20876. Adulteration and Misbranding of Lav-O-Din. U. S. v. "Western 
Chemical Co., Inc. Flea of guilty. Fine, SIOO. (F. & D. no. 28071. 
I. S. nos. 13749, 21000, 25161.)
Examination of the drug preparation Lav-O-Din disclosed that it contained 
no ingredient or combination of ingredients capable of producing certain cura- 
tive and therapeutic effects claimed on the cartons and bottles. The labels in 
certain of the shipments contained representations that the article was an 
antiseptic and would destroy germs, whereas it was not an antiseptic and would 
not destroy germs when used as directed.
On September 28, 1932, the United States attorney for the District of Minne- 
sota, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district 
court .of the United States an information against the Western Chemical Co.,
^ Inc., a corporation trading at Hutchinson, Minn., alleging shipment by said 
defendant in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, as amended, on or about 
June 13, 1930, and March 25, 1931, from the State of Minnesota into the State 
of Iowa, and on or about December 9, 1930, from the State of Minnesota into 
the State of "Wisconsin, of quantities of Lav-O-Din that was adulterated and 
misbranded.
Analysis of a sample of the article by this Department showed that it con- 
sisted essentially of small proportions of potassium iodide, sodium chloride, 
carbonates, alcohol (7.8 percent by volume), and waterj flavored with cinna- 
mon oil.   Bacteriological examination showed that the article was not anti- 
aseptic.
Adulteration was charged in the information with respect to portions of the
article for the reason that its strength and purity fell below the professed
standard and quality under which it was sold, that it was represented to be an
antiseptic, and that it destroyed germs when used as directed; whereas it was
:not an antiseptic and would not destroy germs when used as directed.
Misbranding of the said portions was alleged for the reason that the state- 
ments, "Antiseptic ", " No Germ Can Live In It", and " Kills Germs ", borne 
on the cartons, were false and misleading.   Misbranding was alleged for the 
further reason that certain statements, designs, and devices appearing on the 
bottle and carton labels, regarding the curative and therapeutic effects of the 
article, falsely and fraudulently represented that a portion of the article was 
-effective as a treatment, remedy, and cure for wounds, cuts, boils, sore throat, 
tonsilitis, asthma, catarrh, hay fever, pyorrhea, eczema, spongy and bleeding 
gums, trench mouth, erysipelas, infections, abscesses, carbuncles, running sores, 
;burns, itching eczema, piles in all forms, quinsy and nasal catarrh; effective as 
.a dental treatment for pyorrhea and as a surgical dressing; effective as a 
preventive of pyorrhea  and effective to retard tooth decay;  and that the 
remainder  was effective  as  a  treatment,   remedy,  and  cure  for  pyorrhea, 
trench  mouth,   spongy  and  bleeding  gums,  infections,   wounds,  cuts,   boils, 
.abscesses, carbuncles, running sores, burns, erysipelas,  itching eczema, piles
k.in all forms, sore throat, tonsillitis, quinsy and nasal catarrh, and effective as
:a surgical dressing.
On September 28, 1932, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on 
behalf of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $100. j
R. G. TUGWELL, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.