109. Misbranding  of corrective texture  cream and  revitalised formula cream.
U. S. v. 118 Jars and 89 Jars of Corrective Texture Cream and 630 Jars 
and 421 Jars of Revitalized Formula Cream. Consent decree of eondemna- 
tion. Product ordered released under bond for relabeling. (F. D. C. No. 
13004.    Sample Nos. 51098-F, 51099-F.)
On July 20, 1944, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Penn- 
sylvania filed a libel against 118 jars, each containing 2% ounces, and 89 jars, 
each containing 7% ounces, of corrective texture cream, and 630 jars, each con- 
taining 2% ounces, and 421 jars, each containing 7% ounces, of revitalized for- 
mula cream at Philadelphia, Pa., alleging that the articles had been shipped by 
the Florita Laboratories, Inc., from New York, N. Y., within the period from on 
or about November 10, 1943, to June 15, 1944; and charging that the articles 
were misbranded. The articles were labeled in part: (Jars) "Madame Olga 
Pataky Corrective Texture Cream [or "A re-vitalized formula"]."
Analyses showed that both articles consisted essentially of petrolatum, lano- 
lin, and water, with small amounts of borax and perfume. 
,
The corrective texture cream was alleged to be misbranded in that the state- 
ments appearing on its label, "Corrective Texture Cream   *    *   *   Corrective
Texture Cream helps to refine dry* lined or roughened skin to satin smoothness. 
* * * If skin is very dry or lined apply revitalized formula," were false and 
misleading since the article would not be effective in correcting the texture of 
the skin or the removal of lines.
The revitalized formula was alleged to be misbranded in that the' following 
statements appearing on its label, "A re-vitalized formula * * * Before re- 
tiring apply over corrective texture cream, especially where lines are prominent. 
Particularly recommended for an aging neck," were false and misleading since 
the article would not be effective in the removal of lines or signs of aging neck, 
nor would it revitalize the areas of the skin where such signs were present.
On August 30, 1944, Madam Olga Pataky, Philadelphia, Pa., having appeared 
as claimant and admitted the allegations* of the libel, judgment of condemnation 
was entered and the products were ordered released under bond for relabeling 
under the supervision of the Food and Drug Administration.