it would be|efficacious, when used as directed, in the primary treatment of ameba, amenorrhea,|calcium in lenses, catarrh, corneal ulceration, uterine cramps, cystitis, dysmenor-|rhea, ear infections, endocervicitis, endometritis, eye infections, fistula, hemer-|alopia, impetigo, keratomalacia, laryngitis, leg ulcers, leukorrhea, excessive,|deficient and painful mentruation, miscarriage, opthalmia, vaginal and uterine|polypus, rectal polypus, prostatitis, proctitis, psoriasis, respiratory infections,|shingles, skin disorders, sty, loose teeth, uterine prolapse, vaginitis, varicose|ulcers, varicose veins, and xerophthalmia; and that it would be efficacious, when|used orally, in the secondary treatment of acidosis, alcoholic neuritis, ameba,|angina pectoris, asthenia, asthma, boils, Bright's disease, calculi of the bladder|and kidneys, faulty digestion, eczema, gall bladder inflammation, gallstones,|gastro-intestinal disturbances, hay fever, hemophilia, biliary stasis of the|liver, engorgement and jaundice of the liver, lymph infections, mal-petit-grand,|malnutrition, nausea and vomiting of pregnancy, neurasthenia, old age, septi-|cemia, and tuberculosis.|All of the articles were alleged to be misbranded further in that the state-|ment in their labeling, \"\"We hereby guarantee that all Vitamineral products|listed herein are not adulterated or misbranded within the meaning of the|Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of June 25, 1938,\"\" was false and mislead-|ing, since the articles were misbranded within the meaning of that Act.|The information alleged in count 1 that the product \"\"Vitaminerals VM No. 1\"\"|was also misbranded under the provisions of the law applicable to foods, re-|ported in notices of judgment on foods.|On September 27, 1943, the defendant having entered a plea on nolo con-|tendere, the court imposed fines of $500 on count 1 of the information, which|involved charges against the Vitaminerals VM No. 1 both as a food and a drug,|and $500 on count 3, which involved the drug Vitaminerals VM No. 150, and|placed the defendant on probation with respect to the remaining 3 counts which|involved the other products.|1025. Adulteration and misbranding of lubricating jelly. U. S. v. 2,877 Jars and 3,945 Jars of Lubricating Jelly. Consent decree of forfeiture and destruction.ddnj01025March 1945Lambert Pharmacal Co.lubricating jellyJuly 15 and August 17, 1912Atlanta, Ga.St. Louis, Mo.Atlanta, Ga.Northern Districts of Georgia and Ohio,1025F. D. C. Nos. 8245, 8267. Sample Nos. 5163-F, 5440-F, 29128-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01025ddnj|1025. Adulteration and misbranding of lubricating jelly. IT. S. v. 2,877 Jars and|3,945 Jars of Lubricating- Jelly. Consent decree of forfeiture and destruc-|tion. (F. D. C. Nos. 8245, 8267. Sample Nos. 5163-F, 5440-F, 29128-F.)|Oa August 27, 1942, the United States attorneys for the Northern Districts of|Georgia and Ohio, filed libels against 2,877 jars and 3,945 jars of lubricating jelly|at Atlanta, Ga., and Toledo, Ohio, respectively, alleging that the article had been|shipped on or about July 15 and August 17, 1912, by the Lambert Pharmacal Co.,|from St. Louis, Mo.; and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its purity or quality fell|below that which it purported or was represented to possess, \"\"Sterile.\"\"|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the designation \"\"Sterile\"\" was mis-|leadirg since it created the impression that the article was sterile, whereas it was|not sterile but was contaminated with living anaerobic and aerobic spore-bearing|bacteria.|On October 13, 1942, the Lambert Pharmacal Co. having appeared as claimant|for the lot at Toledo, the action was ordered transferred to the Northern District|of Georgia for consolidation with the proceeding against the Atlanta lot. After|the consolidation and in accordance with a stipulation filed by the parties, an|order was entered on October 19, 1942, providing for the removal of the con-|solidated case for trial to the Eastern District of Illinois. On Novetnber 4, 1942,|an answer was filed by the claimant denying that the article was adulterated or|misbranded, and on April 6, 1943, the claimant filed a petition for re-delivery of|the product for the purpose of reprocessing it. On the same date the court|ordered it released under bond, conditioned that it be reprocessed under the|supervision of the Food and Drug Administration. On July 22, 1943, by consent|of the claimant, judgment was entered vacating the order of April 6, 1913, and|providing for the forfeiture and destruction of the product.|1026. Adulteration and misbranding of lubricating Jelly. U. S. v. 120 Packages and 13 1/2 Dozen Packages of Lubricating Jelly. Decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj01026March 1945White Cross Pharmacals, Inc.lubricating JellyDecember 9 and 31, 1942Chicago, III.Detroit, Mich.Chicago, III.Northern Districts of Illinois and Georgia1026F. D. C. Nos. 9355, 9356. Sample Nos. 29054-F, 38019-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01026ddnj|1026. Adulteration and misbranding of lubricating Jelly. V. S. v. 120 Packages|and 13% Dozen Packages of Lubricating Jelly. Decrees of condemnation|and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 9355, 9356. Sample Nos. 29054-F, 38019-F.)|On February 10 and 13, 1943, the United States attorneys for the Northern|Districts of Illinois and Georgia filed libels against 120 packages of lubricating|jelly at Chicago, III., and 13y2 dozen packages at Atlanta, Ga., alleging that the|article had been shipped on or about December 9 and 31, 1942, from Detroit, Mich.,|by White Cross Pharmacals, Inc.; and charging that it was adulterated and mis-|branded. The article was labeled in part: \"\"American Surgical Lubricating|Jelly * . * .* Made for American Hospital Supply Corp.,\"\" or \"\"White Cross|Surgical Lubricating Jelly.\"\"|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its purity and quality fell|below that which it was represented to possess, \"\"Sterilized.\"\"|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements appearing in its labeling|which represented and suggested that the article was sterile and was a suitable|lubricant for surgical use were false and misleading since the article was not|sterile but was contaminated with living micro-organisms and was not suitable|for such use.|On April 8 and 12, 1943, no claimant having appeared, judgments of condemna-|tion were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|1027. Adulteration and misbranding of Pantabee. U. S. v. 12 Bottles of Pantabee. Decree of condemnation. Product ordered delivered for the use of a public institution.ddnj01027March 1945Charles C. Haskell & Co., Inc.PantabeeJanuary 13, 1943Washington, D. C.Richmond, Va.Washington, D. C.District of Columbia1027F. D. C. No. 9410. Sample No. 24197-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01027ddnj|1027. Adulteration and misbranding of Pantabee. U. S. v. 12 Bottles of Pantabee.|Decree of condemnation. Product ordered delivered for the use of a|public institution. (F. D. C. No. 9410. Sample No. 24197-F.)|Biological assay showed that the article contained not more than 250 Inter-|national Units of vitamin Bi per capsule.|On February 20, 1943, the United States attorney for the District of Columbia|filed a libel against 12 bottles, each containing 50 capsules, of Pantabee at Wash-|ington, D. C, alleging that the article had been shipped on or about January|13, 1943, from Richmond, Va., by Charles C. Haskell & Co., Inc.; and charging|that it was adulterated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from and|its quality fell below that which it was represented on its label to possess,|333 International Units of vitamin Bi.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement \"\"Each capsule contains:|Vitamin Bi . . . 333 International Units,\"\" which appeared on its label, was false|since each capsule did not contain that amount of vitamin Bi.|It was also alleged to be adulterated and misbranded under the provisions of|the law applicable to foods as reported in the notices of judgment on foods, No.|5774.|On June 30,1943, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered delivered to a public institution.|1028. Adulteration and misbranding of elixir thiamine hydrochloride. U. S. v. 52 Bottles of Elixir Thiamine Hydrochloride. Decree of condemnation. Product ordered delivered to charitable institutions.ddnj01028March 1945Standard Drug Co.elixir thiamine hydrochlorideFebruary 2, 1943Philadelphia, Pa.Newark, N. J.Philadelphia, Pa.Eastern District of Pennsylvania1028F. D. C. No. 9591. Sample No. 23501-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01028ddnj|1028. Adulteration and misbranding of elixir thiamine hydrochloride. IT. S. v.|52 Bottles of Elixir Thiamine Hydrochloride. Decree of condemnation.|Product ordered delivered to charitable institutions. (F. D. C. No. 9591.|Sample No. 23501-F.)|Examination showed that this product contained substantially less than 250|International Units (USP Unit) of vitamin Bi per fluid ounce.|On March 19, 1943, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Pennsylvania filed a libel against 52 bottles, each containing 1 gallon, of the|above-named product at Philadelphia, Pa., alleging that the article had been|shipped on or about February 2, 1943, from Newark, N. J., by the Standard|Drug Co.; and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded. A portion of|the article (35 bottles) was labeled in part: \"\"Standard Elixir Vitamin Bt|N. J. F. Elixir Thiamin Hydrochloride. Each fluid ounce contains 5C0 Intern.|Units Vitamin Bi.\"\" The remainder of the article (17 bottles) had been relabeled|by the consignee and at the commencement of the libel proceedings was labeled|in part: \"\"Elixir Thiamine Hydrochloride * * * Each fluid ounce contains:|Thiamine Hydrochloride-1.5 mg. (equivalent to Vitamin B-l-500 Units).\"\"|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from|and its quality fell below that which it was represented to possess.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements on the bottles|bearing the original labels: \"\"Each fluid ounce contains 5C0 Intern. Units Vita-|min Bj\"\"; and the following statements on the labels of the relabeled portion:|\"\"Each Fluid ounce Contains: Thiamine Hydrochloride-1.5 mg. (equivalent to|Vitamin B-l-500 Units)\"\" were false since the article contained a lesser amount|of vitamin Bi par fluid ounce.|The article was also alleged to be adulterated and misbranded under the pro-|visions of the law applicable to foods as reported in notice of judgment on food|No. 5779.|On May 10,1943, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered to be delivered to charitable institutions.|1029. Adulteration and misbranding of vitamin B elixir. U. S. v. 33 Bottles of Hart's Vitamin B Elixir. Default decree of condemnation and destruc- { tion.ddnj01029March 1945E. J. Hart and Co., Ltd.vitamin B elixirJune 8, 1942Atlanta, Ga.New Orleans, La.Atlanta, Ga.Northern District of Georgia1029F. D. C. No. 8173. Sample No. 70908-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01029ddnj|1029. Adulteration and misbranding of vitamin B elixir. 17. S. v. 33 Bottles of|Hart's Vitamin B Elixir. Default decree of condemnation and destruc- {|tion. (F. D. C. No. 8173. Sample No. 70908-E.) |This product contained 13.8 milligrams of nicotinic acid pec fluid ounce.|On August 24, 1942, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Georgia filed a libel against 33 bottles, each containing ? pint, of Hart's Vitamin|B Elixir at Atlanta, Ga., alleging that the article had been shipped on or about|June 8, 1942, from New Orleans, La., by E. J. Hart and Co., Ltd.; and charging|that it was adulterated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from|and its quality fell below that which it was represented to possess on its label,.|20 milligrams of nicotinic acid per fluid ounce.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the label statement, \"\"Each Fluidounce|contains: * * * Nicotinic Acid 20 mg.,\"\" was false.|- It was also alleged to be adulterated and misbranded under the provisions of|the law applicable to foods as reported in notices of judgment on foods, No.|5775.|On May 6, 1943, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|1030. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 8 Gross Packages of Kaps. Default decree of condemnation. Product ordered disposed of as waste rubber for war purposes.ddnj01030March 1945Rubber Research Products CorporationprophylacticsJuly 22, 1942Brooklyn, N. Y.Jersey City, N. J.Brooklyn, N. Y.Eastern District of New York1030F. D. C. No. 8106. Sample No. 16844-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01030ddnj|1030. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. IT. S. v. 8 Gross Packages|of Kaps. Default decree of condemnation. Product ordered disposed of|as waste rubber for war purposes. (F. D. C. No. 8106. Sample No.|16844-F.)|Samples of this product were found to be defective because of the presence of|holes.|On August 12,1942, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of New -|York filed a libel against 8 gross packages of Kaps at Brooklyn, N. Y., alleging|that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about July 22,|1942, by Rubber Research Products Corporation from Jersey City, N. J.; and|charging that it was adulterated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its quality fell below that|which it purported or was represented to possess since an article containing|holes is not suitable for use as a prophylactic.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements appearing|on the labeling were false and misleading since they represented and sug-|gested that the article was free from defects, whereas it was not: (One dozen|carton and three-unit carton) \"\"Each one of the Kaps has been filled to at least|ten times it normal capacity with water under pressure; then squeezed and|kneaded in an effort to make a hole appear-even where only a weak spot|may have existed before. Insist on water-tested merchandise.\"\" (Instruction|sheet) \"\"Notice: The enclosed sheath has been 'water tested' by expanding, under|water pressure, to at least ten times its normal capacity-then examined closely|for any detectable leak.\"\"|On May 5, 1943, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered delivered to the Food and Drug Adminis-|tration for the purpose of damaging and disposing of it as waste rubber for|war purposes.|1031. Adulteration and misbranding of Red Cross prophylactics and Blue Cross chemical prophylactic units. U. S. v. 059 Packages of Red Cross Prophylactics and 3,744 Packages of Blue Cross Chemical Prophylactic Units. Default decrees ordering destruction of the products.ddnj01031March 1945Schabelitz Research LaboratoriesRed Cross prophylactics and Blue Cross chemical prophylactic unitsOctober 19 and November 6, 1942Seattle, Wash.San Diego and Los Angeles, Calif.Seattle, Wash.Western District of Washington and the District of Utah1031F. D. C. Nos. 8950, 9119. Sample Nos. 12174-F, 15716-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01031ddnj|1031. Adulteration and misbranding of Red Cross prophylactics and Blue Cross|chemical prophylactic units. U. S. v. 059 Packages of Red Cross Prophy-|lactics and 3,744 Packages of Blue Cross Chemical Prophylactic Units.|Default decrees ordering destruction of the products. (F. D. C. Nos. 8950,|9119. Sample Nos. 12174-F, 15716-F.)|These two products contained, among other things, a tube labeled \"\"0.25-|Silver Picrate Jelly.\"\" Analyses of the jelly showed that it contained, in the|case of the Red Cross prophylactics, 0.085 percent of silver picrate, and in the|case of the Blue Cross chemical units 0.052 percent of silver picrate.|On December 8, 1942, and January 2, 1943, the United States attorneys for|the Western District of Washington and the District of Utah filed libels against|959 packages of Red Cross prophylactics at Seattle, Wash., and 3,744 packages|of Blue Cross chemical prophylactic units at Salt Lake City, Utah, alleging that|the articles had been shipped on or about October 19 and November 6, 1942,|from San Diego and Los Angeles, Calif., by the Schabelitz Research Laboratories;|and charging that they were adulterated and misbranded. The Red Cross|prophylactics were labeled in part with a design of a red cross and the figure|\"\"101,\"\" and the prophylactic unit was labeled in part: \"\"Chemical Prophylactic?'|Unit For Armed Forces Only 80,\"\" together with a design of a blue cross.|The articles were alleged to be adulterated in that their strength differed|from that which they purported or were represented to possess, \"\"0.25? Silver|Picrate Jelly.\"\"|They were alleged to be misbranded in that the statement on their labels|\"\"0.25? Silver Picrate Jelly\"\" was false and misleading.|On September 16, 1943, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion and destruction was entered against the product at Seattle. On January|29, 1944, the Schabelitz Research Laboratories, claimant for the lot at Salt Lake|City, having failed to file an answer, default was entered against the claimant|and its claim was dismissed. On April 29, 1944, judgment was entered against|the lot, ordering that it be destroyed.|1032. Adulteration and misbranding of firstaid dressings and bandages, compresses, and adulteration of gauze bandages. U. S. v. 60 Cases and 38,100 Cartons of First Aid Dressings, 40,000 and 8,000 Packages of Bandage Compresses, and 651 Dozen Packages of Gauze Bandages. Decrees of condemnation. A portion of the bandage compresses and all of the other products ordered released under bond for reprocessing; remainder of the bandage compresses ordered delivered to the Food and Drug Administration.ddnj01032March 1945Acme Cotton Products Co., Inc.first-aid dressings and bandages, compresses; gauze bandagesSeptember 19 to December 7, 1942Columbus, Ohio; San Antonio, Tex.; Richmond, Va.Dayville, Conn., and Worcester, Mass.Columbus, Ohio; San Antonio, Tex.; Richmond, Va.Southern District of Ohio, the Eastern District of Virginia, and the Western District of Texas1032F. D. C. Nos. 8582, 8952, 9013, 9029, 9256. Sample Nos. 5583-F, 10082-F, 25560-F, 31307-F, 31359-F, 31606-F, 31619-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01032ddnj|1032. Adulteration and misbranding of first-aid dressing's and bandages, com-|presses, and adulteration of gauze bandages. U. S. v. 60 Cases and|38,100 Cartons of First Aid Dressings, 40,000 and 8,000 Packages of|Bandage Compresses, and 651 Dozen Packages of Gauze Bandages. De-|crees of condemnation. A portion of the bandage compresses and all of|the other products ordered released under bond for reprocessing; re-|mainder of the bandage compresses ordered delivered to the Food and|Drug Administration. (F. D. C. Nos. 8582, 8952, 9013, 9029, 9256. Sample|Nos. 5583-F, 10082-F, 25560-F, 31307-F, 31359-F, 31606-F, 31619-F.)|Examination showed that these products were not sterile but were con-|taminated with living micro-organisms.|Between October 19, 1942, and January 26, 1943, the United States attorneys|for the Southern District of Ohio, the Eastern District of Virginia, and the|Western District of Texas filed libels against 60 cases, each containing 300|first-aid dressings, and 38,300 cartons of first-aid dressings and 40,000 packages|of bandage compresses at Columbus, Ohio, 8,000 packages of bandage compresses|at San Antonio, Tex., and 651 dozen packages of gauze bandages at Richmond,|Va., alleging that the articles, which had been consigned by the Acme Cotton|Products Co., Inc., had been shipped within the period from on or about|September 19 to December 7, 1942, from Dayville, Conn., and Worcester, Mass.;|and charging that the gauze bandages were adulterated and that the other|articles were adulterated and misbranded. The first aid dressings at Columbus|were labeled in part: \"\"Large First Aid Dressing United States Army Carlisle|Model Sterilized,\"\" and (portion) \"\"Sterilized Red Color indicates back of|dressing. Put other side next to wound.\"\" The gauze compresses at Columbus|were labeled in part: \"\"Four Dressings Sterilized 2 Inch Bandage Compress.\"\"|The articles at San Antonio and Richmond were labeled in part: \"\"3 inch * * *|Gauze Bandage,\"\" or \"\"1 Dressing Sterilized 4 inch Bandage Compress.\"\"|The gauze bandages were alleged to be adulterated in that they purported|to be and were represented as a drug, the name of which is recognized in the|United States Pharmacopoeia, an official compendium, but their quality and|purity fell below the standard set forth therein since the Pharmacopoeia provides|that gauze bandage must be sterile and shall meet the requirements of the|sterility test for solids described in the Pharmacopoeia, and their difference in|quality and purity from that standard was not stated on their label.|The first-aid dressings and the bandage compresses were alleged to be adul-|terated in that their purity and quality fell below that which they purported|or were represented to possess, \"\"Sterilized.\"\" They were alleged to be mis-|branded in that the statements appearing in their labeling which represented|and suggested that the articles were sterile were false and misleading.|On January 16 and February 4, 1943, the Acme Cotton Products Co., Inc.|claimant, having admitted the allegations of the libels against the products at|Columbus and Richmond, judgments of condemnation were entered and the|products were ordered released under bond for reprocessing under the super-|vision of the Food and Drug Administration. On March 18, 1943, no claimant|having appeared for the bandage compresses at San Antonio, judgment of|condemnation was entered and the product was ordered to be delivered to the|Food and Drug Administration.|1033. Adulteration and misbranding of gauze bandages and first aid, treated strips, and misbranding of Tip Top gauze and Chatham bandage. U. S. v. 6 2/3 Gross Packages and 162 Dozen Boxes of Gauze Bandages, 48 Cartons of First-Aid Treated Strips, 1,983 Dozen Packages of Tip Top Gauze, and 176 Dozen Packages of Chatham Bandage. Decrees of condemnation. Tip Top Gauze, Chatham Bandage, and a portion of the gauze bandages ordered released under bond for sterilization; first aid, treated strips and remainder of gauze bandages ordered destroyed.ddnj01033March 1945Gotham Sales Co., Inc.gauze bandages and first aid, treated strips,; Tip Top gauze and Chatham bandage\NChicago, Ill.; Memphis, Tenn.; Pittsburgh, Pa.New York, N. Y.Chicago, Ill.; Memphis, Tenn.; Pittsburgh, Pa.Northern District of Illinois, and the Western Districts of Tennessee and Pennsylvania1033F. D. C. Nos. 8008, 9065, 9074, 9816. Sample Nos. 553-F, 5845-F, 5846-F, 21666-F, 21701-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01033ddnj|1033. Adulteration and misbranding of gauze bandages and first aid, treated|strips, and misbranding of Tip Top gauze and Chatham bandage. U. S.|v. 0% Gross Packages and 162 Dozen Boxes of Gauze Bandages, 48|Cartons of First-Aid Treated Strips, 1,983 Dozen Packages of Tip Top|Gauze, and 176 Dozen Packages of Chatham Bandage. Decrees of con-|demnation. Tip Top Gauze, Chatham Bandage, and a portion of the|gauze bandages ordered released under bond for sterilization; first aid,|treated strips and remainder of gauze bandages ordered destroyed.|(F. D. C. Nos. 8008, 9065, 9074, 9816. Sample Nos. 553-F, 5845-F, 5846-F,|21666-F, 21701-F.)|On July 28 and December 24, 1942, and January 5 and April 19, 1943, the|United States attorneys for the Northern District of Illinois, and the Western|Districts of Tennessee and Pennsylvania filed libels against 48 cartons, each|containing 36 envelopes, of first aid, treated strips at Chicago, 111., 1,983 dozen|packages of Tip Top gauze and 176 dozen packages of Chatham bandage at|Memphis, Tenn., and 6? gross packages and 162 dozen boxes of gauze bandages|at Pittsburgh, Pa., alleging that the artciles had been shipped within the period|from on or about June 26, 1942, to March 10, 1943, by the Gotham Sales Co.,|Inc., from New York, N. Y.; and charging that they were misbranded and|that the first aid, treated strips and the gauze bandages were also adulterated.|The articles were labeled in part: \"\"Sani+Cross Waterproof First Aid Treated|Strips * * * Distributed by Gero Products. Boston, Mass.,\"\" \"\"Tip Top Gauze|Bandage,\"\" \"\"Chatham Bandage [or \"\"Gauze Bandage\"\"] * * * Distributors|Chatham Sundries Co. New York, N. Y.,\"\" or \"\"R112 Gauze Bandage.\"\"|The first aid, treated strips were alleged to be adulterated in that they|purported to be and were represented as an article, adhesive absorbent gauze,|described in the United States Pharmacopoeia, an official compendium, but the|article differed from the standard set forth in that compendium since it failed|to meet the requirements of the sterility test for solids.|They were alleged to be misbranded in that the statements appearing on their|label, \"\"Sani+Cross First Aid Treated Strips Wash Wound with an Antiseptic-|Remove Crinoline and Apply Gauze Pad to the Wound,\"\" were false and misleading|since these statements represented and suggested that the strips were a safe,|sanitary, and appropriate bandage for first aid use on minor cuts, wounds, and|abrasions, whereas they were not a safe, sanitary, and appropriate bandage for|such use because they were contaminated with living bacteria. They were alleged|to be misbranded further in that they were in package form and their label failed|to bear a statement of the quantity of the contents.|A portion of the gauze bandages (6? gross packages) was alleged to be adul-|terated in that it purported to be and was represented as a drug, the name of|which is recognized in an official compendium, but its quality and purity fell|below the standard set forth therein since it was not sterile but was contaminated|with viable micro-organisms. The remainder of the gauze bandages was alleged|to be adulterated in that its purity and quality fell below that which it purported|and was represented to possess, \"\"Sterilized.\"\"|The gauze bandages, Tip Top gauze, and Chatham bandage, were alleged to be|misbranded in that the statements appearing in their labeling, \"\"Sterilized After|Packaging,\"\" and the additional statement in the labeling of the 162 boxes of|gauze bandagas, \"\"Designed to Perfectly Meet First Aid Requirements,\"\" were|misleading since they created the impression that the articles were sterile, whereas|they were not sterile but were contaminated with viable micro-organisms.|On September 24,1942, and March 13,1943, the Gotham Sales Co., Inc., claimant,|having admitted the allegations of the libels against the Tip Top gauze, Chatham|bandage, and a portion of the gauze bandages (162 dozen boxes), judgments of|condemnation were entered and the products were ordered released under bond|for sterilization. On March 1 and June 8, 1943, no claimant having appeared|for the other products seized, judgments of condemnation were entered and it|was ordered that they be destroyed.