Lancaster, N. H.; alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate com- merce on or about October 28, 1936, from Detroit, Mich., by the Merz Capsule Co.; and charging adulteration and misbranding in violation of the Food and The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength fell below the professed standard and quality under which it was sold, namely, "Capsules The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the above-quoted statement was false and misleading. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the statement on the label, "Sandal Oil," was misleading since the purchaser was led to believe that the article was oil of santal, a drug recognized in the United States Pharmacopoeia; whereas it was not oil of santal, a drug recognized in the United States Pharmacopoeia, but was a mixture containing mineral oil and benzyl alcohol. Misbranding was alleged further in that the article was an imi- tation of and was offered for sale under the name of another article. On June 23, 1938, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation U. S. v. 9 Boxes of Capsules Santal Oil U. S. P. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. D. No. 42293. Sample No. 22519-D.) This product was represented to be oil of santal that complied with the standard laid down in the United States Pharmacopoeia, whereas it was not. On May 4, 1938, the United States attorney for the Western District of Pennsyl- vania, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court a libel praying seizure and condemnation of nine boxes of santal oil capsules at Pittsburgh, Pa.; alleging that the article had been shipped in inter- state commerce on or about April 18, 1938, from Baltimore, Md., by Burrough Bros. Manufacturing Co.; and charging misbranding in violation of the Food The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement on the label, "Santal Oil U. S. P. minims," was false and misleading since the purchaser was led to believe that it was oil of santal, recognized in the United States Pharmacopoeia; whereas it was not the pharmacopoeial article in that it was not soluble in 5 volumes of 70 On June 21, 1938, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was 29034. Misbranding of oil of sandalwood. U. S. v. 18 Pounds of Oil of Sandal- wood. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. & D. No. This product was labeled to indicate that it was sandalwood oil, a drug rec- On April 22, 1938, the United States attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 1% pounds of oil of sandalwood at Pittsburgh, Pa.; alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about March 24, 1938, from New York, N. Y., by "Oil Sandalwood * the purchaser to believe that the article was sandalwood oil; whereas it did not meet the requirements of sandalwood oil recognized in the United States Pharmacopoeia. Further misbranding was alleged in that it was an imitation of and was offered for sale under the name of another article. On June 21, 1938, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation 29035. Adulteration and misbranding of rubber prophylactics. U. S. v. 60 Gross of Rubber Prophylactics (and one similar seizure action). Default decrees of condemnation and destruction, (F. & D. Nos. 41588, 41789. Sample Nos. 7610-D, 16921-D.) Examination of samples of this product showed that some of them were defective in that they contained holes. On February 2, 1938, and on or about February 19, 1938, the United States attorneys for the District of Connecticut and the Eastern District of Virginia, acting upon reports by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in their respective district courts libels praying seizure and condemnation of 60 gross of rubber prophylactics at New Haven, Conn., and 5 gross of the product at Norfolk, Va.; alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about October 25 and December 10, 1937, from New York, N. Y.-that one lot had been shipped by Joe Jacobs and the other lot by Jos. Jacobs; and charging adulteration and misbranding in violation of the Food and Drugs Act. The article was labeled in part: "Arrow Brand" or "Pure Tex." It was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength fell below the professed standard or quality under which it was sold. Misbranding was alleged in that the following statements, "Prophylactic Guaranteed For Five Years * * * 100% safe," appearing on the labels of the Arrow brand, and "Excellent Quality" and "Guaranteed Five Years * ** Air Tested * * For Prevention of Diseases," appearing on the labels of the Pure Tex brand, were false and misleading. ** On May 11 and June 16, 1938, no claimant having appeared, judgments of condemnation were entered and the product was ordered destroyed. M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture. 29036. Adulteration and misbranding of Septol Hydrogen Peroxide. U. S. v. 273 Bottles of Hydrogen Peroxide, et al. (and one similar seizure action). Default decrees of condemnation and destruction. (F. & D. Nos. 42118, 42119. Sample Nos. 23412-D, 23413-D. 23416-D, 23417-D.) This product contained less hydrogen peroxide (dioxide) than declared. On