729. Misbranding of fiferlek Mineral Water.    U. S. v. Michael Lee   (Lee Bros.).
Pica of nolo contendere.    Fine, $1,000.    Defendant placed on probation
for 5 years.    (F. D. C. No. 5527.    Sample No. 7399-E.)
This product consisted of sea water to which had been added a small amount
of potassium iodide. Its labeling bore false and misleading claims regarding
its mineral content and its efficacy in conditions of impaired health resulting
from mineral deficiency.
On January 3, 1942, the United States attorney for the Northern District of
California filed an information against Michael Lee, trading as Lee Bros., Oak-
land, Calif., alleging shipment on or about May 18, 1940, from the State of
California into the State of Arizona of a quantity of Merlek which was
misbranded.
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, "Contains
Parts Per Million (Approximate Analysis) Sodium & Potassium Chlorides:
28924.7 Magnesium Chloride: 3286.9 Magnesium Sulphate: 3106.7 Calcium Sul-
phate : 857.3 Calcium Chloride: 573.0 * * * Magnesium Bromide: 76.0 Alka-
line Nitrates: 42.5 Traces of Phosphorus, Boron, Silica, Sodium Fluoride, Iron
Oxide, Aluminum Oxide * * * Merlek is sold only to help supply minerals
for mineral deficiency," borne on the label, were false and misleading since they
represented and suggested that it contained the above-named minerals in
amounts sufficient to contribute in an important respect to the requirements of
the body for such minerals, and that it would be efficacious in conditions of
impaired health resulting from deficiency of said minerals; whereas it would
not contribute in an important respect to the requirements of the body for
such minerals since it contained inconsequential amounts of minerals and would
not be efficacious in conditions of impaired health resulting from deficiency of
such minerals. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that its labeling
was misleading since it failed to reveal the fact, material in the light of tluo
representations in the labeling, that it consisted of sea water to which had been
added a small amount of potasshim iodide.
The article was also alleged to be misbranded under the provisions of the
law applicable to foods, as reported in F. N. J. No. 3839.
On June 9,1942, the defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere and the court
imposed a fine of $1,000 and placed the defendant on probation for 5 years.