1720. Adulteration and misbranding of Pratt's Poultry Worm Powder and mis
branding of Pratt's W-K Capsules. XJ. S. v. 68 Packages of Pratt's; N-K
Capsules and 9 Packages of Pratt's Poultry Worm Powder. Default de-
cree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 18396:. Sample Nbs?.
3921-H, 3923-H.)
LIBEL FILED :   November 19,1945, District of New Jersey.
ALLEGED SHIPMENT :   On or about October 13,1944, and August 17; and: September
14,1945, by the Pratt Food Co., from Philadelphia, Pa.
715662-46?2
PRODUCT : 68 packages each containing 10O Pratt's N-K Capsules, and 6 8-ounce
packages and 3 2?-pound packages of Pratt's Poultry Worm Powder at Flem-
ington, N. J.
Analysis revealed that the Pratt's N-K Capsules each consisted essentially
of nicotine, 2.35 percent, phenothiazine, 2.88 percent, and a small amount of
strychnine; and that the Pratt's Poultry Worm Powder consisted essentially
of nicotine, 4 percent, phenothiazine, 7.66 percent in the 8-ounce package and
8.98 percent in the 2?-pound package, and small amounts of copper sulfate and
strychnine.
NATURE OF CHARGE: Pratt's Poultry Worm Powder, adulteration, Section 501
\c), the strength of the article differed from that which it purported and was
represented to possess since it was represented to contain 12 percent of
phenothiazine, but contained less than that amount. Misbranding, Section
502 (a), certain label statements were false and misleading since they repre-
sented and suggested that the article would be effective for the removal of
all species of worms which infest poultry, and that it would be effective against
cecal worms in poultry, whereas it would not be effective for such purposes;
and the label statement, "Active ingredients * * * Phenothiazine 12.00
percent" was false and misleading.
Pratt's N-K Capsules, misbranding, Section 502 (a), certain statements in
the labeling were false and misleading since they represented and suggested
that the article would have some special action in releasing the different ingre-
dients at different times in the intestinal tract, for the elimination of the
different species of worms that infest poultry, and that the article would be
effective in the treatment of cecal worms (Eeterakis gallinae) and capillaria
species of worms that infest the intestinal tract of poultry. The article did
not possess the special action stated and implied, and it would not be effective
in the treatment of the conditions mentioned. Further misbranding, Section
 502 (a), the label statement, "Improved Formula Phenothiazine Added,"?"
 was misleading in that it suggested that phenothiazine was present in the
product in sufficient amounts to be effective as an active ingredient for the
removal of cecal worms which infest chickens and turkeys, whereas pheno-
thiazine was not present in the product in sufficient amounts to be effective
as an active ingredient for such purposes; and, Section 502 (a) (2), the label
of the article did not bear the common or usual name of each active ingredient.
DISPOSITION : February 5, 1946. No claimant having appeared, Judgment of
condemnation was entered and the products were ordered destroyed.