2172. Misbranding of Loca Septo.     IT. S. v. Clem A. Conaway (Loca Septo Co.).
Plea of guilty.   Fine, $50 and costs.    (F. D. C. No. 20183.    Sample Nos.
16773-H, 19401-H.)
INFORMATION FILED : November 13,1946, Southern District of Iowa, against Clem
A. Conaway, trading as the Loca Septo Co., Des Moines, Iowa.
ALLEGED SHIPMENT : The drug was shipped on or about December 18, 1944, and
July 20,1945, from the State of Iowa into the States of Illinois and Minnesota.
In addition, the defendant shipped between the approximate dates of May 1 and
July 21, 1945, a number of display cards entitled "For Healthy Feet Loca
Septo" and a number of pamphlets entitled "Loca Septo."
PRODUCT : Analysis showed that the product consisted essentially of an aromatic,
yellow-brown, oily liquid containing petroleum oil and small amounts of
aromatic hydrocarbons such as xylol and toluene, and cresols.
LABEL, IN PABT : "Loca Septo A Mineral Oil Containing Hydrocarbons of Coal,
Anthracene, Cresols, Xylol, Naptholene and Toluol."
NATURE OF CHARGE: Misbranding, Section 502 (a), certain statements on the
bottle label and display cards and in pamphlets were false and misleading.
These statements represented and suggested that the article would be efficacious
in the treatment of infected parts, trench foot, athlete's foot, bunions, corns,
bruises, sprains, parasitical and fungi infections, all types of infection, dry
sockets, trench mouth or unfavorable reaction in dental surgery, neuritis,
hemorrhoids, arthritis, gangrene infection, bed sores, all kinds of itching and
skin diseases, ringworm, psoriasis, and barber's itch; that it was an antiseptic
and germicide; that it possessed healing power; and that it would be conducive
to foot health. The article would not be efficacious for the purposes and condi-
tions stated and implied; it was not an antiseptic and germicide; it did not
possess healing power; and it would not be conducive to foot health.
DISPOSITION: On April 28, 1947, a plea of guilty having been entered by the
defendant, the court imposed a fine of $50, plus costs.