619. Misbranding of Vinco Herb Tablets.    tJ. S. v. 208 Small Boxes and 22 Large
Boxes of Vinco Herb Tablets.    Default decree o* condemnation and de-
struction.     (F. D. C. No. 5202.    Sample Nos. 42425-E*, 42426-E.)
The labeling of this product failed to bear adequate directions for use and
such adequate warnings as are necessary for the protection of users and also
bore false and misleading curative and therapeutic claims. Both sizes of pack-
ages were substantially larger than was necessary to hold the contents. The?(
labeling of the small packages failed to bear certain mandatory labeling state-
ments in such manner that they might be read and understood under ordinary?V
conditions of purchase and use.
On July 22, 1941, the United States attorney for the Western District of
Pennsylvania filed a libel against the above-named product at Pittsburgh, Pa.;
alleging that the article had been shipped on or about October 28, 1940, by the
Vinco Herb Co. from Dayton, Ohio; and charging that it was misbranded.
Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of aloe and extracts
of plant drugs including capsicum and an emodin-bearing drug. The tablets in
the small packages occupied 26 percent of their capacity and the tablets in
the large packages occupied 42? percent of their capacity.
The article in both sized packages was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that
the labeling failed to bear adequate directions for use since the directions
provided for taking the tablets over a period of 10 days, whereas a laxative
should be taken only occasionally; (2) in that the labeling failed to bear
adequate warnings against use by young children where its use might be dan-
gerous to health or against unsafe dosage or duration of administration as
are necessary for the protection of users since the product was essentially a
laxative and there was no warning that frequent or continued use might re-
sult in dependence on laxatives; (3) in that statements in the labeling repre-
senting that it was an appropriate treatment for coated tongue, flatulence,
sour stomach, simple headache, acid indigestion, listlessness, lazy feeling, bad
breath, sluggishness, dull eyes, and sallow skin and that it would make life
happy and enjoyable and would provide a clean, healthy condition of the
mind and body, were false and misleading since it was a laxative and the
various disease conditions for which it was recommended may be due to
causes other than constipation; and (4) in that its containers were so made,
formed, or filled as to be misleading.
The product in the small packages was alleged to be misbranded further
(1) in that the name and address of the manufacturer, the declaration of
the quantity cf the contents, and the statement of the ingredients required by
or under authority of law to appear on the labeling were not placed on the
label with such conspicuousness and in such terms as to make them likely to
be read by the ordinary individual under customary conditions of purchase and
use since all these statements appeared on the bottom of the box; and (2) in
that certain statements appeared in several foreign languages upon the box
and certain statements and other information required by or under authority
of law did not appear on the box in these foreign languages.
On August 22, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation
was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.