828. Misbranding of Bafaline Dental Cream and Bafaline Tablets.    U. S. v. The
Bafallne Laboratories, Inc.    Plea of nolo contendere.    Fine, $30 on each
of 4 counts.    Payment suspended on all counts but the. first.    (F. D. C.
No. 6450.   Sample Nos. 36272-E, 36273-E, 51554-E, 51555-E.)
On May 13,1942, the United States attorney for the District of .NjwJgEannoshire
filed an information against the Bafaline Laboratories, Inc., Manchester, NTEET
alleging shipment on or
' about January 7 and July 18, 1941, from the State of
New Hampshire into the State ofMajsjchujetts of quantities of Bafaline Dental
Cream and Bafaline Tablets wincTH^emisbranded.
Analyses of samples of the dental cream showed that it consisted essentially
of calcium carbonate,, magnesium compounds, soap, sodium borate, sodium ben-
zoate, saccharin, and glycerin, flavored with oils of peppermint and spearmint.
It was alleged to be misbranded in that statements in the labeling which rep-
resented that it would be efficacious to prevent the formation of tartar and
would keep the gums healthy and in a hygienic condition were false and mis-
leading since it would not be efficacious for such purposes.
Analysis of the Bafaline Tablets showed that they consisted essentially of
acetylsalicylic acid and caffeine, with indications of the presence of gelsemium.
One shipment of the tablets was alleged to be misbranded in that the state-
ments in the labeling which represented and suggested that they would be
efficacious for the relief of all pain, for the relief of colds, and for the relief of
discomfort resulting from migraine, earache, neuritis, and rheumatic: .pains;
would act as a restorative on the nervous system after overindulgence; and
would produce unexcelled results in quieting racked nerves and upset nervous
stomach and all other symptoms that go with the "morning after," were false
and misleading since the article would not be efficacious for such purposes.
The tablets in the remaining shipment were alleged to be misbranded in that the
statements in the labeling that they would stop all pain, would be efficacious
in the cure, mitigation, treatment, prevention, or relief of migraine, earache,
neuritis, and rheumatic pains, and would be efficacious in .the treatment or
prevention of prolonged and severe pain and colds, were false and misleading
since they would not be efficacious for such purposes. Both lots of tablets
were alleged to be misbranded further in that they were fabricated from two
or more ingredients and their labeling did not bear the common or usual name
of each active ingredient.
On July 17,1942, a plea of nolo contendere was entered on behalf of the defend-
ant and the court imposed a fine of $30 on each of the 4 counts but suspended
payment on each count but the first, on condition that the defendant not be
convicted of subsequent violation of the law.