296. Misbranding of L. B. Hair Oil.    IT. S. v. 14% Dozen Packages of L,. B. Hair
Oil.    Default decree of condemnation and destruction.     (F. D. C. No. 1043.
Sample No. 70952-D.)
The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regarding
its efficacy in the conditions indicated below. Furthermore, its package was de-
ceptive since the bottles were pinched down to approximately one-half size in the
center, and therefore contained a much smaller volume of material than would be
expected from the size of the carton.
On November 22, 1939, the United States attorney for the District of Utah filed
a libel against 14? dozen packages of L. B. Hair Oil at Ogden, Utah, alleging
that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce in part on or about
September 18,1939, by the L. B. Laboratories, Inc., from Hollywood, Calif., and in
part by McKesson & Bobbins, Inc., from Los Angeles, Calif, (the latter shipment
made on or about August 21, 1939) ; and charging that it was misbranded.
Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of mineral oil with small
proportions of saponifiable oil and perfume.
It was alleged in the libel that the article was misbranded in that its labeling
bore representations that it was a scalp conditioner, that it contained a balanced
blend of rich animal oils and toning ingredients which would give life to the hair
almost instantly; that it would aid in overcoming baldness, thin, and falling hair;
that it contained animal oils of a very penetrating nature; that it was an "oil of'
life" for the hair; that it had cured baldness in its originator; that it was a blend
of animal oils which would provide the vitalizing, nourishing, and restorative ele-
ments needed by the scalp to clear out clogging waste matter and dead tissue, and
* See also Nos. 278, 282, 283.
412675?-41 2
to restore normal functions and growth and produce beautiful healthy hair again
in a short time, regardless of the present condition; that many bald for 18 or 20 ,.
years testified to a regrowth in approximately 2 years, and that those bald for a (
shorter time claimed even quicker results; that it was effective for infant scalp
trouble; that it would be effective to eliminate granulated eye lids and stimulate
new growth of lashes; that it was effective for sun or other burns and would
prevent the formation of scar tissue and that its labeling also bore directions
that in the treatment of baldness the scalp be steamed with hot towels, that as
much of the product as the scalp would absorb be applied and patted in, that the
scalp itself be moved with the fingers but that vigorous rubbing should be avoided,
that the application should be repeated every night until results were obtained,
and further directions that in the treatment for thin and falling hair, the hair
should be parted and the product applied directly to the scalp, patting it in with
the palm of the hand, that vigorous rubbing should be avoided; that if the hair
continued to fall, less should be used since over application would tend to further
loosen the hair, which representations and directions were false and misleading
as applied to an article consisting essentially of mineral oil and saponifiable oils.
The article was also alleged to be misbranded under the provisions of the law
applicable to cosmetics reported in C. N. J. No. 34.
On January 18,1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation
was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.