647. Misbranding of Poul-Tre-Tone and Pep-O-Tone.     TJ. S. v. Gliatta Labora
tories, Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $100. (F. D. C. No. 2877. Sample Nos.
15239-E, 15240-E.)
The labeling of these veterinary products bore false and misleading claims
regarding their efficacy in the conditions indicated hereinafter.
On January 30, 1941, the United States attorney for the Eastern District
of Missouri filed an information against Gliatta Laboratories, Inc., St. Charles,
Mo., alleging shipment on or about March 21, 1940, from the State of Missouri
into the State of Illinois of quantities of Poul-Tre-Tone and Pep-O-Tone which
were misbranded.
Analysis of a sample of Poul-Tre-Tone showed that it consisted essentially
of calcium phosphate, calcium carbonate, magnesium sulfate, compounds of iron,
sodium, and potassium, and plant material including tobacco and kamala.
Analysis of a sample of Pep-O-Tone showed that it consisted of small proportions
of copper sulfate (0.81 percent), iron sulfate, compounds of zinc, sodium and
potassium, creosote, and water, flavored with oil of cloves and colored with a /
red dye.
The Poul-Tre-Tone was alleged to be misbranded in that statements in the       (
labeling which represented that it was efficacious for the treatment of all
common known poultry diseases; would be efficacious to expel worms and de-        >
stroy germs; would prevent weakness, bowel trouble, and disorders like pip
or other diseases in poultry; and would be efficacious to produce the beneficial
effects implied by the expression "It Builds" were false and misleading, since
it would not be efficacious for such purposes.
The Pep-O-Tone was alleged to be misbranded in that statements in the
labeling which represented that it would be efficacious in the treatment .of
bronchial and pneumonic conditions, diarrhea in chicks, coccidiosis, fowl cholera,
small worms, roup, and all common diseases of baby chicks; would tone and
build up baby chicks and prevent disease; and would prevent disease if used
at all times were false and misleading, since it would not be efficacious for
such purposes. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the statement
"Copper Sulphate 3?," borne on the label, was false and misleading, since it
contained not more than 0.81 percent of copper sulfate.
On May 6, 1941, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant and
the court imposed a fine of $100.