17648. Adulteration and Misbranding of Vogue antiseptic powder. U. S. 
v. 24 Boxes of Vogue Antiseptic Powder. Default decree of con- 
demnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (F. & D. No. 24868. I. S. 
No. 033876.    S. No. 3203.)
An examination of samples of a drug product known as Vogue antiseptic 
powder from the herein described interstate shipment, having shown that the 
article was not antiseptic in the dilutions recommended, and that it did not 
conform to the National Formulary, and that the labels bore claims of curative 
properties that the article did not possess, the Secretary of Agriculture reported 
the matter to the United States attorney for the Southern District of Ohio.
On July 3, 1930, the said United States attorney filed in the District Court 
of the United States for the district aforesaid a libel praying seizure and con- 
demnation of 24 boxes of Vogue antiseptic powder at Columbus, Ohio, con- 
signed by the Muir Co., Grand Rapids, Mich., alleging that the article had been 
shipped from Grand Rapids, Mich., on or about May 19, 1930, and had been 
transported from the State of Michigan into the State of Ohio, and charging 
adulteration and misbranding in violation of the food and drugs act as 
amended.
Analysis of a sample of the article by this department showed that it con- 
sisted essentially of potassium alum, sodium borate, zinc sulphate, salicylic 
acid, and small amounts of phenol, thymol, and eucalyptol. Bacteriological 
examination showed that the article was not antiseptic in the dilutions 
recommended.
It was alleged in the libel that the article was adulterated in that it was 
sold under a name recognized in the National Formulary, to wit, antiseptic 
powder, and differed from the official standard of strength, quality, or purity 
set up therein. Adulteration was alleged for the further reason that the 
article was sold under the following standard of strength, "Antiseptic * * * 
Germicide * * * two to three teaspoonfuls in a pint of water * * * 
one teaspoonful to a pint of water," whereas the strength of the said article 
fell below such professed standard in that it was not antiseptic or germicidal 
in the dilutions recommended.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the following statements borne 
on the label, "Antiseptic * * * Germicide * * * It is powerful and 
trustworthy * * * two or three teaspoonfuls in a pint of water * * * 
one teaspoon to a pint of water," were false and misleading when applied to 
an article which was not germicidal or antiseptic in the dilutions thus recom- 
mended for use. Misbranding'was alleged for the further reason that the 
following statements regarding the curative and therapeutic effects of the
article were false and fraudulent, since it contained no ingredient or combi- 
nation of ingredients capable of producing the effects claimed: " Valuable aid 
in the treatment of sores, cuts, wounds, abscesses and catarrhal condition of 
the vaginal mucous membrane. It is a healing * * * Germicide * * * 
It is recommended for douching in the treatment of nasal catarrh, * * * 
and hay fever. As a gargle in tonsillitis, diphtheria and other forms of sore 
throat. It is especially efficient for injection in the treatment of genito-urinary 
affections in men and for leucorrhoea and uterine affections in women. Used 
also effectively as a lotion for skin affections, * * * For * * * exces- 
sive leucorrhoeal discharge, itching, * * * and inflammation, * * * In 
severe cases, use freely several times a day. For ulcers, cuts, sores and wounds, 
bathe freely with solution, * * * For Piles, either itching or protruding 
*    *    *   For Sore Throat."
On September 26, 1930, no claimant having appeared for the property, judg- 
ment of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered by the 
court that the product be destroyed by the United States marshal.
ABTHTJB M. HYDE, Secretary of Agriculture.