1598. Misbranding- of Wonder Poultry Tonic and Morehog. U. S. v. 64 Bottles
and 6 Jugs of Wonder Poultry Tonic and 21 Bottles of Morehog, together
with accompanying labeling. Default decree of forfeiture and destruc-
tion.     (F. D. C. No. 12624.     Sample Nos. 40115-F, 40116-F.)
LIBEL FILED :   June 13, 1944, Western District of Wisconsin.
ALLEGED SHIPMENT: On or about April 10, 1944, by the Wonder Chemical Co.,
from Minneapolis, Minn.
PRODUCT : 42 1-quart bottles, 22 1-pint bottles, and 6 1-gallon jugs of Wonder
Poultry Tonic, and 21 1-pint bottles of Morehog, together with accompanying
labeling, at Ettrick, Wis. The labeling included a number of hand-out cards,
placards, streamers, and posters.
Analyses of samples disclosed that the Poultry Tonic consisted essentially
of water, with small proportions of epsom salt, sulfuric acid, iron sulfate, so-
dium phenolsulfonate, alum, and 0.1 percent of a volatile oil; and that the
Morehog consisted essentially of water, with small proportions of iron sulfate,
epsom salt, sulfuric acid, boric acid, iron oxide, and not more than 0.2 percent
of volatile oils, including oil of wormseed.
NATURE OF CHARGE: Poultry Tonic, misbranding, Section 502 (a), certain state-
ments in the labeling of the article were false and misleading since they repre-
sented and suggested that the article possessed significant therapeutic prop-
erties.; that it was a tonic; that there was something wonderful about its com-
position ; and that use of the article would prevent or cure disease conditions,
thereby preventing losses in the raising of chicks. The article, when used as
directed, had no value in the prevention and treatment of any disease condi-
tion affecting chicks and poultry.
Morehog, misbranding, Section 502 (a), certain statements in the labeling
of the article were false and misleading since they represented and suggested
that the article had medicinal value; that it would remove worms which infest
hogs; that it was a tonic; that it was a conditioner; that it would cause hogs
to gain more weight; that it was a stimulant to the appetite; and that it was
beneficial to growing animals and those being fed for the market. The article
had no medicinal value; it would not remove worms which infest hogs; it
was not a tonic; it was not a conditioner, a term which implies that the article
would improve the condition of hogs which were out of condition or off condi-
tion due to any number of causes, including disease; the article would not
cause hogs to gain more weight, as the name "Morehog" and the statement in
the labeling, "more hog gains," implied; it was not a stimulant to the appetite;
and it consisted of nothing that was beneficial to growing animals and those
being fed for the market.
DISPOSITION : September 21, 1944. No claimant having appeared, judgment of
forfeiture was entered and the products, together with the accompanying
labeling, were ordered destroyed.