1187. Misbranding of Himrod's Asthma Powder.    U. S. v. 19 Dozen Packages of
Himrod's Asthma Powder. Consent decree of condemnation. Product
ordered released under bond.     (F. D. C. No. 6536.    Sample No. 74166-B.)
On December 18, 1941, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of
New York filed a libel against 19 dozen packages of the above-named product at
Brooklyn, N. T.', alleging that the article had been shipped from Hoboken, N. J.,
by the Himrod Manufacturing Co. on or about October 8 and November 14, 1941;
and charging that it was misbranded. On December 9,, 1942, an amended libel
was filed in clarification of the charge of misbranding.
Examination disclosed that the article consisted essentially of a mixture of
stramonium and potassium nitrate.
The article was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that the designation "Him-
rod's Asthma Powder," appearing upon the carton, the metal container, and the
booklet enclosed in the package, was false and misleading since it created the
impression that the article was a treatment for asthma, whereas the article was
not a treatment for asthma but was merely a temporary palliative for the acute
temporary manifestations of that disease; (2) in that the statement in the labeling
of the article, "To relieve the paroxysms of Asthma and Asthmatic Hay Fever,"
was false and misleading since it represented and suggested that the article
would relieve the paroxysms of asthmatic hay fever, whereas it would not relieve
such paroxysms; and, since the words "Asthma" and "Hay Fever" were given
much greater prominence than were the words "To relieve the paroxysms of,"
the impression was created that the article was a treatment for asthma and hay
fever, whereas it was not; and (3) in that certain statements appearing in its
labeling which created the impression that the article would accomplish more
than a temporary relief of the spasms of bronchial asthma, and that the use of
the article would result in decreasing the severity and frequency of such spasms,
causing their ultimate disappearance, were false and misleading since the article
would not accomplish such results.
On January 31, 1944, the Himrod Manufacturing Co., claimant, having filed an
answer denying the misbranding of the product, and later having withdrawn its
answer and consented to the entry of a decree, judgment of condemnation was
entered and the product was ordered released under bond to be brought into
compliance with the law under the supervision of an employee designated by the
Federal Security Administrator.