32. Adulteration  and  misbranding1  of Louise   Norris  Lash and  Brow  Coloring*.
U. S. v. 9 Cartons of Louise Norris Lash and Brow Coloring; (and 5 seizure 
actions against other lots of the same product). Default decrees of con- 
demnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 2429, 2667, 2710, 3159, 3307, 3308. 
Sample Nos. 4570-E to 4574-E. incl., 11108-E, 16329-E, 31901-E, 31902-E, 
44931-E, 44932-E, 44933-E.)
This product consisted of the following substances accompanied by appliances 
for their use: "Formula No. 1 Preparo" which was a solution of silver proteinate, 
"Formula No. 2 Protecto" which was essentially lanolin, a product called "Ab- 
sorbo" or "Formula No. 3 Absorbo" which consisted of magnesium carbonate; a 
bottle marked "A" which contained a solution of 2, 5 toluylenediamine together 
with sulfite and sulfate of sodium, and a bottle marked "B" which contained a 
solution of hydrogen peroxide. The ingredient 2, 5 toluylenediamine might have 
rendered the product injurious to users under the conditions of use prescribed in 
the labeling or under such conditions of use as are customary or usual.
On July 24, October 10, and November 6, 1940, the United States attorneys for 
the Southern District of Texas, the District of Kansas, and the Northern District 
of Illinois file-d libels against 9 cartons of Louise Norris Lash and Brow Coloring 
at Houston, Tex., 6 cartons at Pittsburg, Kans., and 95 cartons at Chicago, Ill., 
alleging that the article had been shipped by the Louise Norris Co. from Kansas 
City, Kans. On August 26 and 30, 1940, the United States attorney for the 
District of Colorado filed libels against 125 cartons of the same product at 
Denver, Colo., which had been shipped by the Louise Norris Co. from Kansas 
City, Mo. It was alleged in the libels that the article had been shipped in inter- 
state commerce within the period from on or about March 19 to on or about 
August 22, 1940, and that it was adulterated and misbranded.
The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it contained a poisonous or 
deleterious substance, 2, 5 toluylenediamine, which might have rend-ered it in- 
jurious to users under the conditions of use prescribed in the labeling and under 
such conditions of use as are customary or usual. It was alleged to be adulterated 
further in that it contained a coal-tar color, namely, 2, 5 toluylenediamine, which 
was not from a batch that had been certified in accordance with regulations 
promulgated under the law.
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, (unit cartons 
and bottle "A" all lots) "Louise Norris Lash & Brow Coloring"; (direction cir- 
cular, all lots) "Louise Norris Patented Method of Coloring Eyelashes and 
Brows"; (bottle label, Formula No. 2') "Protecto"; (large-sized carton unit, one 
lot) "This coloring known as Louise Norris Lash and Brow Coloring is now 
labeled in this manner to meet all requirements of law governing interstate com- 
merce" and "Guarantee. We guarantee this nackage to conform with all local, 
state and federal regulations of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act."
On August 24, October 8, and November 12,1940, and January 28,1941, no claim- 
ant having appeared, judgments of condemnation were entered and the product 
was ordered destroyed.
HAIR DYE