451. Misbranding:  of  O'D Kasylax.     U.  S. v. 2 Gross Packages of  O'D Easylax.
Default   decree   of   condemnation  and  destruction.     (F.  D.   C.   No.   3650.
Sample No. 50056-E.)
In addition to failure to bear adequate warnings, the label of this product
bore false and misleading therapeutic claims. It also failed to bear the required
ingredient statement with the quantity or proportion of strychnine present; a
statement of the quantity of contents; and the complete address of the manu-
facturer, packer, or distributor. Furthermore, the carton container was much
taller than was necessary to hold its contents.
On January 9, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Columbia
filed a libel against 2 gross packages of O'D Easylax at Washington, D. C,
alleging that the article was being offered for sale in the District of Columbia
at Washington Wholesale Drug Exchange, Washington, D. G.; and charging
that it was misbranded. It was labeled in part: "O'D Easylax * * * Liberty
Drug Co.    Washington, D. C."
Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of
phenolphthalein, aloin, strychnine, talc, and calcium carbonate together with a
green coloriitg material.
It was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that labeling failed to bear 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: (2) in that the following statements
appearing on the label were false and misleading since it was not efficacious
for the purposes recommended: (Carton) "They work naturally and form no
habit * * * A Home Remedy for Indigestion Torpid Liver Chronic Con-
stipation," and (bottle label) "They work naturally and form no habit. For
Indigestion"; (3) in that the label did not bear the common or usual names of
the active ingredients and a statement of the quantity or proportion of strych-
nine that it contained; (4) in that the carton and bottle label failed to 6ear the
address of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor; (5) in that the bottle label
failed to bear a statement of the quantity of contents; and (6) in that the con-
tainer was so made, formed, or filled as to be misleading.
On February 4, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation
was entered and the product was ordered destroyed,