.$76. Adulteration and misbranding of Sani +Cross Waterproof First Aid Treated
Strips. U. S. v. 99% Gross Packages of Sani-f Cross Waterproof First Aid
Treated Strips.   Default decree of condemnation and destruction.'   (F. D. C.
No. 9325.   .Sample No. 44466-F.)
This product was contaminated with cocci and non-sporeforming rods.
On February 8, 1943, the United States attorney for the Southern District of
New York filed a libel against the above-named product at New York, N. Y., alleg-
ing that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about January
11, 1943, by the Gero Products, Inc., from South Boston, Mass.; and charging that
it was adulterated and misbranded.
The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it purported to be a drug,
adhesive absorbent gauze (adhesive absorbent compress), the name of which is
recognized in the United S'.ates Pharmacopoeia, an official compendium, since it
consisted of an individual dressing prepared by affixing a number of layers of
absorbent gauze to a strip of adhesive plaster, and its quality and purity fell below
the standard set forth in such compendium since it was not sterile and did not
meet the requirement of the sterility tests for solids as required by the Phar-
macopoeia, but was contaminated with living bacteria and its difference in quality
and purity from such standard was not plainly stated on its label.
It was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that the statements, "Sani-f Cross First
Aid Treated Strips for minor Cuts, wounds and abrasions," "Directions: Wash
wound with antiseptic. Remove crinoline and apply gauze pad to wound,'' were
false and misleading since they represented and suggested that the article was
a safe, sanitary and appropriate bandage for first-aid use in minor cuts, wounds,
and abrasions, whereas it was not a safe and sanitary or appropriate bandage for
such use; (2) in that the designation "Sani+Cross" appearing in the labeling was
false and misleading since it created the impression that the article constituted
a sterile and sanitary dressing, whereas it did not; and (3) in that it was in
package form and its label failed to bear a statement of the quantity of the
contents.
On March 10, 1943, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation
was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.