444. Misbranding of Gly-Cas.     V. S. v. 258 Cartons of Gly-Cas.     Default decree of
condemnation.     Product destroyed.     (F. D. C. No. 3647.    Sample No. 8978-E.)
The labeling of this product, in addition to failure to bear the warning state-
ment required in the labeling of laxative preparations, also bore false and
misleading therapeutic and other claims, and it failed to indicate which of
the ingredients was the active ingredient.
On January 17, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of South
Dakota filed a libel against 258 cartons of Gly-Cas at Sioux Falls, S. Dak.,
alleging that the article had been shipped on or about November 25, 1940, by
the Gly-Cas Medicine Co. from Muncie, Ind.; and charging that it was mis-
branded.
Analysis of a sample of the article, which was in capsule form, showed that
each capsule contained approximately 4.3 grains of drugs from plant sources
including aloe and a small proportion of glycerin.
The article was alleged to be misbranded ifi that the labeling failed to bear
such adequate warnings against unsafe dosage or methods or duration of ad-
ministration in such manner and form as are necessary for the protection of
users in that it did not inform the purchaser that continual or frequent use
of the article might result in dependence upon laxatives to move the bowels.
It was alleged to be misbranded further in that representations in the labeling
that its use would put one "in Step with Health"; that it would be efficacious
in the treatment of those who suffer with muscular aches and pains, poor
digestion, soured, gassy feeling after eating, bloated stomach; night risings,
backaches; dizzy spells, headaches, nervousness or poor sle"ep kindred to faulty
bowel elimination, frequent bladder action, loss of pep and energy, inability
to work, and restlessness; and that it had proved effective in many cases where
other medicines tried before had failed to give satisfactory results, were false
and misleading since it would not be efficacious for such purposes. It was
alleged to be misbranded further in that the statement in the circular "Contains
No * * * Harmful Drugs," was false and misleading since the article
was capable of causing harm; in that the statement that the article was a
product of over 25 years of practical experience of a well-known pharmacist
was false a*nd misleading since it was essentially a preparation of aloe, a drug
whose properties had been known for centuries; and in that its label failed
to bear the common or usual name of the active ingredient in that the statement
on the carton, "Compound of Cinnamon, Aloe, Glycerin and Licorice," did not
indicate what was really its active ingredient.
On February 17, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-
tion was entered; and on February 25, 1941, the product was destroyed.