340. Misbranding of Frn-Lax.    U. S. v. 3 Cans and 20 Cans of Fru-Lax.    Default
decree of condemnation and destruction.    (F. D. C. No. 2436.    Sample No.
30048-E.)
The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-
ing its efficacy in the treatment of the conditions indicated hereinafter and
failed to bear the names of the active ingredients and adequate directions for
use, and such adequate warnings as are necessary for the protection of users.
On July 29, 1940, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin filed a libel (amended August 16, 1940) against 3 3-ounce cans and
20 12-ounce cans of Fru-Lax at Racine, Wis., alleging that the article had been
shipped in interstate commerce on or about April 8 and July 9, 1940, by the
Fru-Lax Co. from Chicago, 111.; and charging that it was misbranded.
Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of purging cassia tissues,
senna-leaf tissues, and carob-bean tissues.
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that representations in the label-
ing that it was not habit-forming; that it would restore and enable one to regain
health; would relieve ailments caused by poisons absorbed from the bowels; that
it was efficacious in the treatment of rheumatism, neuritis, stomach trouble,
gall-bladder trouble, headaches, catarrh, skin trouble, excessive gas, colds, piles,
high blood pressure; that it was of value in reducing; was an ideal neutralizes
would help make the body disease-proof; and that it possessed the rejuvenating
and restorative properties implied in the statements "Return to Nature * * *
Don't feel 'old at 40'," were false and misleading since the use of the article
might result in the laxative habit, and it would not be efficacious for the pur-
poses for which it was so recommended. It was alleged to be misbranded fur-
ther in that the label did not bear the common or usual names of the active
ingredients; in that the label did not bear adequate directions for use; and in
that the label did not bear such adequate warnings against use in those patho-
logical conditions or by children where its use might be dangerous to health, or
against unsafe dosage or methods or duration of administration in such manner
and form as are necessary for the protection of users.
On October 23, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-
tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.