|1034. Adulteration and misbranding of adhesive absorbent gauze. U. S. v. 75 1/2-Gross Packages of Sani + Cross Adhesive Strips, 264 Gross of Tip Top Adhesive Strips, and 4 1/2-Gross Packages of Sani + Cross Waterproof First Aid Treated Strips. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj01034March 1945Gero Products, Inc.adhesive absorbent gauzeDecember 23, 1942, and January 12 and March 30, 1943New York, N. Y.Boston and South Boston, Mass.New York, N. Y.Southern District of New York and the Middle District of Pennsylvania1034F. D. C. Nos. 9209, 9326, 9964. Sample Nos. 18482-F, 23285-F, 44467-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01034ddnj|1034. Adulteration and misbranding of adhesive absorbent gauze. U. S. v. 75|% -Gross Packages of Sani + Cross Adhesive Strips, 264 Gross of Tip Top|Adhesive Strips, and 4 % -Gross Packages of Sani + Cross Waterproof First|Aid Treated Strips. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. Nos. 9209, 9326, 9964. Sample Nos. 18482-F, 23285-F, 44467-F.)|Examination showed that these products consisted of a small pad of gauze|affixed to a strip of adhesive plaster.|Between January 19 and May 19, 1943, the United States attorneys for the|Southern District of New York and the Middle District of Pennsylvania filed|libels against 75 ?-gross packages of Sani-Cross adhesive strips and 264 gross|of Tip Top adhesive strips at New York, N. Y., and against 4 1/2-gross packages|of Sani-Cross waterproof first aid, treated strips at Harrisburg, Pa., alleging that|the articles, which had been consigned by the Gero Products, Inc., had been|shipped on or about December 23, 1942, and January 12 and March 30, 1943, from|Boston and South Boston, Mass.; and charging that they were adulterated and|misbranded. The Tip Top adhesive strips were labeled in part: \"\"Distributed by|Gotham Sales, N. Y., N. Y.\"\"|The articles were alleged to be adulterated in that they purported to be a drug,|adh3sive absorbent gauze (adhesive absorbent compress), the name of which is|recognizad in the United States Pharmacopoeia, an official compendium, but their|quality and purity fell below the standard set forth in that compendium since|they were not sterile but were contaminated with living micro-organisms, and|their difference in quality and purity from the standard set forth in the com-|pendium was not plainly stated on the labels.|The first aid, treated strips, were alleged to be misbranded in that they were|in package form and the label failed to bear a statement of the quantity of the|contents; and in that the statements appearing upon the label, \"\"Sani+Oross First|Aid Treated Strips For minor cuts, wounds, abrasions Directions Wash wound|with an antiseptic. Remove crinoline and apply gauze pad to the wound,\"\" were|false and misleading since those statements represented and suggested that the|article was a safe and appropriate bandage for first aid use on minor cuts, wounds,|and abrasions, whereas it was not a safe and appropriate bandage for such use|but.was contaminated with Hying micro-ojganisms.|The other articles were alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, \"\"Sani+|Cross Adhesive Strips For Home, Factory, and Sports use. Directions Wash|wound with an antiseptic. Remove crinoline and apply gauze pad to the wound,\"\"|appearing in the labeling of the Sani-Cross adhesive strips, and similar state-|ments in the labeling of the Tip Top adhesive strips, were false and misleading|since they created the impression that the articles were safe and appropriate|bandages for first aid use on broken skin, whereas they were not safe and appro-|priate bandages for such uses, but were contaminated with living micro-organisms.|The first aid, treated strips and the Sani-Cross adhesive strips were alleged to|be misbranded further in that the designation \"\"Sani+Cross,\"\" appearing in the|labeling, was false and misleading since it created the impression that the articles|were sterile and sanitary dressings, whereas they were not sterile and sanitary.|On February 9, March 10, and June 28, 1943, no claimant having appeared,|judgments of condemnation were entered and the products were ordered|destroyed.|1042. Misbranding of Cel-Bio Mineral Tablets, Nos. 1 to 12, incl. U. S. v. Fred N. Haas (Cel-Bio Mineral Food Co.). Plea of guilty. Fine, $90 and costs.ddnj01042March 1945Fred N. Haas, trading as the Cel-Bio Mineral Food Co., Omaha, Nebr.Cel-Bio Mineral TabletsMay 7 and 8, 1942Iowa; NebraskaNebraska; IllinoisIowa; NebraskaDistrict of Nebraska1042F. D. C. No. 8790. Sample Nos. 73341-E to 73351-E, incl. , 73558-E to 73564-EThe National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01042ddnj|1042. Misbranding of Cel-Bio Mineral Tablets, Nos. 1 to 12, incl. XT. S. v. Fred|N. Haas (Cel-Bio Mineral Food Co.). Plea of guilty. Fine, $90 and costs.|(F. D. C. No. 8790. Sample Nos. 73341-E to 73351-E, incl., 73558-E to 73564-E,|incl.)|On May 12, 1943, the United States attorney for the District of Nebraska filed|an information against Fred N. Haas, trading as the Cel-Bio Mineral Food Co.,|Omaha, Nebr., alleging that he had shipped, on or about May 7 and 8, 1942, from|the State of Nebraska into the State of Iowa, quantities of Cel-Bio Mineral|Tablets Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 11, which were misbranded; and that within|the period from on or about October 1 to 22,1941, the defendant had repacked and|relabeled quantities of Cel-Bio Mineral Tablets Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and Nos. 5 to 12,|inclusive, while they were being held for sale after shipment to him in interstate|commerce from the State of Illinois into the State of Nebraska, which acts by the|defendant resulted in the misbranding of the products.|Analysis of the No. 9 Tablets showed that they consisted essentially of lactose|containing a minute amount of sodium chloride. They were alleged to be|misbranded because of false and misleading statements in their labeling which|represented and suggested that the tablets would enable one to wake up in|the morning with pep; and that they were efficacious in the cure, mitigation,|treatment, or prevention of sneezing, water discharge from the eyes, nose, or|any part of the body, hay fever, rose fever, vomiting of water and mucus, water|blisters on the skin, diarrhea, slimy, transparent stools, inflammation of the eyes,|a salty taste in the mouth, periodical pains, drug poisonings, drug habits, pain-|ful swellings of the ankles or legs, dropsy, dandruff, dry skin, cold sores, and|catarrh with watery discharge.|Analysis of the No. 8 Tablets showed that they consisted essentially of lactose|containing a minute amount of magnesium phosphate.\"\" They were alleged to be|misbranded because of false and misleading statements in their labeling which|represented and suggested that the tablets would relax the nerves, relieve pain|due to mineral deficiencies or otherwise, aid in the formation of white fibers|of the nerves and muscles, and overcome contraction of such fibers; and that|they would be efficacious in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of in-|tense pains, spasms, cramps, shooting pains, spasmodic pains, pains relieved|by heat and aggravated by cold, shaking of the body, twitching of the eyelids,|squinting, contracted pupils, sparks or colors before the eyes, dullness of sight|from weakness of the optic nerves, spasmodic stammering, sensitive teeth, tooth-|ache, constricted feeling in the throat, hiccough, lockjaw, convulsions, epilepsy, St.|Vitus dance, colic, menstrual colic, and whooping cough.|Analysis of the No. 4 Tablets showed that they consisted essentially of lactose|containing a minute amount of iron phosphate. They were alleged to be mis-|branded because of false and misleading statements in their labeling which|represented and suggested that the tablets would be efficacious in the cure, miti-|gation, treatment, or prevention of fever delirium, inflammation, congestion,|soreness to touch or pressure, throbbing pains, pains made worse by movement,|accidental injuries, cuts, bruises, burns, hemorrhage, nose bleed, dizziness|caused by stooping, a rush of blood to the head, flushed face, high blood pressure,|thin blood, slow digestion, belching, diphtheria, pneumonia, smallpox, chicken|pox, measles, scarlet fever, tonsilitis, quinsy, pleurisy, rheumatism, and bleeding|piles.|Analysis of the No. 2 Tablets showed that they consisted essentially of lactose|containing a minute amount of calcium phosphate. They were alleged to be mis-|branded because of false and misleading statements in their labeling which repre-|sented and suggested that they would be efficacious to clear the complexion, to|enable one| to enjoy health and show it, and to bring about normal action of every|fluid, organ, and tissue in the body, including the brain, heart, lungs, arteries,|veins, bones, teeth, glands, skin, blood, and organs of digestion and assimilation;|and that they would be efficacious in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or preven-|tion of poor circulation, cold- or numbness of the hands and feet, numbness in|any part of the body, decaying teeth, all bone diseases, sluggish glands, sallow|or dirty appearance of the skin, freckles, slow digestion, gas on the stomach|ordinarily relieved by belching, the feeling of a lump in the stomach after eating,|pain that -becomes worse at night, aching bones, headache from wearing a hat,|poor memory, colds from drafts, albumin discharge from any part of the body,|albumin discharge in the urine (Bright's disease), teething disorders, peevish|and fretful children, and too early menstruation in young girls.|Analysis of the No. 11 Tablets showed that they consisted essentially of lac-|tose containing a minute amount of sodium sulfate. They were alleged to|be misbranded because of false and misleading statements in their labeling|which represented and suggested that the tablets would keep the body bile under|control, rid one of a yellow complexion, maintain the right proportions of water|in all tissues, and control bile function; and that they would be efficacious in|the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of a bitter taste in the mouth,|vomiting, yellow color of the skin or eyes, liver spots, severe pains in the liver|region, sick headache with vomiting, dark, greenish stools, gallstones, dropsy,|jaundice, diabetes, giddiness, violent pains at the base of the brain, erysipelas,|excessive secretion of urine, sandy deposits in the urine, gravel, kidney stones,|asthma, a feeling of pressure and uneasiness in the heart region, ague, and|chills with fever.|Analysis of the No. 5 Tablets showed that they consisted essentially of lactose|containing a minute amount of potassium chloride. They were alleged to be|misbranded because of false and misleading statements in their labeling which|represented and suggested that they would keep the blood stream balanced|and thus would enable the user to avoid surgical operations; and that they|would be efficacious in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of swollen|glands, swelling with pain or soreness in any part of the body, coated tongue,|thick white or gray discharge from any part of the body, earache with swollen|glands and coated tongue, swollen tonsils, deafness from swelling or thickening|of the drum, colds with thick white discharge, diphtheria, pneumonia, smallpox,|chicken pox, measles, scarlet fever, mumps, tonsilitis, burns, and scalds.|Analysis of the No. 3 Tablets showed that they consisted essentially of lactose|containing a minute amount of calcium sulfate. They were alleged to be mis-|branded because of false and misleading statements in their labeling which repre-|sented and suggested that the tablets would keep the body clean within, and|would eliminate pus or filth from the body tissues and give one a healthy skin;|and that they would be efficacious in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or pre-|vention of pimples, cuts or sores slow to heal, pus or matter from boils, car-|buncles, ulcers, or abscesses on any part of the body, catarrh with a yellow pus|discharge, lung trouble with thick yellow pus, cases of accidental injury which|fail to heal, blood and pus or matter in the stools, inflamed eyes or gland trouble|with pus discharge, gum boils, inflammation of the bladder with pus in the|urine, and crust or scald head of children.|Analysis of the No. 12 Tablets showed-that they consisted essentially of lactose|containing a minute amount of silica. They were alleged to be misbranded be-|cause of false and misleading statements in their labeling which represented|and suggested that they would keep the blood stream clean, enable one to|avoid surgical operations, eliminate pus from the body, and build hair, nails,|skin, nerves, and bone tissue; and that they would be efficacious in the cure,|mitigation, treatment, or prevention of falling hair, thin or brittle nails,|unhealthy skin, pus discharge from any part or organ of the body, night sweats,|sweating feet and armpits, the pus stage of boils, felons, ulcers, cai'buncles,|abscesses, fistula, eruptions on the face, tonsilitis characterized by pus formation,|sties on the eyelids, a sore or sensitive scalp, pus in the urine, chronic gonorrhea,|slow mental action, and heavy, pulling pain.|Analysis of the No. 10 Tablets showed them to consist essentially of lactose|containing a minute amount of sodium phosphate. They were alleged to be|misbranded because of false and misleading statements in their labeling which|represented and suggested that they would prevent colds, overcome or control|body acidity, and maintain a proper balance in the blood stream; and that they|were efficacious in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of sour vomit-|ing, belching, frequent head colds, stomach trouble with acidity, heartburn, in-|digestion, a red and blotched face, worms, canker sores, grinding of the teeth|during sleep, headache, sick headache with vomiting, eyelids glued together in|the morning, diarrhea with green stools, itching of the skin, and ulcerations.|Analysis of the No. 6 Tablets showed that they consisted essentially of lactose|containing a minute amount of potassimu phosphate. They were alleged to be|misbranded because of false and misleading statements in their labeling which|represented and suggested that they were a brain or nerve food and would give|one a clear brain, calm the nerves, and bring happiness; and that they would|be efficacious in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of nervous dread,|sleeplessness from nervous cause, worry or excitement, conditions aggravated by|noise, brain fag from overwork, loss of memory, hysteria, paralysis, shortness of|breath, palpitation of the heart, aches and pains relieved by gentle movement,|conditions aggravated by mental exertion, a \"\"gone\"\" sensation in the stomach,|hunger after eating, crying moods, cross, fretful children, bashfulness, despond-|ency, worry, foul breath, a foul taste in the mouth, sudden dizzy spells, difficult|speech, and the feeling of a lump in the throat.|Analysis of the No. 1 Tablets showed that they consisted essentially of|lactose containing a minute amount of calcium fluoride. They were alleged to|be misbranded because of false and misleading statements in their labeling|which represented and suggested that they would be efficacious in the building|of vitality and would make one feel and look younger; that they would bring|about perfect muscular action of the vital organs, including the heart, stomach,|arteries, veins, and intestines; that they would aid in the formation of enamel on|the teeth, the covering of the 'bones, and the elastic fiber of all muscular|tissues; and that they would be efficacious in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or|prevention of flabby muscles, double chin, flabby, enlarged abdomen, flabby heart,|flabby valves (leakage, of the heart), falling of the womb, piles, varicose veins,|ruptures, flabby bowels, constipation, flabby arteries (low blood pressure),|hardening of the arteries (high blood pressure), horny, rough skin, rough, thin,|or brittle enamel on the teeth, a tired, \"\"no-pep\"\" feeling, a general bearing down|feeling, cataract of the eye, and enlarged glands.|Analysis of the No. 7 Tablets showed that they consisted essentially of lactose|containing a minute amount of potassium sulphate. They were alleged to be|misbranded because of false and misleading statements in their labeling which|represented and suggested that the tablets would keep the pores of the skin|healthy, promote elimination of waste through the skin, and carry oxygen and|nourishment to the skin and scalp; and they would be efficacious in the cure,|mitigation, treatment, or prevention of fever, chronic catarrh, shifting pains,|hot and dry skin, coated tongue, discharge from a mucus surface, eczema,|erysipelas, ivy poisoning, nettle rash, dandruff, whooping cough, pneumonia,|yellow scales on the skin> eruption of measles, smallpox, and scarlet fever, and|skin trouble with sticky, yellowish secretions.|The articles were alleged to be misbranded further because of false and|misleading statements which represented and suggested, in the case of all the|various products, that the tablets were guaranteed under the Food and Drug|Act of 1906, and, in the case of portions, that they had been repacked in|accordance with the provisions of the act of Congress known as the Federal|Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 and complied in all respects with the|requirements of that Act.|On June 3, 1943, the defendant having entered a plea of guilty, the court|imposed a fine of $5 on each of the 18 counts, totaling $90 plus costs.|1137. Misbranding of drug: products. U. S. v. 7 Cartons of No. 37 Formula GH-5, 4 Cartons of No. 24 Formula GH-1, 15 Cartons of No. 15 Formula GM-15, 9 Cartons of No. 3 Formula GM-4, and 6 Cartons of No. 20 Formula GH-4. Consent decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj01137June 1945Basic Endocrines Sales Co., Inc.drug productsDecember 6, 15, 21, and 29, 1942Los Angeles, Calif.Salt Lake City, UtahLos Angeles, Calif.Southern District of California1137F. D. C. No. 9076. Sample Nos. 13830-F to 13834-F, incl.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01137ddnj|1137. Misbranding; of drug: products. U. S. v. 7 Cartons of No. 37 Formula GH-5,|4 Cartons of No. 24 Formula GH-1, 15 Cartons of No. 15 Formula GM-15,|9 Cartons of No. 3 Formula GM-4, and 6 Cartons of No. 20 Formula GH-4.|Consent decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 9076.|Sample Nos. 13830-F to 13834-F, incl.)|On January 5, 1943, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|California filed a libel against 7 large cartons of No. 37 Formula GH-5, 4 large|cartons of No. 24 Formula GH-1, 15 large cartons of No. 15 Formula GM-15,|9 large cartons of No. 3 Formula GM-4, and 6 large cartons of No. 20 Formula|GH-4, each carton of which contained 3 smaller cartons, at Los Angeles, Calif.,|alleging that the articles had been shipped on or about December 6, 15, 21, and|29, 1942, from Salt Lake City, Utah, by the Basic Endocrines Sales Co., Inc.|(invoiced by Basic Endocrines Sales Co., Inc., Seattle, Wash.) ; and charging|that they were misbranded. There were also at Los Angeles, in the possession of|the consignee, a number of books entitled \"\"Theory and Use of Basic Endocrines,\"\"|booklets entitled \"\"Reference Guide,\"\" and leaflets entitled \"\"Basic Endocrines Vol. 1,|No. 1,\"\" \"\"Basic Endocrines Vol. 1, No. 4,\"\" and \"\"Basic Endocrines Vol. 1, No. 6.\"\"|This printed matter had been received in interstate commerce by the consignee|from Seattle, Wash.|Analysis of the No. 37 Formula GH-5 showed that it consisted essentially of|capsules containing proteinacious matter, such as dried glandular materials,|plant materials, and 0.88 grain per capsule of dicalcium phosphate. It was alleged|to be misbranded because of false and misleading statements which appeared|in the aforesaid book and booklet, and which represented and suggested that|the article would be efficacious in the cure, mitigation, or treatment of functional|glycosuria, ketosis, carbohydrate intolerance, pancreatic and duodenal insuffi-|ciency, gastro-duodenal ulceration and inflammations, and physiological hyper-|glycemia ; that it was supportive in diabetes mellitus; and that it would assist in|alkalinization, increase the blood and tissue calcium, promote healing, and aid|in the relief of pain and nervousness. It was alleged to be misbranded further|in that the statement on its containers. \"\"No. 37 Formula GH-5,\"\" was a false|and misleading device, meaning to the purchaser that the article was efficacious|for the foregoing conditions referred to in the portions of the book and booklet|relating to the article when, in fact, it was not so efficacious. It was alleged to|be misbranded further in that the statement on the label, \"\"Each Capsule Con-|tains Pancreas 3 gr., Duodenum 2 gr., Parathyroid 1/10 gr.,\"\" was misleading in|the absence of a revelation of the material fact that pancreas, duodenum, and|parathyroid in the amounts supplied when the article was taken in accordance|with the directions on the label, 3 to 6 daily, would not produce any significant|therapeutic or physiologic effect.|Analysis of the No. 24 Formula GH-1 showed that it consisted essentially of|capsules containing proteinacious matter, such as dried glandular materials,|plant materials, and material derived from bile. It was alleged to be misbranded|because of false and misleading statements which appeared in the book and|booklet and in the leaflet, \"\"Basic Endocrines Vol. 1, No. 6,\"\" and which represented|and suggested that the article would be efficacious in the cure, mitigation, or|treatment of such conditions as hypofunction of the liver, cirrhosis, lack of liver|detoxication, duodenitis, constant gas, pseudo-angina, intestinal putrefaction,|liver spots, liver and spleen deficiencies, and cardiac irregularities. It was alleged|to be misbranded further in that the statement on its containers, \"\"No. 24 Formula|GH-1,\"\" was a false and misleading device, meaning to the purchaser that the|article was efficacious for the foregoing conditions referred to in the portions|of the book, booklet, and leaflet relating to the article when, in fact, it was not|so efficacious. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the statement,|\"\"Each Capsule Contains: * * * Liver 3? gr., Spleen 1 gr.,\"\" was misleading|in the absence of a revelation of the material fact that liver and spleen in the|amounts supplied when the article was taken in accordance with the directions|on the label, 3 to 6 daily, would not produce any significant therapeutic or|physiologic effect.|Analysis of the No. 15 Formula GM-15 showed that it consisted essentially of|capsules containing oroteinacious matter, such as dried glandular material,|including 0.1 grain per capsule of thyroid, and plant material. It was alleged|to be misbranded because of false and misleading statements which appeared|in the book and booklet, and which represented and suggested that the article|would be efficacious in the cure, mitigation, or treatment of such conditions as|general debility, difficult concentration, failing memory, undue worry, sexual|neurasthenia, premature senility, advancing years, endocrine deterioration and|functional insufficiency, nervous aggravations bringing mental depression, thyroid|classified anemias, and those conditions wherein major and glandular support|was indicated; and that it would prolong the useful and active period of life.|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the statement on its containers,|\"\"No. 15 Formula GM-15,\"\" was a false and misleading device, meaning to the|purchaser that the article was efficacious for the foregoing conditions referred|to in the portions of the book and booklet relating to the article, when, in fact,|it was not so efficacious. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the|statement on its label, \"\"Each Capsule Contains: * * * Pituitary (Whole)|}4 gr., Suprarenal y? gr., Orchic 1? gr., Prostate ? gr., Parathyroid 1/40 gr.,|Pineal 1/60 gr., Ovary ? gr., Duodenum 1 gr., Pancreas ? gr., Heart ? gr.,\"\"|was misleading in the absence of a revelation of the material fact that pituitary,|suprarenal, orchic, prostate, parathyroid, pineal, ovary, duodenum, pancreas, and|heart in the amount supplied when the article was taken in accordance with the|directions on the label, 1 to 3 daily, would not produce any significant therapeutic|or physiologic effect.|Analysis of the No. 3 Formula GM-4 showed that it consisted essentially|of capsules containing proteinacious matter, such as dried glandular material,|including 0.1 grain per capsule of thyroid, and plant material. It was alleged to|be misbranded because of false and misleading statements which appeared in|the book and booklet and in the leaflet, \"\"Basic Endocrines Vol. 1 No. 4,\"\" and|which represented and suggested that the article would be efficacious in the cure,|mitigation, or treatment of chronic hypo-ovarism, sexual apathy, lack of orgasm,|sexual maldevelopment, sexual asthenia, irregular menses, cramps during menses,|and chronic frigidity; that it was supportive in sterility and following ovarec-|tomy; that it would give necessary metabolic and nerve support; and that it|offered complete sex syndrome support. It was alleged to be misbranded further|in that the statement on its containers, \"\"No. 3 formula GM-4,\"\" was a false|and misleading device, meaning to the purchaser that the article was efficacious|for the foregoing conditions referred to in the portions of the book, booklet,|and leaflet relating to the article when,, in fact, it was not so efficacious. It|was alleged to be misbranded further in that the statement on its label, \"\"Each|Capsule Contains: * * * Anterior Pituitary ? gr., Suprarenal yQ gr., Ad-|renal Cortex y2 gr., Ovary 2? gr., Mammary ? gr.,\"\" was misleading in the|absence of a revelation of the material fact that anterior pituitary, suprarenal,|adrenal cortex, ovary, and mammary supplied when the article was taken in|accordance with the directions on the label, 3 to 6 daily, would not produce any|significant therapeutic or physiologic effect.|Analysis of the No. 20 Formula GH-4 showed that it consisted essentially of|animal tissues. It was alleged to be misbranded because of false and mis-|leading statements which appeared in the book and booklet and in the leaflet,|\"\"Basic Endocrines Vol. 1, No. 1,\"\" and which represented and suggested that the|article would be efficacious in the cure, mitigation, or treatment of acute tox-|emia and 1 decreased immunity, toxic migraine, waxy stool, food allergy, renal|and hepatic colic, angina, tubular constriction, hives, digestive enzymic deficiency,|coronary disease, acute colds, bronchitis, and colic due to the passing of calculi;|that it was supportive of psoriasis; that it was efficacious in the final digestion|of fats and carbohydrates and in the complete digestion of protein and other|food factors; that it was of value in types of food allergy, such as certain|migraines, some forms of asthma, hay fever, and eczema; that it would have a|relaxing effect upon the urinary apparatus, and would be valuable in spasm or con-|traction of these parts, and increase the frequency and quantity of urination;|and that it would increase weight. It was alleged to be misbranded further in|that the statement on its containers, \"\"No. 20 Formula GH-4,\"\" was a false and|misleading device, meaning to the purchaser that the article was efficacious|for the foregoing conditions referred to in the portions of the book, booklet, and|leaflet relating to the article when, in fact, it was not so efficacious. It was|alleged to be misbranded further in that the statement on its label, \"\"Each|Capsule Contains: Adrenal Cortex ? gr., and Insulin Free Pancreas 5 gr.,\"\"|was misleading in the absence of a revelation of the material fact that adrenal|cortex and insulin-free pancreas in the amounts supplied when the article was|taken in accordance with the directions on the label, 3 to 12 daily, would not|produce any significant therapeutic or physiologic effect.