728. Misbranding of Gid Granules.    U. S. v. Eberly-Williams Manufacturing Co.
and   Lawrence   M.   Williams.     Pleas  of  guilty.     Fine,  $250  and  costs.
(F. D. C. No. 5534.    Sample Nos. 36782-E, 36783-E.)
The labeling of a portion of Gid Granules No. 1 (in sample enevelopes) failed
to bear adequate directions for use and was objectionable in other respects as
indicated hereinafter. That of the remainder, in addition to bearing false and
misleading curative claims, falsely represented that it was not a laxative drug.
On February 27, 1942, the United States attorney for the Northern District
of Illinois filed an information against the Eberly-Williams Manufacturing Co.,
a corporation, Chicago, 111., and Lawrence M. Williams, alleging shipment with-
in the period from on or about April 9 to on or about April 17, 1941, from the
State of Illinois into the State of Massachusetts of quantities of Gid Granules
No. 1 and Gid Granules No. 2, and a number of sample envelopes containing Gid
Granules No. 1, which were misbranded.
Analyses showed that Gid Granules No. 1 consisted essentially of the muci-
laginous portion of psyllium seed, karaya gum, sodium bicarbonate, calcium car-
bonate, and sugar; and that Gid Granules No. 2 consisted essentially of the
mucilaginous portion of psyllium seed, karaya gum, yeast, and sugar.
Both articles were alleged to be misbranded in that the statements on the
packages and cartons, (No. 1) "are scientifically prepared to be of effective
value in the treatment of minor irritations and inflammations of the stomach
and upper intestines" and (No. 2) "are scientifically prepared to be of effec-
tive value in the treatment of minor irritations and inflammations of the
lower intestine and colon, and in spastic * * * constipation," and those
in an accompanying circular, were false and misleading since they represented
that the articles would be efficacious in the treatment of minor irritations and
inflammations of the lower intestine and colon and in spastic constipation;
that they were appropriate and effective treatments for stomach troubles, in-
testinal disorders, indigestion, diarrhea, sore stomach, bad breath, gnawing
pains, gas pains, dyspepsia, biliousness, headaches, sleeplessness, intestinal stasis,
auto-intoxication, colitis, colonic irritation, liver and gall deficiencies (not due
to infection), intestinal trouble, lesions, stasis, toxemia, putrefaction, flatulence,
stomach ulcer, or tuberculosis or cancer of the gastric tract, sore and lacerated
ulcers of the upper parts of the gastric tract, the stomach, duodenum, jejunum,
small intestine, troubles located in the lower intestines, cecum, ascending and
transverse colon, sigmoid, and rectum; whereas they would not be efficacious for
such purposes.
They were alleged to be misbranded further in that the statements "Gid, a
mucinoid from cereal * * * it is significant that Gid supplies elements that
Nature intended to be in man's natural food, but which have been largely lost
in the refinement of food processing, Gid is for that reason essentially a food
supplement. Certainly it is not a drug or a medicine in the ordinary sense of
the word, * * * this * * * food supplement. Gid is not a laxative or
cathartic. It has little or no such action. Its help is altogether different.
Those who have had to depend on drug or oil laxatives will find Gid a delightful
comfort," appearing in the labeling, were false and misleading since the articles
were not prepared from a cereal, would not supply elements that nature intended
to be in man's natural food but which had been largely lost in the refinement
of food processing, they were not food supplements but were drugs in the
ordinary sense of the word, and were laxative or cathartic drugs.
The article contained in the sample envelopes was alleged to be misbranded
further (1) in that it was in package form and did not bear a label containing
the name and place of business of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor, nor
a statement of the quantity of the contents; (2) in that it was fabricated from
two or more ingredients and its label did not bear the common or usual name of
each active ingredient; and (3) in that its labeling did not bear adequate direc-
tions for use, since the envelopes bore no directions at all.
On March 3, 1942, pleas of guilty having been entered on behalf of the defend-
ants, the court imposed a fine of $250 and costs, which was applicable to both
defendants.