1396. Misbranding: of Revitalizer and Wormex.   U. S. v. 1,178 Containers of Re-
vitalizer and 21 Bags of Wormex.   Default decree of condemnation and
destruction.    (F. D. C. No. 12334.   Sample Nos. 77508-F to 77510-F, incl.)
On May 15, 1944, the United States attorney for the District of New Jersey
filed a libel against 1,149 22-ounce cartons and 29 10-pound bags of Revitalizer
and 21 10-pound bags of Wormex at Newark, N. J., alleging that the articles
had been shipped on or about January 12 and February 21, 1944, by the Dailey
Mills, Inc., from Binghamton, N. Y.
The Revitalizer, according to the statement of ingredients on its label, was a
mixture of feeds with calcium carbonate, potassium iodine, manganese sulfate,
and salt added, fortified with a vitamin A and D feeding oil. The article
was alleged to be misbranded because of false and misleading statements in
its labeling which represented and implied that the article would be effective
as a vitamin stimulant of poultry; that it would condition chicks, promote
growth, retard disease, tone up the system, and help keep birds healthy
and productive; and that it would assure prime condition of birds at all
times, build resistance to disease, supply an overabundance of a balanced group
of the proper vitamins, increase egg production, lower mortality, cleanse the
entire digestive tract, overcome overheating and chilling due to shipping, sharpen
appetites, eliminate excessive mucus in the intestines, restore the body vigor,
and supply the system with a surplus of vitamins and minerals. The article
would not be effective for such purposes.
The Wormex, according to the statement of ingredients on its label, was essen-
tially a feed with which the following drugs had been incorporated: Nux vomica,
Areca nut, copperas, fenugreek, oil of Chenopodium, quassia, and gentian. The
article was alleged to be misbranded because of false and misleading statements
on the bag label and in an accompanying circular entitled "Ready-Mixed Wormex
for all Poultry" which represented and suggested that the article would be effec-
tive against all species of worms, as the name "Wormex" implied; and that it
would be effective against all species of round-worms and for cecal worms. It
would not be effective for such purposes.
On December 4,1944, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation
was entered and the products were ordered destroyed.