|On July 9, 1943, the Basic Endocrines Sales Co., Inc., claimant, having filed|an answer denying that the products were misbranded, and later having con-|sented to the entry of a decree, judgment of condemnation was entered and the|products were ordered destroyed.|1035. Adulteration and misbranding of gauze bandage. U. S. v. 102 Dozen Packages of Gauze Bandage. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj01035March 1945C. I. Lee and Co.gauze bandageJuly 25, 1942Seattle, Wash.New York, N. Y.Seattle, Wash.Western District of Washington1035F. D. C. No. 8646. Sample No. 12139-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01035ddnj|1035. Adulteration and misbranding of gauze bandage. U. S. v. 102 Dozen|Packages of Gauze Bandage. Default decree of condemnation and de-|struction. (F. D. C. No. 8646. Sample No. 12139-F.)|On October 28, 1942, the United States attorney for the Western District of|Washington filed a libel against 102 packages of gauze bandage at Seattle,|Wash., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or|about July 25, 1942, from New York, N. Y., by C. I. Lee and Co.; and charging|that it was adulterated and misbranded. The article was labeled in part:|\"\"Gauze Bandage 2 Inch * * * Distributors Chatham Sundries Co. New|York, N. Y.\"\"|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its purity and quality fell|below that which it purported and was represented to possess, \"\"Sterilized.\"\"|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement appearing in its labeling|\"\"Sterilized after packaging,\"\" was misleading since it created the impression|that the article was sterile, whereas it was not sterile but was contaminated|with living gram-positive spore-bearing bacilli.|On September 16, 1943, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-|tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|1036. Adulteration and misbranding of bandage gauze. U. S. v. 4,379 Dozen Packages of Bandage Gauze. Consent decree of condemnation. Product released under bond to be brought into compliance with the law.ddnj01036March 1945Convenience, Inc.bandage gauzeDecember 3, 1942Toledo, OhioGreenville, S. C.Toledo, OhioNorthern District of Ohio1036F. D. C. No. 9251. Sample No. 32370-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01036ddnj|1036. Adulteration and misbranding of bandage gauze. U. S. v. 4,379 Dozen|Packages of Bandage Gauze. Consent decree of condemnation. Product|released under bond to be brought into compliance with the law. (F.?D.|C. No. 9251. Sample No. 32370-F.)|On January 27, 1943, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Ohio filed a libel against 4,379 dozen packages of bandage gauze at Toledo, Ohio,|alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about|December 3, 1942, by Convenience, Inc., from Greenville, S. C.; and charging|that it was adulterated and misbranded.\"\" The article was labeled in part:|\"\"Bandage: Gauze, Roller, Plain Sterilized.\"\"|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to be and was|represented as a drug, the name of which is recognized in an official com-|pendium, the United States Pharmacopoeia (twelfth revision), but its quality|and purity fell below the standard set forth therein since it was not sterile but|was contaminated with viable micro-organisms.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the designation \"\"Sterilized,\"\" appearing|in the labeling, was false and misleading.|On March 18, 1943, Convenience, Inc., claimant, having admitted the allegations|of the libel, judgment of condemnation was entered and the product was ordered|released under bond to be brought into compliance with the law under the|supervision of the Food and Drug Administration.|1037. Adulteration and misbranding of gauze bandages. U. S. v. 10,000 Dozen Packages of Gauze Bandages (and 8 other seizure actions against gauze bandages). Consent decrees of condemnation. Product ordered released under bond for reprocessing.ddnj01037March 1945Marsales Company, Inc.gauze bandagesFebruary 4, 1943, and May 3, 1944Richmond, Va.; Seattle, Wash.; St. Louis, Mo.; Louisville, Ky.New York, N. Y., and East Lyme, Niantic, Conn., St. Louis, Mo.Richmond, Va.; Seattle, Wash.; St. Louis, Mo.; Louisville, Ky.Eastern District of Virginia, the Western District of Washington, the Eastern District of Missouri, and the Western District of Kentucky1037F. D. C. Nos. 9309, 9371, 9411, 9456, 9529, 9530, 9818, 9819, 10207, 12296. Sample Nos. 6769-F, 37407-F, 37578-F, 37579-F, 42403-F. 42404-F, 45722-F, 45727-F, 45766-F, 45785-F to 45787-F, incl. , 45822-F, 67812-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01037ddnj|1037. Adulteration and misbranding of gauze bandages. V. S. v. 10,000 Dozen|Packages of Gauze Bandages (and 8 otlier seizure actions against gauze (|bandages). Consent decrees of condemnation. Product ordered released '|under bond for reprocessing. (F. D. C. Nos. 9309, 9371, 9411, 9456, 9529,|9530, 9818, 9819, 10207, 12296. Sample Nos. 6769-F, 37407-F, 37578-F,|37579-F, 42403-F. 42404-F, 45722-F, 45727-F, 45766-F, 45785-F to 45787-F,|incl., 45822-F, 67812-F.)|Examination showed that this product was not sterile but was contaminated|with living micro-organisms.|Between February 4, 1943, and May 3, 1944, the United States attorneys|for the Eastern District of Virginia, the Western District of Washington, the|Eastern District of Missouri, and the Western District of Kentucky filed libels|against the following quantities of gauze bandages from 1 to 4 inches in width:|10,000 dozen packages, 6,900 packages, each containing 1 dozen, 120 cartons,|each containing 100 dozen, 217 cases, each containing 100 dozen, and 345 cases,|each containing 50 dozen, at Richmond, Va.; 621 dozen packages and 318|packages at Seattle, Wash.; 531 dozen packages at St. Louis, Mo.; and 25|cases, each containing 50 dozen, at Louisville, Ky. It was alleged that all|lots had been shipped within the period from on or about October 8, 1942, to|March 23, 1944, by the Marsales Company, Inc., from New York, N. Y., and|East Lyme, Niantic, Conn., with the exception of a portion of the Richmond|lot, which was alleged to have been shipped from San Antonio, Tex., by the|San Antonio Quartermaster Depot, and a portion of the Seattle lot, which was|alleged to have been shipped by the Indian Service Warehouse from St. Louis,|Mo.; and it was charged that the bandages were adulterated and misbranded.|Portions of the article were labeled in part: \"\"Bandage [or \"\"Bandages\"\"] Gauze|Roller Plain Sterilized,\"\" or \"\"Marco Sterilized When Packed Gauze Bandage.\"\"|The lot at Louisville was alleged to be adulterated in that its purity and|quality fell below that which it purported and was represented to possess,|\"\"sterilized.\"\" The remaining lots were alleged to be adulterated in that they|purported to be and were represented as a drug, the name of which is recog-|nized in an official compendium, the United States Pharmacopoeia (twelfth re-|vision), but their quality and purity fell below the standard set forth in that|compendium since they were not sterile.|All lots were alleged to be misbranded in that the statements appearing in|their labeling which represented that they were sterile were false and mis-|leading.|Between March 1, 1943, and June 19, 1944, the Marsales Company, Inc.,|claimant, having consented to the entry of the decrees, judgments of condemna-|tion were entered and the product was ordered released under bond for re-|processing under the supervision of the Food and Drug Administration.|1038. Adulteration and misbranding of absorbent cotton. U. S. v. 464 Packages of Absorbent Cotton. Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered released under bond for processing.ddnj01038March 1945American White Cross Laboratories, Inc.absorbent cottonSeptember 16 and November 13, 1942Little Rock, Ark.Cape Girardeau, Mo.Little Rock, Ark.Eastern District of Arkansas1038F. D. C. No. 9156. Sample No. 6581-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01038ddnj|1038. Adulteration and misbranding of absorbent cotton. U. S. v. 464 Packages|of Absorbent Cotton. Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered|released under bond for processing. (F. D. C. No. 9156. Sample No.|6581-F.)|On January 9, 1943, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of|Arkansas filed a libel against 464 1-ounce packages of absorbent cotton at|Little Rock, Ark., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate com-|merce on or about September 16 and November 13, 1942, from Cape Girardeau,|Mo., by the American White Cross Laboratories; and charging that it was|adulterated and misbranded.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to be and was|represented as a drug the name of which is recognized in the United States|Pharmacopoeia, an official compendium, but its quality and purity fell below|the standard set forth therein since the article did not conform to the require-|ments of the test for sterility of solids prescribed in that compendium, but was|contaminated with gram-positive bacilli.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements appearing upon its|label, \"\"U. S. P. Absorbent Cotton * * * Sterilized After Packaging Best|Hospital Quality U. S. P. Absorbent Cotton means that this cotton conforms|to all requirements of the United States Pharmacopoeia. This cotton is steril-|ized twice-once during the process of manufacture and then again after pack-|aging. U. S. P. Absorbent Cotton meets government specifications in every|respect,\"\" were false and misleading since the article was not sterile and did|not comply with the specifications of the United States Pharmacopoeia.|On June 29, 1943, the American White Cross Laboratories, Inc., claimant,|having admitted the allegations of the libel, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered released under bond, conditioned that it|be processed so as to comply with the law, under the supervision of the Food|and Drug Administration.|1039. Adulteration and misbranding of silk sutures. U. S. v. 7,200 Packages and 7,200 Packages of Silk Sutures. Decrees of condemnation. Portion of product ordered released under bond for reprocessing and relabeling, and remainder ordered destroyed.ddnj01039March 1945Gudebrod Brothers Co., Inc.silk suturesDecember 17 and 28, 1942St. Louis, Mo.Pottstown, Pa.St. Louis, Mo.Eastern District of Missouri and the Northern District of New York1039F. D. C. Nos. 9255, 9396. Sample Nos. 6509-F, 32823-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01039ddnj|1039. Adulteration and misbranding' ot silk sutures. U. S. v. 7,200 Packages and|7,200 Packages of Silk Sutures. Decrees of condemnation. Portion of|product ordered released under bond for reprocessing and relabeling,|and remainder ordered destroyed. (F. D. C. Nos. 9255, 9396. Sample Nos.|6509-F, 32823-F.)|Each package of these sutures contained 3 smaller packages labeled in part:|\"\"Size 00,\"\" \"\"Size 1,\"\" or \"\"Size 2.\"\" The \"\"Size 2\"\" sutures were contaminated with|living micro-organisms.|On January 27 and February 19, 1943, the United States attorneys. for the|Eastern District of Missouri and the Northern District of New York filed libels|against 7,200 packages of silk sutures at St. Louis, Mo., and 7,200 packages|at Binghamton, N. Y., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate|commerce on or about December 17 and 28, 1942, by the Gudebrod Brothers|Silk Co., Inc., from Pottstown, Pa.; and charging that it was adulterated and|misbranded. The article was labeled in part: \"\"Sizes 00-1-2 Two 18\"\" Strands|of Each Sterile * * * Braided Silk Sutures.\"\"|The \"\"Size 2\"\" sutures were alleged to be adulterated in that they purported|to be and were represented as a drug the name of which is recognized in the|United States Pharmacopoeia, an official compendium, but their quality and|purity fell below the standard set forth therein since the sutures did not meet|the test for sterility of solids as required by that compendium.|They were alleged to be miebranded in that the statement on the label,|\"\"Sterile,\"\" was false and misleading.|On April 13, 1943, the Gudebrod Brothers Co., Inc., having appeared as claim-|ant for the lot at St. Louis, and having consented to the entry of a decree,|judgment of condemnation was entered and that lot was ordered released under|bond for reprocessing and relabeling under the supervision of the Food and|Drug Administration. On May 4, 1943, no claimant having appeared for the|lot at Binghamton, judgment of condemnation was entered and the lot was|ordered destroyed.|DRUGS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF FALSE AND MISLEADING CLAIMS*|DRUGS FOR HUMAN USE|1040. Misbranding of Colusa Natural Oil, Colusa Natural Oil Capsules, and Colusa Natural Oil Hemorrhoid Ointment. U. S. v. Empire Oil & Gas Corporation and Chester Walker Colgrove (Colusa Products Co.) Pleas of not guilty. Tried to a jury. Verdict of guilty. Fine of $500 and 6 months in jail imposed against individual defendant on each of the 3 counts, the jail sentences to run concurrently and terminate upon payment of fine. Corporate defendant fined $3. Fines deposited in escrow and appeal noted. Judgment reversed by appellate court and case remanded for retrial. Pleas of nolo contendere thereafter entered. Defendants given same sentences as those originally imposed.ddnj01040March 1945Empire Oil & Gas Corporation, trading as the Colusa Products Co. at Berkeley, Calif., and against Chester Walker Colgrove, president and treasurer of the /corporationColusa Natural Oil, Colusa Natural Oil Capsules, and Colusa Natural Oil Hemorrhoid OintmentJanuary 31, 1941New MexicoCaliforniaNew MexicoNorthern District of California1040F. D. C. No. 6408. Sample Nos. 65381-E to 65383-E, incl.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01040ddnj|1040. Misbranding of Colusa Natural Oil, Colusa Natural Oil Capsules, and|Colusa Natural Oil Hemorrhoid Ointment. U. S. v. Empire Oil & Gas|Corporation and Chester Walker Colgrove (Colusa Products Co.) Pleas|of not guilty. Tried to a jury. \"\"Verdict of guilty. Fine of $500 and 6|months in jail imposed against individual defendant on each of the 3|counts, the jail sentences to run concurrently and terminate upon pay-|ment of fine. Corporate defendant fined $3. Fines deposited in escrow|and appeal noted. Judgment reversed by appellate court and case re-|manded for retrial. Pleas of nolo contendere thereafter entered. De-|fendants given same sentences as those originally imposed. (F. D. C.|No. 6408. Sample Nos. 65381-E to 65383-E, incl.)|On March 24, 1942, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|California filed an information against the Empire Oil & Gas Corporation,|trading as the Colusa Products Co. at Berkeley, Calif., and against Chester|Walker Colgrove, president and treasurer of the /corporation, alleging shipment|on or about January 31, 1941, from the State of California into the State of|New Mexico of quantities of the above-named products which were misbranded.|Analyses of the Colusa Natural Oil and the Colusa Natural Oil Capsules|showed that they consisted of crude petroleum oil containing 0.75 percent of|sulfur, and that they did not contain camphor, turpentine, and iodine or iodine|compounds, or possess any radio activity.|These articles were alleged to be misbranded in that the statements in their|labeling which represented and suggested that, when used alone or in con-|junction with each other, they would be efficacious in the treatment of eczema,|psoriasis, acne, ringworm, athlete's foot, burns, cuts, t poison ivy, and varicose|ulcers; that they would act on surface skin irritations'as a stimulant and would|increase circulation and aid in healing; that they would be efficacious to relieve|discomfort and pain; that they would be efficacious to inhibit the spreading of|skin irritations and to restore the normal skin surface; and that they would|be,efficacious to kill or check disease germs were false and misleading since the|articles were not efficacious for such purposes.|?See also Nos. 1001-1020,1023, 1025-1039.|Analysis of the Colusa Natural Oil .Hemorrhoid Ointment showed that it con-|sisted essentially of zinc oxide, crude petroleum oil, and small proportions of|camphor, menthol, and benzocaine incorporated in a base bf lanolin and beeswax.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements appearing|in its labeling which represented and suggested that it would be efficacious in the|treatment of hemorrhoids -and piles were false and misleading since it would|not be efficacious for such purposes. It was alleged to be misbranded further|in that it was in package form and its label did not bear an accurate statement|of the quantity of the contents in terms of weight or measure since it didn't|bear a statement of the quantity of the contents.|On lane 23, 1942, the defendants having entered pleas of not guilty, the case|came on for trial before a jury. On June 30, 1942, the trial was concluded arid|the jury returned a verdict of guilty as to each defendant. On July 8, 1942,|the court imposed against the corporate defendant a fine of $1 upon each of 3|counts, a total of $3; and against the individual defendant a fine of $500 upon|each of 3 counts, a total of $1,500, together with a sentence of 6 months in|jail on each count, the jail sentences to run concurrently and terminate upon|payment of his fine. The fines were deposited in escrow and an appeal was|noted.|On June 28, 1943, the circuit court of appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed|the judgment of the district court, handling down the following opinion :|STEPHENS, Circuit Judge:|\"\"Empire Oil and Gas Corporation, (a corporation) and Chester Walker Col-|grove, trading as Colusa Products Company, were informed against in three sep-|arate counts charging the violation|of the Act of Congress (June 25, 1938),|known as the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act [52 Statutes at Large, 1040,|21 USCA, ?? 331 (a), 352 (a)]. The corporation and Colgrove were tried by|judge and jury and were convicted upon all three counts. Judgments and sentence|followed and both the corporation and Colgrove appeal therefrom.|\"\"It is charged in all three counts that packages containing drugs which were|sent into interstate commerce were misbranded in that the branding falsely|claimed the drugs were efficacious in the treatment of various named diseases.|\"\"In counts I and II the following skin diseases are specifically named : eczema,|psoriasis, acne, ringworm, Athlete's Foot, burns, cuts, poison ivy and varicose|ulcers. In count III the disease named is hemorrhoids or piles.|\"\"As to count III, an additional charge of misbranding is made that the labels on|jars of ointment did not bear an accurate statement of the quantity of the con-|tents in terms of weight and measure.|- ? |\"\"The evidence establishes without conflict that the Empire Oil and Gas|Corporation, with Chester Walker Colgrove as its president and active manager|in immediate charge of the business, was conducting the business of producing and|marketing products, the base of which came from a California oil well. As|alleged in the information, appellants placed some of such products in the course|of interstate commerce. The oil produced from the well is called Colusa Oil|and is claimed by the producers and marketers to have remarkable remedial|qualities. It is offered for sale as a liquid and as an ointment. The immediate|containers of the products are labeled and packed in cartons or boxes which|contain advertising matter related to the efficacy of the product as a remedy for|a number of skin diseases and for hemorrhoids.|\"\"In their opening brief on appeal, appellants treat their assignments of error|under six major points, and we shall treat them in their order of presentation|therein.|\"\"It is claimed that the evidence is insufficient. There is no question but that|there is great conflict upon the issue of misbranding as to the efficacy of the|remedies. As will hereinafter appear, there was error committed which greatly|affected the evidence upon this issue. As to count III, there is substantial evi-|dence that the remedy containers went into interstate commerce without the re-|quired quantity of contents being printed upon the label [21 USCA, ??331 (a),|352 (a), 352 (b) (2)]. No error can be predicated upon this point.|\"\"Appellants claim highly prejudicial error by reason of the trial court's rul-|ings as to the testimony of Dr. C. E. Von Hoover.|\"\"Dr. Von Hoover was presented as an expert witness for the defense, and his|qualifying testimony revealed the following: Between 1922 and 1924 he attended|New York Chemical College, now City College. There he spent eighteen|months in the study of biochemistry and was awarded the Smedley D. Butler|scholarship. (For convenience we quote definitions from Webster's New Inter-|national Dictionary, Second Edition, of certain technical terms.)|Biochemistry: 'The chemistry plant and animal life; biological, or physiological|chemistry.'|From 1924 to 1926 he attended Kings College in London, receiving therefrom|the degree of Master of Science. While there he studied pharmacology and gen-|eral science, including microbiology.|Pharmacology: '1. The science of drugs, including materia medica and thera-|peutics : 2. The materials of this science: the properties and phenomena of drugs|especially with relation to their therapeutic value.'|Materia medica: 'a. Material or substance of remedies, b. That branch of medical|science which treats of the nature and properties of all the substances employed|for the cure of diseases.'|Therapeutics: 'That part of medical science which treats of the application of|remedies for diseases; therapy.'|Therapy: 'Treatment of disease.'|Microbiology: 'The science or study of microbes.'|He attended the University of Vienna two years under the Smedley D. Butler|scholarship, receiving the degree of Doctor of Science. There he studied microbi-|ology, laboratory pharmacology and general science and materia medica, with the|use of the American pharmacopoeia. These subjects are the same as lead to a|degree of M. D. The degree of M. D. also requires practice on patients. He|is a professional dermatologist.|Dermatology: 'The science which treats of the skin, its structure, functions and|diseases.'|He was with Goodman Research Laboratory, New York, for a year on the|clinical staff, testing pharmaceuticals and ointments and practicing general|pharmaceutical chemistry. In collaboration with Medical Doctors and Doctors of|Science he there tested the therapeutic value of and dangers of medicinal prep-|arations to human patients. In 1930 he established a clinical testing agency under|his name at San Antonio, Texas, receiving business in that line of endeavor from|high grade manufacturing chemists and especially from well-known firms manu-|facturing skin disease preparations. He has been so employed by Vitamin|Research Company who manufacture synthetic vitamins. In his clinic a Medical|Doctor diagnoses and prescribes. An assistant in the clinic is Dr. Beal, for|some time United States Public Health Officer and surgeon. Another Medical|Doctor assistant is a former Health Officer of San Antonio and past Trustee|of the American Medical Society. Another assistant is Major Burby, retired|Trustee of the American Veterinary Association, who acts as veterinary consulter|in the handling of small animal practice and experimentation.|\"\"While Dr. Von Hoover was on the witness stand as a witness for the defend-|ants, he was shown a report designated as Exhibit 'L' for identification relating|to the effect of Colusa Oil on dogs suffering from mange. He testified: 'It|is my report. I prepared it; that is my report of the results of the application|of Colusa Natural Oil to the skin of animals; associated with me was Dr. Burby,|a veterinarian.-I am not a veterinary.'|\"\"Mr. Zirpoli, the assistant district attorney: 'And this is a veterinarian's|report?'|\"\"A. 'You see my name on the other side as the laboratory man, * * *|the man that made the findings in the presence of the veterinarian. He couldn't|make those tests because he is not qualified in bacteriology. * * *'|\"\"Q. 'This report is predicated upon the experiments conducted upon the|animal?' A. 'That is correct.'|\"\"Q. 'Made by Dr. Burby?' A. 'And myself.'|\"\"Q. 'And Dr. Burby did the actual administration ?'|\"\"A. 'No. I administered to some dogs the application of oil in his presence.'|\"\"Q. 'This purports to be his conclusion as a veterinarian too does it not?'|\"\"A. 'Canine dermatology is the practice of the veterinarian, and naturally, he|would sign as the veterinarian, and I as the scientist, the micrologist.'|* * *|\"\"Mr. Gleason, the attorney for defendants-appellants: Q. 'I am going to ask|you to refer to Defendants' Exhibit L for identification and ask you if that|document refreshes your recollection as to facts observed by you in these clinical|tests on animals as to the therapeutic value and power of the Colusa Natural|Oil?'|\"\"A. 'Yes.'|\"\"Q. 'Please state briefly the facts observed by you in these clinical tests on this|animal therapy as to the results of the use of Colusa Natural Oil amd skin dis-|eases of animals. And, Doctor, confine yourself to the facts that you know of|your own knowledge and do not read any of the opinions if they are opinions|of Dr. Burby.'|\"\"Mr. Zirpoli, the assistant district attorney: 'I want to make this objection,|your Honor. He is asked to testify as to the effect of the application of this|oil, which calls for his opinion and conclusion as a veterinarian.'|\"\"The Court: 'Objection sustained.'|\"\"(Exception noted.)|\"\"Mr. Gleason: Q. 'Doctor, in the practice of your profession as a pharmacol-|ogist and your work for these firms that you mentioned yesterday, including the|Goodman Laboratories and the rest of them, as their consultant, do you in the|practice of your profession resort to animal therapy to test the efficacy of drugs|and preparations?'|\"\"A. 'Yes.'|\"\"Q. 'Is that a part of the ordinary practice of the ordinary pharmacologist?'|\"\"A. 'That is the practice.'|\"\"Q. 'I will ask you to state, Doctor, the facts that you observed, in your clinical|examinations; that is to say, this animal therapy, from the use of Colusa Natural|Oil upon the skin diseases of dogs and cats used in this animal therapy.'