April 6, 1938, the United States attorney for the Western District of Washington, acting upon reports by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court two libels praying seizure and condemnation of 1,096 bottles of hydrogen peroxide at Seattle, Wash.; alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on various dates between October 15, 1937, and March 14, 1938, from Hollywood, Calif., by the Studio Cosmetic Co.; and charging adulteration and misbranding in violation of the Food and Drugs Act. Examinations of samples showed that the articles contained 2 percent of hydrogen peroxide (dioxide). * ** ** The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength fell below the professed standard under which it was sold, "Hydrogen Dioxide 3%," in one case, and "Hydrogen Peroxide Active Ingredient H2O, 3.6%," in the other case, since it did not contain 3 percent of hydrogen dioxide in the former instance or 3.6 percent of hydrogen peroxide in the latter instance, but did contain smaller amounts. The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, "Hydrogen Dioxide 3%" and "This preparation guaranteed to be full strength and to meet all requirements of the U. S. P.," on the label of the former lot, "This preparation guaranteed to be full strength and to meet all requirements of the U. S. P. Active ingredient H2O2 3.6%," on the label of the latter lot, were false and misleading when applied to an article which did not meet all requirements of the United States Pharmacopoeia and which contained in the first instance less than 3 percent of hydrogen dioxide and in the latter instance less than 3.6 percent of hydrogen peroxide. On June 23, 1938, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was entered and the product was ordered destroyed. M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture. 29037. Adulteration and misbranding of sandalwood oil. U. S. v. 16 Boxes of Sandalwood Oil (and one similar seizure action). Default decrees of condemnation and destruction. (F. & D. Nos. 41922, 41923, 41930, 41931. Sample Nos. 1596-D, 1597-D, 9623-D, 9624–D.) This product was sold under a name recognized in the United States Pharmacopoeia but fell below the standard laid down therein. Portions of the capsules contained less than the amounts by volume declared on the label. On March 10, 1938, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, acting upon reports by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court two libels praying seizure and condemnation of 66 packages of sandalwood oil at Philadelphia, Pa.; alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about February 17, June 7, and November 9 and 29, 1937, from Brooklyn, N. Y., by the Red Mill Drug Co.; and charging adulteration and misbranding in violation of the Food and Drugs Act. The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it was sold under a name recognized in the United States Pharmacopoeia, namely, sandalwood oil, but differed from the standard of strength, quality, and purity established by that authority and its own standard of strength, quality, and purity was not stated on the label. Portions of the article were alleged to be adulterated further in that its strength fell below the professed standard under which it was sold, namely, each of the large-sized capsules was represented to contain 10 minims of sandalwood oil and each of a portion of the small-sized ones was represented to contain 5 minims of sandalwood oil; whereas the large ones did not contain 10 minims, and a portion of the small ones did not contain 5 minims, but did contain less amounts. * Misbranding was alleged in that the statements, "Pure East India (U. S. P.) Sandalwood Oil each Capsule Contains: 10 Minims" with respect to the large size and "Each Capsule Contains Sandalwood Oil Pure East India 5 Minims," with respect to a portion of the small size, borne on the labels, were false and misleading since the capsules did not contain the amounts declared but did contain less amounts, and the article did not comply with the tests laid down in the United States Pharmacopoeia for sandalwood oil. A portion of the 5-minim size was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement on the label, "Pure East India Sandalwood Oil U. S. P." was false and misleading since it represented that the article was volatile oil distilled with steam from the dried heartwood of Santalum album Linné (Fam. Santalaceae); whereas it was not. The article was alleged to be misbranded further in that it was an imitation of and was offered for sale under the name of another article, namely, sandalwood oil. On April 14, 1938, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was entered and the product was ordered destroyed. M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture. 29038. Misbranding of Boro-Septol Tablets. U. S. v. 59 Packages of Boro-Septol Tablets. