1646. Misbranding: of ChaRem, Chamberlain Dry Dip, and Chamberlain 'Worm Expeller. TJ. S. v. F. B. Chamberlain Co. Pleas of nolo contendere on counts 1 and 3; plea of guilty on count 2. Fine, $625. (F. D. C. No. 14282. Sample Nos. 62531-F, 80401-F, 80402-F.) INFORMATION FILED : February 19, i945, Eastern District of Missouri, against the F. B. Chamberlain Co., a corporation, St. Louis, Mo. ALLEGED SHIPMENT: On or about February 1 and 4, 1944, from the State of Missouri into the State of Illinois. PRODUCT: Analyses disclosed that the Worm Expeller consisted chiefly of sodium sulfate, epsom salt, sodium bicarbonate, ferrous sulfate, ground areca nuts, and a small amount of whole American wormseed and kamala; that the Dry Dip consisted chiefly of kaolin, organic matter not identified, small propor- tions of sodium fluoride, and phenol compounds; and that the ChaRem con- sisted essentially of water, sugar, creosote, sodium hydroxide, a laxative plant drug, and a minute amount of arsenic. NATURE OF CHARGE: Worm Expeller, misbranding, Section 502 (a), the label statement, "Worm Expeller for Hogs," was false and misleading since the article would not be efficacious to expel worms from hogs. ChaRem, misbranding, Section 502 (a), certain statements in accompanying circulars entitled "How to Keep Your Chickens Healthy," and "Coccidiosis Kills Millions of Chickens Every Year," were false and misleading since the article would not be efficacious for the purposes stated and implied. The state- ments represented and suggested that the article would disinfect drinking water for use by chicks, chickens, and turkeys; that it would be efficacious in the treatment and prevention of blackhead in turkeys; that it would be efficacious in the prevention of coccidiosis (both bloody type and chronic), bronchitis, respiratory diseases, range paralysis, bowel trouble, and mycosis in chickens; and that it would be efficacious in the treatment of coccidiosis (bloody type), bronchitis (noninfectious type), limberneck, and general bowel disorder (not pullorum) in chickens. Dry Dip, misbranding, Section 502 (a), the label statements which repre- sented and suggested that -the article, when used as directed, would be effica- cious in the cure, mitigation, treatment, and prevention of colds, flu, and other diseases of the respiratory tract in hogs, were false and misleading since the article would not be efficacious for those purposes. DISPOSITION : April 19, 1945. Pleas of nolo contendere on counts 1 and 3, relat- ing to the Worm Expeller and Dry Dip, and a plea of guilty on count 2, relating to the ChaRem, having been entered on behalf of the defendant, the court imposed a flue of $25 on count 1, $500 on count 2, and $100 on count 3, a total fine of $625.