1355. Misbranding of Pal-Pinto Minerals. TJ. S. v. Texas Carlsbad Water Co.
Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $100. (F. D. C. No. 11328. Sample No.
8900-F.)
On March 17, 1944, the United States attorney for the Northern District of
Texas filed an information against the Texas Carlsbad Water Co., a corporation,
at Dallas, Tex., alleging shipment of a quantity of the above-named product on
or about May 7,1943, from the State of Texas into the State of Mississippi.
Analysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of sodium
sulfate and sodium chloride with small proportions of magnesium sulfate and
potassium chloride.
The article was alleged to be misbranded because of false and misleading state-
ments in an accompanying circular entitled "Pal-Pinto Minerals," which repre-
sented and suggested that the article would be efficacious for many ailments due
to a sluggish or poorly active system; that it would relieve inorganic aches and
pains and a tired, "all in" feeling; that it would aid the user to function with
the precision needed for an uninterrupted flow of energy and vitality; that it
would remove the cause of illness and build up body resistance; that it would
aid the kidneys in eliminating waste and impurities from the body, and would
supply the system with the body minerals necessary to maintain good health and
overcome chronic ailments; that it would restore the kidneys, liver, and other
organs to normal; that it would be efficacious in the treatment of rheumatism,
kidney and liver sluggishness, neuritis, gallbladder troubles, hyperacidity, com-
plexion troubles, and auto-intoxication; and that it would remove the cause of
teeth or tonsil infection.   The article would not be efficacious for such purposes.
It was alleged to be misbranded further (1) in that it was a laxative and its
labeling failed to warn that it should not be used when abdominal pain, nausea,
vomiting, or other symptoms of appendicitis were present, and that frequent or
continued use might result in dependence on laxatives; and (2) in that its
labeling was misleading since it failed to reveal the fact that the article was
essentially a laxative mixture of sodium sulfate and table salt with a small pro-
portion of Epsom salt, which fact was material in view of the following repre-
sentations borne on the labels: "Active Ingredients Magnesium 0.87? Sodium
32.13? Potassium 1.20? Carbonate 0.25? Sulphate 45.80? Chloride 18.96-
Silica 0.01?   Calcium Trace   Iron Oxide Trace   Aluminum Oxide Trace."
On September 26, 1944, a plea of nolo contendere having been entered, the
defendant was fined $100.