171. Adulteration and misbranding of Slumber Ointment.    TJ. S. v. 56 Packages
of Slumber Ointment.    Default decree of condemnation and destruction.
(F. D. C. No. 1496.    Sample No. 78759-D.)
This product contained mercuric nitrate in excess of the amount declared
on the label and its labeling bore false and misleading representations re-
garding its efficacy in the conditions indicated below.
On February 20, 1940, the United States attorney for the Northern District
of Ohio filed a libel against 56 packages of Slumber Ointment at Toungstown,
Ohio, alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or
about December 14, 1939, by the Nolan Co. from Greenville, Pa.; and charging
that it was adulterated and misbranded.
Analysis showed that the article contained mercuric nitrate (7.96 percent),
calcium and magnesium compounds, turpentine, soap, and water, in a fatty
acid base.
The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from
and its purity and quality fell below that which it purported to possess.
It was alleged to be misbranded in that the representation in the labeling
that it contained 7 percent of mercuric nitrate was false and misleading since
it did not contain 7 percent of mercuric nitrate, but did contain a greater
amount. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that its labeling bore
representations that it was efficacious in the treatment of eczema, salt rheum,
poisons, or other skin diseases, acne, pimply face, grease or rubber poisoning,
blackheads, boils, piles, ringworms, burns and sunburn, dandruff, scaly and
itching scalp, varicose ulcer, warts, ingrown toenails, and itch; that it had?f
worked wonders in killing spotty baldness, the hair growing again in a re-?^-'
markably short time and that for this condition it should be applied once a
was a "grand treatment" and great relief for chillblains, and that if the
ointment seemed to irritate for several days, one should not become alarmed
as that was the "nature of the ointment," together with a. design showing
"before" and "after," which representations and design were false and mis-
leading, since they represented that the article was efficacious for the purposes
recommended; whereas it was not efficacious for such purposes.
On June 3, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation!
was entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.