685. Misbranding of Sixty Minute Worm Expeller.    U. S. v. Raymond G. Burf eind
(Chemical Products Co.).    Plea of guilty.    Fine, $25.    (F. D. C. No. 4111.
Sample No. 26103-E.)
The labeling of this product, which was in capsule form, bore false and mis-
leading representations regarding its efficacy in the treatment of worms in dogs
and cats.
On June 10, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Minnesota filed
an information against Raymond G. Burfeind, trading as Chemical Products Co.,
Ellsworth, Minn., alleging shipment within the period from on or about May 11
to on or about May 29, 1940, from the State of Minnesota into the State of
Oregon of a quantity of worm expeller which was misbranded.
Analyses showed that the article consisted essentially of kamala, areca nuts,
charcoal, a small amount of sugar, iron sulfate, and a minute amount of
nicotine.
It was alleged to be misbranded in that statements in the labeling which
represented and suggested that it was a safe, sure quick-action worm expeller
and would be efficacious to expel worms from dogs, puppies, cats, and kittens
in 60 minutes; that it would be efficacious in the treatment of tapeworms and
stomach worms; that if used every 4 months, it would be efficacious to free
dogs and puppies of worms; that it would reduce the danger of distemper,
paralysis, eczema, and kindred diseases to a minimum; that it would be
efficacious to worm breeding bjlches, to worm puppies and "cut losses to
practically no losses at all," and to keep older dogs free from worms; would
reduce the danger of fits, paralysis, distemper, eczema, and kindred diseases
to a minimum if used every 4 months; and would worm cats and assist in
keeping them in good health if used every 4 months were false and misleading
since it was not a safe, sure, quick-action worm expeller but was toxic and
might be harmful and would not be efficacious for the aforementioned purposes.
It was alleged to b* misbranded further in that the labeling was mis-
leading, since it failed to reveal the fact material in the light of the repre-
sentations made and suggested therein, and material with respect to the
consequences which might result from its use, under conditions prescribed in
the labeling or under such conditions of use as are customary or usual,
namely, the fact that it was toxic and might be harmful.
On January 27, 1942. the defendant having entered a plea of guilty, the
court imposed a fine of 25.