|\"\"Mr. Zirpoli, the assistant district attorney: 'May it please the Court, I sub-|mit that the question is identical in different terms and objection is made|exactly as it was made to the last question.'|\"\"Mr. Doyle, attorney for defendant-appellant: 'This question asks for the|knowledge of the witness.'|\"\"The Court: 'The objection will be sustained.'|\"\"It is apparent that the trial judge unduly limited the examination of the|witness Dr. Von Hoover to the very great prejudice of the accused. The quali-|fications of Dr. Von Hoover were far more extensive than the average medical|doctor or veterinarian possesses, and his familiarity with the materia medica,|bacteriology, therapeutics, pharmacology and dermatology well qualified him to|answer all of the questions which were put to him.|\"\"In regard to the report which he had prepared, it does not appear that he|was asked to do otherwise than use it to refresh his recollection as to his own|acts in the testing of appellants' remedies. It is quite probable that the report|contained matter as to which he could not testify, but this fact could not prevent|its use in the limited manner suggested by appellants' counsel by their questions.|There were other reports, some of them referring to experiments upon humans,|which were similar in nature to the one above detailed, and their use by Dr.|Von Hoover was prevented in like manner. This was error.|\"\"It is claimed that 'The trial court committed prejudicial error in refusing to|admit in evidence the testimonials offered by the defense.' It appears in count I|of the information, and is incorporated in the second count by reference (we do|not here consider the legal effect of the practice), that advertising matter within|the package contained the following recitation: 'Colusa Natural Oil is credited by|others with producing relatively as remarkable results as above pictured in|relieving irritation of external Acne-Ezcema-Psoriasis-Athlete's Foot or|Ring Worm-Poison Ivy- * * * Varicose Ulcers-Burns and Cuts.'|\"\"It is claimed that defendants had a right to introduce written testimonials|of many people to prove the truthfulness of this statement. It does not appear|from defendants' recitation of the testimony that the government offered any|proof upon this subject. This being true, there was no occasion for the truth|to be established by the evidence. Aside from this, the introduction of letters|received through the mail could not be received. The whole subject matter is|immaterial.|\"\"Under a single subhead appellants treat a number of assignments which we|shall treat briefly.|\"\"Appellants think they were prejudiced by the court's refusal to permit proof|going to the truth of a certain statement contained in the advertising matter|regarding the action of radium. The government had introduced testimony along|this line-probably to show that the preparations do not contain radium.|Appellants admit, however, that they have never claimed and do not claim that|the preparations contain radium. In this circumstance any testimony relative|to radium would be immaterial.|\"\"Appellants complain that Dr. Tainter, an expert witness for the government,|was permitted to testify as to the effect of Colusa Oil in poison oak cases and that|Colusa Oil is an ordinary crude oil. This claim is without merit.|\"\"Appellants complain that the attitude of the court was prejudicial. The|court evidenced some lack of patience, as we read the record, against both sides.|No objections were interposed. We think the impatience exhibited was not of a|degree sufficient to constitute reversible error.|\"\"They also complain of the cross-examination on immaterial matters. This|amounts to nothing.|\"\"In their brief under the subheading 'The court erred in refusing to permit|appellants to prove various facts to show their good faith,' we have examined|the claim and the argument and find no error.|\"\"Appellants complain that the testimony of a Mr. Everett and of a Mr. Baum-|gartner was unduly limited upon objections that the questions call for the wit-|nesses' conclusions. We agree but think the error inconsequential in the cir-|cumstances. It appears that counsel for defendants voluntarily abandoned the|subject.|\"\"Appellants sought to show they were wrongfully prevented from showing that|the public was not misled by their advertisements. There is nothing to the point.|\"\"Appellants claim that the third count is bad as being duplicitous. Upon|authority of Weeks v. United States, 445 US 618, and United States v. Swift,|188 Fed. 92, we hold that the third count of the information is not duplicitous.|In the latter cited case it is said, 'Duplicity in an indictment means the charging|of more than one offense, not the charging of a single offense committed in more|than one way. Duplicity may be applied only to the result charged, and not to|the method of its attainment.'|\"\"The government insists that there is substantial, even conclusive, evidence to|support the conclusion that each package of drugs referred to in count III did not|bear an accurate statement of the quantity of the contents in terms of weight|or measure and that the verdict must stand as to this count upon that evidence|alone. But the issue of guilt or innocence upon each separate count was submit-|ted to the jury upon all of the material evidence relevant to each count. We|have seen that reversible error was committed in the admission of evidence rela-|tive and material to count III and a verdict of guilty was returned. In these|circumstances we cannot speculate as to whether the guilt was premised upon|one or the other or upon all of the allegations contained in this count. Evidence|was offered by appellants to show that any failure upon their parts to properly|designate the amount of contents on labels used as charged in count III was acci-|dental or by mistake of another. Upon objection that the evidence was immate-|rial, the court denied its reception.|\"\"The instructions to the jury are in accord with the government's contention|that no intent is necessary to a conviction upon the applicable statute and that|no explanation of accident or mistake in any way affects the guilt or innocence|of the accused. This subject is inadequately treated in the briefs, and since the|judgments must be reversed upon the errors occurring during the examination|of Dr. Von Hoover, we do not pass upon it.|\"\"Reversed.\"\"|On October 7, 1943, the case was remanded for retrial and on December 10,|1943, the defendants entered pleas of nolo contendere. On December 23, 1943,|the court imposed the same sentence upon the defendants that it had originally|imposed.|NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 159, FOOD AND DRUGS ACT. ADULTERATION AND MISBRANDING OF PEPPER.fdnj00159February 8, 1910Parrish Brothers, a corporation of Baltimore, MarylandPEPPERMarch 19, 1908MarylandMarylandVirginiaDistrict of Maryland159I. S. No. 1760-a. F & D. No. 626The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainfdnj00159fdnj|I. S. No. 1760-a.|E\\ & D. No. 626. |Issued February 8, 1910.|United States Department of Agriculture,|OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY.|NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 159, FOOD AND DRUGS ACT.|ADULTERATION AND MISBRANDING OF PEPPER.|In accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of the Food andDrugs Act of June 30, 1906, and of Regulation 6 of the rules andregulations for the enforcement of the Act, notice is given of thejudgment of the court in the case of the United States v. ParrishBrothers, a corporation of Baltimore, Maryland, a prosecution in theDistrict Court of the United States for the District of Maryland,against said Parrish Brothers under Section 2 of the aforesaid act, forthe shipment and delivery for shipment from Maryland to Virginiaof an article of food labeled and branded \"\" The Best in Spices.Levering's Brand Pure Spices, Pepper,\"\" which was adulterated andmisbranded within the meaning of Sections 7 and 8 of the Act, in thatpepper shells and extraneous mineral matter had been substituted inpart for pepper and mixed with pepper so as to reduce, lower, andinjuriously affect its quality and strength, and was not pure pepperas represented by the label, but a mixture of pepper, pepper shellsand dirt, which said article of food had been manufactured and pre?pared by said Parrish Brothers and sold by it to Levering Coffee Co.of Baltimore, Md., under a guaranty provided for by Section 9 of theAct, and shipped as aforesaid by Levering Coffee Co. The UnitedStates Attorney for the aforesaid district having, on July 6, 1909,filed an information in said court against Parrish Brothers for theaforesaid offense, and Parrish Brothers having, on said date enteredits plea of guilty, the court imposed upon it a fine of $50.|The facts in the case were as follows:|On March 19, 1908, an inspector of the Department of Agriculturepurchased from M. J. Gately, Fredericksburg, Va., a sample- of anarticle of food (I. S. 1760-a) labeled and branded \"\" The Best inSpices. Levering's Brand Pure Spices, Pepper.\"\" This sample waspart of a shipment by Levering Coffee Co. from Baltimore, Md., to24147?10|the said Gately, on or about January 14,1908, and was included in abill of pepper sold on or about January 14, 1908, by Parrish Bros, tothe said Levering Coffee Co. under a guaranty. The sample wasanalyzed in the Bureau of Chemistry of the United States Depart?ment of Agriculture, and it was found that it contained an excess ofpepper shells, and extraneous mineral matter (dirt).|It appearing from this analysis that the article was adulteratedand misbranded within the meaning of Sections 7 and 8 of the Act,in the manner hereinbefore stated, the Secretary of Agriculture gavenotice to M. J. Gately, the dealer from whom the sample was pur?chased, as well also, as to Parrish Bros, and Levering Coffee Co.Parrish Bros, being the party responsible for the adulteration andmisbranding of the pepper and for its shipment in interstate com?merce, and it appearing that provisions of the Act had been violatedby the said Parrish Bros., on June 25, 1909, the Secretary of Agri?culture reported the facts and evidence (F. & D. No. 626) to theAttorney General, by whom they were referred to the United StatesAttorney for the District of Maryland, who filed an informationagainst the said Parrish Bros, with the result hereinbefore stated.|JAMES WILSON,Secretary of Agriculture.|JANUARY 15, 1910.|1043. Misbranding of Balm and Gilead Herb Tonic, Manning's Asthma Plaster, Asthma Tea, D. R. Manning Asthma Salve, Manning Princess Gaynell Hair Tonic, D. R. Manning's Throat Gargle, D. R. Manning Antiseptic Douch Powder, Manning's Whoa Liniment, an article labeled \"\"For Nervous Run Down Women,\"\" Blood Tonic, and Blood and Liver Capsules. U. S. v. Donald R. Manning (Manning Herb House). Plea of guilty. Defendant placed on probation for 3 years.ddnj01043March 1945Donald R. Manning, trading as the Manning Herb House, Bessemer, Ala.Balm and Gilead Herb Tonic, Manning's Asthma Plaster, Asthma Tea, D. R. Manning Asthma Salve, Manning's Princess Gaynell Hair Tonic, D. R. Manning Throat Gargle, D. R. Manning Antiseptic Douch Powder, Manning's Whoa Liniment, an article labeled \"\"For Nervous Run Down Women,\"\" Blood Tonic, and Blood and Liver CapsulesMarch 30, 1942OhioAlabamaOhioNorthern District of Alabama1043F. D. C. No. 8781. Sample Nos. 80081-E to80091-E, incl.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01043ddnj|1043. Misbranding: of Balm and Gilead Herb Tonic, Manning's Asthma Plaster,|Asthma Tea, D. R. Manning Asthma Salve, Manning's Princess Gaynell|Hair Tonic, D. R. Manning: Throat Gargle, D. R. Manning: Antiseptic Douch|Powder, Manning's Whoa Liniment, an article labeled \"\"For Nervous Run|Down Women,\"\" Blood Tonic, and Blood and Liver Capsules. U. S. v. Don-|ald R. Manning: (Manning- Herb House). Plea of guilty. Defendant|placed on probation for 3 years. (F. D. C. No. 8781. Sample Nos. 80081-E|to80091-E, incl.)|On March 18, 1943, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Alabama filed an information against Donald R. Manning, trading as the|Manning Herb House, Bessemer, Ala., alleging shipment on or about March 30,|1942, from the State of Alabama into the State of Ohio of quantities of the|above-named products which were misbranded.|Analysis of the Balm and Gilead Herb Tonic showed that it contained plant|drug extractives (no alkaloids), a small amount of gum resin, reducing sugar,|and water, and possessed a, balsam-like odor. It was alleged to be misbranded|in that the statements appearing in its labeling which represented and sug-|gested that it would be efficacious in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or pre-|vention of asthma cough and chronic cough; and that it would be efficacious as|a tonic for persons afflicted with asthma cough or chronic cough were false and|misleading since it would not be efficacious for these purposes.|Analysis of Manning's Asthma Plaster showed that it consisted essentially|of dry ground mustard and ground black pepper. It was alleged to be mis-|branded in that the statement \"\"Asthma Plaster,\"\" borne on its label, was false|and misleading since it represented and suggested that the article would be|efficacious in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of asthma, whereas|it would not be so efficacious. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that|it was in package form and did not bear a label containing an accurate state-|ment of the quantity of the contents, since the label of the article bore no|statement of the quantity of the contents: and in that it was not designated|by a name recognized in an official compendium; and it was fabricated from two|or more ingredients and the label on its package failed to bear a statement|of the common or usual name of each active ingredient.|Analysis of the Asthma Tea showed that it consisted essentially of roughly|ground plant material. It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement|\"\"Asthma Tea,\"\" borne on its label, was false and misleading since it represented|and suggested that the article would be efficacious in the cure, mitigation,|treatment, or prevention of asthma, whereas it would not be so efficacious. It|was alleged to be misbranded further in that it was in package form and its|label failed to bear an accurate statement of the quantity of the contents,|since the package was labeled \"\"Contents 3 Ozs.,\"\" whereas it contained materially|less than 3 ounces of the article, i. e., 1.70 ounces net.|Analysis of the D. R. Manning Asthma Salve showed that it consisted essen-|tially of a small amount of volatile oils, including menthol, eucalyptol, and|camphor, incorporated in a petrolatum base. It was alleged to be misbranded|in that the statements appearing in its labeling which represented and suggested|that the article would be efficacious in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or|prevention of head colds, headache, catarrh, hay fever, asthma, and sinus were|false and misleading since the article would not be efficacious for those purposes.|Analysis of Manning's Princess Gaynell Hair Tonic showed that it contained|a small amount of plant debris and bore a moderate odor of cardamon or|lavender. It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements appearing|in its labeling which represented and suggested that it would be efficacious|as a food or fertilizer for the hair, would feed the roots of the hair, and would|act as a tonic for the hair were false and misleading since it would not be|efficacious for those purposes.|Analysis of the D. R. Manning Throat Gargle showed that it consisted|essentially of plant material, probably of citrus and pineapple origin, and|water, preserved with sodium benzoate. It was alleged to be misbranded in|that the statements appearing in its labeling which represented and suggested|that it would be efficacious in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of|sore throat, hoarseness, and inflammaion of the throat; that it would be|efficacious as a tonic; and that it would remove goiters, were false and mislead-|ing since the article would not be efficacious for the purposes recommended.|Analysis of the D. R. Manning Antiseptic Douch Powder showed that it|consisted essentially of boric acid and oxyquinoline sulfate in the respective|proportions of about four to one. Bacteriological examination showed that the|article was not antiseptic when diluted according to directions. |It was alleged|to be misbranded in that the statements appearing in its labeling which repre-|sented and suggested that the article, in the dilutions recommended, was an|antiseptic and would be efficacious as a douche in maintaining feminine hygiene|were false and misleading since the article, in the dilutions recommended, was|not an antiseptic within the meaning of the law, and would not be efficacious|for the purpose recommended.|Analysis of the Whoa Liniment showed that it-consisted essentially of an|inflammable hydrocarbon capable of ignition with red hot metal, .and that it|contained mustard oil and camphor. It was alleged to be misbranded in that|the statements appearing in its labeling which represented and suggested that|the article would be efficacious in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention|of rheumatism, sciatica, lumbago, arthritis, hurts, pains, aches, head and back|aches, cuts, and sores; and that it would cause aches and pains to disappear,|were false and misleading since it would not be efficacious for those purposes.|Analysis of the article \"\"For Nervous Run Down Women\"\" showed that it|consisted essentially of a small amount of plant debris, water-soluble plant|extractives, and water. It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement|\"\"For Nervous Run Down Women,\"\" appearing in its labeling, was false and|misleading since it represented and suggested that the article would be efficacious|in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of nervous, run-down conditions|.in women, whereas it would not be efficacious for those conditions.|Analysis of the Blood Tonic showed that it contained plant debris, water-|soluble plant extractives, and water, and possessed a foul odor suggestive of bur-|dock or Jimson weed. It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement in|its labeling, \"\"Blood Tonic,\"\" was false and misleading since it represented and|suggested that the article was a tonic for the blood, whereas it was not.|Analysis of the Blood and Liver Capsules showed that they contained mer-|cury (about 10 percent) and black pepper.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements appearing|in its labeling which represented and suggested that it would be efficacious in|the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of diseases or disorders of the|blood, liver, stomach, and bowels were false and misleading since the article|would not be efficacious for those purposes. It was alleged to be misbranded|further in that it was in package form and its label failed to bear an accurate|statement of the quantity of the contents in terms of weight, measure, or nu-|merical count, since the envelope containing the article bore the statement|\"\"Quantity 44 Capsules,\"\" whereas the envelope contained 14 capsules.|On June 30, 1943, the defendant having entered a plea of guilty, the court|placed him on probation for a period of 3 years.|1044. Misbranding of Rheumatox. U. S. v. Arnold Nydegger (Rhemnatox Co.), Plea of guilty. Fine, $250.ddnj01044March 1945Arnold Nydegger, trading as the Rheumatox Co., Cleveland, OhioRheumatoxApril 20 and July 15, 1942MichiganOhioMichiganNorthern District of Ohio1044F. D. C. No. 8737. Sample Nos. 91680-E, 1406-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01044ddnj|1044. Misbranding of Rheumatox. U. S. v. Arnold Xydegrger (Rhemnatox Co.),|Plea ot gfuilty. Ftae, $250. (F. D. C. No. 8737. Sample Nos. 91680-E,|1406-F.)|On December 31,1942, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|Ohio filed an information against Arnold Nydegger, trading as the Rheumatox|Co., Cleveland, Ohio, alleging shipment on or about April 20 and July 15, 1942,|from the State of Ohio into the State of Michigan of quantities of Rheumatox.|Analysis of this article showed that is consisted essentially of an aqueous solu-|tion of sodium salicylate, methenamine, potassium citrate, potassium iodide,|emodin-bearing drugs, and a small amount of alcohol.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the name under which it|was sold, \"\"Rheumatox,\"\" and the word \"\"Rheumatox\"\" in the firm name under|which the defendant traded, were misleading since the name suggested and|created in the mind of the reader the impression that the article would be|efficacious in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of rheumatism,|whereas it would not be so efficacious. It was alleged to be misbranded further|because of false and misleading statements in its labeling which represented and|sciatica, rheumatic pains, and gout; that the article would neutralize and|eliminate deposits or uric acid; that it would break down deposits of uric acid|crystalline salts and cleanse the blood stream; and that it would be efficacious|in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of arthritis, neuritis, lumbago;|sciatica, rheumatic pains, and gout. It was alleged also to be misbranded in that|it was not designated solely by a name recognized in an official compendium, and|it was fabricated from two or more ingredients arid its label did not bear the|common or usual name of each active ingredient, since the article contained|the active ingredient potassium iodide,, and its label failed to bear a statement|that the article contained that ingredient.|On June 22, 1943, the defendant entered a plea of guilty and on July 3, 1943,|the court imposed a fine of $250.|1045. Misbranding of Nakamo Bell Tablets. U. S. v. 5 3/4 Dozen Packages of Nakamo Bell Tablets. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj01045March 1945Hollings-Smith Co.Nakamo Bell TabletsNovember 20, 1942Newark, N. J.Orangeburg, N. Y.Newark, N. J.District of New Jersey1045F. D. C. No. 9503. Sample No. 44607-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01045ddnj|X045. Misbranding of Nakamo Bell Tablets. U. S. v. 5% Dozen Packages of|Nakamo Bell Tablets. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.|(F. D. C. No. 9503. Sample No. 44607-F.)|On March 9, 1943, the United States attorney for the District of New Jersey|filed a libel against 5? dozen packages of the above-named product at Newark,|N. J., alleging that the article had been shipped on or about November 20, 1942,|from Orangeburg, N. Y., by the Hollings-Smith Co.; and charging that it was|misbranded.|Examination showed that the article was a tablet which consisted essentially|of 2 grains of ammonium chloride, 3 grains of sodium chloride, and 1 grain of|potassium chloride.|It was alleged to be misbranded because of false and misleading state-|ments in the labeling regarding the efficacy of the article in the treatment of|hay fever, sinus, asthma, and colds.|On June 21, 1943, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|1046. Misbranding of Kaps Colloidal Iodized Sulphur. U. S. v. 12 Packages of Kaps Colloidal Iodized Sulphur. Decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj01046March 1945Jamco Co.Kaps Colloidal Iodized SulphurJune 5 and August 27, 1942Baltimore, Md.New York, N. Y.Baltimore, Md.District of Maryland1046F. D. C. No. 9042. Sample No. 24524-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01046ddnj|1046. Misbranding of Kaps Colloidal Iodized Sulphur. U. S. v. 12 Packages of|Kaps Colloidal Iodized Sulphur. Decree of condemnation and destruc-|tion. (F. D. C. No. 9042. Sample No. 24524-F.)|On December 18,1942, the United States attorney for the District of Maryland|filed a libel against 12 packages of Kaps Colloidal Iodized Sulphur at Baltimore,|Md., alleging that the article had been shipped from New York, N. Y., on or|about June 5 and August 27, 1942, by the Jamco Co.; and charging that it was|misbranded. The article was labeled in part: \"\"C. I. S. Kaps Colloidal Iodized|Sulphur.\"\"|Examination showed that the article consisted of capsules containing mineral|oil, sugar, small amounts of sulfur, and an iodide.?*|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement, \"\"for use as an|aid in the relief of Arthritis due to sulphur deficiency,\"\" was false and misleading|since such statement represented and suggested that the article would be effective|in the treatment of arthritis, whereas it would not be so effective.|On January 21,1943, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|1075. Adulteration and misbranding of Orbolene. U. S. v. 122 Packages of Orbolene. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj01075April 1945Orbolene Co., St. Louis, Mo.OrboleneFebruary 26, 1943Wilmington, N. C.St. Louis, Mo.Wilmington, N. C.Eastern District of North Carolina1075F. D. C. No. 9852. Sample No. 24783-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01075ddnj|1075. Adulteration and misbranding of Orbolene. IT. S. v. 122 Packages of|Orbolene. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C.|No. 9852. Sample No. 24783-F.)|On April 28, 1943, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of North|Carolina filed a libel against 122 packages of Orbolene at Wilmington, N. C.,|alleging that the article had been shipped on or about February 26, 1943, by the|Orbolene Co., St. Louis, Mo.; and charging that it was adulterated and mis-|branded.|Examination showed that the article consisted essentially of water, boric|acid, glycerin, carbolic acid, ephedrine, and a red coloring material. Bacterio-|logical tests showed that the article was not antiseptic.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from|and its quality fell below that which it purported and was represented to possess,|i. e., antiseptic.|The article was alleged to be misbranded because of false and misleading|statements in its labeling: (Vial carton label) \"\"Orbolene promotes a * * *|healthy condition of the eyes and is used * * * in the treatment of weak,|inflamed, sticky, sore, irritated eyes and eyelids: acute and chronic catarrhal|conjunctivitis, or congestion of the eye caused by colds, overwork or exposure to|sun, wind, dust, etc. * * * antiseptic\"\"; (circular) \"\"Weak, tired and painful|vision caused by dust, wind, strong light and close application to near work.|* * * If * * * inflame(i use orbolene * * * Eye Troubles Close ap-|plication to near work is the cause of much eye trouble. Mechanics and workers|in offices and factories where the lighting system is poor frequently find that at|the close of the day their eyes burn and sting. This condition can be helped by|the use of Orbolene twice daily. * * * It is soothing and restful to eyes|affected by Hay Fever and Rose Cold.