71. Adulteration and misbranding of Miller's Anti-Mole.     tJ. 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 contained nitric and acetic acid. It would be dangerous to
health, and its labeling failed to reveal the consequences which might result
from its use.
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 or
about March 13, 1939, by the Miller Manufacturing Co. from Lincoln, Nebr.; and
charging that it was adulterated and misbranded.
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that it was a drug which affects
the body structure and would be dangerous to health when used in the dosage
or with the frequency or duration prescribed, recommended, or suggested in its
labeling, which bore directions that it be applied with a hardwood toothpick and
used very sparingly 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 directed further that the user
pick gently 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 2
hours after applying the growth should be greased with vaseline to keep it
soft and to prevent soreness. 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. Its labeling did not bear adequate
directions for use and such adequate warnings against use in those pathological
conditions or by children where its use might be dangerous to health, 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.
It was also alleged to be adulterated under the provisions of the law applicable
to cosmetics as reported in O. N. J. No. 18.
On July 21, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was
entered and the product was ordered destroyed.