2240. Misbranding: of Save'm and Va-Po-Spra.    U. S. v. Emmett J. Smith (Emmett
J. Smith & Daughter).    Plea of nolo contendere.    Fine, $150.     (F. D. C<
No. 15504.    Sample Nos. 63347-F, 75745-F, 75746-F.)
INDICTMENT RETURNED : August 14, 1945, Middle District of Tennessee, against
Emmett J. Smith, trading under the firm name of Emmett J. Smith & Daughter,
Nashville, Tenn.
ALLEGED SHIPMENT : On or about June 5, 1944, from the State of Tennessee into
the States of Georgia and New York.
PRODUCT :   Analyses disclosed that the Save'm was a black aqueous liquid with an
. aromatic odor, consisting essentially of plant extractives, including a small
amount of emodin substances; and that the Va-Po-Spra was a light-yellow-
colored oil with a bottom layer consisting of a small amount of black liquid
which resembled tarry material. A trace of an iodine compound was present.
The odor was mixed aromatic, with menthol, guaiacol, and vanillin pre-
dominating.
NATURE OF CHARGE: Save'm, misbranding, Section 502 (a), certain statements
on the label of the article, in an enclosed leaflet bearing headings "Directions
for Using Smith's Save'm" and "Directions for Using Smith's Va-Po-Spra," and
in an enclosed circular headed "Emmett J. Smith & Daughter Poultry Farms"
and addressed "To the Poultry Breeding Public Everywhere" were false and
misleading. These statements represented and suggested that the article,
when used alone or in conjunction with Va-Po-Spra, would be efficacious in the
cure, mitigation, treatment, and prevention of such intestinal and internal ail-
ments of poultry as diarrhea, typhoid, cholera, coccidiosis, blackhead, and sim-
ilar conditions, indicated by the abbreviation "etc." The article would not be
efficacious for such purposes. Further misbranding, Section 502 (a), the name
of the article "Save'm" was false and misleading since the name was applied
to a drug intended to be used in the treatment of disease of poultry and repre-
sented and suggested that the article would save poultry from disease and
death, whereas the article would not save poultry from disease and death;
Section 502 (b) (2), the article bore no label containing a statement of the
quantity of the contents; Section 502 (e) (2), it failed to bear a label containing
the common or usual name of each active ingredient; and, Section 502 (b) (1),
a portion of the article failed to bear a label containing the name and place
of business of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor.
Va-Po-Spra, misbranding, Section 502 (a), certain statements on the label
of the article and in the above-described circular and leaflet accompanying the
article were false and misleading. These statements represented and sug-
gested that the article, when used alone or in conjunction with Save'm, would
be efficacious in the cure, mitigation, treatment, and prevention of such re-
spiratory ailments of poultry as pox, sore head, canker, bronchitis, brooder
pneumonia, gapes, colds, tracheitis, and roup; that it would be efficacious as
a general disinfectant for chickens and turkeys; that it would be efficacious
in combating respiratory ailments in man and beast; that it would be efficacious
in the treatment of colds, hay fever, and asthma in humans and as a treatment
and preventative of distemper and pneumonia in puppies and dogs. The article,
whether used alone or in conjunction with Save'm, would not be efficacious for
such purposes. Further misbranding, Section 502 (b) (2), the label of the
article bore no statement of the quantity of the contents; and, Section 502
(e) (2), the article failed to bear a label containing the common or usual name
of each active ingredient.
DISPOSITION :   October 8, 1946.   A plea of nolo contendere having been entered,
the court imposed a fine of $50 on each of the 3 counts of the information.