1261. Misbranding: of Dr. Holland's Cow Cathartic, Mineralized Medicated Stock
Salt, and Liquid Gall Kure. U. S. v. The Holland Stock Remedy Co. and
Alan R. Branson. Pleas of guilty. Fine of $250 and costs against each
defendant. (F. D. C. No. 11339. Sample Nos. 798-F, 22098-F, 46808-F,
53172-F.)
On February 3, 1944, the United States attorney for the Northern District of
Ohio filed an information against the Holland Stock Remedy Co., a corporation,
Wellington, Ohio, and Alan R. Branson, president and treasurer of the corpora-
tion, alleging shipment of quantities of the above-named products between the
approximate dates of April 16 and September 9, 1943, from the State of Ohio
into the States of Michigan, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Virginia.
Analysis of the Cow Cathartic disclosed that it consisted essentially of Epsom
salt and plant material, including nux vomica (containing strychnine) and ginger.
The article was alleged to be misbranded because of false and misleading state-
ments on the label which represented and suggested that disorders of the digestive
organs are the most common ailments of cattle; that the article would be effica-
cious in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disorders of the digestive
organs of cattle, indigestion, scours, suppression of milk, bloat, and causes of
strong smelling, bad tasting, ropy milk; and that the article could be always
administered safely to a sick cow. It was alleged to be further misbranded in
? that its label bore no statement of the quantity of the contents; and in that it
contained strychnine and its label did not bear a statement of the quantity or
proportion of strychnine contained in the' article.
Analysis of the Mineralized Medicated Stock Salt disclosed that it consisted
essentially of salt and small proportions of sulfur, charcoal, plant material, and
compounds of calcium, iron, and phosphorus. The article was alleged to be
misbranded because of false and misleading ? statements in its labeling which
represented and suggested that it would be efficacious in the cure, 'mitigation,
treatment, or prevention of worms, indigestion, or scours and pin worms in
horses, contagious abortion in cows, hog cholera, and worms in lambs and sheep;
that it was "Medicated," i. e., that it contained ingredients, other than salt, in
therapeutically important amounts; that it was effective as a poultry tonic, and
would produce good results in the raising of poultry; that it would increase the
quantity and improve the quality of milk; and that it would keep animals healthy
and enable them to resist disease. It was alleged to be further misbranded in
that it was recommended for administration to rabbits, foxes, and other small
animals, and its labeling did not bear adequate directions for administration to
such animals.   .
Analysis of the Gall Kure disclosed that it was a solution of methylrosanilin.
The article was alleged to be misbranded because of false and misleading state-
ments in its labeling which represented and suggested that it would be efficacious
in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of galls and sore teats in cows;
that it was the best remedy known for all abrasions of the skin on man or beast;
that it would be efficacious to purify and heal all kinds of sores, including galls,
and open wounds, and all irritated or inflamed surfaces caused by saddle, collar,
harness, or hobbles; that it would be efficacious to cause healing of all inflamma-
tions, burns, skin irritations, hives, poison ivy, and similar conditions indicated
by the abbreviation "etc.," and to cause healing of harness galls, sores, cuts, wire
fence jags, sore heels, sore mouths, and similar conditions, indicated by the
abbreviation "etc.," on horses, mules, and other animals; that it would produce
the effects of violet rays; and that another article, Medicated Stock Salt, would
be efficacious as an animal tonic and conditioner, and as a preventative and
destroyer of worms. It was alleged to be further misbranded in that its label
bore no statement of the quantity of the contents; and in that it did .not bear the
common or usual name of the article, i. e., "Solution of Methylrosanilin."
On March 1,1944, pleas of guilty having been entered on behalf of the defend-
ants, the court imposed a fine of 250 and costs, against each defendant.