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. & D. No. 42106. Sample No. 2577-D.) The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regarding its effectiveness as an antiseptic and germicide and false and fraudulent curative and therapeutic claims. On April 2, 1938, the United States attorney for the Western District of Oklahoma, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 59 packages of BoroSeptol Tablets at Oklahoma City, Okla.; alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about January 7, 1938, from Dallas, Tex., by the Boro-Septol Chemical Co.; and charging misbranding in violation of the Food and Drugs Act as amended. * * * * * * The article was labeled in part: (Label) "Antiseptic Boro-Septol * * superior to Bi-Chloride of Mercury as an Antiseptic, and Germicide. May be used in any Strength, Solution, in all conditions where an antiseptic is required. Solution for Surgical use 1: 1000 One tablet in 8 oz. of water; 1: 4000 One tablet in 32 oz. of water"; (circular) "Boro-Septol Tablets the greatest of all antiseptics"; (booklet) "Boro-Septol superior to mercury and all other antiseptics. It may be used in any strength, solution, As an antiseptic with which to prepare the surgeon's hands, and the skin of the patient, for an operation, Boro-Septol has but few equals. Remember that it may be used any strength." * * * Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of sodium chloride, boric acid, zinc sulphocarbolate, and copper sulphocarbolate. Bacteriological examination showed that it was not antiseptic when dissolved in water, as directed on the label. The article was alleged to be misbranded in that statements appearing in the labeling were false and misleading when applied to an article that was not antiseptic when used as directed. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that statements appearing in the labeling falsely and fraudulently represented its curative and therapeutic effectiveness in chronic ulcerated conditions, for the treatment of all conditions requiring an antiseptic, for nasal troubles, catarrh, etc., for mouth and throat troubles, for vaginal troubles, leucorrhea, etc., for cystitis and all bladder troubles, for rectal troubles, ulcers, fissures, etc., for bad breath and sore mouth, for improving spongy gums, for tonsillitis, sore throat and "salvation," fresh wounds and cuts, for preventing the inflammation caused by the poison of bites and stings of all poisonous insects, for protection against infections and eruptions, for ringworm, for eczema, itch and skin diseases, for diseases peculiar to women, for ulcerated cervix, inflamed vagina, irritated ovaries, and all local troubles suffered by a very large percentage of women. On June 4, 1938, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was entered and the product was ordered destroyed. M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture. 29039. Misbranding of Soak-In-Liniment. U. S. v. 91 Bottles of Soak-In-Liniment. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. & D. No. 41698. Sample No. 8844-D.) The labeling of this product bore false and fraudulent curative and therapeutic claims. On February 18, 1938, the United States attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 91 bottles of SoakIn-Liniment at Chicago, Ill.; alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about October 19 and November 27, 1937, by the A. J. Frank Co. from St. Paul, Minn.; and charging misbranding in violation of the Food and Drugs Act as amended. Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of methyl salicylate, oil of peppermint, and a small proportion of an oleoresin. The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements appearing in the labeling regarding its curative or therapeutic effects, were false and fraudulent: (Bottle) "Nothing equals it for relieving pain Quick Relief from Pain ** * This is effective in clearing the air passages. Chest Colds * * * * Rheumatism Apply to parts affected, Lumbago Apply to small of back * Growing Pains so-called growing pains aching feet, quickly relieved. Sleeplessness"; (retail carton) "Nothing to equal it in relieving pain Cold on Lungs and Coughing * * tism ** * * * * * Whooping Cough Use the same as Cold on Lungs and Coughing For Asthma * Use daily on retiring until relieved. RheumaApply to parts affected, massage unless painful. Lumbago Apply to lumbar muscles. Growing Pains Can be relieved almost instantly. ** Relieves Pain Whether from fracture, sprain, bruise or any other On May 4, 1938, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was entered and the product was ordered destroyed. cause, apply it to affected parts." M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture. 29040. Misbranding of Na-Sin-Ol. U. S. v. 186 and 243 Bottles of Na-Sin-01. Product released under bond for relabeling. Sample Nos. 15217-D, 15218-D.) The labeling of this product contained false and fraudulent representations regarding its curative or therapeutic effects. On or about March 28, 1938, the United States attorney for the Western District of Missouri, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 421 1-ounce and 1/2-ounce bottles of Na-Sin-Ol at Kansas City, Mo., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce between the dates of August 7, 1937, and February 15, 1938, by the Na-Sin-O1 Co. from Salina, Kans.; and charging misbranding in violation of the Food and Drugs Act as amended. Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of mineral oil with small proportions of iodine, phenol, and camphor. The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the wrapper, bottle, carton, and an accompanying circular bore false and fraudulent representations regarding its curative and therapeutic effectiveness in treatment of fever and congestion caused by sinus infection; its effectiveness in the treatment of hay fever and all catarrhal conditions, earaches, bronchial asthma, dust, catarrh, head noises, ringing in the ears; its effectiveness to convert the unhealthy tissues into a healthy condition, to allay fever, to relieve contraction of the muscles caused by pain or headaches and soreness; and its effectiveness to soothe and heal the entire cavity and nasal passages. On May 16, 1938, J. M. Naylor of Salina, Kans., claimant, having admitted the allegations of the libel and having consented to the entry of a decree, a judgment was entered finding the product misbranded and ordering that it be released to the claimant under bond conditioned that it be relabeled. M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture. 29041. Adulteration and misbranding of Sanisalva Salve; misbranding of Carnation Dental Cream, Bick's Vapor Salve, Linimentine, Bick's Mentholated Camphor Cream, Bixlax Laxative Tablets, and Blue Ribbon Household Liniment. U. S. v. The Carnation Toilet Co. and Thomas B. Bick. Pleas of guilty. Fines: Corporation, $300 and costs; individual, $100. (F. & D. No. 40789. Sample Nos. 2133-C, 2134-C, 2135-C, 2137-C, 36804-C, 36805-C, 36806-C.) The labeling of these products bore false and fraudulent curative and therapeutic claims. In addition, the labeling of the Bixlax bore false and misleading representations that it was harmless and was not in violation of the Food and Drugs Act; and the Sanisalva Salve was represented to be antiseptic, whereas it was not. On May 20, 1938, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court an information against the Carnation Toilet Co., St. Louis, Mo., and Thomas B. Bick, alleging shipment by said defendants in violation of the Food and Drugs Act as amended, in the period from on or about August 2 to on or about September 8, 1937, from the State of Missouri into the States of Texas and Ohio, of quantities of Sanisalva Salve which was adulterated and misbranded, and quantities of the remainder of the above-named drug preparations which were misbranded. The articles were labeled in part: "Sanisalva Salve Carnation Co., St. Louis, Mo."; "Carnation Dental Cream manufactured by Carnation Company, Saint Louis"; "Bick's Vapor Salve * * * The Bick Co., St. Louis, Mo."; "Linimentine, Carnation Company, St. Louis, Mo."; "Bick's Mentholated Camphor Cream, The Bick Co., St. Louis, Mo."; "Blue Ribbon Household Liniment, National Blue Ribbon Remedy Co., St. Louis, Mo."; "Bixlax Tonic Laxative Tablets Carnation Co." * * * * Analyses of samples of the articles showed that the Sanisalva Salve consisted essentially of small proportions of menthol, oil of sassafras, camphor, and phenol incorporated in a petrolatum base, and that it was not antiseptic when used as directed; that the Carnation Dental Cream consisted essentially of calcium carbonate, soap, glycerin, and water with flavoring material; that Bick's Vapor Salve consisted essentially of small proportions of menthol, camphor, eucalyptol, and phenol incorporated in a petrolatum base; that the Linimentine consisted essentially of small proportions of camphor, oil of sassafras, methyl salicylate, menthol, and cleoresin of capsicum incorporated in a petrolatum base; that Bick's Mentholated Camphor Cream contained small proportions of menthol and camphor incorporated in a petrolatum base; that the Blue Ribbon Household Liniment consisted essentially of turpentine, mineral oil, and volatile oils including oil of sassafras and capsicum; and that the Bixlax Laxative Tablets contained extracts of plant drugs including a laxative drug and an alkaloid-bearing drug, such as belladonna, coated with sugar, iron oxide, and calcium carbonate. The Sanisalva Salve was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength and purity fell below the professed standard and quality under which it was sold, since there was borne on the container the statement "antiseptic," which constituted a profession of the standard and quality of the article under which it was sold; whereas the article was not antiseptic. The Sanisalva Salve was alleged to be misbranded in that the said statement "antiseptic" was false and misleading. The Sanisalva Salve and the remainder of the products were alleged to be misbranded in that the statements borne in their labeling falsely and fraudulently represented their curative and therapeutic effectiveness as follows: (Sanisalva Salve) Its effectiveness as an antiseptic when administered and applied in the treatment of cuts, burns, sores, piles, skin diseases, salt rheum, tetter, catarrh, ivy poisoning, boils, eruptions, ulcers, and catarrh of the head; (Carnation Dental Cream) its effectiveness to relieve and prevent pyorrhea and to harden the gums; (Bick's Vapor Salve) |