1205. Misbranding of Doryl.    V. S. v. 45 Ampuls of Doryl  (and 4 other seizure
actions against Doryl). .Default decrees of condemnation and destruc-
tion. (F. D. C. Nos. 11504 to 11506, incl., 11512, 11546, 11553, 11568. Sample
Nos. 29923-F, 29925-F, 29926-F, 30385-F, 30388-F, 30389-F, 35242-F,
48154-F, 57048-F, 57049-F, 58612-F, 58613-F.)
Between December 28, 1943, and January 14, 1944, the United States attorneys
for the Northern District of California, the District of Columbia, the Eastern
District of New York, the Western District of Kentucky, and the Southern Dis-
trict of Florida filed libels against the following quantities of Doryl: 26 ampuls
at San Francisco, Calif., 9 ampuls at Oakland, Calif., 10 ampuls at San Mateo,
Calif., 6 ampuls at Washington, D. C, 10 ampuls at Brooklyn, N. Y., 7 ampuls
at Hopkiasville, Ky., and 10 ampuls at Miami, Fla., alleging, in the case of the
District of Columbia lot, that the product was in interstate commerce, and, in
the case of the other lots, that they had been shipped between the approximate
dates of February 4, 1942, and May 6, 1943, from St. Louis, Mo., and Rahway,
N. J., by Merck & Co., Inc.; and charging that all lots were misbranded. The
article was labeled in part: "0.15 Gm. Ampul * * * Doryl (Carbamylcholine
Chloride Merck)."
Examination of samples disclosed that the article had the composition stated
upon its label.
The article was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that the statement on its label,
"Do not use intravenously," was misleading since it suggested and implied that
other methods of injections were safe, and its label failed to reveal the fact mate-
rial in the light of such statement that the contents of the ampul were lethal when
injected by any method; (2) in that its labeling bore no warning against injection
of the article other than intravenously; (3) in that its container was so made,
formed, and filled as to be misleading since it was in a form in which drugs intended
for injection are sometimes packaged; and (4) in that its labeling failed to bear
adequate directions for use since the statements in its labeling, "Do not use intra-
venously," and "for Ophthalmologic Use," were inadequate since they failed to
reveal that the article was intended not to be used for injection but only in solu-
tion for ophthalmologic purposes.
Between April 17 and October 25, 1944, no claimant having appeared, judg-
ments of condemnation were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.
?See also Nos. 1201, 1202.
DRUGS   ACTIONABLE   BECAUSE   OF   CONTAMINATION  WITH   FILTH