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.