23025.  Misbranding of Chlorine Respirine.    U. S. v. 156 Tubes of Chlorine 
Respirine.       Default    decree    of    condemnation,    forfeiture,    and 
destruction.     (F. & D. no. 33137.    Sample no. 6403-B.)
This case involved a product labeled to convey the impression that it con- 
tained chlorine in an appreciable amount. Analysis showed that it contained 
but a mere trace of chlorine. The labels also bore unwarranted curative and 
therapeutic claims.
On July 30, 1934, the United States attorney for the Southern District of 
New York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the 
district court a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 156 tubes of Chlorine 
Respirine at New York, N. Y., alleging that the article had been shipped in 
interstate commerce, on or about March 17, 1934, by James Baily & Son, from 
Baltimore, Md., and charging misbranding in violation of the Food and Drugs 
Act as amended. The article was labeled in part: " Chlorine Respirine 
*    *    *    Chlorine Respirine Company, Chicago, Indianapolis."
Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of a calcium compound, 
chlorides, and a trace of chlorine incorporated in petrolatum.
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the word " Chlorine" in 
the trade name, and the statements (small carton) "Chlorine Respirine 
liberates pure Chlorine gas", (circular accompanying package) "Liberates 
free Chlorine * * * containing chlorine gas * * * The Chlorine 
Products Company has been testing various means of producing chlorine for 
this treatment in a convenient and safe form so that everybody may have this
treatment without going to hospitals or other expensive places where special 
equipment is used. We now offer to you Respirine in an ointment base which 
when applied as a cream to the entrance of each nostril will liberate the 
chlorine gas", and (tube) "Liberates Free Chlorine", were false and mislead- 
ing, since the article contained but a mere trace of chlorine. Misbranding was 
alleged for the further reason that certain statements on the cartons, tubes, 
and in the circulars, regarding the curative or therapeutic effects of the article, 
falsely and fraudulently represented that it was effective as a chlorine treat- 
ment; and effective as a treatment for bronchitis, laryngitis, whooping cough, 
influenza, colds and their complications, coryza, pharyngitis, and all respiratory 
infections where the infective organism is on the surface of the mucous mem- 
brane; and effective in the prevention of surface respiratory infections.
On August 16, 1934, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna- 
tion and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered that the product be de- 
stroyed.
M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.