740. Misbranding: of Omega Oil and Kotalko. U. S. ?. 59% Dozen Bottles of
Omega Oil and 34 Packages of Kotalko. Default decrees of condemnation
and destruction.    (P. D. C. Nos. 6764, 7830.    Sample Nos. 80107-E. 89880-E.)
The labeling of both products bore false and misleading therapeutic claims. The
Kotalko ointment failed to bear the common or usual name of each of its active
ingredients on tHe label, and the box in which it was packed occupied less than
one-third of the capacity of the carton.
On February 10 and June 30,1942, the United States attorney for the Southern
District of New York filed libels against the above-named articles at New York,
N. Y., alleging that they had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about
December 22, 1941, and May 11 and June 2, 1942, by Block Drug Co., Inc., from
Jersey City, N. J.; and charging that they were misbranded.
Analyses of samples of the articles showed that Omega Oil consisted essentially
of chloroform, methyl salicylate, mineral oil, and a small quantity of alkaloidal
material such as hyoscyamus; and that the Kotalko consisted essentially of sulfur,
pilocarpine, resorcinol, and a camphoraceous oil in an ointment base.
The Omega Oil was alleged to be misbranded in that statements in the
labeling which represented that it differed from ordinary liniments, that
it was "far more than just liniment," that it was a powerful and reliable
answer to dozens of everyday ills; that at the point of application it would
soothe and ease the local nerves, stimulate the circulation, break up congestion
and thus quickly and directly relieve pain and Its congestive cause; that it
would relieve rheumatic pains due to exposure, dampness, and cold; that it
would be helpful in the treatment of bruises, would help relieve suffering from
varicose veins, would bring quick relief of athlete's foot, and toe itch, would
relieve chest and throat colds, and tightness and congestion in throat and chest
muscles, were false and misleading since it was a counter-irritant liniment and
did not possess the properties claimed for it.
Kotalko was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that representations in the
labeling that it would discourage excessive loss of, and strengthen existing
growth of, hair and aid in promoting new growth; and that it would be effi-
cacious in the treatment of dandruff, thin, brittle or falling hair, and baldness,
were false and misleading since it would not be efficacious for such purposes.
(2) In that it was fabricated from two or more ingredients and its label failed
to bear the common or usual name of each of the active ingredients. (3) In
that its container was so filled as to be misleading since the retail carton was
materially larger than necessary to hold the contents.
On April 20 and July 29, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgments of
condemnation were entered and the products were ordered destroyed.