1995. Misbranding: of Flick.    U. S. v. 81 Bottles of Flick.    Default decree of con
demnation and destruction.     (F. D.  C. No. 20240.    Sample No.  52945-H.)
LIBEL FILED:   June 10,1946, Southern District of Ohio.
ALLEGED SHIPMENT : On or about March 19, 26, and 27, 1946, by the Garden
Products Co., from St. Louis, Mo.
PRODUCT : 45 3-ounce and 36 6-ounce bottles of Flick at Cincinnati, Ohio.
Analysis showed that the product consisted essentially of a suspension of a
small amount of rotenone in a mixture of pine oil and sulfonated oils.
LABEL, IN PABT :    "Flick Hygienic Dip For Dogs."
NATURE OF CHARGE: Misbranding, Section 502(a), the following statements on
the bottle label were false and misleading: "Relieves Eczema, Mange, Sores,
Itching, Scratches and Skin Irritations Removes 'Doggy Odor' Produces a
glossy coat. Keeps skin healthy. * * * highly efficient for maintaining dog
health * * * Harmless to the skin * * * Eczema, Mange, Sores, itch-
ing and other skin irritations are relieved by applying Flick full strength on
?See also Nos. 1963,1966.
and around sores and scratches.    *    *    *   Whether your dog is infested or
not a Flick treatment after every bath will keep his skin healthy and his coat    f
beautiful."   The product would not be effective for the purposes claimed, and   \
it might be harmful to the skin of dogs.
DISPOSITION :    July 24, 1946.   No claimant having appeared, judgment of con-
demnation was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.