302. Misbranding: of "A Remedy Erroneously Sometimes Called Dry Dip." U. S.
?v. Verney H. Heumes (German Laboratories). Plea of guilty. Fine, $25
and costs.     (F. D. C. No. 941.    Sample Nos. 55888-D, 55889-D.)
The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-
ing its effectiveness in the conditions indicated below.
On December 2, 1940, the United States attorney for the Northern District of
Iowa filed an information against Verney H. Heumes, trading as the German       (
Laboratories, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, alleging shipment on or about August 18 and
November 1,1939, from the State of Iowa into the State of Illinois, of quantities
of the above-named product which was misbranded. The label bore the words
"Dry Dip" in large conspicuous type which were immediately preceded by the
words "A Remedy Erroneously, Sometimes Called" in smaller type.
Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of calcium carbonate
and iron compounds, containing creosote oil, phenols, and small amounts of nico-
tine, naphthalene, and siliceous material.
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements, "A
Remedy * * * for combating Flu Germs in live stock. How a hog gets the
Flu. When the hog rakes his bedding together they pile up-then the inner hog
gets too warm and goes outside to eat and catches cold. Then the Flu Develops.
If you will sprinkle plenty of this remedy in the hogs bedding they will not pile
up. When a hog catches cold or the flu, they loose weight. * * * Used for
Combatting Flu Germs * * * Tou owe it to yourself and to your animals
to give this product a trial and satisfy yourself. It will save you money. For
Hogs * * Flu Remedy * * * For Horses and Cattle * * * Flu Rem-
edy * * * For Poultry * * * Flu Remedy," borne on the label, were
false and misleading since they represented that the article was efficacious in the
diseases and conditions for which it was recommended; whereas it was not
efficacious in such diseases and conditions.
On December 2, 1940, a plea of guilty was entered by the defendant and the
court imposed a fine of $25 and costs.