1754. Misbranding of Milford Mineral Water Crystals. TJ. S. v. 23 Dozen Pack-
ages of Mineral Water Crystals, and a number of display cards. Default
decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 15356. Sample Nos.
28325-H, 28326-H.)
LIBEL FH-ED:   April 16,1945, Western District of Washington.
ALLEGED SHIPMENT :   On or about February 6,1945, by the Pecan Shelters Coopera-
tive,- from Houston, Tex.
PRODUCT: liy2 dozen 8-ounce packages and 11? dozen sample "packages of
mineral water crystals, and a number of accompanying display cards entitled
"Why You Need Mineral Water," at Seattle, Wash.
Examination showed that the product consisted of sodium sulfate with traces
of other ingredients.   It was essentially a laxative.
T,ARKT.
; IN PAST :    "Milford Blue Ribbon Mineral Water Crystals."
NATURE OF CHARGE: Misbranding, Section 502 (a), certain statements on the
labels of the sample packages were false and misleading since they repre-
sented and suggested that the article would be effective in the treatment of -
rheumatism, arthritis, heart trouble, kidney trouble, high and low blood
pressure, overweight, underweight, paralysis, stomach and colon troubles,
asthma, hay fever, eczema, and sores caused by excess acidity; and that it
would supply mineral elements to the body. The article would not be effective
in the treatment of the disease conditions mentioned, and it would not supply
mineral elements to the body. Further misbranding, Section 502 (a), the
statement "Gives You Benefits You Never Dreamed Of," borne on the display
card, was false and misleading since it created the impression that the article
was more than a laxative; and the statement of composition, "Analysis shows
Sodium Chloride, Sodium Sulphate, Silica, Potassium Chloride, Calcium Bi-
carbonate, Calcium Sulphate, Ferrix Oxide, Alumina Oxide, Magnesium Sul-
phate," borne on the packages containing both sizes of the product, was mis-
leading since it created the impression that the article would supply signifi-
cant quantities of the ingredients named, whereas it would not supply signifi-  (
cant quantities of such ingredients, except sodium sulfate.
Further misbranding, Section 502 (b), the label on the.sample packages failed
to bear (1) the name and place of business of the manufacturer, packer, or
distributor; and (2) an accurate statement of the quantity of the contents.
Further misbranding, Section 502 (f) (2), the article was a laxative and its-
labeling failed to warn that a laxative should not be used in case of abdominal
pains, nausea, vomiting, or other symptoms of appendicitis; and, further, the
labeling failed to warn that frequent or continued use of the article might
result in dependence upon laxatives to move the bowels, since no warning of
any type appeared on the sample packages, and the warning statement on the
8-ounce package label was not adequate for the purposes required in that it
limited the warning to severe and persistent pains in the lower abdomen.
DISPOSITION : October 31, 1945. No claimant having appeared, judgment of con-
demnation was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.