25065. Misbranding of Peet Protection Powder. U. S. v. E. M. Peet Manufac- 
turing Co., a corporation, and Ernest M. Peet, its president. Jury 
trial.    Conviction.    Each of the two defendants fined $200, and costs.
(P. & D. no. 31462.    Sample no. 6394-A.)
Unwarranted curative and therapeutic claims were made for this article.
On May 1, 1934, the United States attorney for the Southern District of 
Iowa, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district 
court an information against the B. M. Peet Manufacturing Oo., Inc., a cor- 
poration, and Ernest M. Peet, its president, Council Bluffs, Iowa, charging 
lnipme^ by them on or about August 1, 1932, from Council Bluffs, Iowa, to 
j
™ island, Nebr., of a quantity of the product named in the caption hereof, 
ana charging that it was misbranded in violation of the Food and Drugs Act. 
-the article was labeled in part: (Sacks) Feet Protection Powder Makes 
for Hog* Good Makes Good Hogs Better For Hogs Horses Cattle and 
fcneep   E. M. Peet Manufacturing Company   Council Bluffs, Iowa."
Analysis showed the article consisted essentially of sodium sulphate anhy- 
drous, sodium bicarbonate, small 'proportions of charcoal, sulphur, calcium; 
carbonate, sodium thiosulphate, and American wormseed.