3039. Misbranding of Life Guard Medicated Liquid for Poultry, Life Guard
Remrow Water Wormer, Life Guard Medicated Liquid for Hogs, and
Life Guard Expeller. U. S. v. Liberty Oil Co. Plea of guilty. Fine of
$175 and costs. (F. D. C. No. 28099. Sample No. 24653-K, 25851-K,
45548-K, 45556-K.)
INFORMATION FILED: January 13, 1950, Southern District of Iowa, against the
Liberty Oil Co., a corporation, Des Moines, Iowa.
and May 3,1949, from the State of Iowa into the State of Minnesota.
PBODTJCT : Analysis disclosed that the Life Guard Medicated Liquid for Poultry
consisted of a purple-colored aqueous liquid containing essentially salts of
potassium, sodium, and aluminum in the form of permanganate, chloride, sul-
fate, and chlorate; that the Life Guard Remrow Water Wormer consisted of an
aqueous mixture having considerable sediment and containing essentially 12.8
grams per 100 cc. phenothiazine, together with salts of iron, sodium, calcium,
and manganese in the form of chloride, sulfate, carbonate, phosphate, and
anise; that the Life Guard Medicated Liquid for Hogs consisted of a dark green
aqueous liquid with a small amount of brown sediment and containing essen-
tially salts of copper, sodium, manganese, potassium, and aluminum in the
form of sulfate, carbonate, and anise; and that the Life Guard Expeller con-
sisted of an oil composed essentially of castor oil, 3? percent oil of chenopo-
dimn, and 5.68 grams per 100 cc. of chloroform.
LABEL, IN PABT : "Life Guard Brand Medicated Liquid for Poultry [or "Rem-
row Water Wormer," "Medicated Liquid for Hogs," or "Expeller"]."
NATURE OF CHARGE: Life Guard Medicated Liquid for Poultry. Misbranding,
Section 502 (a), certain statements on the label of the article were false and
misleading since they represented that the article would be efficacious in the
treatment and prevention of coccidiosis in poultry, whereas it would not be
- efficacious for such purposes; and, 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 its label failed to bear the com-
mon or usual name of each active ingredient.
Life Guard Remrow Water Wormer. 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 effective in the removal
of all species of worms from hogs, sheep, horses, poultry, and pet stock, whereas
it would not be effective for such purpose; and the statement on the label of the
active ingredients of the article, namely, "Active Ingredients Phenothiazine,
Ferrous Sulphate, Sodium Carbonate, Calcium Hydroxide, Magnesium Sulphate,
Potassium Permanganate, Manganese Chloride, Potassium Phosphate," was
false and misleading since the article contained only one active ingredient,
phenothiazine. Further misbranding, Section 502 (f) (1), the labeling of the
article failed to bear adequate directions.for use; and, Section 502 (f) (2), the
labeling of the article failed to bear adequate warnings against use in those
pathological conditions where its use may be dangerous to health since the
article contained phenothiazine, and its labeling failed to warn that occasional
individual sensitiveness of animals to phenothiazine has been reported, and that
sick, feverish, or physically weak animals, especially horses, should not be
treated with a product containing phenothiazine, except upon the advice of a
veterinarian.
Life Guard Medicated Liquid for Hogs. 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
have significant medicinal value for hogs, whereas the article when used as
directed would have no significant medicinal value for hogs.
Life Guard Ex-peller. Misbranding, Section 502 (b) (2), the label of the
article bore no statement of the quantity of the contents; Section 502 (e) (2),
the article was not designated solely by a name recognized in an official com-
pendium and was fabricated from two or more ingredients, and its label failed
to bear the common or usual name of each active ingredient, including the
name and quantity or proportion of chloroform contained in the article, since
the label bore no statement of the ingredients contained in the article; and,
Section 502 (f) (2), the labeling of the article failed to bear adequate warnings
against use in those pathological conditions where its use may be dangerous
to health since the article contained oil of chenopodium, and its labeling failed
to warn that a product containing oil of chenopodium should not be adminis-
tered to sick, feverish, physically weak, or undernourished animals, except upon
the advice of a veterinarian.
DISPOSITION : January 24,1950. A plea of guilty having been entered, the court
imposed a fine of $175 and costs.