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.