26764. Adulteration and misbranding of H. P. Healing: Balm. U. S. v. 191 
Packages of H. P. Healing: Balm. Default decree of condemnation and 
destruction.    (F. & D. no. 37823.   Sample no. 73728-B.)
The label on the container of this article and an accompanying circular bore 
and contained false and misleading representations that it was antiseptic; 
the circular contained false and misleading representations that it was harm- 
less, without injurious ingredients, and incapable of injurious or deleterious 
effects; and the package, the label on the container, and the accompanying 
circular bore and contained false and fraudulent curative or therapeutic 
claims.
On June 20, 1936, the United States attorney for the District of Utah, acting 
upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court a 
libel praying seizure and condemnation of 191 packages of H. P. Healing Balm 
at Ogden, Utah, alleging that it had been shipped in interstate commerce on 
or about January 6, 1936, by the H. P. Co., from Wenatchee, Wash., and that it 
was adulterated and misbranded in violation of the Food and Drugs Act as 
amended.
Analysis of the article showed that it consisted essentially of lead oleate 
and perfume material incorporated in an ointment base; bacteriological exam- 
ination showed that it was not antiseptic.
It was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength fell below the professed 
standard or quality under which it was sold, namely, "Antiseptic", since it was 
not antiseptic.
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements, 
appearing on the label of the container and in a circular accompanying the 
package, were false and misleading in that they represented that it was anti- 
septic ; whereas in fact it was not: (Label on the container) "H. P. Antiseptic"; 
(circular) "Antiseptic * * * H. P. is a 'high powered' antiseptic * * * 
These then are the properties of this remarkable chemical compound: * * * 
A high powered antiseptic * * * In Fact I Have Never Had Anything As 
A Germicide Or Antiseptic To Equal It. * * * Use This Powerful But 
Harmless Antiseptic." It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the 
following statements, contained in a circular accompanying the package, were 
false and misleading in that they represented that the article was harmless 
and incapable of producing injurious or deleterious effects; whereas it was a 
lead-oleate ointment and as such was capable of producing lead poisoning: 
"Harmless * * * Every Element Destructive To Tissue Has Been Chemi- 
cally Neutralized. * * * Mild To Use—so mild you may use it freely on 
Baby's Flesh, * * * Does not injure healthy tissue * * * There is 
no * * * injurious drug used in its manufacture that will deleteriously 
affect the skin or flesh. Use It Freely on Baby's Flesh. * * * there can 
be positively no ill effects if quantities are used. * * * But to make it 
Harmless To Healthy Tissue, Every Element Destructive To Tissue Has Been 
Chemically Neutralized. * * * is harmless even to the flesh of a baby." 
The article was alleged to be misbranded further in that statements contained 
in a circular accompanying the package, regarding its curative or therapeutic 
effects with respect to piles, hemorrhoids, putrid sores, old sores, proud flesh, 
gangrene, lead poisoning, gunshot wounds, all kinds of sores, and infections, 
eczema, tick bites, bee stings, barber's itch, cuts, wounds, felons, boils, car- 
buncles, erysipelas, blood poisoning, X-ray burns, ringworm, impetigo, septi-
153095—37 4
cemia, pyemia, nasal infections, sinus trouble, hay fever, ulcers, mercury sores, 
and varicose ulcers, were false and fraudulent.
On October 12, 1936, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation 
was entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.
W. R. GBEGG, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.