209. Misbranding  of Dry Dip.    U.  S.  v.  Fourteen 25-Pound Pails  of Dry Dip. :
Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction.     (F. D.  C.
No. 1131.    Sample No. 55889-D.)
The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations
regarding its efficacy in the conditions indicated below.
On January 2, 1940, the United States attorney, for the Northern District
of Illinois filed a libel against fourteen 25-pound pails of "A Remedy Errone-
ously Sometimes Called Dry Dip" at Sterling, 111., alleging that the article
was transported in interstate commerce on or about August 18, 1939, by
the German Laboratories from Cedar Rapids, Iowa; and charging that it
was misbranded.?-
Analysis showed that it consisted chiefly of calcium carbonate and iron
compounds, containing creosote oil, phenols, and small amounts of nicotine,
naphthalene, and siliceous material.
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that representations in the
labeling that it was a remedy for combating flu germs in livestock; that when
the hogs rake their bedding together they pile up, that then the inner hog
gets too warm and goes outside to eat and catches cold, and that flu thus
develops; that if the remedy were sprinkled in the hog bedding they would
not pile up, and that it was an efficacious flu remedy for hogs, horses, cattle
and poultry, were false and misleading, since it would not act as an effective
remedy for combating flu germs in livestock or in poultry when used as
directed.
The article also was alleged to be misbranded under the Insecticide Act
of 1910, as reported in notices of judgment published under that act.
On June 3, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation
was entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.