\"\" The article was not effective in the|treatment of the conditions stated and implied. It was alleged to be misbranded|further (1) in that it was in package form and its label failed to bear an accurate|statement of the quantity of its contents, since no statement of the quantity of|contents appeared on the label of the vial, and the statement appearing on the|carton, \"\"Contents 7 c. c,\"\" was incorrect; and (2) in that it was fabricated from|two or more ingredients and its label failed to bear the common or usual name of|the active ingredients contained therein, since no statement of the active ingredi-|ents appeared on the carton, and phenol and hydrogen borate were not given their|common or usual names of carbolic acid and boric acid, respectively, in the state-|ment of active ingredients which appeared on the vial label.|On June 18,1943, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was|entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|1233. Misbranding of Von Tablets. U. S. v. 240,000 Von Tablets. Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered released under bond.ddnj01233June 1945E. W. Downs, San Francisco, Calif.Von TabletsDecember 9, 1942San Francisco, Calif.Minneapolis, Minn.San Francisco, Calif.Northern District of California1233F. D. C. No. 9157. Sample No. 10623-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01233ddnj|1233. Misbranding: of Von Tablets. U. S. v. 240,000 Von Tablets. Consent decree|of condemnation. Product ordered released under bond. (F. D. C. No.|9157. Sample No. 10623-F.)|On January 15, 1943, the United States attorney for the Northern District of|California filed a libel against 240,000 tablets, each embossed with the letters|\"\"V O N,\"\" at San Francisco, Calif., alleging that the article had been shipped on or|about December 9, 1942, from Minneapolis, Minn., and that it was in the posses-|sion of the San Francisco Von Co.; and charging that it was misbranded. On or|about February 5, 1943, an amended libel was filed in clarification of the charges|of misbranding.|The article was shipped in 20 drums, more or less, each of which was labeled in|part: \"\"12,000 Tablets * * * Manufactured for Geo. Von Neida, St. Paul,|Minn.,\"\" After shipment, a portion of the article was repacked, on the premises|of the San Francisco Von Co., into 100-tablet and 27-tablet size bottles bearing|labels reading, in part: \"\"Von's Pink Tablets.\"\"|It was also alleged in the libel that a number of booklets entitled, \"\"Von's Pink|Tablets Famous for Relief in Obstinate Cases of Gastritis and Ulcers Caused by|Gastric Hyper-Acidity San Francisco Von Co. * * * San Francisco, Cali-|fornia,\"\" were shipped on or about December 19, 1941, by the Riverside Press,|Inc., from St. Paul, Minn.; and that the booklets were attached to the article and|were distributed to purchasers of the article.|Examination of a sample indicated that each tablet of the article contained|essentially 4.6 grains of bismuth subnitrate, 6.5 grains of magnesium oxide, and|5.4 grains of sodium bicarbonate.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements in the accompa-|nying booklets which represented and suggested that the article, when used as|directed, constituted an adequate treatment for gastritis and ulcers caused by|gastric hyperacidity were false and misleading since the article did not constitute|an adequate treatment for gastritis and ulcers from any cause.|On March 4, 1943, E. W. Downs, San Francisco, Calif., claimant, having filed|exceptions to the libel on the ground that it did not state sufficient facts and that|it was vague, uncertain, and ambiguous, an order was entered which overruled|the exceptions. The claimant then consented to the entry of a decree of condemna-|tion, and on August 23, 1943, judgment was entered condemning the product and|ordering its release under bond for relabeling under the supervision of the Food|and Drug Administration.|1047. Misbranding of Pyrozide Tooth Powder. U. S. v. 282 Packages of Pyrozide Tooth Powder. Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered delivered to a charitable Institution.ddnj01047March 1945Web Distributing Co.Pyrozide Tooth PowderAugust 3 and October 22, 1942New York, N. Y.Newark, N. J.New York, N. Y.Southern District of New York1047F. D. C. No. 8902. Sample Nos. 18812-F, 18813-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01047ddnj|1047. Misbranding of Pyrozide Tooth Powder. II. S. v. 282 Packages of Pyrozide|Tooth Powder. Consent decree of condemnation. Product ordered de-|livered to a charitable Institution. (F. D. C. No. 8902. Sample Nos.|18812-F, 18813-F.)|Examination of this product showed that it consisted essentially of calcium|carbonate with smaller quantities of magnesium carbonate, powdered cinchona|bark, salicylic acid, soap, and flavoring materials. It was short of the declared|weight.|On or about November 30, 1942, the United States attorney for the Southern|District of New York filed a libel against 282 packages of Pyrozide Tooth Powder|at New York, N. Y., alleging that the article had been shipped on or about August|3 and October 22, 1942, by the Web Distributing Co. from Newark, N. J.; and|charging that it was misbranded.|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements appearing in its labeling|which represented and suggested that it was effective in the treatment of pyorrhea,|gingivitis, trench mouth, and all other diseases of the oral tissue were false and|misleading since the article was not effective in the treatment of those diseases;|and in that it was in package form and its label failed to bear an accurate state-|ment of the quantity of the contents.|On June 25, 1943, the Web Distributing Co., claimant, having consented to the|entry of a decree, judgment of condemnation was entered and it was ordered that|the product be delivered for the use of a charitable institution, and that costs|be assessed against the claimant.|1048. Misbranding of Cuban honey. U. S. v. 38 Jars and 284 Packages of Honey. Decrees of condemnation. Portion of product ordered destroyed and remainder ordered sold, upon adoption of safeguards to insure its use in compliance with, the law.ddnj01048March 1945Cuban Honey, Inc.Cuban honeyJune 16, July 18, and August 29, 1942St. Louis, Mo.Lansing, Mich.St. Louis, Mo.Eastern District of Missouri and the Northern District of Illinois1048F. D. C. Nos. 8170, 8371. Sample Nos. 1116-F, 1117-F, 5901-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01048ddnj|1048. Misbranding of Cuban honey. U. S. v. 38 Jars and 284 Packages of Honey.|Decrees of condemnation. Portion of product ordered destroyed and re-|mainder ordered sold, upon adoption of safeguards to insnre its use in|compliance with, the law. (F. D. C. Nos. 8170, 8371. Sample Nos. 1116-F,|1117-F, 5901-F.)|On August 21 and September 28, 1942, the United States attorneys for the|Eastern District of Missouri and the Northern District of Illinois filed libels|against 25 $1.00-size, 7 $2.0O-size, and 6 $3.75-size jars of honey at St. Louis,|Mo., and 141 9-ounce, 81 22^-ounce, 56 48-ounce, 3 96-ounce, and 3 1-gallon|packages of honey at Chicago, 111., alleging that the article had been shipped in|interstate commerce on or about June 16, July 18, and August 29, 1942, from|Lansing, Mich., by Cuban Honey, Inc.; and charging that it was misbranded.|The article was labeled in part: \"\"El Aguinaldo Cuban Honey.\"\"|Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted of honey, and|that the mineral matter therein amounted to approximately one-sixth of one|percent.|The lot at Chicago was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements appear-|ing in its labeling which represented and suggested that the product would con-|stitute a remedy for sick and wounded soldiers; and that it provided a signifi-|cant portion of minerals and constituted an adequate treatment for digestive dis-|orders, bronchial asthma, bronchitis, asthma, bronchial pneumonia, coughs, sinus|conditions, hay fever, and stomach ulcers were false and misleading since it|would not constitute a remedy for sick and wounded soldiers nor be an adequate|treatment for the condition described; and it did not provide a significant portion|of minerals.|The lot at St. Louis was alleged to be misbranded because of false and mislead-|ing statements appearing in its labeling which represented and suggested that|the product constituted a remedy for sick and wounded soldiers; that it was|valued for its medicinal properties; that it played an important part in the|preservation of zestful health for those who were well and in restoring health|to those who were ill; that it differed in a material respect from domestic honey;|that, when used in the place of other sweets, it would cause children to thrive;|that it constituted a source of vital energy and was a great help in the heavy|daily battle of life; that it would aid nature in building and maintaining health ;|that, when taken as directed, it possessed laxative qualities; that it was a re-|laxing food; that it would aid in more normal action of the digestive system; that|it would be retained by tlfose whose digestion was impaired and who have difficulty|in retaining food; that it would soothe tired nerves and aid in preventing sleep-|less nights; that it defied chemical analysis; that it provided the necessary|mineral salts; that it contained a significant proportion of minerals; that it|was more easily retained in the stomachs of children than were other foods suit-|able for them; that it was a substitute for cod liver oil and orange juice; that,|when used as directed, it would cause an increase in weight in children not caused|by other common foods; that it would cause a decrease in restlessness and|distress after feeding; and that it was efficacious in cases of rickets and mal-|nutrition. The article did not differ in a material respect from domestic|honey; it had not defied chemical analysis; it did not contain a significant pro-|portion of minerals; it was not a substitute for cod liver oil and orange juice; and|it would not be efficacious for the purposes recommended, or accomplish the|results claimed. Both lots were alleged to be misbranded further in that -the|following statements appearing in the labeling of the lot at St. Louis, \"\"Analysis|???Water 18.53, Invert Sugars 71.01, Sucrose .83, Ash .25, Dextrine 2.39,|Undetermined 6.99, Alkaloids None,\"\" and \"\"Analysis of Ash???Silicon|4.78, Iron .88, Calcium 3.67, Magnesium 1.18, Sodium 14.12, Potassium 48.47,|Phosphorous .78, Sulphur .97, Chlorine 9.87, Undetermined 15.27,\"\" and sub-|stantially the same statements in the labeling of the lot at Chicago, were mis-|leading since those statements failed to reveal that the article consisted es-|sentially of a variety of sugars, and that the other constituents named, including|the various mineral elements mentioned, were present in the article in so small|a proportion as to be negligible.|The article was also alleged to be misbranded under the provisions of the|law applicable to foods as reported in the notices of judgment on foods, No.|5797.|On December 7, 1942, and January 6, 1943, no claimant having appeared, judg-|ments of condemnation were entered and it was ordered that the lot at Chicago|be destroyed and that the lot at St. Louis be sold to the person or corporation|offering the highest bid and adopting such safeguards as might be recommended|by the Federal Security Agency against use of the product in violation of the|law.|DRUGS FOR VETERINARY USE*|1049. Misbranding of Ferro-Tone. U. S. v. Barton H. Corbett (Burton H. Corbett and Co.). Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $300.ddnj01049March 1945Burton H. Corbett, trading as Burton H. Corbett and Co., Denver, Colo.Ferro-ToneJanuary 28 and February 2, 1942Nebraska and WisconsinColoradoNebraska and WisconsinDistrict of Colorado1049F. D. C. No. 9613. Sample Nos. 81542-E, 81544-E, 15341-F, 15342-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01049ddnj|1049. Misbranding of Ferro-Tone. U. S. v. Barton H. Corbett (Burton H. Corbett|and Co.). Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $300. (F. D. C. No. 9613. Sam-|ple Nos. 81542-E, 81544-E, 15341-F, 15342-F.)|The labeling of this product bore false and misleading statements in regard to|its ingredients and its therapeutic and antiseptic properties. Samples of a|portion of the product were short weight.|On May 4, 1943, the United States attorney for the District of Colorado filed|an information against Burton H. Corbett, trading as Burton H. Corbett and Co.,|Denver, Colo., alleging the shipment of a number of cans of Ferro-Tone from the|State of Colorado into the States of Nebraska and Wisconsin, on or about January|28 and February 2,1942, respectively, and into the States of Iowa and Wisconsin|on or about November 30,1942.|Analyses of samples from the January and February shipments disclosed that|they consisted essentially of ferrous sulfate and salt, with smaller proportions|of powdered charcoal, powdered bone, powdered linseed, iron ferrocyanide, and|a trace of sulfur; and that very little, if any, sodium bicarbonate, calcium car-|bonate, zinc phenolsulfonate, and potassium iodide were present. Analyses of|samples from the November shipments disclosed that they consisted essentially of|sodium chloride and ferrous sulfate with traces of sulfur and potassium iodide.|Charcoal, ferrocyanide, carbonate, zinc, phosphate, and phenolsulfonate were|not detected.|The article was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that the name \"\"Ferro-Tone,\"\"|borne on the label, was misleading since that name suggested and created in|the mind of the reader the impression that the article was an iron tonic-'that,|when fed to livestock as directed it would be efficacious as a tonic in those con-|ditions in which administration of iron to livestock is indicated, whereas it was|not an iron tonic and it would not be efficacious as a tonic in those conditions|described; and (2) in that the name \"\"Ferro-Tone,\"\" the design of a sheep, a|cow, a horse, and a hog, and the statements, \"\"For Hogs, Cattle, Sheep and|Horses,\"\" and \"\"Directions For Cattle, Horses, Mules and Sheep: Thoroughly|mix with shovel, hoe or paddle One Pound of Ferro-Tone with fifty pounds of|fine or No. 4 Salt. * * * For Hogs and Pigs: Thoroughly mix with shovel,|hoe or paddle, one quarter pound of Ferro-Tone with each fifty pounds of swill,|wet or dry mash * * *,\"\" borne on the label, were false and misleading since|the statements and design represented and suggested that the article, when used|as directed, would be efficacious as an iron tonic for hogs, pigs, cattle, sheep,|horses and mules, whereas it would not be so efficacious when used as directed.|It was alleged to be misbranded further (1) in that the statement, \"\"An Iron and|Mineral Compound to be added to the regular rations, to supply certain minerals|lacking in many feeds,\"\" borne on the label, was false and misleading since it|represented and suggested that the article, when used as directed, would furnish|a significant amount of iron and other minerals, whereas when used as directed,|it would not furnish a significant amount of iron or any other mineral with|the exception of salt; and (2) in that the statement in its labeling, \"\"Con-|tains : Ferrocyanide of Iron, Iron Sulphate, Sulphur, Phosphate of Lime,|Sodium Bicarbonate, Calcium Carbonate, Sodium Chloride, Charcoal, Zinc Phenol-|sulphonate, Potassium Iodide, and Oil of Anise,\"\" was false and misleading since|it represented and suggested and created in the mind of the reader the impres-|sion that the article contained appreciable amounts of each of the ingredients|named in the statement, whereas it did not contain appreciable amounts of those|ingredients, other than iron sulfate and salt; and its labeling failed to reveal|the fact that none of the ingredients listed, when used as directed, would be|active with the exception of the salt. It was alleged to be misbranded also (1)|in that the statement in its labeling, \"\"For Hogs and Pigs: Thoroughly -mix|* * * one quarter pound of Ferro-Tone with each fifty pounds of swill, wet|or dry mash, and continue its use until the desired results are produced,\"\" were|misleading since it created the impression that use of the article would result|?See also Nos. 1009, 1010.|in improvement in the health and thriftiness of hogs and pigs, whereas the|article would not produce such results or any known desired results; and (2) in|that certain statements in its labeling which represented and suggested that it|contained an appreciable amount of zinc and that, when used as directed, it|would act as an antiseptic and astringent because of its content of zinc phenol-|sulfonate; that, when used as directed, it contained significant amounts of iron|which would correct deficiencies in the rations, feeds, or grazing lands which|had caused anemia in animals; that, when used as directed, it would increase|the hemoglobin content of the blood; and that it contained a significant amount|of iodide and, when used as directed, would be effective in correcting iodine|deficiencies such as goiter in animals were false and misleading since it con-|tained an insignificant amount of zinc and iodide, and, when used as directed,|would not act as an antiseptic or astringent or accomplish the results claimed.|The November shipments of the article were alleged to be misbranded further|in that the statement on the label, \"\"Eight Pounds Net Wt,\"\" was false and|misleading since each of the cans containing the article did not contain 8 pounds|net weight but contained a materially smaller amount; and in that the article|was in package form and did not bear a label containing an accurate statement|of the quantity of the contents.|On June 11, 1943, the defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere and the|court imposed a fine of $75 on each of the 4 counts, a total fine of $300.|1050. Misbranding of Mutual Compound. U. S. v. Joseph C. Winslow and Stephen R. Winslow (Mutual Products Co.). Plea of guilty. Fine, $100.ddnj01050March 1945Joseph C. Winslow and Stephen R. Winslow, trading as the Mutual Products Co., Minneapolis, Minn.Mutual CompoundMarch 3, 1942WisconsinMinnesotaWisconsinDistrict of Minnesota1050F. D. C. No. 8752. Sample No. 76895-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01050ddnj|1050. Misbranding of Mutual Compound. U. S. v. Joseph C. Wlnslow and Stephen|R. Wlnslow (Mutual Products Co.). Plea of guilty. Fine, $100. (F. D,|C. No. 8752. Sample No. 76895-E.)|On February 6, 1943, the United States attorney for the District of Minnesota|filed an information against Joseph C. Winslow and Stephen R. \"\"Wlnslow, trading|as the Mutual Products Co., Minneapolis, Minn., alleging shipment on or about|March 3, 1942, from the State of Minnesota into the State of Wisconsin of a|quantity of a drug known as Mutual Compound which was misbranded.|Analysis of the article showed that it consisted essentially of a mixture of|wheat, corn, and oat products, dry milk, small amounts of salt, sugar, reducing|sugars, yeast, iodide, calcium, iron, phosphate compounds, anise, and resinous|material.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements appearing in|its labeling which represented and suggested that it would help build resistance|to colds and worms in pigs; that it would aid in the prevention of ordinary|scours; that it would be efficacious in the treatment of scours in calves; that it|would tend to free pigs from worms; and that it would prevent disease in chicks|and keep them free from worms and reduce death losses among the chicks were|false and misleading since the article would not be efficacious for the purposes|recommended.|It was also alleged to be misbranded under the provisions of the law applicable|to foods as reported in notices of judgment on foods, No. 5688.|On February 6, 1943, the defendants entered a plea of guilty and the court|imposed a fine of $100, which was applicable to both defendants.|INDEX TO NOTICES OF JUDGMENT D. N. J. NOS. 1001-1050|PRODUCTS|N. J. No.|Acetanilid, caffeine, and sodium sali-|cylate compound tablets? 1012|Akerite Glycerine Alternate? 1021|Analgesic Tablets| 1014|Antiseptics|1014,1043|Aspirin tablets| 1014|Asthma Tea| 1043|B-M Cold Caps| 1003|B. P. Stomach and Intestinal Correc-|tive| 1011|Balm and Gilead Herb Tonic? 1043|Bandages| 1032-1037|Blood and Ziiver Capsules| 1043|Blood Tonic| 1043|Booth's Balm and Booth's Pills? 1011|Boric acid compound ointments? 1014|N. J-. No.|Boro-Oxyquinoline Compound Vaginal|Suppositories| 1014|Brom-Acet| 1022|Calomel| 1023|Catgut, surgical| 1016|Cel-Bio Mineral Tablets, Nos. 1-12__ 1042|Chu-man-ie's Regular \"\"Triple XXX\"\"|Herb and Iron Mensal Medicine- * 1007|Cod liver oil| 1015|tablets| 1013|Codecol| 1017|Cold remedies|1003, 1045|Colloidal Iodized Sulphur| 1047|Colonex Tablets| 1011|Colusa Natural Oil, Colusa Natural|Oil Capsules, Colusa Natural Oil|Hemorrhoid Ointment|? 1040|1?Prosecution contested.|2?Prosecution contested. Contains opinion of the court.|1051. Misbranding of sterile solution of sodium citrate. U. S. v. The National Drug Co. Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $4,000.ddnj01051April 1945National Drug Co., a corporation, Philadelphia, Pa.sterile solution of sodium citrateNovember 11 to December 31, 1942PennsylvaniaPennsylvaniaKansas, Missouri, Colorado, Georgia, VirginiaEastern District of Pennsylvania1051F. D. C. No. 9670. Sample Nos. 3633-F, 5762-F, 11611-F, 29380-F, 29472-F, 34613-F, 37501-F, 41782-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01051ddnj|1051. Misbranding: of sterile solution of sodium citrate. U. S. v. The National|Drug Co. Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $4,000. (F. D. C. No. 9670.|Sample Nos. 3633-F, 5762-F, 11611-F, 29380-F, 29472-F, 34613-F, 37501-F,|41782-F.) |On July 15,1943, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsyl-|vania filed an information against the National Drug Co., a corporation, Philadel-|phia, Pa., alleging shipment from on or about November 11 to December 31,1942,|from the State of Pennsylvania into the States of Kansas, Missouri, Colorado,|Georgia, Virginia, and Ohio of quantities of the above-named product, which was|misbranded.|Examination of samples disclosed that the article contained pyrogens.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that, by reason of the presence of|pyrogens, it was dangerous to health when used in the dosage prescribed, recom-|mended, and suggested in the labeling, \"\"The contents of a 50 cc. ampul containing|the 2?? solution, mixed with 450 cc. of blood produces a transfusion mixture.\"\"|It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the statement in its labeling, \"\"For|use in transfusions to prevent the clotting of blood,\"\" was misleading, since the|*For omission of, or unsatisfactory, ingredients statements, see Nos. 1053, 1075,1087,1088,1093,1097,1100;|failure to bear adequate statements of quantity of contents, Nos. 1055, 1062,1075,1099; cosmetic, subject to|the drug provisions of the Act, Nos. 1073,1090.|631214?45 1 |235|article would not be safe or appropriate for use in transfusions to prevent the|clotting of blood.|On September 22, 1943. the defendant having, entered a plea of nolo contendere,|the court imposed a fine of $500 on each of 8 counts, a total of $4,000.|1052. Misbranding of Re-Sude-Oids. U. S. v. 20 Packages of Re-Sude-Oids. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.ddnj01052April 1945American Medicinal Products, Inc.Re-Sude-OidsMay 11, 1943Portland, Oreg.Los Angeles, Calif.Portland, Oreg.District of Oregon1052F. D. C. No. 10033. Sample No. 42658-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01052ddnj|1052. Misbranding of Re-Sude-Oids. TJ. S. v. 20 Packages of Re-Sude-Oids.|Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 10033.|Sample No. 4265&-F.)|On or about June 18,1943, the United States attorney for the District of Oregon|filed a libel against 20 packages of Re-Sude-Oids at Portland, Oreg., alleging that|the article had been shipped on or about May 11,1943, by the American Medicinal|Products, Inc., from Los Angeles, Calif.; and charging that it was misbranded.|Examination showed that the article consisted of capsules containing, in each,|approximately 0.68 grain thyroid, 0.41 grain potassium iodide, 0.02 grain phen-|olphthalein and dried glandular tissue.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that it was dangerous to health|when used in the dosage and with the frequency or duration prescribed, recom-|mended, and suggested in the labeling thereof: (On bottle label, carton, and cir-|cular enclosed in the package) \"\"Take one capsule daily for six days, then one|capsule twice a day for six days, then one capsule three times a day with all fol-|lowing bottles.\"\" The article was alleged to be misbranded further in that the|statements appearing in its labeling which created the impression in the minds of|readers that the article was a safe|, appropriate, and effective treatment for|obesity were false and misleading, since the article was not a safe, appropriate, or|effective treatment for such conditions, but was a potentially harmful drug.|On August 10, 1943, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|DRUGS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO BEAR ADEQUATE|DIRECTIONS OR WARNING STATEMENTS|1053. Misbranding of Chynos. U. S. v. Watchung Laboratories and Emil J. Widmer. Pleas of guilty. Fines, $50 on count 1 and $500 on count 2 as to each, defendant. Payment of fines on count 2 suspended and defendants placed on probation.ddnj01053April 1945Watchung Laboratories, a corporation, Bound Brook, N. J., and Emil J. Widmer, president and treasurer of the corporationChynosOctober 26 and December 12, 1942New JerseyNew JerseyNew YorkDistrict of New Jersey1053F. D. C. No. 9642. Sample No. 18924-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01053ddnj|1053. Misbranding of Chynos. U. S. v. Watchung Laboratories and Emil J.|Widmer. Pleas of guilty. Fines, $50 on count 1 and $500 on count 2|as to each, defendant. Payment of fines on count 2 suspended and|defendants placed on probation. (F. D. C. No. 9642. Sample No. 18924-F.)|On June 3, 1943, the United States attorney for the District of New Jersey|filed an information against the Watchung Laboratories, a corporation, Bound|Brook, N. J., and Emil J. Widmer, president and treasurer of the corporation,|alleging shipment on or about October 26 and December 12, 1942, from the State|of New Jersey into the State of New York of quantities of the above-named|product.|Analyses of samples of the article showed that it was in the form of tablets|which consisted essentially of aminopyrine (approximately 2 grains per tablet)|and by hydroxyquinoline sulfonic acid.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that it was not designated solely|by a name recognized in an official compendium; it was fabricated from two or|more ingredients, one of which was aminopyrine (amidopyrine) ; and its label|did not bear the common or usual name of each active ingredient, including the|quantity or proportion of aminopyrine named therein. It was alleged to be|misbranded further in that it contained aminopyrine, which might cause the|serious blood disturbance known as agranulocytosis, and might therefore produce|serious or fatal injury unless used under adequate and continuous medical super-|vision ; and its label failed to bear such adequate warnings against unsafe dosage|or methods or duration of administration in such manner and form as are|necessary for the protection of users.