777. Alleged misbranding of Armi Mineral Water.    U. S. v. Ralph R. Markwood
(Arm!   Mineral   Water   Co.).     Demurrer   to   the   information   sustained.
Case ordered dismissed.     (F. D. C. No. 4114.    Sample Nos. 5790-E, 27566-E.)
On June 24, 1941, the United States attorney for the Northern District of
Ohio filed an information against Ralph R. Markwood, trading  as the Armi
5 See also Nos. 754, 757, 759, 765, 766, 772, 774.
August 15, 1940, from the State of Ohio into the State of Indiana of quantities
of Armi Mineral Water which was misbranded.
Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it contained only traces of, if
any, potassium diphosphate, manganese chloride, magnesium phosphate, po-
tassium chloride, calcium phosphate, sodium phosphate, potassium iodide, ferric
phosphate, or lithium bromide, and not more than 0.15 grain of silicon dioxide
per quart (an insignificant quantity present in many city water supplies), and
substantial amounts of sodium sulfate and lime.
It was alleged in the information that the article was misbranded: (1) In that
the statements on the jug label, "Minerals Added Potassium Diphosphate Man-
ganese Chloride Calcium Hydroxide Magnesium Phosphate Potassium Chlo-
ride Calcium Phosphate Sodium Phosphate Potassium Iodide Silicon Dioxide
Sodium Sulphate Ferric Phosphate Lithium Bromide" were false and mis-
leading aince they represented that it contained important and substantial
proportions of each one of the said substances; whereas it contained but in-
consequential and unimportant proportions of, if any, potassium diphosphate,
manganese chloride, magnesium phosphate, potassium chloride, calcium phos-
phate, sodium phosphate, potassium iodide, ferric phosphate, and lithium bro-
mide. (2) In that its label did not bear the common or usual name of each
active ingredient since one of its active ingredients was slaked lime, which
was described on the label as calcium hydroxide, which is not its common or
usual name. (3) In that the statement of the ingredients was not borne on
the label in such terms as to render it likely to be understood by the ordinary
individual under customary conditions of purchase and use since the ordinary
individual would not understand that the various ingredients listed in the
labeling, with the exception of lime and sodium sulfate, were present, if at all,
in unimportant and inconsequential proportions. (4) In that the labeling was
misleading since the zigzag design depicting lightning and the statement
"Treated By Electrolysis," failed to reveal the fact which is material in
the light of the representations made and suggested by the design and state-
ment, that any treatment by electrolysis to which the article may have been
subjected had not affected its properties. (5) In that the statement on the
label, "Scientifically Balanced," was false and misleading when applied to
water to which had been added small amounts of lime and sodium sulfate and
inconsequential amounts of other substances.
On April 2, 1942, the defendant filed a general demurrer to the information;
and on June 5, 1942, the court sustained the demurrer and ordered the case
dismissed.