2709. Adulteration and misbranding of Annel Hog-Liquid and General Hog-
Liquid.   U. S. v. General Veterinary Co. and Carl R. Kleesick.  Pleas of
nolo contendere.  Fine of $40 and costs against company and $10 against
individual.    (F. D. C. No. 25585.    Sample Nos. 25213-K, 25222-K.)
INFORMATION FILED:   January 12, 1949, District of Nebraska, against the Gen-
eral Veterinary Co., a partnership, Omaha, Nebr., and Carl R. Kleesick, a
partner in the partnership.
ALLEGED SHIPMENT :   On or about March 25 and April 23, 1948, from the State
of Nebraska into the States of Minnesota and Iowa.
LABEL, IN PART :    "Annel Hog-Liquid [or "General Hog-Liquid"]    *    *   *   In-
gredients   Calcium Phosphate   Breechwood Creosote   Potassium Iodide   Ex-
tract of Glycyrrhiza   Sodium Hydroxide   Copper Sulphate   Creosote U. S. P.
Water 19.5?.   Extract of Nux Vomica."
NATURE OF CHARGE: Adulteration, Section 501 (c), the strength of the articles
differed from that which they were represented to possess. The articles were
represented to contain 59.5 percent of solution of potassium arsenite, and one
quart of the articles was represented to contain 60 grains of arsenic. The
articles contained more than 59.5 percent of solution of potassium arsenite,
and one quart contained more than 60 grains of arsenic.
Misbranding, Section 502 (a), certain statements on the labels of the articles
were false and misleading. These statements represented and suggested that
the articles contained 59.5 percent of solution of potassium arsenite; that one
quart contained 60 grains of arsenic; and that when used as directed, the
articles would be efficacious in overcoming an excess acid condition of the
stomach in hogs and in the treatment in hogs of intestinal infection and
diarrheas associated with hyperacidity. The articles contained more solution
of potassium arsenite and more arsenic than represented, and they would not
be efficacious for the purposes represented.
DISPOSITION : March 3,1949. Pleas of nolo contendere having been entered, the
court imposed a fine of $40 and costs against the company and $10 against the
individual.