|On June 21, 1943, the defendants having entered pleas of guilty, the court|imposed upon each defendant a fine of $50 on count 1 and a fine of $500 on count|2. Payment of the fines on count 2 were suspended, and the defendants were|placed on probation for a period of 1 year.|1054. Adulteration and misbranding of effervescing solution citrated magnesia. U. S. v. Henry Perlmuter (Crystal Drug and Magnesia Co., and White Stone Laboratories). Plea of guilty. Fine, $50.ddnj01054April 1945Henry Perlmuter, trading as the Crystal Drug and Magnesia Co, and as the White-Stone Laboratories, Dorchester, Mass.effervescing solution citrated magnesiaAugust 5, 1942MassachusettsMassachusettsRhode IslandDistrict of Massachusetts1054F. D. C. No. 9655. Sample No. 19441-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01054ddnj|1054. Adulteration and misbranding of effervescing solution citrated magnesia.|U. S. v. Henry Perlmuter (Crystal Drug and Magnesia Co., and White-|Stone Laboratories). Plea of guilty. Fine, S50. (F. D. C. No. 9655.|Sample No. 19441-F.)|On June 22, 1943, the United States attorney for the District of Massachu-|setts filed an information against Henry Perlmuter, trading as the Crystal|Drug and Magnesia Co, and as the White-Stone Laboratories, Dorchester,|Mass., alleging shipment on or about August 5, 1942, from the State of Massa-|chusetts into the State of Rhode Island of a quantity of the above-named product.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to be solution|of magnesium citrate, a drug the name of which was recognized in the United|States Pharmacopoeia (eleventh revision), an official compendium, but its|strength differed from and its quality fell below the standard set forth therein,|since the compendium provided that solution of magnesium citrate should con-|tain, in each 100 cc, an amount of magnesium citrate corresponding to not less|than 1.6 gram of MgO (magnesium oxide), and should contain citric acid and.|syrup in the proportion of 33 grams of citric acid and 60 cc. of syrup to each|350 cc, whereas the article contained little if any magnesium citrate, but did|contain magnesium sulfate, a substance which is not contained in solution of|magnesium citrate compounded in accordance with the standard set forth in|the compendium, in an amount corresponding to 1.14 grams of magnesium oxide|per iOO cc.; and the article contained citric acid in the proportion of not more|than 2 grams per 350 cc, and syrup in the proportion of not more than 29 cc.|to each 350 cc.; and its difference in strength, quality, and purity from the stand-|ard set forth in the compendium was not stated on its label.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that its label failed to bear ade-|quate warnings against use in those pathological conditions wherein its use|might be dangerous to health, and against unsafe dosage or duration of adminis-|tration, in such manner and form as are necessary for the protection of users,|since the article was a laxative and its labeling failed to bear a warning that|it should not be taken when nausea, vomiting, abdominal pains, or other symp-|toms of appendicitis are present; and that frequent or continued use of the|article might result in dependence on laxatives to move the bowles.|On July 6, 1943, the defendant having entered a plea of guilty, the court|imposed a fine of $25 on each of 2 counts, a total fine of $50.|1092. Misbranding of Dr. Salsbury's Rakos, Can-Pho-Sal, and Phen-O-Sal Tablets. U. S. v. 2 Jugs, 1 Bottle, and 6 Bottles of Rakos (and 2 other seizure actions against the other above-named products). Motion to dismiss filed by the claimant, denied by the court. Tried to a jury; verdict for the Government. Decrees of condemnation and destruction entered. Execution of judgment stayed and motion for new trial filed; motion denied and products ordered destroyed.ddnj01092April 1945Dr. Salsbury's Laboratories, a corporationDr. Salsbury's Rakos, Can-Pho-Sal, and Phen-O-Sal TabletsMay 28,1943; January 16 to May 26,1942; January 14, and April 9 and 29, 1942Worthington, Minn.Charles City, IowaSt. Paul, MinnesotaDistrict of Minnesota1092F. D. C. Nos. 7564 to 7566, incl. Sample Nos. 76921-E to 76923-E, incl. , 76955-E to 76957-E, incl.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01092ddnj|1092. Misbranding of Dr. Salsbury's Rakos, Can-Pho-Sal, and Phen-O-Sal Tablets.|U. S. v. 2 Jags, 1 Bottle, and 6 Bottles of Rakos (and 2 other seizure|actions against the other above-named products). Motion to dismiss|filed by the claimant, denied by the court. Tried to a jury; verdict|for the Government. Decrees of condemnation and destruction entered.|Execution of judgment stayed and motion for new trial filed; motion|denied and products ordered destroyed. (F. D. C. Nos. 7564 to 7566, incl.|Sample Nos. 76921-E to 76923-E, incl., 76955-E to 76957-E, incl.)|On June 1, 1942, the United States attorney for the District of Minnesota filed|libels against the following products at Worthington, Minn.: 2 1-gallon jugs, 1|1-quart bottle, and 6 1-pint bottles of Rakos; 42 1-pint and 38 ^-pint bottles|of Can-Pho-Sal; and 123 cans, of various sizes, of Phen-O-Sal Tablets. Thereafter,|amended libels were filed to cover additional quantities of the above-named prod-|ucts and to clarify the allegations and, on or about May 28,1943, further amended|libels were filed to include more specific allegations concerning the accompaniment|in interstate commerce of the products by certain printed matter.|It was alleged in the libels as amended that the articles had been shipped in in-|terstate commerce, from Charles City, Iowa, by Dr. Salsbury's Laboratories,|within the period from on or about January 16 to May 26,1942, and that they were|misbranded.|Examination of the Rakos showed that it consisted essentially of sulfuric|acid, hydrochloric acid, tannic acid, and sugar and water. It was alleged to be|misbranded in that certain statements in the booklets entitled \"\"Dr. Salsbury's|Poultry Health Messenger,\"\" \"\"Step-Up Profits By Improving Turkey Health,\"\"|\"\"Better Care Brings Greater Profits Now,\"\" and \"\"Broiler Health and Disease|Manual,\"\" were false and misleading, since they represented and suggested that|the article was effective in the treatment of blackhead and coccidiosis in poul-|try, whereas it was not so effective.' Examination of the Can-Pho-Sal showed that it consisted essentially of creo-|sote, camphor, pine oil, eucalyptus oil, soap, and water, with a small propor-|tion of a potassium compound. It was alleged to be misbranded in that certain|statements in the booklets were false and misleading since they represented|and suggested that the article was effective in the treatment of pneumonia,|bowel trouble, bronchitis, colds, and respiratory infections of poultry and farm|animals, whereas it was not so effective.|Examination of the Phen-O-Sal Tablets showed that it consisted essentially|of sodium phenolsulfonate, 76 percent; calcium phenolsulfonate, 3 percent;|zinc phenolsulfonate, 4 percent; copper arsenite, 2.6 percent; boric acid, 12.4|percent; and a sugar. It was alleged to be misbranded in that certain state-|ments in the booklets and in a leaflet entitled \"\"Dr. Salsbury's Phen-O-Sal|Tablets\"\, accompanying the article, were false and misleading, since they rep-|resented and suggested that the article was effective in the treatment of bowel|trouble, paratyphoid, coccidiosis, pneumonia, and diseases of the digestive tract|of poultry, whereas the article was not so effective.|The amended libels further alleged that the booklets and the leaflet accom-|panied the articles when they were introduced into and while they were in inter-|state commerce in the following manner: That a number of copies of the book-|lets and the leaflet was received by the consignee at Worthington, Minn., from|Dr. Salsbury's Laboratories, Charles City, Iowa, on or about January 14, and|April 9 and 29, 1942; that certain of the booklets and the leaflet were thereafter|prominently displayed in the consignee's establishment, together with and in|association with and in close proximity to the articles; that the booklets, or|some of them, were distributed to purchasers of the articles; and that the|shipments of the articles and the delivery and receipt of each of the book-|lets and the leaflet constituted transactions in interstate commerce between|Dr. Salsbury's Laboratories and the consignee.|Dr. Salsbury's Laboratories, a corporation, appeared as claimant for the|articles and, on or about June 8, 1943, filed answers to the amended libels|denying that the articles were misbranded; that the aforesaid booklets or leaflet|accompanied the articles while they were in interstate commerce; or that they|ever formed a part of the labeling of the articles. The cases came on for trial|on June 8, 1943, at which time a motion was granted for their consolidation|and, by unanimous consent of the court and counsel, an order was entered for|the continuance of the matter. Thereafter a stipulation of facts was filed by|the parties, after which a motion to dismiss the libels for lack of jurisdiction|over the subject matter was submitted by the claimant. On September 13, 1943,|an order was made denying that motion and on September 14, 1943, the case|came on for trial before a jury. The trial was concluded on September 28,|1943, with the jury returning verdicts for the Government. On October 8,|1943, judgments of condemnation were entered against the above-named prod-|ucts and it was ordered that they be destroyed on or before November 9, 1943.|On October 15, 1943, execution of the judgments was stayed to permit consid-|eration of a motion which had been filed by the claimant for a new trial, and|on October 30, 1943, oral argument on this motion was held, after which the|matter was taken under advisement by the court for consideration of the|arguments and briefs of counsel. On January 31, 1944, an order was entered|in denial of the motion, accompanied by the following memorandum opinion|of the court:|JOYCE, District Judge: \"\"These proceedings arose as a result of libels of informa-|tion filed by the United States on June 1, 1942, against .certain quantities of|three articles of drug labeled in part 'Dr. Salsbury's Rakos', 'Dr. Salsbury's|Phen-O-Sal', and 'Dr. Salsbury's Can-Pho-Sal', charging that these articles were|misbranded in violation of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U. S. C.|section 301, et seq) and subject to seizure and condemnation. A monition was|issued and the United States Marshal pursuant thereto attached the articles in|the possession of Boote's Hatcheries and Packing Company, Worthington, Min-|nesota, hereinafter called 'the Hatcheries', where they had been shipped on|various dates after January 1,1942, by Dr. Salsbury's Laboratories, Charles City,|Iowa, hereinafter called 'the Laboratories'. Thereafter the Laboratories inter-|vened as claimant. As a result of preliminary proceedings, amended libels were|filed by the United States. Each of the amended libels charged that the three|articles were misbranded in violation of Section 502 (a) as a result of the|association between the articles and five printed booklets. * * * These book-|lets, which are alleged to contain false and misleading representations con-|cerning the effectiveness of the three articles in the treatment of specified dis-|eases of poultry, were delivered to the Hatcheries by a sales representative of|the Laboratories, and are alleged to have accompanied the articles in interstate|commerce so as to constitute 'labeling' as defined in Section 201 (m) (2) of|the Act. Each of the libels has attached as exhibits such portions of these|booklets as the government alleged were false and misleading. Answers filed by|the claimant denied that the booklets constituted 'labeling', denied that they con-|tained false and misleading representations as to their effectiveness, and alleged|that the three articles were not subject to seizure and condemnation under|Section 304 (a) of the Act.|\"\"In order that the court might pass upon the questions of whether the booklets|are 'labeling' and whether the drugs are subject to seizure and condemnation, the|parties stipulated the relevant facts. Claimant then moved to dismiss the libels|upon the ground that the stipulation established that the articles of drug were|not misbranded 'when introduced into or while in interstate commerce' as re-|quired by Section 304 (a), and, therefore, this court had no jurisdiction over the|subject matter of these proceedings. On September 13, 1943, an order was made|denying this motion.|\"\"The three cases were consolidated for trial before a jury, and verdicts in favor|of the United States were returned. The jury specially found that the three|articles were misbranded. Appropriate decrees of condemnation and orders|for destruction were submitted and approved. Claimant has now moved for|new trials in each of the three cases and has assigned forty-five grounds of error.|\"\"It is proper that consideration first be given to those specifications of error|which attack the propriety of the order denying the motion to dismiss the pro-|ceedings for want of jurisdiction over the subject matter. Although the stipula-|tion specifically applies to Civil 125, involving the product Rakos, the parties have|agreed that it is also typical of and applicable to Civil 126 and 127, involving the|products Phen-O-Sal and Can-Pho-Sal.|\"\"From the stipulation it appears that the Laboratories is an Iowa corporation|which distributes throughout the United States a line of poultry remedies de-|signed for the prevention and treatment of diseases of poultry. Main offices are|located at Charles City, Iowa, with branches at Columbus, Ohio, Forth Worth,|Texas, and Kansas City, Missouri. Employing over 300 persons, the firm had|sales in 1941 exceeding one million dollars. Distribution of its remedies is|through hatcheries, drug stores, and feed and poultry houses, serviced by salesmen|making regular calls.|\"\"One such salesman is Mr. A. F. Achilles, a resident of St. Paul, whose sales|territory includes Worthington, Minnesota, where the Hatcheries are located.|Since his employment on January 1, 1937, Achilles has made monthly calls on|dealers in his territory in the solicitation of orders and rendering poultry services.|Several times yearly, printed matter is shipped to Mr. Achilles by the Laboratories|for distribution to his customers. In calling upon dealers, Achilles furnished|them, 'according to their needs and requirements and out of a supply carried in|his car,' with the type of booklets here involved. 'Generally, Mr. Achilles, as|part of his duties, on each of his regular calls on dealers, would determine|whether sufficient quantities of the said booklets were on hand; and where the|supply was low, it would be replenished out of supplies carried by him. Oc-|casionally, a dealer, in order to maintain an adequate supply, would inform|Mr. Achilles of his need for the said booklets without waiting for Mr. Achilles to|check the quantity on hand.' Where dealers desired replenishment of their|stock of booklets prior to Achilles' monthly visit, request would be made upon|the Laboratories, 'sometimes in connection with an order for merchandise,' and|a supply would either be delivered by Achilles or sent in small quantities from|Charles City, Iowa. 'During the spring and fall of each year as desired, a dealer|would be provided by Mr. Achilles with window, counter, wall, and floor display|cards and posters.'|\"\"It further appears from the stipulation that the quantities of the product|Rakos here involved were shipped in interstate commerce from Charles City,|Iowa, via railroad, on January 16 and April 11, 1942, and via truck express, on|May 4, 1942, to the Hatcheries at Worthington, Minnesota. Prior to these times,|the booklets here involved had been shipped and cause to be shipped in interstate|commerce by the Laboratories to Achilles at St. Paul, Minnesota. These were|delivered by Achilles to the Hatcheries on January 14, 1942, and April 29,, 1942,|'where they were prominently displayed together with, in immediate proximity|to and in association with various articles of drugs manufactured and sold by|Dr. Salsbury's Laboratories including specifically the articles of drug labeled in|part 'Dr. Salsbury's Rakos' (including that quantity seized herein), 'Dr. Sals-|bury's Phen-O-Sal,' and 'Dr. Salsbury's Can-Pho-Sal', and were available for|reading and accessible for distribution with the sale, actual or potential, of these|articles of drugs. The posters and display cards of the type herewith submitted|as Exhibits A through E, which had been delivered by Mr. Achilles prior to the|dates specified herein, were similarly displayed.'|\"\"It is also stated that in addition to being displayed and available with the|drugs, the booklets 'are distributed by dealers ... in over the counter trans-|actions with purchases of one or more of the articles of drugs manufactured and|sold by Dr. Salsbury's Laboratories including the articles of drug labeled in part,|'Dr. Salsbury's Rakos', 'Dr. Salsbury's Phen-O-Sal', and 'Dr. Salsbury's Can-|Pho-Sal'. Also, a store patron may freely avail himself of one or more of the|said booklets even though making no purchase.' It is also agreed that the prin-|cipal distribution of Government's Exhibit 5, several million annually, is by|direct mailing to farmers throughout the United States at the request of dealers.|These are mailed from Mount Morris, Illinois, where they are printed.|\"\"The following provisions of the Act are pertinent to claimant's contention.|Section 502 (a), defines misbranding as follows: 'A drug or device shall be|deemed to be misbranded?(a) If its labeling is false or misleading in any|particular.' 'Labeling' is denned by section 201 (m) (2) to mean 'all labels|and other written, printed, or graphic matter (1) upon any article or any of|its containers or wrappers, or (2) accompanying such article.' So far as ap-|plicable, Section 304 (a), provides that 'Any article of ... drug . . . that|is . . . misbranded when introduced into or while in interstate commerce . . .|shall be liable to be proceeded against while in interstate commerce, or at any|time thereafter, on libel of information and condemned in any district court|of the United States within the jurisdiction of which the article' is found . . .'|\"\"The specific contention made by claimant is that the stipulation establishes|that while the quantities of Rakos here involved were shipped on January 16,|April 11, and May 4, 1942, the booklets had been shipped to Achilles prior|thereto, and were delivered to the Hatcheries on January 14, and April 29,|1942. Therefore, there is said to be a complete lack of identity as to times of|shipment, times of arrival and routes travelled between the drugs and the book-|lets. Accordingly, it is argued, the drugs were not misbranded 'when introduced|into or while in interstate commerce' as required by Section 304 (a).|\"\"In passing upon this contention, of paramount importance is the fact that|the Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act is an enactment under the Commerce|Clause. Accordingly, in construing its provisions, consideration should be given|to the purposes of the Act, its history, the specific terminology used therein and|the enforcement procedures adopted. Kirschiaum v. . Walling, 316 U. S. 517,|520. The history behind the present Act dates from 1906 when the Food and|Drugs Act was adopted. 21 U. S. C, Sec. 1, et seq. One of the most important|enactments under the Commerce Clause, its purposes of protecting the public|health and pocketbook against adulterated and misbranded foods and drugs,|have led courts to declare with unanimity that food and drug legislation should|be given a liberal construction in order to accomplish its remedial purposes.|United States v. 95 Barrels of Vinegar, 265 U. S. ?438; United States v. Anti-|kamnia Chemical Co., 231 U. S. 654, 655; United States v. Schider, 246 U. S. 519,|522; Wm. M. Gait Co. v. United States, (1913) 39 App. D. C. 470; United States|v. Research Commercial Creamery Co., (D. C. Wash. 1942) 43 F. Supp. 714, 715.|\"\"Stating the basis for the enactment of the 1906 Act, the Court in Hipolite Egg|Co. v. United States, 220 U. S. 45, 57, said: 'The statute rests, of course, upon the|power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce; and, defining that power, we|have said that no trade can be carried on between the states to which it does hot|extend, and have further said' that it is complete in itself, subject to no limitations|except those found in the Constitution.' That Congress was regulating what it|regarded as illicit articles of commerce was made equally clear: 'We are dealing,|it must be remembered, with illicit articles?articles which the law seeks to keep|out of commerce because they are debased by adulteration, and which punishes|them (if we may so express ourselves) and the shipper of them.' 220 U. S. at|p. 57. In the case of adulterated articles, this illicit quality was supplied by the|presence of a deleterious substance in the article (Hipolite Egg Co. v. United|States, supra) and in the case of misbranding, it was supplied by the presence of|a false label on the article. McDermott v. Wisconsin, 228 U. S. 115,131-133. 'The|object of the statute is to prevent the misuse of the facilities of interstate com-|merce in conveying to and placing before the consumer misbranded and adulterated|articles of medicine or food.' 228 U. S. p. 131. The remedy of seizure and con-|demnation was said to be an appropriate means for preventing the transportation|of such articles. Hipolite Egg Co. v. United States, 220 U. S. pp. 57-58.|\"\"Inasmuch as Congress was dealing with what it regarded as illicit articles of|commerce, it is not surprising that under the 1906 Act, the concept of misbranding|was limited to the label or brand appearing upon the article or package. Accord-|ingly, under Section 8 of the 1906 Act, an article was misbranded if 'the package|or label. . . shall bear any statement, design, or device regarding such article, or|the ingredients or substances contained therein which shall be false or misleading|in any particular.' (Emphasis supplied.) Any article so labeled was illicit|in commerce. 'The label is the means of vindication or the basis of punishment|in determining the character of the interstate shipment dealt with by Congress'.|McDermott v. Wisconsin, 228 U. S. p. 133.|\"\"It soon became apparent, however, that this concept of misbranding was too|narrow. Thus a manufacturer could make false claims on a circular enclosed|in the package containing the article without misbranding it under the phrase-|ology of Section 8. United States v. American Druggists' Syndicate (C. C. N. Y.|1911), 186 Fed. 387; United States v. Newton Tea & Spice Co. (D. C. Ohio 1920),|275 Fed. 394. Congress in 1912 endeavored to correct this deficiency by passing|the Sherley Amendment which defined as misbranded any article whose 'package|or label shall bear or contain any statement, design, or device regarding the cura-|tive or therapeutic effect of such article or any of the ingredients or substances con-|tained therein, which is false and fraudulent.' (Emphasis supplied), 21 U. S. C,|Sec. 10 Third). The attack upon the constitutionality of this amendment was|considered in Seven Cases v. United States, 239 U. S. 510. The Supreme Court|decided that circulars bearing false and fraudulent therapeutic claims enclosed|within the package containing the article would now misbrand it. Just as the\"\"|label, under the 1906 Act, conferred upon the article its illicit character in com-|merce, so now the circular under the 1912 amendment provided this status. 'The|false and fraudulent statement ... in the package . . . gives to the article its|character in interstate commerce.' 239 U. S. p. 517.|\"\"So prior to 1938, the law protected the public only where false claims were made|on the label or package or in a circular within the package. Accordingly, to|avoid the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration, a patent medicine|manufacturer needed only to separate physically the printed matter bearing the|false claims from the article itself. This and other deficiencies in the old Act|resulted in its complete overhauling by Congress and culminated in the enact-|ment in 1930 of the present Act. The avowed objective of the new Act was to|strengthen the protection afforded the public by eliminating the loopholes and|expanding consumer protection. Cong. Rec. 73rd Cong. 2nd session, Vol. 78, Part|5, pp. 4567-4573. Many new provisions were added and old ones enlarged. The|concept of misbranding was expanded to include any drug whose 'labeling' is false|or misleading. 'Labeling' comprehends labels, container wrappers, and all written,|printed and graphic matter which accompanies any article of food or drug. En-|forcement procedures were expanded by the inclusion of new prohibited acts and|injunctive relief. (See Section 301, 303). The seizure and condemnation pro-|visions were modified to eliminate obstacles to effectiveness and their availability|was enlarged. (Compare Section 10,1906 Act, with Section 304 (a), 1938 Act.)|\"\"It is perfectly clear that to resolve the present controversy it is necessary|to consider the interrelation of Sections 201 (m) (2) defining labeling, 502 (a)|defining misbranding, and 304 (a) providing for seizure and condemnation.|Unless an article of drug is misbranded when it enters or while in interstate|commerce, seizure is unavailable. There is no misbranding unless its labeling|is Talse or misleading. Printed matter is labeling and will misbrand if it appears|on the article, in the package or accompanies the article and is false or mis-|leading in any particular.|\"\"Realizing that Congress was attempting to expand the protection given con-|sumers in redefining the concept of misbranding, it is evident that the word|'accompany' should be given an interpretation which accords with the Con-|gressional purpose. There is evidence in the legislative history of the labeling|section indicating that broad coverage was intended. Thus in addressing the|Senate committee in regard to this section, W. G. Campbell, Commissioner of|the Food and Drug Administration, stated: 'The term 'labeling' is defined so|as to include not only the label but all circulars and material and placards|for display purposes and the like that may in any form whatever accompany|the article of food, drug or cosmetic . . . .' United States Senate Report 1944,|73rd Cong. 2nd Session, p. 16. There is nothing elsewhere in the history which|in any way indicated that anything less than that was intended.|\"\"The narrow question here is the extent to which printed matter must 'accom-|pany' articles of drug at the time of introduction into or while in interstate|commerce in order that such articles can be said to be 'misbranded' within the|meaning of Section 304 (a). In answer to this question, the government states|that the old physical contiguity test of misbranding operative under the old law|has been discarded and the present act should be given the broadest possible|interpretation in accomplishing the consumer protection intended by Congress.