18383. Adulteration and Misbranding of Cato Anti-Pyorrhea tooth paste. 
V. S. v. 3% Dozen Tubes of Cato Anti-Pyorrhea Tooth Paste. 
Default   decree   of   condemnation,   forfeiture,   and   destruction.
(P. & D. No. 25759.    I. S. No. 8139.    S. No. 3983.)
Examination of the composition and labeling of the drug product herein de- 
scribed having shown that it was represented to be an antiseptic and germicide, 
whereas it was not, also that the labels bore statements representing that the 
article possessed curative and therapeutic properties which it did not possess, 
the Secretary of Agriculture reported the matter to the United States attorney 
for the Western District of Tennessee.
On January 19, 1931, the United States attorney filed in the District Court 
of the United States for the district aforesaid a libel praying seizure and con- 
demnation of &% dozen tubes of Cato Anti-Pyorrhea tooth paste at Memphis,
Tenn., alleging that the article had been shipped by the Cato Chemical Co., 
from St. Louis, Mo., on or about January 13, 1930, and had been transported 
from the State of Missouri into the State of Tennessee, and charging adultera- 
tion and misbranding in violation of the food and drugs act as amended.
Analysis of a sample of the article by this department showed that it con- 
sisted essentially of calcium carbonate, potassium chlorate, talc, a small pro- 
portion of a magnesium compound, such as magnesium carbonate, incorporated 
in a vehicle so as to form a paste, flavored with volatile oils including pepper- 
mint oil.
It was alleged in the libel that the article was adulterated in that it was sold 
under the following standard of strength, " Germicide, Antiseptic," and the 
strength of the article fell below such professed standard, since it was not an 
antiseptic.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements on the tube and 
carton, "Antiseptic, * * * All diseases the Human System is heir to are 
caused by germs or microbes. Cato Anti-Pyorrhea Tooth Paste is a Germicide, 
Antiseptic," were false and misleading when applied to an article which was 
not antiseptic. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the fol- 
lowing st-atements appearing on the carton and tube, regarding the curative and 
therapeutic effects of the article, were false and fraudulent, since it contained 
no ingredient or combination of ingredients capable of producing the effects 
claimed: (Carton) "Anti-Pyorrhea * * * For Sore and Bleeding Gums or 
any Pathological condition of the Mouth. To prevent a healthy mouth from 
becoming infected;" (tube) "Anti-Pyorrhea * * * especially designed for 
(Pyorrhea) Gums. To harden sore, soft, spongy and bleeding gums and protect 
a healthy mouth from becoming infected."
On May 12, 1931, no claimant having appeared for the property, judgment 
of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered by the court 
that the product be destroyed by the United States marshal.
ARTHUR M. HTDB, Secretary of Agriculture.