898. Misbranding:  of Mineralized Molactas   Block, Tork-A-Tox,  Mineral Block,
Marco Antiseptic Tablets, and Mineralized Molactas Block - Hog: Bricks
with Nicotinic Acid. U. S. v. Lapp Laboratories, Inc. Plea of guilty.
Fine. $125. (F. D. C. No. 5562. Sample Nos. 16166-E, 39119-E, 39121-E to
39123-E, incl., 39125-E.)
On May 4, 1942, the United States attorney for the Southern District of Iowa
filed an information against Lapp Laboratories, Inc., Nevada, Iowa, alleging
shipment from on or about April 8 to September 17, 1940, from the State of Iowa
into the State of Missouri of quantities of the above-named products that were
misbranded.
Analysis of a sample of Mineralized Molactas Block showed that the product
consisted essentially of mineral salts, carbohydrates, small proportions of nitroge-
nous matter, and charcoal. It contained not more than 5.5 percent of crude
protein, not more than 37 percent of nitrogen-free extract, 8.6 percent of calcium
compounds calculated as calcium, 0.5 percent of phosphorus, and 6.8 percent of
salt. Based on this analysis it was alleged that the following statement in a
circular accompanying the product was false and misleading: "Nitrogen Free
Extract, not less than 63.0? * * * Potassium Iodide * * * Copper Sul-
phate * * * Calcium * * * 4.2? * * * Iodine * * * .04?, Salt
* * * not more than 2.5?." It was alleged to be further misbranded in that
the statements appearing on the circular regarding its efficacy in the cure, mitiga-
tion, treatment, or prevention of disease in animals were false and misleading,
since it would not be efficacious for such purposes. These representations and
suggestions were, in part, as follows: For keeping all livestock healthy, for wormy
hogs, as a preventive or control of intestinal parasites of hogs, as a preventive of
bloating of livestock, as an aid in the control of intestinal worms, as a source of
elements healing and soothing to the bruised intestine, and as efficacious in case
of necrotic enteritis due to nutritional deficiencies.
Analysis of a sample of Turk-A-Tox showed that it consisted essentially of
carbolic acid, gluconic acid, glycerine, and water. The article was alleged to be
misbranded in that the statements on the label: "Prophylactic For Turkeys
*?* * An aid in the control of Blackhead in turkeys," were false and mis-
leading since the article would not be effective for such purposes.
Analysis of a sample of Mineral Block showed that the product consisted essen-
tially of compounds of calcium, and smaller proportions of compounds of sodium,
Iron, phosphorus, carbonates, chlorides, and sulfates, and contained not more
than 26.1 percent of calcium oxide, equivalent to 18.6 percent of calcium and
not more than 0.6 percent of phosphorus. Based on this analysis the following
statements on the label were alleged to be false land misleading: "Calcium
Oxide   *   *   *   30?,   Calcium   *    *   *   not   more   than  25?,   Phosphorus,
*?* * not less than 4?, * * * Potassium Iodide, .05?." It was alleged
to be further misbranded in that the therapeutic claims made for the article
were false 'and misleading since the article was not effective for such purposes.
The representations and suggestions were in part as follows: That the article
would improve the appetite and finish of livestock, would increase production of
livestock, and the health of livestock; that it would be efficacious in the treatment
of various breeding diseases, would stimulate the secretion of the thyroid glands
and have a beneficial effect upon the nervous system of the animal, and would
have value to the blood.
Analysis of a sample of Murco Antiseptic Tablets showed that the tablets
contained calcium, sodium and zinc phenolsulfonates, citric acid, bichloride of
mercury 4.2 grains per tablet, and talc. It was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In
that statements in the carton and in the label represented and suggested that
the article would act as internal antiseptic, prevent or control disease, guard
against and reduce the chances of spreading disease, keep the flock healthy,
prevent bowel disorders such as indigestion, constipation, pasting up of the
vent, and similar troubles; that it would prevent the spread of colds and
bronchitis and roupy conditions; that it would be efficacious and beneficial in
healing the intestines of the birds after the flock had been wormed; and that the
articles would be efficacious in cases of coccidiosis, fowl typhoid, cholera, and
worming, were false and misleading since the article would not be efficacious
for such purposes. (2) In that its label failed to bear accurate statements of
the quantity of the contents in terms of weight and measure. (3) In that its
label did not bear a statement of the quantity or proportion of bichloride of
mercury which it contained.
Examination of a sample of Mineralized Molactas Block-Hog Brick with
Nicotinic Acid, showed that the product consisted essentially of mineral salts,
carbohydrates, nitrogenous matter, charcoal, and moisture, and contained not
more than 39 percent of nitrogen-free extract, not more than 0.8 percent of
phosphorus, not less than 9 percent of calcium, and not less than 7 percent
of salt. Based on this examination the following statements, borne on the
carton, were alleged to be false and misleading: "Analysis: * * * Nitrogen
Free   Extract,   not   less   than   63.0?.   Potassium   Iodide,    *    *   *   Calcium
*?* * 4.2?, Phosphorus * * * 1.4?, Iodine * * * .04?; Salt * * *
not more than 2.5?." It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the
statements appearing on the circular accompanying the article were false and
misleading since they represented and suggested that the article would be
efficacious for keeping all livestock healthy; for wormy hogs; for preventing or
controling intestinal parasites of hogs; as a preventive of bloating of livestock;
in the control of intestinal worms, and as a source of elements that are healing
and soothing to the bruised intestines, whereas the article would not be effective
for such purposes.
The Mineralized Molactas Block, Mineral Block, and Mineralized Molactas
Block with Nicotinic Acid were also misbranded as reported in notices of
judgment on foods.
On September 11, 1942, a plea of guilty having been entered to all counts
on behalf of the defendant, the court imposed a fine of $25 on each count; the
fines on the counts charging violation of the drug sections of the act amounting
to $125.