358. Misbranding of Alpine Tea.    U. S. v. 57 Packages of Alpine Tea.    Default
decree of condemnation and destruction.     (F. D. C. No. 3219.    Sample No.
26435-E.)
The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-
ing its efficacy in the conditions indicated below. The statement of analysis on
the label was misleading since it represented the analysis of the ash and not of
the tea itself.   Its label also failed to bear a statement of its common name.
On October 21, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of Oregon filed
a libel against 57 packages of Alpine Tea at Rainier, Oreg? alleging that the
article had been shipped in interstate commerce by the Alpine Tea Co. on or
about September 2, 1939, from Detroit, Mich.; and charging that it was mis-
branded.
Analysis showed that the article consisted of cut dried leaves of blueberry.
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that representations in the labeling
that it would be efficacious to balance the deficiency of body minerals; stimulate
the pancreatic glands, kidneys, bladder, and liver; increase vitality amazingly
and almost immediately, which increase would continue throughout the day;
would help one get a good night's rest; would serve as an effective aid to the
diabetic's diet, and would decrease the need for insulin; and that it was not only
efficacious for diabetics but was also good for other ailments such as those
of the liver, spleen, kidneys, bladder, and for stomach ulcers, were false and
misleading since it would not be efficacious for such purposes.
It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the following statements
in the labeling, (carton) "Analysis: Silica (Si03) 10.99?; Iron Oxide (Fe2Os)
1.90?; Manganese Oxide (MnaOO 5.10?; Aluminum Oxide (A1203) 11.38?;
Calcium Oxide (CaO) 21.84?; Magnesium Oxide (MgO) 7.27?; Sodium Na
(as Na20) 7.11?; Potassium K (as K20) 10.06?; Sulphate (SOs) 5.32?;
Phosphate (P205) 5.86?; Carbonate (600 10.17?; Chloride (CI) 2.00?; Free
Carbon, Charcoal, etc. 2.00?; Potassium calculated as carbonate 14.76?; Cop-
per, Tin, Lead, Arsenic, Mercury, None," were false and misleading since they
did not represent an analysis of the product itself. It was alleged to be mis-
branded further in that its label.failed to bear its common or usual name.
On November 17, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-
tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.