1860. Misbranding of Konjola.    IT. S. v. The Arner Co., Inc., and Rolla Lawry.
Pleas of nolo contendere. Fines, $250 against the corporate defendant:
and $750 against the individual defendant. (F. D. C. No. 14313. Sample
No. 39545-F.)
INFORMATION FILED : May 14, 1945, Western District of New York, against the
Arner Co., Inc.. Buffalo, N. Y., and Rolla Lawry.
ALLEGED SHIPMENT : On or about January 17, 1944, from the State of New York
into the State of California.
PRODUCT: Examination disclosed that the product consisted essentially of an
aqueous solution of vegetable extractive, including emodin, together with
pepsin, glycerin, compounds of iron, calcium, and manganese, salicylate or
salicylic acid, and, possibly, caramel.
NATURE OF CHARGE: Misbranding, Section 502 (a), certain statements on the
label of the article and in circulars entitled "Here's A Simple Explanation of
Why Millions Of Bottles of Konjola Have Been Bought By People From One
End Of The Country To The Other," which circulars were shipped with the
article, were false and misleading since the statements represented and sug-
gested that the article would be effective as a tonic and digestive aid; that
it would be effective other than as a laxative; that it would be effective in
the treatment of indigestion, gas pains, bloating, digestive upset, intestinal
sluggishness, run-down conditions caused by simple anemia, and rheumatism
and neuritis pains caused by intestinal or digestive sluggishness; that it would
help build rich blood; that it would be effective in relieving rheumatic and
digestive pain and discomfort caused by accumulated wastes and poisons;
that it would be effective to expel gas, deter gas formation, and reduce bloat-
ing ; that it would be effective in treating weak stomachs; that it would
sharpen the appetite; that it contained iron and pepsin in sufficient quantities
to be effective as a tonic and digestive aid; and that it would be effective in
treating simple anemia or rheumatic pains caused by intestinal sluggishness.
The article would be effective only as a laxative, and it would not produce the
effects represented and suggested.
Further misbranding, Section 502 (f) (1), the labeling of the article failed
to bear adequate directions for use, since the directions which appeared on
the label provided for the continued administration of a laxative; and, Section
502 (f) (2), the labeling of the drug failed to bear a warning that it should
not be used when abdominal pain was present, and its labeling also failed
to warn that continued use of the article might result in dependence on n
laxative to move the bowels.
DISPOSITION :   May 13, 1946.   Pleas of nolo contendere having been entered, the
court imposed a fine of $250 against the Arner Co., Inc., and a fine of $750 against
Holla Lawry.