30884. Misbranding of Peranol. U. S. v. Six Bottles of Peranol and Nine Pack- 
ages of Peranol with Special Medicator. Default decrees of condemna- 
tion and destruction. (F. & D. Nos. 44679, 44680. Sample Nos. 58805-D, 
58806-D.)
This product consisted of a medicament for use as a nasal spray, one lot of 
which was accompanied by a vaporizer. Its labeling bore false and fraudulent 
curative and therapeutic claims and it also failed to bear a statement of the 
quantity or proportion of alcohol contained in the article.
On January 19, 1939, the United States attorney for the Southern District of 
Indiana, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the dis- 
trict court libels praying seizure and condemnation of six bottles of Peranol and 
nine packages of Peranol with Special Medicator at Indianapolis, Ind.; alleging 
that the articles had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about September 
18 and November 26, 1938, by Peranol Products from Chicago, Ill.; and charging 
misbranding in violation of the Food and Drugs Act as amended.
Analysis of the article showed that it consisted of a mixture of volatile oils 
including eucalyptus oil, camphor, and menthol, and approximately 21 percent 
of alcohol.
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the package or bottle failed 
to bear on its label a statement of the quantity or proportion of alcohol con- 
tained in the article.
It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the statements appearing in 
the circular accompanying it, "Peranol was developed and is intended as an ap- 
plication for the nasal cavities ... If faithfully used as directed it should 
not only aid in the alleviation of congestion, irritation and discomfort, such as are 
commonly associated with . . . hay fever, nasal catarrh and rose fever, but 
also assist nature in warding off and resisting the development of such condi- 
tions," were statements regarding its curative and therapeutic effects and were 
false and fraudulent.
The vaporizing device accompanying one of the lots was charged to be mis- 
branded in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as reported 
in notices of judgment on drugs and devices published under that act.
On April 7, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgments of condemnation 
were entered and the products were ordered destroyed.
M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.