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.