10S. Misbranding: of Moorman's Poultry Worm Sweep. U. S. v. 5 Bottles, et al.
of Moorman's Poultry Worm Sweep. Default decree of condemnation and
destruction.    (F. D. C. No. 687.   Sample No. 40888-D.)
The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-
ing its efficacy in the conditions indicated below.
On October 7, 1939, the United States attorney for the District of Colorado
filed a libel against 5 half-pint bottles, 1 pint bottle, 5 quart bottles, and 8 half-
gallon bottles of Moorman's Poultry Worm Sweep at Denver, Colo., consigned
by Moorman Manufacturing Co., from Quincy, 111., alleging that the article
had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about June 27, 1938; and charg-
ing that it was misbranded.
Analysis showed that it consisted- essentially of a water solution of nicotine
sulfate (4.7 percent) and copper sulfate (6.7 percent), with small amounts
of arsenic and chlorides.
It was alleged to be misbranded in that its labeMng contained representa-
tions that it was efficacious for roundworms and ceca worms; that in the case
of roundworms the poultry would begin to pass worms in 4 hours after treat-
ment, and would probably continue to do so for 8 days; that although at least
75 percent of all poultry have some ceca worms, the manufacturer did not
recommend giving the treatment except in cases of unusually heavy infesta-
tion; that in treating for ceca worms the user should wait for 5 to 10 days
after treatment for roundworms, and then give the treatment; that the treat-
ment should not be given to turkeys weighing less than 2 to 2? pounds; that
the dose for turkeys for mouth treatment was as follows: 2? to 4 pounds,
? ounce; 4 to 8 pounds, ? ounce; and 8 pounds, ? ounce; and that for each
additional 8 pounds the dose should be increased ^ ounce; that in the vent
treatment for turkeys there should be at least 10 days between the 2 treat-
ments, and that the 10 to 1 solution should be used but that one-third as
much as recommended in the table should be given; and that the article was a
safe as well as a sure worm expeller, which representations were false and
misleading since the article was not efficacious for the purposes recommended.
On December 20, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-
tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.
DRUGS IN DECEPTIVE CONTAINERS'