1494. Misbranding' of General Hog: Liquid, General Hog: Medicine "F," Poultry
Tablets, and General Ponltry Liquid. V. S. v. General Veterinary Labora-
tory. Plea of gruilty. Fine, $250 and costs. (F. D. C. No. 12540. Sample
Nos. 5679-F to 5681-F, incl., 37846-F.)
On November 28, 1944, the United States attorney for the District of Nebraska
filed an information against the General Veterinary Laboratory, a corporation,
at Omaha, Nebr., alleging shipment of quantities of the above-named products
between the approximate dates of November 10, 1942, and August 31, 1943, from
the State of Nebraska into the States of Illinois and Iowa.
Analysis of a sample of the General Hog Liquid showed that the product was a
light red-brown liquid with sediment of the same color. It contained, chiefly,
water, sodium hydroxide, small amounts of phosphate and sulfate compounds of
calcium, copper, and potassium; arsenic compounds; creosote and oil of Cheno-
podium; and a minute amount of strychnine (nux vomica indicated). The ar-
ticle was alleged to be misbranded in that certain statements in an accompanying
circular entitled "Amazing Liquid Treats Sick, Wormy, Runty Hogs Without Tak-
ing Them Off Feed" were false and misleading since they represented and sug-
gested that the article would be efficacious in the cure, mitigation, treatment,
and prevention of all species of worms which infest hogs; that it would be effi-
cacious in the prevention and treatment of sick and runty hogs and of disease
germs which infest hogs, and in the treatment of necro, flu, and mixed infections;
that it would cause bigger litters of pigs, would enable the user to raise every pig
and bring pigs along fast and keep them free from worms and disease, would
make pigs ready to sell earlier, enable the user to avoid sickness and losses, de-
velop big frames and heavy bones in hogs, and prevent feed waste and low profits;
and that it contained two ingredients which were effective wormers when used
as directed, together with an ingredient which would promote appetite in sick
?See also No. 1462.
hogs, an ingredient which was an intestinal and lung antiseptic, an ingredient
which would be efficacious for destroying disease germs when used as directed,
and an ingredient which would help in the development of big bones and act as a
blood purifier, aid digestion, promote appetite, and be valuable in the treatment
of necro. The article would not be efficacious for the purposes recommended.
It was alleged to be further misbranded (1) in that its label did not bear the
common or usual name of each active ingredient, including the quantity and pro-
portion of arsenic and strychnine contained in the article, since the list of ingre-
dients borne on the bottle labels represented that- each quart of the article con-
tained 71 grains of arsenic and 0.0266 cc. of strychnine, whereas the article con-
tained a smaller amount of arsenic than was declared, 60 grains of arsenic per
quart, and a greater amount of strychnine than declared, 0.10 gram of strychnine
per quart; and (2) in that the statements on the bottle label, "Extract of Nux
Vomica (giving one quart of medicine 0.0266 cc. of strychnine), Solution of
Potassium Arsenite 59.5? (giving one quart of medicine 71 gr. of arsenic)," were
false and misleading since each quart of the article contained not more than 60
grains of arsenic and not less than 0.10 gram of strychnine.
Analysis of a sample of the General Hog Medicine "F" showed that the product
was a clear, brown liquid with a small amount of black sediment. It contained,
chiefly, ammonium chloride and phenol in aqueous solution. The article was
alleged to be misbranded because of false and misleading statements on its labels
wliich represented and implied that the article would be efficacious in the cure,
mitigation, treatment, and prevention of symptoms of hog "Flu" (swine influ-
enza) and coughs and bronchitis caused by colds.
Analysis of a sample of the Poultry Tablets showed that the product was a red
lime-carbonate-coated tablet. It contained, chiefly, plant material and extrac-
tives, including a large amount of kamala, a small amount of nicotine, other plant
material including a strychnine-bearing drug, and minute amounts of iron and
sulfate. The article was alleged to be misbranded in that certain statements on
the cans containing the article and in an accompanying circular entitled "Price
List General Veterinary Products" were false and misleading since they repre-
sented and suggested that the article would be efficacious in the cure, mitigation,
treatment, and prevention of roundworms, large tape worms, and pin worms;
that it would remove all worms and cause poultry to grow and gain weight as
they should; that it would increase egg production and prevent retarded growth,
decreased egg profits, and disease resulting from worms in poultry; and that the
article was an intestinal antiseptic which would tend to heal the intestines after
removal of the worms and heal the avenues of disease infection. The article
would not be efficacious for the purposes recommended.
Analysis of a sample of the General Poultry Liquid showed that it was a brown
liquid (with light tan sediment) containing, chiefly, water, sodium hydroxide,
calcium carbonate, an arsenic compound, small amounts of creosote and oil of
Chenopodium, and a minute amount of a potassium compound. The article was
alleged to be misbranded in that certain statements in an accompanying circular
entitled "Price List General Veterinary Products" were false and misleading
since they represented and suggested that the article would be efficacious in the
cure, mitigation, treatment, and prevention of digestive and bowel troubles, respir-
atory diseases, worms, and other poultry troubles; that it would promote an
extra degree of poultry health and vigor and make the poultry flock thrifty and
profitable; that it would aid digestion and assimilation of food; that it would
help build resistance to disease and ward off disease; that it would help keep
large round worms out of poultry flocks; that it was a flock treatment which
would prevent and successfully treat many common poultry ailments; that it
was an intestinal antiseptic and tonic; and that it would be of value as a general
treatment for sick birds. The article was not an intestinal antiseptic and tonic,
and it would not be efficacious for the purposes recommended. It was alleged
to be further misbranded in that the statement on the label, "Ingredients * * *
Potassium Iodide," was false and misleading since it did not contain potassium
iodide.
On December 19, 1944, a plea of guilty having been entered on behalf of the
defendant, the court imposed a fine of $100 on count 1 and $5.0 on each of the
remaining 3 counts, a total fine of $250, plus costs.