2187. Misbranding: of Corn King: Udder Ointment, Dr. Clark's Udder Salve, Shores
Kre-O-Col, and Shores Mul-Ene. U. S. v. Barlow, Wright & Shores, Inc.
Plea of gnilty. Fine, $500 and costs. (F. D. C. No. 21434. Sample Nos.
16448-H, 51047-H, 51054-H, 51055-H.)
INFORMATION FILED : August 18,1947, Northern District of Iowa, against Barlow,
Wright & Shores, Inc., Cedar Rapids, Iowa.
ALLEGED SHIPMENT : On or about June 8,1945, and January 14 and February 9,
1946, from the State of Iowa into the States of Illinois, South Dakota, and
Minnesota.
PRODUCT: Analyses disclosed that the Corn King Udder Ointment was a red
opaque salve containing carbolic acid, methyl salicylate, and oil of eucalyptus
in an ointment base; that the Dr. Clark's Udder Salve was a red opaque salve
containing similar ingredients; that the Shores Kre-O-Col was a reddish-brown
fluid containing guaiacol, oil of eucalyptus, creosote, oil of camphor, isopropyl
alcohol, and water; and that the Shores Mul-Ene was a green-blue fluid con-
taining zinc phenolsulfonate, manganese sulfate, ammonium phenolsulfonate,
ferrous phenolsulfonate, copper phenolsulfonate, copper sulfate, and water.
NATURE OF CHARGE: Corn King Udder Omtment and Dr. Clark's Udder Salve.
Misbranding, Section 502 (a), certain statements on the label of the article were
false and misleading in that they represented and suggested that the article
would be an adequate treatment for mastitis.   The article would not be an
adequate treatment for mastitis.
Shores Kre-O-Col. Misbranding, Section 502 (a), certain statements on the
label of the article and in a booklet entitled "Business Building Manual for
Poultry Dealers" accompanying the article were false and misleading since
they represented and suggested that the article when used as directed would
be effective as an aid in relieving mucous accumulations of the nose and throat
in poultry; that it would be efficacious in the cure, mitigation, and treatment
of colds and bronchitis in poultry and respiratory irritations in poultry due
to colds; and that it would aid in relieving bronchial and nasal irritations in
poultry arising from colds.   The article would not be effective for such purposes.
Shores Mul-Ene. Misbranding, Section 502 (a), certain statements on the
label of the article and in the above-named booklet accompanying the article
were false and misleading since they represented and suggested that the article
would be capable of producing an astringent effect upon the intestinal mucous
membranes of poultry, and that it would be effective in the prevention and
treatment of coccidiosis in poultry. The article would not be capable of pro-
ducing such astringent effect, and it would not be effective in the prevention
and treatment of coccidiosis in poultry.
DISPOSITION : August 18, 1947. A plea of guilty having been entered, the court
imposed a fine of $125, plus costs, on each of the 4 counts of the information.