2606. Misbranding of Dee-Lay Caps.   U. S. v. The Duncan Co.   Plea of guilty.
Fine, $100.   (F. D. O. No. 25564.  Sample No. 20887-K.)
INFORMATION FILED : November 17,1948, Western District of Oklahoma, against
The Duncan Co., a partnership, trading under the name of the Dee-Lay Co.,
at Oklahoma City, Okla.
ALLEGED SHIPMENT: On or about December 30, 1947, from the State of Okla-
homa into the State of Kansas.
PRODUCT: Dec-Lay Caps. Analysis.showed that the product consisted chiefly
of capsules containing camphor, ferrous sulfate, with capsicum and aloes
indicated, and tablets containing calomel with plant material indicated.
NATURE OF CHARGE: Misbranding, Section 502 (a), the label statement "Dee-
Lay Caps * * * Recommended for the relief of delayed menstration caused
from Colds, Nervousness or Over Exposure" was false and misleading since
the article would not be efficacious in the treatment of delayed menstruation
and would not be efficacious for the relief of delayed menstruation caused
from colds, nervousness, and over exposure. Further misbranding, Section
502 (e) (2), the article was not designated solely by a name recognized in an
official compendium and was fabricated from two or more ingredients, and the
tablets of the article contained the ingredient, calomel, a derivative of mer-
cury ; and the label of the article did not bear a statement showing the sub-
stance from which the ingredient was derived and the fact that the ingredient
was derived from mercury; and, further, the label did not bear a statement
of the quantity or proportion of calomel contained in the tablets. Further mis-
branding, Section 502 (f) (2), the article was a laxative and its labeling
failed to bear a warning that it should not be used when abdominal pain
(stomach-ache, cramps, and colic), nausea, vomiting (stomach sickness), or
other symptoms of appendicitis are present, and the labeling of the article
also failed to warn that frequent or continued use may result in dependence
upon laxatives to move the bowels.
DISPOSITION: January 4, 1949. A plea of guilty having been entered, the court
imposed a fine of $100.