21176. Misbranding of Sodium Perborate. V. S. v. 17 2/3 Dozen Packages, 
et al., of Sodium Perborate Flavored. Default decrees of con- 
demnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (F. & D. nos. 30033, 30059, 
30066, 30090, 30650. Sample nos. 37333-A, 17337-A, 25799-A, 29831-A, 
37324-A.)
These cases involved several interstate shipments of sodium perborate, th; 
labeling of which bore unwarranted curative and therapeutic claims. It also 
was claimed for the article in the labeling that it was an antiseptic mouth 
wash; whereas it was not an antiseptic when used as a mouth wash.
On April 5, April 6, and April 12, 1933, the United States attorney for the 
Southern District of California, acting upon reports by the Secretary of Agri- 
culture, filed in the district court libels praying seizure and condemnation of 
69% dozen large and small packages of sodium perborate at Los Angeles, 
Calif. On April 8, 1933, a libel was filed in the District of Oregon against 22 
small cans and 35 large cans of sodium perborate at Portland, Oreg., and on 
June 21, 1933, a libel was filed in the Western District of Washington against 
72 large and 207 small cans of sodium perborate at Seattle, Wash. It was 
alleged in the libels that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce 
between November 29, 1932 and March 7, 1933, by the American Pharmaceutical 
Co., Inc., from New York, N.T., and that it was misbranded 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 of sodium perborate flavored with spearmint oil. Bacteriological exami- 
nation showed that the product was not antiseptic when used as a mouth wash.
The libels alleged that the article was misbranded in that the following state- 
ments appearing in the labeling were false and misleading, since the article 
would not be effective as an antiseptic mouth wash when used as directed: 
" Antiseptic Mouth Wash * * * Approved antiseptic for a daily mouth 
wash, * * * one teaspoonf Al of sodium perborate ' A.P.C in a glass of 
warm water." Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the follow- 
ing statements on the label, regarding the curative or therapeutic effects of the 
article, were false and fraudulent: " Recommended as a Prophylactic for the 
Teeth and Gums, helpful in the treatment of Pyorrhea, Trench Mouth, and 
Gingivitis   *   *   *   especially helpful in cases of sore or infected gums."
No claimant appeared for the property. On July 3, 1933, judgments of 
condemnation and forfeiture were entered in the cases instituted in the 
Southern District of California, and it was ordered by the court that the 
product be destroyed by the United States marshal. On July 26 and September 
22, 1933, the product seized in the District of Oregon and the Western District 
of Washington, respectively, was also ordered condemned and destroyed.
M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary' of Agriculture.