342. Misbranding: of  Slendotabs.     V. S. v. 80 Packages of Slendotabs.    Default /
decree of condemnation and destruction.    (F. D. C. No. 2532.    Sample No. (
16769-E.) 
The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-
ing its efficacy in the conditions indicated hereinafter. The article contained
strychnine, which fact was not declared on the label. Its labeling also failed
to bear adequate directions for use and such adequate warnings as are neces-
sary for the protection of users.
On or about August 16, 1940, the United States attorney for the "Western
District of Missouri filed a libel against 80 packages of Slendotabs at Kansas
City, Mo., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on
or about May 18, 1940, by Keneco Products from Elmira, N. Y.; and charging
that it was misbranded.
Analysis showed that each tablet of the article contained approximately V-
grain of phenolphthalein, a resinous drug such as leptandra resin, compounds
of iodine equivalent to 0.088 grain of iodine per tablet, and alkaloidal material
including strychnine.
The article was alleged to be misbranded (1> in that its labeling repre-
sented that it would be efficacious in reducing excessive fat, that it was a
scientifically balanced weight reduction method, and would help eliminate waste
matter and accumulated poisons from the body, which representations were
false and misleading since the article would not constitute an adequate or
appropriate treatment for such purposes; (2) in that the labeling was mislead-
ing in that it failed to reveal that the article contained strychnine, a material
fact in the light of the statement on the carton that the active ingredients were
phenolphthalein, calcium iodized, and leptandrin. It was alleged to be mis-
branded further in that its label failed to bear a statement of the presence of
and quantity of strychnine contained therein; in that its labeling failed to
bear adequate directions for use, since the directions on the carton, "Take one
or two tablets immediately before each meal, three times a day. For best
results, take tablets regularly and faithfully, as directed. As these tablets
are laxative, not more than six tablets should be taken in 24 hours," and the
directions in the leaflet were not appropriate for an article of such composition
and was therefore inadequate. It was alleged to be misbranded further in
that the labeling failed to bear adequate warnings against use in those patho-
logical conditions where its use might be dangerous to health and against unsafe
dosage or methods or duration of administration in such manner and form
as are necessary for the protection of users, since the labeling did not inform
the purchaser of the danger involved in the use of the article in cases of
appendicitis, nor did it warn that frequent or continued use might result in
dependence upon laxatives, nor did the label reveal the fact the the use of
the article might result in skin eruptions.
On October 23,1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation
was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.