|Claimant states that it does not believe that physical annexation between the|drug and printed matter is always necessary, but insists that because there|are differences in times of shipment, times of delivery and routes travelled,|the drugs here seized could not possibly have been 'misbranded' at any time|in their interstate journey.|\"\"The provision in Section 304 (a) that an article to be subject to seizure|must have been 'misbranded' during its interstate journey is the counterpart|in the present Act of the theory and terminology of Section 10 of the old Act|(21 U. S. C. Sec. 14). Thereunder, seizure was available as to any 'article|of . . . drug . . . that is ... misbranded ... and is being transported from|one State ... to another . . .' Since the concept of misbranding was then lim-|ited to printed matter physically contiguous with the article, necessarily there|was an actual physical misbranding throughout the interstate journey. How-|ever, as we have seen, the concept of misbranding has now been extended by|Congress beyond this restricted notion of physical contiguity. Since Congress|should not be thought to have expanded the substance without expanding the|remedy, m asking whether an article is 'misbranded' in commerce as required|by Section 304 (a), we must necessarily apply the enlarged concept which the|law has now created. The full scope of the present concept of misbranding must|be applied in the interpretation of Section 304 (a). As we have seen, Congress|was dealing in this legislation with articles which were regarded as illicit.|Accordingly, just as it was \"\"the label in 1906 and the circular in 1912 which|conferred upon an article its misbranded status in commerce, so now under|the present Act, printed matter which can be said to have accompanied an article|confers its misbranded status in commerce.|\"\"Aside from the theory of the food and drug legislation, it is manifest that|misbranding has true significance only in terms of the consumer. It matters|little whether a farmer goes to Boote's Hatcheries and sees a large display card|proclaiming the benefits of Rakos in the treatment of coccidiosis, or finds the|same matter actually upon the carton or label of the product. If such repre-|sentations are false, he is as much defrauded irrespective of the location of|the printed statement. Nor does it matter to the farmer whether the book-|lets were physically side by side with bottles of Rakos during the interstate|journey, or were delivered by a salesman. When the farmer enters a dealer's|store, he finds the Rakos and the booklets together in one indivisible mer-|chandising unit. Nothing on the bottle of Rakos, or on or in the carton in|which it is sold tells the farmer that Rakos shall be used in the treatment of|coccidiosis. The only statements to that effect are found in booklets displayed|and distributed with Rakos and upon placards and wall posters prominently|arranged in the store. The fact that the farmer has suffered an out-of-pocket|loss by relying upon these representations should not be obscured by any|subtle inquiries concerning whether the printed representations* rode with the|drugs on the same train, at the same time or over the same route.|\"\"In support of its claim that seizure and condemnation are available here,|the Government has made three contentions. First, it claims that if printed|matter at any time after an interstate shipment of drugs comes into a rela-|tionship which complies with the requirements of 'labeling', the misbranding|which then occurs is retroactively effective from the moment the drugs entered|the channels of commerce. Although the use by the drugs of the facilities of|commerce seemingly is proper, yet the end result was the misbranding which|Congress sought to avoid, and this wrong was a wrong ab initio. Second, the|Government contends that the stipulation establishes that the drugs were 'mis-|branded' in commerce because the facts show that the booklets did actually|accompany the drugs in commerce. Third, the Government contends that the|booklets and drugs were part of one interstate transaction, and that 'commerce|among the states is not a technical legal conception, but a practical one, drawn|from the course of business.' Swift <& Co. v. United States, 196 U. S. 375, 398.|Since I concur in the correctness of the second contention, it is unnecessary to|consider either of the other arguments.|\"\"In essence the question is: Must there be physical accompaniment throughout|the entire interstate movement of the drugs in order for seizure and condemna-|tion to be available? The question is answered in the negative. So to hold|would be to resurrect the physical proximity theory of misbranding. May not|an article be 'misbranded' in commerce within the meaning of Section 304 (a)|by printed matter which, though not physically contiguous thereto, nevertheless|actually did 'accompany' the article for all practical purposes and in all significant|aspects? This question is answered in the affirmative.|\"\"The answer to these questions was first made in United States v. Research|Laboratories, (O. C. A. 9, 1942) 126 F. (2d) 42, where the libel, which the lower|court dismissed, alleged that the circulars accompanied the articles in commerce|by having the same origin and in simultaneously arriving with the articles at|destruction where they were placed in the same room in the consignee's ware-|house. In reversing the lower court, the court said: 'The libel does not state,|nor is it material, whether the packages and the circulars did or did not travel|in the same crate, carton or other container or on the same train, truck or other|vehicle during their interstate journey. The packages and the circulars had a|common origin and a common destruction and arrived at their destruction simul-|taneously. Clearly, therefore, they accompanied each other, regardless of whether,|physically, they were together or apart during their journey.' (Emphasis sup-|plied). The principle of that case in rejecting the concept of physical contiguity|as a test for misbranding under Section 304 (a), in my opinion is sound. Once|this principle is comprehended, it is simply a question of determining in a given|case whether the relationship between the article and the printed matter is suf-|ficiently proximate to fulfill the requirements of accompaniment.|\"\"The word 'accompany' as used in Section 201 (m) (2) was said in United|States v. Lee, (C. C. A. 7, 1942) 131 F. (2d) 464, 466, to mean: 'The word|'accompany' is not defined in the Act, but we observe that among the meanings|attributed to the word are 'to go along with,' 'to go with or attend as a companion|or associate,' and 'to occur in association with, Webster's New International|Dictionary, 2d Ed.' Naturally, meanings of accompany will vary in connection|with subject matter 'Accompany' as used in this Act is used to describe a rela-|tionship between an article of drug and its labeling. Since there 'can be no|question that among the usual characteristics of labeling is that of informing|a purchaser of the uses of an article to which the labeling relates' (United States|v. Lee, at p. 466), the booklets here involved should be scrutinized from this|viewpoint. In the sense just stated, if the booklets are not labeling, then the|products Rakos, Phen-O-Sal and Can-Pho-Sal have none.|\"\"The stipulation clearly shows that the printed matter and the drugs had|a common origin. They had a common destruction in that both were intended|to come together in the stores of dealers in Achilles' territory. They were inter-|locking units of a distributional scheme the objective of which was ultimate|association and distribution together. There was actual, physical association|together in the stores of dealers and actual distribution together in connection|with purchases by farmers. It is fair to conclude that these booklets were pre-|pared, shipped and distributed to dealers with the ultimate expectation and|intention on the part of the Laboratories that they would serve the purpose of|labeling for the three articles of merchandise here involved. Without the book-|lets, the products themselves lacked labeling, at least In so far as informing|purchasers of the purposes and uses of the remedies. The mere fact that the|products were shipped at a different time, over a different route and were|received at a different time from the booklets should not be permitted to confuse|or obscure the substance of the matter. The instant that the product Rakos|entered the channels of commerce enroute to the Hatcheries, it was to all intents|and purposes as much travelling in accompaniment of the representations con-|tained in the booklets as if those booklets were actually enclosed in the same|shipping container. It is unquestionable that both the drugs and the booklets|used the. facilities of interstate commerce to accomplish a defrauding of the|public. For this transgression, the products are subject to seizure and con-|demnation.|\"\"Were not the factors just stated to be given primary consideration, there would|be a multiplication of refinements. Starting with the case of a circular in|the package or in the shipping carton containing the drug, there would be a|question as to circulars in a different car on the same' train, or a different train,|at a different time, over a different route, or by a different type of carrier.|The physical aspects of the transportation are not important. What is vital|here are such factors as interdependence of the drug and the booklets, common|origin, common destruction, display, distribution and use together. These deter-|mine whether there has been that degree of accompaniment which provides the|necessary 'misbranded' status under Section 304 (a). The mere fortuitous cir-|cumstance of an absence of physical association between the booklets and|drugs during the interstate journey of the drugs does not in my opinion control.|\"\"Claimant insists, however, that there is no occasion for employing .seizure|and condemnation in this situation as the Government has a right to proceed|by injunction under Section 301 (k).1 Claimant states that this section author-|izes the Government to enjoin the Laboratories from causing an association|between the printed matter and the drugs at the retailer's place of business.|United States v. Lee, supra. The Government, however, does not concede that|this section is necessarily available here and suggests several arguments which|claimant might have made as to the non-applicability of Section 301 (k) had|the! Government attempted to use it.|\"\"This Court does not in this proceeding propose to mark out the limits of|Section 301 (k). Seemingly, however, it was enacted by Congress under its|authority to regulate activities affecting interstate commerce. See Labor Board|v. Jones & Laughlin, 301 U. S. 1. In referring to alteration, mutilation, destruc-|tion, obliteration or removal of labels this section at least suggests the possi-|bility that what it contemplates is a lawful use by a drug of the facilities of|interstate commerce followed by some activity which causes it to be misbranded.|In the instant case, drugs and booklets were flowing through commerce in a|relationship which has been found to make illegal the use by the drugs of the|facilities of commerce. In any event, in absence of further clarification, it can-|not be said that the applicability of Section 301 (k) to the facts set forth in the|stipulation is so clear that doubts should be entertained as to the applicabilty|of Section 304 (a).|\"\"The ground of error most vigorously asserted by claimant in its motion goes|to the failure of the court to grant certain requested instructions. Requests 3|and 4 were as follows:|\"\" 'The law under which this proceeding is instituted does not contemplate that|statements with reference to the curative or therapeutic value of the drugs shall|be deemed false or misleading with respect to matters as to which there is an|honest difference of opinions between schools and practitioners.|\"\" 'In the treatment of diseases of animals honest differences of opinion may|arise between school and practitioners as to the therapeutic or curative-value|of drugs. Statements with reference to the curative value of drugs or helpful-|ness in assisting in bringing about a cure are not to be deemed false and mis-|leading merely because differences of opinion exists between different groups of|Veterinarys, or different groups skilled in this particular line of endeavor as|to the curative value.'|iThe full text of Sec. 301 (k) is as follows: \"\"The alteration, mutilation, destruction,|obliteration, or removal of the -whole or any part of the labeling of, or the doing of any|other act with respect to, a food, drug, device, or cosmetic, if such act is done while|such article is held for sale after shipment in interstate commerce and results in such|article being misbranded.\"\"|\"\"Failure to grant these requests is said to have constituted unconstitutional|application of Section 502 (a), for the reason that it permitted the jury to|find claims of effectiveness to be false and misleading upon the basis of differ-|ences of expert opinion. Failure to charge as requested is said to have per-|mitted the jury to weigh differences of expert opinion and to decide whether|the claims of effectiveness made by claimant were false or misleading depend-|ing upon whether it followed the experts for the Government or those for|claimant. This, it is said, introduced such uncertainty into Section 502 (a) as|would make it void for uncertainty. Cases cited in support thereof are Ameri-|can School of Magnetic Healing v. McAnnulty, 187 U. S. 94; United States v.|Johnson, 221 U. S. 488; Seven Cases v. United States, 239 U. S. 510, and cases|holding that a statute must define an offense with reasonable certainty in order|that a person may know what is prohibited. United States v. Cohen Grocery|Co., 255 U. S. 81; Connolly v. General Const. Co., 269 U. S. 385.|\"\"The law under which these proceedings were instituted provides that a drug|is misbranded if its labeling is false or misleading in any particular. There is|nothing in this standard which is vague or indefinite. It prescribes a rule of|conduct by which persons can measure their acts. In and of itself there is and|can be no contention that the provisions of Section 502 (a) are void for in-|definiteness and uncertainty. United States v. Cohen Grocery Co., supra; Con-|nolly v. General Const. Co., supra; Coplin v. U. S. (O. C. A. 9, 1937) 88 F. (2)|652, 657.|\"\"Claimant, however, supports its contention that the standard is uncertain|and indefinite by adding another element, the difference of opinion between|the experts appearing for the Government and those appearing for claimant.|It is said that the question of 'whether or not these remedies are of value in|the treatment of poultry diseases involves a question of opinion and not a|strict question of fact'. Therefore, it is concluded, refusal to charge the jury|as requested in 3 and 4 placed an unconstitutional interpretation upon Sec. 502|(a) by allowing the jury to find the claims of effectiveness false or misleading|by deciding between two groups expressing different opinions about the effective-|ness of these remedies.|\"\"Implicity, the argument for claimant proceeds upon the assumption that it|would be beyond the power of Congress to permit a claim of effectiveness to be|found false by a jury where medical or veterinary opinion is divided on the|matter. Whatever the merit of this assumption, it is clear that Congress has.|not attempted to do this in Section 502 (a), nor did it do so in prior legislation.|What Congress had done is to permit a claim of effectiveness to be found false|or misleading where the question of effectiveness is demonstrable as a fact. I|do not think that I have permitted more in these proceedings.|\"\"The law is regarded to the effect of a difference of medical opinion upon a|proceeding in which a claim of effectiveness is sought to be proved false stems|from American School of Magnetic Healing y. McAnnulty, 187 U. S. 94. In that|case, the Postmaster General upon the basis of evidence satisfactory to him,|issued a fraud order upon the ground that the Magnetic Healing School was|using the mails to obtain money by means of false and fraudulent pretenses.|An injunction was sought to restrain the Postmaster from carrying out the|terms of the fraud order. A demurrer to the bill was sustained in the lower|court and reversed on appeal. Laying constitutional consideration to one side,|the Supreme Court held that the School's claims of effectiveness for its method|of treatment of diseases, as to which there was a difference,of medical opinion,|could not be condemned as false for the reason that, being based upon dif-|ferences of opinion, there was no standard of fact or truth by which\"\" to measure|the falsity of the claims. The court stated that efficacy of treatment was a|matter of opinion entirely and not a matter of absolute fact capable of proof|as a fact. Under the statute, the Postmaster General was said to have no|authority to decide between the conflicting opinions. The Court held that where|variant opinions appear as to claims of effectiveness, such a statute does not|apply as a matter of law.|\"\"Later cases made the McAnnulty rule applicable to food and drug legis-|lation under which statements constituted misbranding where false or mislead-|ing in any particular (1906 Act), or false and fraudulent (1912 Amendment), as|applied to curative claims. United States v. Johnson, 221 U. S. 488; Seven Cases|v United States, 239 U. S. 510. Although the majority of the court in the John-|son case believed that Section 8 of the 1906 Act in declaring as misbranded|statements which were false or misleading applied only to statements of strength,|identity, quality and purity and did not apply to claims of curative value, and|intimated that Congress was unlikely to distort its constitutional power to|establish criteria in regions where opinion is wide apart, yet it is significant|that the deciison does not rest upon a constitutional basis. It was simply|decided that Section 8 was not intended to apply to expressions of curative|value. Following this decision, Congress amended the 1906 Act expressly to|provide that statements of curative value would constitute misbranding if 'false|and fraudulent'. When the constitutionality of this amendment was attacked|upon the same ground as claimant advances here, a unanimous court in Seven-|Cases v. United States held that the amendment was intended to apply not to|expressions of opinion but only to expressions of effectiveness which were|plainly contrary to fact.|\"\"Although the court in the McAnnulty case had said that assertions of effec-|tiveness were always matters of opinion because 'There is no exact standard of|absolute truth by which to prove the assertion false and a fraud . . . [since] . . .|the claim . . . cannot be the subject of proof as of an ordinary fact,' 187 U. S. 104,|the court now states that there is a category of assertions which fall outside the|field of opinion and into the field of fact. 'Congress deliberately excluded the|field where there are honest differences of opinion between schools and practition-|ers . . Congress recognized that there was a wide field in which assertions as to|curative effect are in no sense honest expressions of opinion, but constitute absolute|falsehoods.' Seven Cases v. United States, 239 U. S. p. 517. In view of the fact|that Justice Hughes, who spoke for a unanimous court in Seven Cases v. United|States, dissented from the majority opinion in the Johnson case as to the scope|of Section 8 of the 1906 Act, the language which he used in his dissent is of|significance upon this question. He stated, 'It is, of course, true, that when Con-|gress used the words 'false or misleading statement,' it referred to a well defined|category in the law. and must be taken to have intended statements of fact, and|not mere expressions of opinion . . . But, granting the widest domain of opinion,|and allowing the broadest range to the conflict of medical views, there still re-|mains a field in which statements as to curative properties are downright false-|hoods and in no sense expressions of judgment. This field I believe this statute|covers.|' 21 U. S.-p. 504. In using this language, Justice Hughes was referring to|terminology in the 1906 Act which is in all respects identical with that contained|in Section 502 (a).|- \"\"Plainly, therefore, the subject of regulation in the 1938 Act, as in its predeces-|sors, is matter of fact, not matter of opinion. See House Committee Report No.|2139, 75th Congress, 3d Session. Except as affected by Section 201 (n) and the|regulations issued thereunder, it is clear that food and drug legislation was in-|tended to apply only to false or misleading expressions of fact. It seems manifest|that the question of whether a remedy is effective is always a question of fact.|A remedy cannot be both effective and ineffective under identical circumstances.|The susceptibility of effectiveness to proof as a fact necessarily determines|whether assertions can be adjudged false or misleading within the meaning of|Section 502 (a). Necessarily, therefore, whether in a given case the question of|effectiveness is one of opinion or fact depends entirely upon the evidence which is|introduced.|\"\"Under the law as it now exists, before a court is warranted in submitting the|false or misleading qualities of an assertion of effectiveness to a jury to decide, it|must be satisfied that something more is involved than mere difference of opinion|between schools or practitioners. As stated by Justice Hughes in his dissent in|the Johnson case, 'I entirely agree that in any case brought under the act for mis-|branding?by a false or misleading statement as to curative properties of an|article?it would be the duty of the court to direct an acquittal when it appeared|that the statement concerned a matter of opinion. Conviction would stand only|where it had been shown that, apart from any question of opinion, the so-called|remedy was absolutely worthless, and hence the label demonstrably false,' 221|U. S. 507. If the evidence is such that it appears that the question of effectiveness|has not transcended the realm of opinion into the realm of demonstrable fact, the|court must hold as a matter of law that assertions of effectiveness are not false|and refuse to submit the question to the jury. American School of Magnetic Heal-|ing v. McAnnulty, supra; see L. B. Silver v. Federal Trade Commission (C. C. A.|6, 1923), 289 Fed. 985; cf. Bruce v. United States, (C. C. A. 9, 1912) 202 Fed. 98.|But where the evidence indicates that there is a standard of demonstrable truth|and fact by which the jury can measure the claims of effectiveness, the court|should then submit the question to the jury under appropriate instructions. What|the evidence shows in a given case is a question of law for the court to decide.|\"\"In light of these considerations, it appears that the claims of unconstitu-|tionality made by claimant as to the interpretation given to Section 502 (a)|in the charge are not well taken. The only situation where claimant could|possibly say that its claimed constitutional rights had been invaded would|be where a court had permitted the jury to find a claim of effectiveness false|on the basis of evidence which indicated only a contrariety of opinion. No|possible question of constitutionality can arise in a case where the evidence|upon which the question of effectiveness was decided by the. jury has the|necessary factual basis. Such factual proof was present at the time- these|cases were submitted to the jury.|\"\"Scientific witnesses for the Government in this case made elaborate and|comprehensive tests of claimant's remedies under conditions most favorable|to the remedies. Practically all of the experts testifying for the Government|had conducted significant experimentation either in the field or in the laboratory.|In the experimentation, all factors were controlled and a complete identity of|circumstances and environmnet for the experimental poultry was provided. The|report of such tests showed conclusively that the remedies were absolutely worth-|less and without any benefit whatsoever. The infected, untreated experimental|group showed the same rate of mortality and recovery as the infected, treated|group. These tests were duplicated and corroborated away from the laboratory|under so-called field conditions. These tests were recognized by outstanding|men of science as constituting conclusive evidence by recognized scientific|standards that the remedies were wholly ineffective.|\"\"Facts established by recognized scientific investigation are deserving of high|standing in respect to the falsity of claims of effectiveness. Elliott Works v.|Frisk, (D. C. Iowa 1932) 58 F. (2d) 820, 824-825; cf. United States v. Lesser,|(C. C. A. 2, 1933) 66 F. (2d) 612, 616. Moreover, it must be obvious that|tremendous advancements in scientific knowledge and certainty have been made|since the rule in the McAnnulty case was first announced. Questions which|previously were subjects only of opinion have now been answered with certainty|by the application of scientifically known facts. In the consideration of the|McAnnulty rule, courts should give recognition to this advancement.|\"\"None of the experimental data introduced by claimant in any way directly or|completely opposed the conclusiveness of the experimentation conducted by Gov-|ernment experts, and the jury was entitled to find that it was lacking in sig-|nificance. It is true that claimant produced veterinarians from its own or-|ganization and from other remedy companies who expressed the opinion that|these remedies were effective. But it is unthinkable that this expression of|opinion by these so-called experts could in any way operate to prevent these|cases from being submitted to the jury or to require the court to instruct the|jury to ignore all expressions of opinion on the part of both sides.|\"\"But the requested instructions did not in any way raise these issues. The|requests did not ask the court to instruct the jury to ignore all opinion testimony.|As the summation by claimant's counsel indicated, claimant was perfectly willing|that the jury should have the benefit of the opinions rendered by its experts|that these remedies were effective. Accordingly, the jury was instructed that|the issue of misbranding, i. e. the question of effectiveness, should be decided|upon a consideration of all the testimony. Certainly where factual proof is|present which indicates the worthlessness of the remedies in question, mere|injection of an alleged difference of opinion on the part of persons whom the|jury might find were either ignorant or charlatans, could not operate to pre-|vent the jury from deciding the question of effectiveness. Under the evidence|in this case, the jury was entirely warranted in finding that the contrary|expressions of opinion by the witnesses appearing for claimant were in direct|opposition to established scientific fact.