22006. Misbranding of   I-den-tine   Dental   Cream.    TJ.   S.   v.   153   Tubes   of
I-den-tlne Dental Cream. Default decree of condemnation and 
forfeiture. Product ordered destroyed or dell-rered to public In- 
stitutions.     (F. & D. no. 31552.    Sample no. 43994-A.)
This case involved a shipment of dental cream that was labeled to convey 
the impression that it contained substantial amounts of iodine and pepsin. 
Examination showed that the article contained but insignificant amounts of
iodine and pepsin and would not produce certain curative and therapeutic 
effects claimed in the labeling.
On November 8, 1933, the United States attorney for the Northern District 
of New York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the 
district court a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 153 tubes of I-den-tine 
Dental Cream at Binghamton, N.Y., alleging that the article had been shipped 
in interstate commerce on or about February 9, 1933, by the Trade Labora- 
tories, Inc., Newark, N.J., and charging misbranding in violation of the Food 
and Drugs Act as amended. The article was labeled in part: " I-den-tine 
Dental Cream Reed Chemical Company, Newark, N.J."
Analysis of a sample of the article by this Department showed that it con- 
sisted essentially of calcium sulphate, calcium phosphate, small proportions of 
glycerin and soap, traces of pepsin and an iodine compound, and water flavored 
with peppermint oil.
It was alleged in the libel that the article was misbranded in that the state- 
ments, " Compound Iodine and Pepsin", on the carton, and " Compound 
Iodine", on the tube, were false and misleading, since the article contained 
insignificant amounts of these ingredients. Misbranding was alleged for the 
further reason that the following statements regarding the curative or thera- 
peutic effects of the article were false and fraudulent: (Carton and tube> 
" Especially prepared for bleeding gums "; (tube) "Pyorrhea * * * makes 
the gums healthy and firm."
On December 21, 1933, 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, or in lieu of destruction that it be delivered 
to charitable institutions for use and not for sale.
M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.