19180. Adulteration and Misbranding of Pyorrblne tootb powder No. 2 and 
Pyorrhlne tooth powder No. 1. U. S. v. 3 Dozen Packagres of 
Pyorrblne Tooth Powder No. 2 and 3 Dozen Packagres of Pyorrhlne 
Tooth Powder No. 1. Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture,, 
and destruction. (F. & D. Nos. 26965, 26966. I. S. Nos. 22314, 22315. 
S. No. 5158.)
Examination of Pyorrblne tooth powder No. 2 and Pyorrhlne tooth powder 
No. 1 showed that the labeling represented that the articles possessed antiseptic 
properties, whereas they were not antiseptic. The labelings also bore un- 
warranted curative and therapeutic claims.
On September 15, 1931, the United States attorney for the Western District 
of Washington, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in 
the District Court of the United States for the district aforesaid a libel praying 
seizure and condemnation of three dozen packages of Pyorrhine tooth powder 
No. 2, and three dozen packages of Pyorrhine tooth powder No. 1, remaining in
the original unbroken packages at Seattle, Wash., alleging that the articles had 
Ijeen shipped by the Pyorrhine Chemical Co., from Oakland, Calif., on or about 
July 29, 1931, and had been transported from the State of California into the 
State of Washington, and charging adulteration and misbranding in violation of 
the food and drugs act as amended.
Analyses of samples of the articles by this department showed that Pyorrhine 
tooth powder No. 1 consisted essentially of compounds of aluminum, calcium, 
find magnesium, carbonate, phosphate, and sulphate, and sugar, flavored with 
methyl salicylate; and Pyorrhine tooth powder No. 2 consisted essentially of 
compounds of aluminum, calcium, and magnesium, carbonate, phosphate, and 
sulphate, soap, and sugar, flavored with methyl salicylate. Bacteriological ex- 
aminations of the articles showed that they were not antiseptic.
It was alleged in the libel that the articles were adulterated in that they fell 
helow the professed standard of strength under which they were sold, namely: 
{Cartons)  "Antiseptic;" and (cans)  "Antiseptic    *    *   *   Germicide."
Misbranding of the articles was alleged for the reason that the following 
statements appearing in the labeling were false and misleading: (Cartons, both 
products) "Antiseptic;" (PyorrhinetoothpowderNo.2,can) "Antisepic * * * 
with elements to destroy bacteria * * * for the best effect of germicide; " 
(Pyorrhine tooth powder No. 1, can) "Antiseptic * * * Germicide." Mis- 
branding was alleged for the further reason that the following statements 
appearing in the labeling regarding the curative or therapeutic effect of the 
articles, were false and fraudulent, since they contained no ingredients or com- 
binations of ingredients capable of producing the effect claimed: (Pyorrhine 
tooth powder No. 2, carton) "Prophylactic;" (can) "Prophylactic to Heal and 
Harden Soft Bleeding and Receding Gums Prevent Pyorrhea and Tooth Decay 
* * * Is a prophylactic of highest possible quality * * * with elements 
to * * * heal and harden tender bleeding. gums. Effective Aid in Pre- 
venting Pyorrhea;" (Pyorrhine tooth powder No. 1, carton) "For Tender 
Gums   *    *   *   Prophylactic;" (can)  " Prophylactic."
On January 13, 1932, no claimant having appeared for the property, judg- 
ment of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered by the 
court that the product be destroyed by the United States marshal.
ARTHXTB M. HYDE, Secretary of Agriculture.