2119. Misbranding   of   Neo-Enzymes   Plain   and   Neo-Enzymes   With   Laxative.
U. S. v. B. Sanders Wilson (Wilco Laboratories).   Plea of guilty.   Fine,
$200 and costs.    (F. D. C. No. 20120.   Sample Nos. 28399-H, 28400-H.)
iNFOBMATioN FILED: August 28, 1946, Northern District of Illinois, against B.
Sanders Wilson, trading as Wilco Laboratories, Chicago, 111.
ALLEGED SHIPMENT : On or about March 30,1945, from the State of Illinois into
the State of Washington.
LABEL, IN PABT: "Neo-Enzymes Plain A Nutritional Supplement," or "Neo-
Enzymes With Laxative An Aid In Digesting Starch, Fats and Proteins Waste
Eliminant."
NATURE OF CHARGE: Misbranding, Section 502 (a), the statements on the labels
(both products) "An Aid In Digesting Starch, Fats and Proteins," (plain)
"Neo-Enzymes are supplied for nutritional purposes only to replace enzymes
destroyed or lost in heat preparation of foods, or eliminated by the body," and
(with laxative) "Neo-Enzymes is a digestive aid," and statements in the cir-
culars .entitled "Wilco Neo-Enzymes," which accompanied the articles, were
false and misleading since these statements represented, suggested, and
created in the mind of the reader the impression that the articles would aid in
digesting starch, fats, and proteins; that they would aid impaired digestion
and the assimilation of foods; that they would be efficacious in the cure,
mitigation, treatment, and prevention of malnutrition, dietary imbalance, dis-
orders arising in the digestive tract and transmitted to various parts of the
 body, febrile conditions, constipation, and infections such as colds; that they
would hasten convalescence from disease or operation or chronic conditions
due to glandular or metabolic deficiency; that they would be of value in the
treatment of over-acidity and over-alkalinity; that they would enable one
to digest over-cooked cabbage; that they would be efficacious in the cure,
mitigation, treatment, and prevention of gastritis, dyspepsia, intestinal putre-
faction, chronic fatigue conditions, wasting diseases, acne, allergic conditions,
?See also Nos. 2102, 2105-2108, 2110, 2111, 2114, 2118.
772046??48
and arthritis; that they would relieve indigestion due to bloaty fermentation
of foods; that they would normalize the intestinal contents and reduce bacterial
formation of toxins, ptomaines, cadaverine, and putrescine; that they would
aid food assimilation in old age; that they would enable one to build weight;
and that the Neo-Enzymes Plain would replace enzymes destroyed or lost in
heat preparation of foods or eliminated by the body. The articles would not.
be effective for the purposes claimed.
Further misbranding, Section 502 (a), the statements on the labels (both
products) were misleading since they failed to reveal the fact that the articles
would have little, if any, power to digest starch and proteins, which fact was
material in the light of the following representations in the labeling: "Neo-
Enzymes digests carbohydrates, proteins and fats??a balanced digestant com
?plex. Effective in acid, alkaline or neutral medium. Amyloclastic Activity
?By modified Wohlgemuth method; splits 475 times its own weight of soluble
?starch. Proteolytic Activity By electrotitration and spectraphotelometric
?method; hydrolizes 680 times its own weight of casein and albumin.
Neo-Enzymes With Laxative. Further misbranding, Section 502 (f) (1), the
labeling of the article failed to bear adequate directions for use since the direc-
tions displayed on the bottle, provided for continuous use of the article, which
was a laxative and should not be used continuously; and, Section 502 (f) (2),
the labeling failed to bear adequate warnings against use of the article in those
pathological conditions where its use might be dangerous to health. The article
was a laxative, and its labeling failed to bear a warning that it should not
be used in the presence of symptoms of appendicitis.
The information contained 4 counts, 2 charging violation under the provisions
of the law relating to drugs reported in this notice of judgment, and 2 charg-
ing misbranding under the provisions of the law applicable to foods, as reported
in notices of judgment on foods.
DISPOSITION: On January 9, 1947, the defendant having entered a plea of
guilty, the court imposed a fine of $200 on each count. On January 16, 1947,
the fine was reduced to $100 on each count.