488. Misbranding of Neffs Glan-Tex Tonic.     U. S. v. George G. Neff (Prostex Co.).
Plea  of   nolo   contendere.     Judgment  of guilty.     Fine,  $250  and  costs.
(P. D. C. No. 2883. Sample Nos. 16614-B, 16622-B.)
On March 22, 1941, the United States attorney for the Northern District of
Oklahoma filed an information against George G. Neff, trading as the Prostex
Co., Miami, Okla., alleging shipment on or about March 22 and April 1, 1940,
from the State of Oklahoma into the State of Missouri, of quantities of Neffs
Glan-Tex Tonic which was misbranded. The article was labeled in part: "Neff's
Glan-Tex Tonic   *    *    *   Prostex Co.   Miami, Okla."
Analysis showed that it consisted essentially of magnesium sulfate, small pro-
portions of ammonium alum, a mineral acid such as sulfuric acid, minute propor-
tions of quinine, compounds of potassium and iron, and a nitrate in water.
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the name "Glan-Tex-Tonic,"
the word "Prostex" in the firm name, which appeared in the labeling, and certain
statements in an accompanying circular were false and misleading since they
represented that it was a gland tonic; that it would be efficacious in the treatment
of prostate gland cases and kindred ailments of kidneys, bladder and urinary
tract, colitis, dropsy,, rheumatism, and infected internal organs; that it would
be efficacious in the treatment of acute cases of suffering from prostatitis, irri-
tated bladder disorders, and kindred ailments; that it would be beneficial in
kidney disorders and dropsy, and would reduce the prostate gland and eliminate
infection; that it would reduce enlarged glands, inflammation and swollen pros-
tate glands in most cases; that it would be efficacious for the relief of pains and
discomfort caused by prostatitis, cystitis (bladder trouble), urethritis, difficulty
in urination, dribbling, getting up nights, congested and irritated condition of
the prostate gland and urinary tract; that it would be efficacious for the relief
of rheumatism, neuralgia, and pain occasioned by acute or chronic irritation and
congestion; that it would be valuable as an antiseptic; and that it contained
internal antiseptics; whereas it was not a gland tonic and it would not be
efficacious for the purposes for which it was so recommended.
On December 8, 1941, a plea of nolo contendere having been entered, the court
found the defendant guilty and imposed a fine of $250 on count I of the informa-
tion, together with costs, and placed the defendant qn probation for 1 year on
count II.