2544. Misbranding of Miller's Liquid Hog: Medicine and Miller's Snl-Pho Tablets.
U. S. v. Miller Chemical Co., Inc., and David G. Miller. Pleas of nolo con-
tendere. Fines of 975 against corporation and $25 against Individual,
tog-ether with costs. (F. D. C. No. 24226. Sample Nos. 52335-H, 52337-H,
77579-H.)
INFORMATION FILED :   August 5, 1948, District of Nebraska, against the Miller
Chemical Co., Inc., Omaha, Nebr., and David G. Miller, president of the
corporation.
ALLEGED SHIPMENT : On or about April 3 and 17 and May 5, 1947, from the
State of Nebraska into the State of Minnesota.
PBOOTTCT: Analyses disclosed that the Miller's Liquid Hog Medicine consisted
essentially of sodium hydroxide, sodium, carbonate, sodium sulfate, camphor,
anise, creosote and other phenolic compounds, potassium arsenite, and water;
and that the Miller's Sul-Pho Tablets consisted essentially of boric acid, sodium
phenolsulfonate, zinc phenolsulfonate, calcium phenolsulfonate, and copper
arsenite, and was devoid of bactericidal properties when used at the recom-
mended concentration and at 30 times the recommended concentration.
LABEL, IN PAET: "Miller's Liquid Hog Medicine Concentrated," and "Miller's
Sul-Pho Tablets * * * Directions As soon as birds are old enough to
drink, dissolve two to four tablets in every gallon of drinking water   *    *    *."
NATURE OF CHARGE: Miller's Liquid Hog Medicine. Misbranding, Section 502
(a), certain statements on the label of the article were false and misleading,
since they represented and suggested that the article would be efficacious in
the cure, mitigation, treatment, and prevention in hogs of intestinal infections
and diarrheas associated with hyperacidity, whereas the article would not be
efficacious for such purposes.
Miller's Sul-Pho Tablets. Misbranding, Section 502 (a), certain statements
on the label of the article were false and misleading, since they represented
and suggested that the article when used as directed would disinfect poultry
drinking water and would aid in preventing the spread of diseases in poultry,
whereas the article when used as directed would not accomplish the results
claimed.
DISPOSITION : September 21,1948. Pleas of nolo contendere having been entered,
the court imposed a fine of $75 against the corporation and $25 against the
individual, together with costs.