1308. Misbranding of Barker's Poultry Powder, Spray Inhalant for Poultry, Hog:
Round 'Worm Powder, and Poultry Round Worm Powder. U. S. v. 4
Bags of Barker's Poultry Powder (and 1 other seizure action against
Barker's Spray Inhalant for Poultry, Hog Round Worm Powder, and
Poultry Round Worm Powder). Default decrees of condemnation. Por-
tion of products ordered delivered to a charitable institution; remainder
ordered destroyed. (F. D. C. Nos. 11321, 11590. Sample Nos. 50727-F,
50730-F, 50731-F, 50733-F.)
On or about December 15,1943, and January 14,1944, the United States attorney
for the District of New Jersey filed libels against 4 100-pound bags of Barker's
Poultry Powder at Mount Holly, N. J., and against 10 1-pint bottles of Barker's
Spray Inhalant for Poultry, 10 1-pound packages of Barker's Hog Round Worm
Powder, and 10 1-pound packages of Barker's Poultry Round Worm Powder,
at Cologne, N. J. It was alleged in the libels that the articles had been shipped
on or about November 24 and December 1,1943, from Philadelphia, Pa., by Barker,
Moore and Mein Co.
The Poultry Powder was labeled as containing the following minerals: Mag-
nesium sulfate, dried iron sulfate, potassium nitrate, sulfur, sodium chloride,
iodine, potassium iodide, calcium carbonate, iron oxide, magnesium carbonate,
sodium hydrosulfite, sodium bicarbonate, partially defluorinated superphosphate,
manganese carbonate, copper carbonate, cobalt chloride, zinc chloride, and nickle
chloride; and the following vegetable materials: Asafetida, fenugreek, ginger,
pennyroyal, black pepper, old process linseed cake meal, mustard bran, cocoa
meal, calumba root, including 13 percent protein, 3^ percent fat, and 16 percent
fiber. Examination of a sample disclosed that the article was essentially of the
composition indicated on the label.
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that certain statements on its
label and in booklets entitled "Barker's Poultry Hand Book," which accompanied
the article, were false and misleading, since they represented and suggested that
the article was an appetizer and conditioner; that it would provide the essential
minerals that help to keep the body fighting fit and the vegetable ingredients
that assist with the smoothing and toning of the digestive operations; that it
would save chicks; and that it would be efficacious in the treatment of diarrhea,
pullorum disease, blue comb, enteritis, coccidiosis, cecal or bloody coccidiosis,
intestinal or upper type coccidiosis, blackhead, roundworms and tape worms,
respiratory disorders, and infectious fowl coryza (cold). The article would not
fulfill the promises of benefit, nor would it be effective in the treatment of the
conditions mentioned.
Analysis disclosed that the Spray Inhalant for Poultry was composed essen-
tially of kerosene and phenols, such as creosote. The article was alleged to be
misbranded in that certain statements on its label and certain statements and
the design of the respiratory tract of a chicken, appearing in the booklet, were
false and misleading, since they represented and suggested that the article
would be effective in the treatment of respiratory disorders, infectious fowl
coryza (cold), watery discharge from the nose and eyes, sticky eyelids, asper-
gillosis (brooder pneumonia), nutritional roup, and congested air passages. The
article would not be efficacious in the treatment of those conditions. It was al-
leged to be misbranded further in that it was fabricated from two or more in-
gredients, and its label failed to bear the common or usual name of each active
ingredient.
Analysis disclosed that the Hog Round Worm Powder consisted essentially
of plant material (including tobacco), thymol, sand, and kamala. It was alleged
to be misbranded in that the statements on its label which represented and sug-
gested that it would be effective in the treatment of roundworms that infest hogs
were false and misleading, since the article would not be effective for that pur-
pose.
Analysis disclosed that the Poultry Round Worm Powder consisted essentially
of tobacco, thymol, and sand. The article was alleged to be.misbranded in that
the statements on its label and in the above-named booklet, which accompanied
the article, were false and misleading since they represented and suggested that
the article would be efficacious in the treatment of any species of roundworms
in poultry, whereas the article would not be efficacious for that purpose.
On March 1 and 15, 1944, no claimant having appeared, judgments of con-
demnation were entered and Poultry Powder, which had some feed value, was
ordered delivered to a charitable institution. The other products were ordered
destroyed.