1435. Adulteration and misbranding- of prophylactics.    II. S. v. 900 Cases (45,000
gross) of Prophylactics (and 4 other seizure actions against phophylac-
tics). Decrees of condemnation. Portion of product ordered released
under bond; remainder ordered destroyed. (F. D. C. Nos. 13010, 13085,
13934, 13958, 14173. Sample Nos. 63492-F, 68748-F, 72477-F, 72478-F,
72491-F, 87502-F.)
Between July 24 and November 2, 1944, the United States attorneys for the
Northern District of Georgia, the District of Minnesota, the Western District of
Tennessee, and the Southern District of Indiana filed libels against the following
quantities of prophylactics: 45,000 gross at Atlanta, Ga.; 198 gross at Minne-
apolis, Minn.; 4,920 gross at Memphis, Tenn.; and 49? gross at Spencer, Ind.
It was alleged that the article had been shipped by the Killashun Sales Division,
from Akron, Ohio, between the approximate dates of September 15, 1943, and
August 22, 1944. The article was labeled in part: "Made from Genuine Liquid
Latex. Mfd. by Shunk Latex Prod. Inc., Akron, Ohio," "Xcello's Prophylactics,"
"Genuine Latex Apris Prophylactics Manufactured by the Killian Mfg. Co.
Akron, Ohio," "Silver-Tex Prophylactics," or "Texide Rubber Sheaths."
Examination of samples disclosed that the article was defective in that it con-
tained holes.
The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its quality fell below that
which it purported and was represented to possess. With the exception of the
Indiana lot, the article was alleged to be misbranded because of false and
misleading statements in its labeling regarding its efficacy in the prevention of
disease.
On July 31,1944, W. H. Reed and Co., Atlanta, Ga., claimant, having admitted
the allegations of the libel against the Georgia lot, judgment of condemnation
was entered and the product was ordered released under bond, conditioned that
the product be tested and that the unfit portion be destroyed under the supervision
of the Food and Drug Administration. Between September 11 and December 29,
1944, no claimant having appeared for the other lots, judgments of condemnation
were entered and the product was .ordered destroyed.