|\"\"The only possible question which claimant's requests raised was whether|there was in the evidence any more than mere difference of opinion between|groups of veterinarians. Since there was abundant factual evidence of inef-|fectiveness, the requests served no purpose and were therefore refused. Certainly|there was no occasion for telling the jury about what the rule would have been|had the evidence been different than it was.|\"\"Failure to give other requested instructions is also assigned as error. These|asked that the jury be told that the booklets did not represent that the remedies|would cure, but merely indicated that the remedies would be helpful. Also,|requests were made as to what degree of helpfulness a drug must have in order|that it possess therapeutic or curative properties.|\"\"The libels in this case charged that the representations contained in the|booklets were false and misleading because they represented that the remedies|were effective in the treatment of poultry diseases when they were not effective.|Whether they were represented to be effective and whether they were effective|were the issues in the case. The testimony for the Government, acquiesced in|by three witnesses for claimant, was that before these remedies could be effective,|a capacity to destroy or inhibit germs was necessary. Under this state of the|evidence, it was unnecessary to tell the jury about what would be necessary for|the remedies to be curative or therapeutic. Whether the statements appearing|in the booklets represented the remedies to be effective was for the jury to say|in light of the ordinary meaning of the language used. Bradley v. United States,|(0. 0. A. 5, 1920) 264 Fed. 79; Hall v. United States, (0. C A. 5, 1920).267 Fed.|795; United States v. John J. Fulton Co., (C. C. A. 9, 1929) 33 F. (2d) 506.|\"\"Claimant assigns as error the action of the court in permitting the experts for|the Government to testify as to the ultimate issues in the case, citing United|States v. Spaulding, 293 U. S. 498. All of the opinion evidence given by the|Government's experts necessarily involved the use of their experience and|training on matters of special knowledge not within the grasp of the untutored.|Clearly, it would seem not improper for the court to permit them to express opin-|ions upon the question of the effectiveness of claimant's remedies. Dr. J. H.|McLean Medicine Co. v. United States, (C. C. A. 8, 1918) 253 Fed. 694; Eleven|Gross Packages v. United States, (C. C. A. 3,1916) 233 Fed. 71; Kar-Bu Chemical|Co. v. United States, (C. C. A. 9, 1920) 264 Fed. 921; United States v. Chichester|Chemical Co., (App. D. C. 1924) 298 Fed. 829. All opinions given by the experts|who testified for the Government were directly or indirectly expressed in rela-|tion to this question of effectiveness and did not invade the function of the jury.|Moreover, in the examination of its experts, claimant was allowed similar lati-|tude. In fact, in an effort to permit claimant to present to the jury everything|which could possibly be of benefit in support of its claims of effectiveness, the|court allowed very great latitude in the receipt of evidence, even to the point|where opinion evidence from lay persons was received. Accordingly, if any error|was committed, it was in claimant's favor and it is now in no position to complain.|\"\"Other claims of error may be summarily dismissed. I see no impropriety in|instructing the jury to ignore such portions of the closing argument of claimant's|counsel as attempted to impugn the Government's motives in bringing this case|at the present time. There was no evidence to justify this statement. See|London Guarantee & Accident Co. v. Woefle, (C. C. A. 8, 1936) 83 F. (2d) 325,|338-344. The claimed impropriety in the argument of Government counsel, if it|existed, was prompted by the improper argument of opposing counsel and was|not open to censure. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Kelly, (C. C. A. 8,1934) 74 F. (2d)|31; Union Electric Light & Power Co. v. Snyder Estate Co., (C. C. A. 8, 1933)|65 F. (2d) 297, 301-302.|\"\"I feel that claimant's requests to permit the jury to examine all parts of the|booklets in determining whether there were representations of effectiveness was|properly denied. Much of this matter was wholly unrelated to the remedies in-|volved and would have diverted the jury from the task at hand. Request No.|18, submitted by claimant, was granted and this in my opinion was all that it|was entitled to.|\"\"Throughout the trial, evidence as to efficacy of the remedies was offered by|both sides without regard to whether it related to prevention or treatment of|disease. It was, therefore, entirely proper to permit the Government to amend|its pleadings to embrace both. Rule 15 (b) of the Federal Rules expressly|sanctions this.|\"\"Any error in the exclusion of Exhibit P was harmless. The materiality of and|foundation for this exhibit were not clearly shown. But that aside, it was offered|as impeachment evidence only. In view of the admission of Exhibit Q, its only|effect would have been cumulative.\"\"|On June 27, 1944, judgments were entered ordering that the products be de-|stroyed on or before July 31, 1944. The United States marshal destroyed them|on July 8, 1944.|NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 151, FOOD AND DRUGS ACT. ADULTERATION OF VANILLA EXTRACT.fdnj00151February 8, 1910Monroe Pharmacal Company, a corporation of Rochester, New YorkVANILLA EXTRACTSeptember 6, 1907New YorkNew YorkMassachusettsWestern District of New York151I. S. No. 1147. F. & D. No. 298The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainfdnj00151fdnj|I. S. No. 1147.|F. & D. No. 298. |Issued February 8, 1910.|United States Department of Agriculture,|OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY.|NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 151, FOOD AND DRUGS ACT.|ADULTERATION OF TANILLA EXTRACT.|In accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the Food andDrugs Act of June 30, 1906 and of regulation 6 of the rules andregulations for the enforcement of the act, notice is given that onthe 11th day of May, 1909, in the District Court of the United Statesfor the Western District of New York, in a prosecution by the UnitedStates against the Monroe Pharmacal Company, a corporation ofRochester, New York, for violation of section 2 of the aforesaid actin shipping and delivering for shipment from New York to Massa?chusetts an adulterated vanilla extract, the said Monroe PharmacalCompany entered a plea of guilty and the court suspended sentence.|The facts in the case were as follows:|On September 6, 1907, an inspector of the Department of Agri?culture purchased from Charles A. Gay, Greenfield, Massachusetts, asample (I. S. No. 1147) of a food product labeled: \"\"Monroe BrandConcentrated Extract of Vanilla for flavoring Ice Cream, Jellies,Pastry, etc., Manufactured by Monroe Pharmacal Co., Rochester,N. Y.\"\, and on the back of the bottle was a sticker containing: \"\" Ex?tract vanilla beans (Mex.) .8155?; Syrup (sugar) .09137; Colognespirit .0956.\"\" The sample was analyzed in the Bureau of Chemistryof the United States Department of Agriculture and the followingresults obtained and stated:|ResinsAbsent.|Organic acids, gums and extractive mattersSmall amount.|Vanillin (per cent)0.12|CoumarinAbsent.|CaramelPresent.|Natural colorTrace.|Vanilla extract, or flavor, as recognized by reliable manufacturersand dealers, is the flavoring extract prepared from vanilla bean, andcontains in 100 cubic centimeters the soluble matters from not less than24146?10|10 grams of the vanilla bean. The analysis of the aforesaid sampledisclosed practically the total absence of the soluble matters of thevanilla bean, hence the article was adulterated within the meaning ofsection 7 of the act in that an imitation extract, artificially coloredin a manner whereby its inferiority was concealed, was substitutedwholly for the vanilla extract which it purported to be.|It appearing from the aforesaid analysis that the article wasadulterated, the Secretary of Agriculture gave notice to Charles A.Gay, the dealer from whom the sample was purchased, and also to theMonroe Pharmacal Company, the manufacturer and shipper andgave them an opportunity to be heard. The said company being theparty solely responsible for the adulteration of the article and failingto show any fault or error in the result of the aforesaid analysis andit being determined that the article was adulterated, on December 30,1908 the said Secretary reported the facts and evidence (F. & D. No.298) to the Attorney General by whom they were referred to theUnited States Attorney for the Western District of New York whopresented the facts to the grand jury by whom an indictment wasduly returned against the said Monroe Pharmacal Company withthe result hereinbefore stated.|JAMES WILSON,Secretary of Agriculture.|JANUARY 15, 1910.|1055. Adulteration and misbranding of Cocoa Quinine. U. S. v. 58 2/3 Dozen Packages of Cocoa Quinine. Default decree of condemnation. Product ordered delivered to government hospitals.ddnj01055April 1945South Georgia Manufacturing Co.Cocoa QuinineNovember 17, 1942Mobile, Ala.Blakeley, Ga.Mobile, Ala.Southern District of Alabama1055F. D. C. No. 9609. Sample No. 10264-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01055ddnj|1055. Adulteration and misbranding of Cocoa Quinine. IT. S. v. 58% Dozen|Packages of Cocoa Quinine. Default decree of condemnation. Product|ordered delivered to government hospitals. (F. D. C. No. 9609. Sample|No. 10264-F.)|Examination showed that this product contained from 8.5 to 9.72 grains of|quinine per fluid ounce, and that the bottles contained from 1.79 to 1.86 fluid|ounces.|On March 31, 1943, the United States attorney for the Southern District of|Alabama filed a libel against 58? dozen packages of Cocoa Quinine at Mobile,|Ala., alleging that the article had been shipped on or about November 17, 1942,|from Blakeley, Ga., by the South Georgia Manufacturing Co.; and charging|that it was adulterated and misbranded. The article was labeled in part: \"\"Home|Brand Cocoa Quinine.\"\"|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from|that which it purported and was represented to possess, namely, \"\"Contains in|each fluid ounce Quinine Sulfate 10 Grains.\"\"|It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements appearing in its label-|ing, \"\"Contains in each fluid ounce Quinine Sulfate 10 Grains * * * Net|Contents 2 Ounces,\"\" were false and misleading; in that it was in package form|and did not bear a label containing an accurate statement of the quantity of|the contents in terms of weight, measure, or numerical count; and in that its|label did not bear adequate directions for its use, since the directions on the|label did not specify the dose for children between the ages of 1 and 10.|On July 28, 1943, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation|was entered and the product was ordered delivered to government hospitals to|be dispensed to the inmates thereof.|1056. Adulteration and misbranding of blue ointment. U. S. v. Herman Achs Certified Laboratories). Plea of nolo contendere. Fine. $300.ddnj01056April 1945Herman Achs, trading as the Certified Laboratories, Philadelphia, Pa.blue ointmentJanuary 11, 1943PennsylvaniaPennsylvaniaNew JerseyEastern District of Pennsylvania1056F. D. C. No. 9659. Sample No. 23328-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01056ddnj|1056. Adulteration and misbranding of blue ointment. U. S. v. Herman Achs|(Certifled Laboratories). Plea of nolo contendere. Fine. $300.|(F. D. C. No. 9659. Sample No. 23328-F.)|On July 21,1943, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Penn-|sylvania filed an information against Herman Achs, trading as the Certified Lab-|oratories, Philadelphia, Pa., alleging shipment on or about January 11, 1943,|from the State of Pennsylvania into the State of New Jersey of a quantity of|blue ointment.|The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to be and was|represented as blue ointment, a drug the name of which is recognized in the|United States Pharmacopoeia, an ofBcial compendium, but its strength differed|from and its quality fell below the standard set forth therein, since the com-|pendium provides that blue ointment shall contain not more than 11 percent|of Hg (mercury), and shall be so compounded and prepared that the globules|of mercury are not visible under a lens mangnifying 10 diameters, whereas the|article contained mercury in amounts varying from 28.8 percent to 55.3 percent,|and globules of mercury were easily visible in the article under a magnification|of 10 diameters; and its difference in strength and quality from the standard|set forth in the compendium was not stated on its label.|The article was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that the statement in its|labeling, \"\"Blue Ointment (Mild Mercurial, U. S. P.),\"\" was false and misleading;|(2) in that its label bore no direction for use; and (3) in that its label failed|to bear adequate warnings against use whereby it might be dangerous to health,|and against unsafe methods of application, since the article may cause irrita-|tion of the skin and its application to large areas may cause serious mercurial|poisoning, and the label did not bear warnings in such manner and form as|are necessary for the protection of users.|On August 25,1943, the defendant having entered a plea of nolo contendere, the|court imposed a fine of $300.|1057. Misbranding of Korjena. U. S. v. 25 Gross Packages of Korjena (and 26 other seizure actions against Korjena). Decrees of condemnation and destruction.ddnj01057April 1945Korjena Medicine Co.KorjenaJanuary 5 and April 23, 1943Los Angeles, Calif.; Kansas City, Mo.; Philadelphia, Pa.; Erie, Pa.; Minneapolis, Minn.; Detroit, Mich.; Denver, Colo.; Pawtucket, R. I.; Tampa, Fla.; Jersey City, N. J.; Cincinnati, Ohio; Chicago, Ill.; West Haven, Conn.; Grand Rapids, Mich.; Newark, N. J.; Boston, Mass.; Cleveland, Ohio; St. Paul, Minn.; Youngstown, Ohio; St. Louis, Mo.; Passaic, N. J.Elmira, N. Y.Los Angeles, Calif.; Kansas City, Mo.; Philadelphia, Pa.; Erie, Pa.; Minneapolis, Minn.; Detroit, Mich.; Denver, Colo.: 3? dozen packages; Pawtucket, R. I.; Tampa, Fla.; Jersey City, N. J.; Cincinnati, Ohio; Chicago, Ill.; West Haven, Conn.; Grand Rapids, Mich.; Newark, N. J.; Boston, Mass.; Cleveland, Ohio; St. Paul, Minn.; Youngs- town, Ohio; St. Louis, Mo.; Passaic, N. J.Southern District of California, the Eastern and Western Districts of Missouri, the Eastern and Western Districts of Pennsylvania, the Eastern and Western Districts of Michigan, the Southern District of Florida, the Northern and Southern Districts of Ohio, the Northern District of Illinois, and the Districts of Minnesota, Colorado, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Massachusetts1057F. D. C. Nos. 9113, 9276 to 9278, incl. , 9331, 9335, 9381, 9402, 9415, 9425, 9516, 9522, 9544, 9555, 9557, 9586, 9597, 9720, 9732 to 9734, incl. , 9753, 9754, 9781, 9782, 9812, 9824. Sample Nos. 711-F, 734-F, 1383-F, 1384-F, 3555-F, 3593-F, 6095-F, 7698-F, 8694-F, 13925-F, 14805-F, 16141-F, 20164-F, 20504-F, 21470-F, 21673-F, 23334-F, 28169-F, 31973-F, 32488-F, 32489-F, 37633-F, 44590-F, 44616-F, 44619-F, 44621-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01057ddnj|1057. Misbranding of Korjena. U. S. v. 25 Gross Packages of Korjena (and 26|other seizure actions against Korjena). Decrees of condemnation and|destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 9113, 9276 to 9278, incl., 9331, 9335, 9381, 9402,|9415, 9425, 9516, 9522, 9544, 9555, 9557, 9586, 9597, 9720, 9732 to 9734, incl.,|9753, 9754, 9781, 9782, 9812, 9824. Sample Nos. 711-F, 734-F, 1383-F, 1384-F,|3555-F, 3593-F, 6095-F, 7698-F, 8694-F, 13925-F, 14805-F, 16141-F, 20164-F,|20504-F, 21470-F, 21673-F, 23334-F, 28169-F, 31973-F, 32488-F, 32489-F,|37633-F, 44590-F, 44616-F, 44619-F, 44621-F.)|Between January 5 and April 23, 1943, the United States attorneys for the|Southern District of California, the Eastern and Western Districts of Missouri,|the Eastern and Western Districts of Pennsylvania, the Eastern and Western|Districts of Michigan, the Southern District of Florida, the Northern and Southern|Districts of Ohio, the Northern District of Illinois, and the Districts of Minnesota,|Colorado, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Massachusetts filed libels|against the following quantities of Korjena: 348 dozen packages at Los Angeles,|Calif.; 239^4 dozen packages at Kansas City, Mo.; 63? dozen packages at Phil-|adelphia, Pa.; 11? dozen packages at Erie, Pa.; 9? dozen boxes at Minneapolis,|Minn.; 132 dozen packages at Detroit, Mich.; 21? dozen packages at Denver,|Colo.: 3? dozen packages at Pawtucket, R. I.; 42 dozen packages at Tampa, Fla.;|26 dozen packages at Jersey City, N. J.; 11? dozen packages at Cincinnati, Ohio;|151? dozen packages at Chicago, 111.; 30? dozen packages at West Haven, Conn.;|473?2 dozen packages at Grand Rapids, Mich.; 8 dozen packages at Newark,|N. J.; 10?2 dozen packages at Boston, Mass.; 25? dozen packages at Cleveland,|Ohio; 14? dozen packages at St. Paul, Minn.; 20? dozen packages at Youngs-|town, Ohio; 40?2 dozen packages at St. Louis, Mo.; and 37? dozen packages|at Passaic, N. J. It was alleged that the article had been shipped within the|period from on or about August 4, 1942, to March 5, 1943, from Elmira, N. T., by|the Korjena Medicine Co.; and it was charged that it was misbranded.|Examination showed that the article was in the form of tablets which con-|sisted essentially of phenolphthalein (1 grain per tablet), calcium carbonate,|material derived from bile, and calcium iodide.|The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements ap-|pearing in its labeling, \"\"A Dependable Treatment for the Reduction of Excessive|Fat * * * This Treatment is Guaranteed Dependable and may be taken|with Complete Confidence * * * Especially in overweight cases of long|standing these tablets should be faithfully taken regularly as directed. Two or|three packages are usually required for the best results * * * This treatment|is dependable in normal conditions. * * * All normal cases of excessive|weight may confidently follow above directions. * * *,\"\" were false and mis-|leading since the article was not a dependable, safe, and adequate treatment for|the reduction of excess fat or weight. It was alleged to be misbranded further in|that its label failed to bear adequate directions for use, since the article was a lax-|ative and the directions which appeared in the labeling provided for continuous ad-|ministration, whereas a laxative should not be used continuously; and in that its|labeling failed to warn that the article should not be used when abdominal pain,|nausea, vomiting, or other symptoms of appendicitis are present; that frequent or|continued use of the article might result in dependence upon laxatives; and that if|a skin rash should appear its use should be discontinued.|Between February 13 and August 9, 1943, no claimant having appeared, judg-|ments of condemnation were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.|1058. Misbranding of Davis Formula No. 7895 and standardized solution of vitamin A, and Anti-Ur-Acid and vitamin B1 tablets. U. S. v. Edward R. Davis (E. R. Davis Prescription Co.). Plea of guilty. Fines, $500 on count 1 and $1 each on counts 2 and 3, plus costs.ddnj01058April 1945Edward R. Dayis, trading as the E. R. Davis Prescription Co., at Bellingham, Wash.Davis Formula No. 7895 and standardized solution of vitamin A, and Anti-Ur-Acid and vitamin B1 tabletsDecember 17, 1941, and June 23, 1942WashingtonWashingtonCaliforniaWestern District of Washington1058F. D. C. No. 7742. Sample Nos. 23097-E, 93233-E, 95346-E.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01058ddnj|1058. Misbranding of Davis Formula No. 7895 and standardized solution of vita-|min A, and Anti-Ur-Acid and vitamin Bt tablets. TJ. S. v. Edward R.|Davis (E. R. Davis Prescription Co.). Plea of guilty. Fines, $500 on|eount 1 and $1 each on counts 2 and 3, plus costs. (F. D. C. No. 7742.|Sample Nos. 23097-E, 93233-E, 95346-E.)|On July 30, 1943, the United States attorney for the Western District of Wash-|ington filed an information against Edward R. Dayis, trading as the E. R. Davis|Prescription Co., at Bellingham, Wash., alleging shipment from the State of Wash-|ington into the State of California, on or about December 17, 1941, and June 23,|1942, of a number of cartons, each containing a bottle of Davis Formula No. 7895|and a bottle of Standardized Solution of Vitamin A; and into the State of Oregon,|on or about May 14, 1942, of a carton containing a box of Anti-Ur-Acid powder|and a box of vitamin Bi tablets.|Analysis showed that the Davis Formula No. 7895 consisted essentially of|potassium iodide, an extract of a plant drug such as Lobelia, a small proportion|of chloroform, sugar, alcohol, and water; and that the solution of vitamin A|contained 32,500 U. S. P. units of vitamin A per gram.|The formula and the solution of vitamin A were alleged to be misbranded in|that the statements in their labeling which represented and suggested that, when|used as directed, with the diet suggested, they would be an adequate treatment|for asthma, including bronchial and spasmodic asthma, were false and misleading|since they would not be an adequate treatment for such conditions.|Analysis showed that the Anti-Ur-Acid was a powder consisting essentially|of magnesium sulfate, potassium bitartrate, and sodium bicarbonate; and that|the vitamin Bi tablets contained between 0.90 mg. and 0.95 mg. of the vitamin per|tablet.|The powder and the vitamin Bi tablets were alleged to be misbranded in that|the name \"\"Anti-Ur-Acid\"\" was misleading, since the name suggested and created|the impression in the mind of the reader that the articles would neutralize and|correct excess uric acid, whereas they would not neutralize or correct excess|uric acid. They were alleged to be misbranded further in that the name \"\"Anti-|Ur-Acid,\"\" and the statements in the labeling which represented and suggested|that rheumatic, neuritic, and arthritic pains, gout, dropsy, and similar disease|conditions, suggested by the abbreviation \"\"etc.,\"\" were caused by excess uric acid|and that the articles would be efficacious in the treatment of those conditions, were|false and misleading since those disease conditions are not caused by excess uric|acid, and the articles would not be efficacious for the purposes claimed. The|articles were alleged to be misbranded further in that the labeling failed to bear|adequate directions for use, since the statement \"\"Take about y2 hour before|breakfast\"\" created the impression that the powder should be taken every morning,|whereas the powder was a laxative and should not be taken continuously.|On November 20, 1943, the defendant having entered a plea of guilty, the court|imposed fines of $500 on count 1 and $1 each on counts 2 and 3, plus costs, a total|fine of $543.60.|1059. Misbranding of Mrs. Price's Specially Prepared Package of Boric Acid. U. S. v. 53 Packages of Mrs. Price's Specially Prepared Package of Boric Acid (and 5 other seizure actions against the same product). Default decrees of condemnation. Portion of the product ordered delivered to a local public institution; remainder ordered destroyed.ddnj01059April 1945Price Compound CompanyMrs. Price's Specially Prepared Package of Boric AcidMay 20 and June 7, 1943Wilkes-Barre, Pa.; Philadelphia, Pa.; Lancaster, Pa.; Harrisburg, Pa.; Northumberland, Pa.Cleveland, OhioWilkes-Barre, Pa.; Philadelphia, Pa.; Lancaster, Pa.; Harrisburg, Pa.; Northumberland, Pa.Eastern and Middle Districts of Pennsylvania and the Northern District of Ohio1059F. D. C. Nos. 9984, 9990 to 9993, incl., 10043. Sample Nos. 22645-F, 22647-F, 22773-F, 22775-F, 23281-F, 23282-F, 23284-F, 32514-F.The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domainddnj01059ddnj|1059. Misbranding of Mrs. Price's Specially Prepared Package of Boric Acid.|IT. S. v. 53 Packages of Mrs. Price's Specially Prepared Package of Boric|Acid (and 5 other seizure actions against the same product). Default|decrees of condemnation. Portion of the product ordered delivered to a|local public institution; remainder ordered destroyed. (F. D. C. Nos.|9984, 9990 to 9993, inch, 10043. Sample Nos. 22645-F, 22647-F, 22773-F,|22775-F, 23281-F, 23282-F, 23284-F, 32514-F.)|Examination showed that this product consisted of boric acid meeting the|requirements of the United States Pharmacopoeia.|Between May 20 and June 7, 1943, the United States attorneys for the Eastern|and Middle Districts of Pennsylvania and the Northern District of Ohio filed libels|against 53 packages at Wilkes-Barre, Pa., 186 packages at Philadelphia, Pa.,|238 packages at Lancaster, Pa., 248 packages at Harrisburg, Pa., 115 packages at|Northumberland, Pa., and 5 packages at Cleveland, Ohio, each package con-|taining 12 envelopes of boric acid and 3 pamphlets entitled \"\"Mrs. Price's Complete|Directions For Canning Vegetables and Fruits Pickling, etc. * * * .\"\" It|was alleged that the article had been shipped within the period from on or|about March 15 to April 21,1943, from Minneapolis, Minn., by the Price Compound|Company; and charged that it was misbranded.|The article was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that the statements in its|labeling which represented and suggested that boric acid, when used as directed|in the canning of vegetables, fruits, and pickles, might safely be used for those|purposes, and would effect proper sterilization and destroy bacterial spores|capable of causing spoilage, thereby preventing a substantial amount of waste|in home-canned products, were misleading, since such use would be potentially?{|dangerous to the health of the consumer, would not insure proper sterilization,?*|and would not destroy resistant bacterial spores capable of causing spoilage,|and thus would not insure the prevention of a substantial amount of waste in|home-canned products; (2) in that the statements in its labeling whereby the|home canner was admonished to sterilize jars, and particularly rubber rings,|by boiling for 15 or 20 minutes were misleading, since the directions for sterilizing|were inadequate for the reason that sterilization of jars and rubber rings|cannot always be accomplished by boiling for 15 or 20 minutes because of the|heat resistance of spore-forming bacteria; (3) - in that the statement in its|labeling \"\" * * * Wash thoroughly, as the most dangerous and the most|difficult bacteria to destroy are in the soil,\"\" was misleading since it suggested|and represented that the thorough washing of vegetables would eliminate the|most dangerous and difficult bacteria to destroy, the common habitat of which|is in soil, whereas thorough washing of vegetables will not insure such effects;|and (4) in that the statements in its labeling, \"\"Mrs. Price's Specially Prepared|Package of Boric Acid Manufactured for, Prepared and Distributed by The|Price Compound Company * * * Minneapolis, Minn. . * * * It is not|claimed that the contents of this p