25807. Misbranding of Kloria.    IT.  S. v. 290 Packages and 4 Dozen Packages/
of Kloria.    Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.    (F. «
D. nos. 32210, 37221.    Sample nos. 55655-B, 55656-B.)
These cases involved interstate shipments of an article described as "Kloria", 
the package and label of which contained false and fraudulent representations 
regarding the curative or therapeutic effect of the article with respect to various 
diseases and ailments.
On February 20 and 21, 1936, the United States attorney for the Northern 
District of Ohio, acting upon reports by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in 
the district court libels praying seizure and condemnation of 290 packages and 
4 dozen packages of Kloria at Chicago, Ill., alleging that the article was shipped 
in interstate commerce on or about September 18, October 31, November 18, and 
December 20, 1935, and January 2, 1936, by the Kloria Co., from Fort Wayne, 
Ind., and that it was misbranded in violation of the Food and Drugs Act as 
amended. 
'Analysis showed that the article consisted of chloramine and salt.
The article in the lot of 290 packages was alleged to be misbranded in that 
statements regarding the curative or therapeutic effects of the article, borne on 
the bottle label and on some of the cartons, falsely and fraudulently represented 
that the article would be effective in the treatment of most skin diseases, and 
inflammations, sores, gum infections, pyorrhea, bleeding gums, sore throat, 
inflamed eyes, and dandruff. The article in the lot of 4 dozen packages was 
alleged to be misbranded in that statements regarding the curative or thera- 
peutic effects of the article, borne on the bottle label and contained in accom- 
panying circulars, falsely and fraudulently represented that the article would be 
effective in the treatment of most skin diseases and inflammations, gum infec- 
tions, sore throat, dandruff, inflamed eyes; that it would by destroying germs 
in the mouth be effective in preventing infection of influenza, tonsillitis, 
diphtheria, measles, pneumonia, scarlet fever, infantile paralysis, spinal 
meningitis, typhoid fever, and tooth decay, and in preventing spread of colds 
and other diseases; that it would expedite the healing and arrest the spread 
of boils and other obstinate sores; that by destroying germs in the mouth it 
would be effective in curing tender, sore, and bleeding gums and in preserving 
the teeth; that it would be effective in destroying the infection and in' expedit- 
ing the healing of open sores, boils, carbuncles, and most kinds of ulcers, and in 
the treatment of eczema and dandruff, tonsillitis, and sore throat; that by 
destroying bacteria in the mouth it would prevent decay of and preserve the 
teeth, would prevent pyorrhea, tonsillitis, rheumatism, and other diseases, and 
would destroy all offensive odors arising from tooth decay, diseased gums, etc.; 
that it would be effective in the treatment of severe infections of catarrh and 
influenza, inflammation of the eyes, sties, discharge from the ear, bowel infec- 
tion, and piles; that it would be effective as a disinfectant for vaginal douches 
and in the treatment of leucorrhea; and that it would be effective in the treat- 
ment of superflcial varieties of dog mange and in preventing chicken cholera.
It was also alleged in the libel that the article was misbranded under the 
Insecticide Act of 1910, as reported in notice of judgment no. 1459 published 
under that act.
On April 29,1936, no claimant having appeared, decrees of condemnation were 
entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.
W. R. GBEGQ, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.