679. Adulteration and misbranding of Individual Quinine Hair Treatment; mis
branding of Dalgneault's Eau de Quinine Hair Tonic U. S. v. 66 Bottles
of Daigrneault's Eau de Quinine Hair Tonic and 488 Packages of Individual
Quinine Hair Treatment. Default decree of condemnation and destruc-
tion.    (F. D. C. Nos. 2644, 2645.   Sample Nos. 24241-E, 24242-E.)
The labeling of these products bore false and misleading representations re-
garding their efficacy in the treatment,of the conditions indicated hereinafter,
and also failed to comply with certain mandatory labeling requirements of the
law. The hair tonic contained less alcohol than the amount declared, and the
hair treatment was not antiseptic as claimed in the labeling.
On August 21, 1940, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania filed a libel against the above-named products at Philadelphia,
Pa., which had been consigned by Joseph Daigneault, alleging that the articles
had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about June 3, 1940, from Malone,
N. Y.; and charging that they were misbranded and that the hair treatment was
also adulterated.
Analysis of the hair tonic showed that it consisted essentially of alcohol (59
percent), water, a small proportion of quinine, perfume, and coloring matter.
Examination of the hair treatment showed that each package contained tubes
labeled No. 1 and No. 2. The product in tube No. 1 consisted essentially of
mineral oil, a small proportion of a fatty oil, and carbolic acid; and that in
tube No. 2 consisted essentially of soap and water. Bacteriological tests showed
that the hair treatment was not antiseptic.
The hair treatment was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed
from and its purity or quality fell below that which it purported or was repre-
sented to possess, namely, "antiseptic." It was alleged to be misbranded (1)
in that the statements "Antiseptic * * * Quinine Hair Treatment Joseph
Daigneault New York Chicago * * * Removing Dandruff in one application.
Promotes growth of the Hair in the worst cases and in which other treatments
have failed. * * * puts it in a permanently healthy condition," represented
that it was efficacious for the purposes recommended, whereas it was npt
efficacious for such purposes; (2) in that the label did not bear an accurate
statement of the quantity of contents; and (3) in that it did not bear the common
or usual names of the active ingredients.
The hair tonic was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that the following state-
ments in the labeling, "Compounded with 68? Alcohol * * * prevents fall-
ing out and promotes growth of the Hair," were false and misleading, since it
would not be efficacious for the purposes recommended; and (2) in that the
label did not bear an accurate statement of the quantity of the contents. Both
products were alleged to be misbranded further in that the labels did not bear
the name and address of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor, since the
address of the manufacturer borne on the labels was incorrect.
On February 16,1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation
was entered and the products were ordered destroyed.