791. Misbranding: of Security Gas Colic Remedy. U. S. v. 5 Gases and 1 Case of
Security Gas Colic Remedy. Default decree of condemnation and destruc-
tion.    (F. D. C. No. 6099.    Sample No. 49858-E.)
The labeling of this veterinary product bore false and misleading therapeutic
claims and also failed to contain a statement of the quantity of the contents and
a list of the active ingredients.
On November 13, 1941, the United States attorney for the Southern District
of Mississippi filed a libel against 6 cases containing a total of 26 bottles of
Security Gas Colic Remedy at Bolton, Miss., alleging that the article had been
shipped in interstate commerce on or about July 28, 1941, by the Security Food
Co, from Minneapolis, Minn.; and charging that it was misbranded.
Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of a hydroalcoholic solu-
tion containing volatile oils, ether, emodin-bearing plant material, sodium sulfite,
and a trace of alkaloids.
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that statements in the labeling
which represented that it was entirely different from all other colic remedies;
that the moment it entered the stomach of the animal it neutralized the gases
and acids in the stomach caused by the fermentation of food; that after adminis-
tration, relief was immediate on the same principle as a chemical fire extin-
guisher; that when it reached the stomach it immediately formed other gases
which subdued and neutralized those already there and which had caused
colic; that one bottle was sufficient to cure colic in horses, mules, and cattle;
that it would be efficacious in the cure, mitigation, treatment, and prevention
of cases of kidney, wind or spasmodic colic, grippe, flatulent or acute indigestion;
and that it would be efficacious in the treatment of engorgement colic, obstruction
colic, worm colic, flatulent colic, and spasmodic or cramp colic, and was a positive
remedy for alfalfa or lucerne bloat; that it was a "security" remedy and was
an insurance against all forms of colic in horses, mules and cattle, were false
and misleading since it was not entirely different from all other colic remedies
and would not be efficacious for the purposes recommended.
It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the carton did not bear a state-
ment of the quantity of the contents and in that the label did not bear a list of
the active ingredients.
On May 5, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation
was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.