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.