24664. Misbranding of MeCIellan's Ortbosol and MeCIellan's Sheep Dip.    U. S,
v. McClellan Products, Ltd. Plea of nolo contendere. Defendant 
placed on probation for two years. (F. & D. no. 33954. Sample nos, 
60380-A, 60381-A.)
This case was based on interstate shipments of Orthosol and Sheep Dip which 
were misbranded, the labeling of the former containing false and misleading 
antiseptic claims, and that of the latter containing false and fraudulent curative 
and therapeutic claims.
On May 15, 1935, the United States attorney for the Southern District of 
California, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the 
district court an information against McClellan Products, Ltd., a corporation, 
Los Angeles, Calif., alleging shipment by said company in violation of the 
Food and Drugs Act as amended, on or about February 16 and March 3, 1934, 
from the State of California into the State of Oregon of quantities of MeCIel- 
lan's Orthosol and MeCIellan's Sheep Dip which were misbranded.
Analysis of the Orthosol showed that it consisted of soap, water, tar acids, and 
glycerin. Bacteriological examination showed that it would not be antiseptic 
for insect bites and stings, and that it would not be an antiseptic when used 
as a douche or injection at the dilutions recommended. Analysis of the Sheep 
Dip showed that it consisted of soap, water, coal-tar neutral oils, and phenols.
The Orthosol was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, "Anti- 
septic * * * For household uses such as insect bites, stings, use 1 tea- 
spoonful Orthosol to 2 quarts of water. * * * Douches or Injections— 
Use 1 teaspoonful of McGlellan's Orthosol Disinfectant to 2 quarts of warm 
water", borne on the label, were false and misleading, since they represented 
that the article was antiseptic when used as directed; whereas it was not 
antiseptic when used as directed. Misbranding of the Sheep Dip was alleged 
for the reason that certain statements regarding its therapeutic and curative 
effects, borne on the label, falsely and fraudulently represented that it was 
effective as a treatment for ailments of poultry.
The information also charged a violation of the Insecticide Act of 1910, 
reported in notice of judgment no. 1406, published under that act
On September 18, 1985, the defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere and 
was placed on probation for 2 years with the usual conditions.
W. R. GBEGG, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.