22978. Misbranding of Savol Antiseptic and Salol Cream.    TJ. S. v. 23 Bottles 
of Savol Antiseptic, et al.    Default decrees  of destruction.     (F. &
D. nos. 32671, 32672, 33009, 33010.    Sample nos. 42571-A, 42572-A, 61084-A, 
61085-A.)
These cases involved drug preparations, the labels of which bore unwarranted 
curative and therapeutic claims. The labeling also bore false and misleading 
statements relative to their alleged antiseptic properties.
On May 7, 1934, the United States attorney for the Southern District of 
Indiana, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the 
district court libels praying seizure and condemnation of 23 bottles of Savol 
Antiseptic and 11 jars of Salol Cream at Huntingburg, Ind. On June 28, 
1934, a libel was filed against 10 bottles of Savol Antiseptic (amended July 5, 
1934) and 10 jars of Salol Cream at Louisville, Ky. It was alleged in the 
libels that the articles had been shipped in interstate commerce, on or about 
March 15, 1934, and April 26, 1934, by the Savol Chemical Co., from Mercer, 
Pa., and that they were misbranded in violation of the Food and Drugs Act 
as amended.
Analyses showed that the Savol Antiseptic consisted essentially of phenolic 
substances, soap, and water; and that the Savol Cream consisted essentially of 
barium sulphate and zinc oxide, incorporated in petrolatum, perfumed with 
essential oils including eucalyptol.
The libels charged Misbranding of the Savol Antiseptic in that the statement 
in the circular, " It has three times as much germ-destroying power as carbolic 
acid ", was false and misleading since it did not possess three times as much 
germ-destroying power as carbolic acid. Misbranding of the said Savol Anti- 
septic was alleged for the further reason that certain statements regarding 
its curative and therapeutic effects, borne on the bottle label, carton, and in 
the circular, falsely and fraudulently represented that it was effective as a 
treatment or cure for wounds, punctured wounds, punctures made by dirty 
nails, splinters, etc., dog bite, bites of animals, sores, open sores, festering 
sores, inflamed pimples, sore throat, nasal catarrh, gangrene of the toes, 
and leucorrhea; effective for diseased poultry; effective in catarrh, hay fever, 
and kindred ills; effective in preventing disease, preventing all complications 
due to infection, overcoming infection, preventing infected sores, blood poison- 
ing, lockjaw, felons, boils, abscesses, carbuncles, erysipelas, and even death; 
effective in limiting and destroying germ infection; effective in lessening the 
danger of secondary infection following diphtheria, scarlet fever, and acute 
diseases of the nose and throat. The libels also charged violations of the 
Insecticide Act of 1910, reported in notice of judgment no. 1339 published under 
that act.
Misbranding of the Savol Cream was alleged for the reason that the state- 
ment on the jar and carton labels and in the circular, "Antiseptic ", was false 
and misleading, since bacteriological tests showed that the article did not 
possess antiseptic properties. Misbranding of the Savol Cream was alleged 
for the further reason that the following statements in the labeling, regarding 
the curative and therapeutic effects of the article, were false and fraudulent: 
(Jar) "Healing * * * For * * * bites, * * * of animals, * * * 
etc.; for all forms of piles, all sores and skin diseases; also, for the after 
treatment of * * * felons, carbuncles, erysipelas, etc. * * * Use on 
the neck for sore throat, croup, enlarged glands, etc."; (carton) "Healing 
* * * For * * * Boils, and Felons, Sores, Ulcers, * * * Itching 
Piles, Eczema and Skin affection in General"; (circular) "Healing * * * 
Sores in general * * * eczema * * * For dandruff and falling of the 
hair."
On July 9 and August 9, 1934, no claimant having appeared, judgments were 
entered ordering that the products be destroyed.
M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.