1817. Adulteration and misbranding- of Mennen Antiseptic Oil. IT. S. v. 51
Packages of Mennen Antiseptic Oil. Consent decree of condemnation.
Product ordered disposed of for industrial purposes. (F. D. C. No. 11288.
Sample No. 56392-F.)
LIBEL FILED:   December 10, 1943, Eastern District of New York.
ALLEGED SHIPMENT : On or about July 15,1943, by the Mennen Co., from Newark,
K J.
PBODTJCT: 51 packages, each containing 1 gallon, of Mennen Antiseptic Oil at
Long Island City, N. Y.
NATURE OF CHARGE: Adulteration, Section 501 (c), the strength of the article
differed from that which it was represented to possess, in that it was repre-
sented to be germicidal and self-sterilizing, whereas it was neither germicidal
nor self-sterilizing.
Misbranding, Section 502 (a), the following statements on the label of the
article were false and misleading since the article was not germicidal, was
not self-sterilizing, and was not efficacious for the symptoms and conditions
mentioned: "Germicidal * * * Self-Sterilizing * * * It is so medi-
cated as to make the oil * * * germicidal * * * self-sterilizing.
* * * It has greater antiseptic and germicidal powers than the commonly
used ammoniated mercury ointments. * * * . The Oil is self-sterilizing, and
autoclaving is not necessary. * * * It helps kill and prevent the growth
of pyogenic organisms as long as it is in contact with the skin. * * * It
helps maintain and conserve vital body temperature. It helps sterilize * * *
the diaper area. * * * Meets the widespread demand of hospitals, physi-
cians, nurses and mothers * * * germicidal * * * and self-sterilizing
oil * * * offers protection against infection * * * Mennen Antiseptic
Oil aids in keeping the skin of the babies free from pyogenic organisms.   *   *   *
quickly relieves * * * aggravated skin conditions. Prescribed where
* * * germicidal oil dressing is required."
DISPOSITION: On October 30, 1945, the Mennen Co., claimant, having filed an
answer denying the allegations of adulteration and misbranding set forth in
the libel, the case came on for trial before the court without a jury. On Octo-
ber 31, 1945, after the court had heard part of the proof of the Government,
the claimant consented to the entry of a decree of condemnation. A decree
was accordingly entered on November 13, 1945, condemning the product, and
on May 3,1946, an order was entered providing for the mixing of the product
with other fats for industrial purposes, under the supervision of the United
States marshal.