70. Misbranding: of Senile's External Lotion.     U. S. v. 5 Bottles and 8 Bottles of
Soule's External Lotion.    Default decrees of condemnation and destruc-
tion.    (F. D. C. Nos. 221, 229.    Sample Nos. 10474-D, 13696-D.)
This product contained mercuric chloride, a poisonous or deleterious substance.
It would be dangerous to health when used in the dosage or with the frequency
or duration prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling in which it was
recommended as a treatment for moth, tan, freckles, and pimples. For the
treatment of moth it was directed that a soft cloth be moistened with the
lotion, that the face be bathed morning and evening for 2 or 3 weeks or until
a slight roughness is experienced and then that it be applied evenings until
the face becomes clear; that for tan it be applied every evening; that for freckles
it be used in the same manner as for tan unless the case was severe, in which
event it should be applied as for moth; and that for pimples it should be applied
every evening but if it proved stronger than was pleasant for the face, the
cloth should be dampened in water, the lotion applied to the damp cloth, and
the applications made less frequently. Its labeling failed to bear adequate
directions for use and such adequate warnings against use in those pathological
conditions or by children where its use might be dangerous or against unsafe
dosage or methods or duration of administration or application in such manner
and form as are necessary for the protection of users.
On April 17 and May 13, 1939, the United States attorney for the Southern
District of Florida filed libels against 13 bottles of the above-named product
at Jacksonville, Fla., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate
commerce on or about February 1 and April 18, 1939, by L. M. Brock & Co.
from Lynn, Mass.; and charging that it was a misbranded drug for the reasons
appearing hereinbefore. The article was also alleged to be an adulterated cos-
metic, as reported in O. N. J. No. 22.
On June 22, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgments of condemnation
were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.