704. Misbranding of Dickson's Laxative Rheumatic Dlruatica. U. S. v. 15 Bottles
of Dickson's Laxative Rheumatic Dlrnatlca. Default decree of condemna-
tion and destruction.     (F. D. C. No. 6899.    Sample No. 71670-E.)
The labeling of this product, in addition to failure to bear adequate directions
for use and such adequate warnings as are necessary for the protection of
users, also bore false and misleading curative and therapeutic claims.
On February 27, 1942, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of
Arkansas filed a libel against the above-named drug product at Blytheville,
Ark., alleging that it had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about
November 7, 1941, by A. H. Dickson from Memphis, Tenn.; and charging that
it was misbranded.
Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of Epsom salt, methena-
mine, sodium salicylate, sodium benzoate, salicylic acid, methyl salicylate, and
was colored with caramel.
The article was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that the labeling did not
bear adequate directions for use since there was no limitation as to duration
?of use and the statement "Dose-Tablespoonful four times a day in a glass of
water" implied that it was to be taken continuously; whereas a laxative should
he taken only occasionally. (2) In that the labeling failed to bear adequate warn-
ings against use in those pathological conditions or by children where its use
might be dangerous to health or adequate warnings against duration of admin-
istration, in such manner and form as are necessary for the protection of users
since it failed to bear a warning that the drug should not be used when abdom-
inal pain, nausea, vomiting, or other symptoms of appendicitis are present and
that frequent or continued use might result in dependence upon laxatives.
(3) In that statements on the label, "Rheumatic Diruatica * * * Recom-
mended for Rheumatic Urinary and Constipated Conditions," were false and
misleading since they represented and suggested that it would be efficacious for
rheumatic, urinary, and all constipated conditions; whereas it would not be
efficacious for such conditions.
On May 4, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was
?entered and the product was ordered destroyed.