20735. Misbranding of Vegetable Compound Healthagain. U. S. v. 30 Bot- 
tles, et al., of Vegetable Compound Healthagain. Default decrees 
of condemnation and destruction. (F. & D. nos. 28977, 29017, 29038, 
29041, 29057, 29080, 29Ill, 29201. Sample nos. 8951-A to 8956-A, incl., 8959-A 
to 8972-A, incl., 19226-A, 26791-A, 26851-A, 27251-A to 27265-A, incl.)
These cases involved a product intended for the treatment of various diseases 
and labeled to convey the impression that it was of vegetable origin and con- 
tained no drugs. Analysis showed, however, that it contained Epsom salt, a 
mineral drug, and other laxative drugs. The label bore unwarranted curative 
and therapeutic claims, and failed to declare the quantity or proportion of 
alcohol contained in the article.
The United States attorneys for the Western District of Pennsylvania and the 
Northern District of Ohio, acting upon reports by the Secretary of Agriculture, 
filed between the dates of September 30, 1932 and November 5, 1932, libels 
praying seizure and condemnation of 219 bottles of the said Vegetable Com- 
pound Healthagain in various lots at New Castle, Washington, and McKees- 
port, Pa., and Cleveland and Youngstown, Ohio. It was alleged in the libels 
that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce from Wellsburg, 
W.Va.; that the shipments had been made by the Healthagain Laboratories, Inc., 
E. J. Hunt, and John Edward, of Wellsburg; that they had been made during 
the period from September 16, 1932 to October 28, 1932; and that the article 
was misbranded in violation of the Food and Drugs Act as amended.
Analyses of samples of the article by this Department showed that it consisted 
essentially of Epsom salt (approximately 20 percent), extracts of plant drugs 
including laxative drugs such as jalap, senna and rhubarb, alcohol (approxi- 
mately 3.2 percent), sugar (approximately 20 percent), and water.
The article was labeled: " Vegetable Compound * * * No Drugs." The 
curative and therapeutic claims in the various shipments differed somewhat, 
certain of the lots bearing on the bottle labels: " Healthagain Laboratories 
* * * Life Healthagain * * * 1. Diabetes; 2. High Blood Pressure; 3. 
Anemia; 4. Bright's Disease; 5. Dropsy; 6. Tuberculosis; 7. Liver; 8. Nervous- 
ness ; 9. Skin Disease; 10. Ulcerated Stomach; 11. Arthritis; 12. Rheumatism; 
13. Gall Bladder Trouble; 14. Asthma," and certain of the lots bearing the 
same statement and list with the exception that the figures 1 to 14 inclusive 
were omitted. In addition the bottle labels in the above lots bore typed, writ- 
ten, or rubber stamped—apparently for the purpose of distinction—one of the 
following: "Special", "Brights Disease", "Rheumatism", "Arthritis", 
" Dropsy ", " Liver ", " Sugar Diabetes ", " Diabetes ", "Anemia ", or " High 
Blood Pressure." A portion was labeled, " Life Healthagain * * * Health- 
again Laboratories: 1. Diabetes; 2. High Blood Pressure; 3. Anemia; 4. 
Bright's Disease; 5. * * * Rheumatism; 7. Liver; 8. Ulcerated Stomach." 
One small lot was labeled variously: (All bottles) "Healthagain"; (5 bottles) 
" Recommended in the treatment of dropsy Special " ; (2 bottles) " Recommended 
in the treatment of rheumatism " ; (2 bottles) " Recommended in the treatment 
of liver "; (2 bottles) " Recommended in the treatment of high blood pressure."
The libels charged that the article was misbranded in that the above-quoted 
statements on the bottle labels, regarding the curative and therapeutic effects of 
the article, were false and fraudulent. Misbranding was alleged for the further 
reason that the statements on the label, " Vegetable Compound * * * No 
Drugs", were false and misleading, since the article contained Epsom salt 
and other laxative drugs. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that 
the labels failed to bear a statement of the quantity or proportion of alcohol 
contained in the article.
On March 2, 1933, no claimant having appeared in the cases instituted in the 
Northern District of Ohio, judgment of condemnation was entered and it was 
ordered by the court that the product be destroyed by the United States marshal. 
On March 27, 1933, similar decrees were entered in the cases instituted in the 
Western District of Pennsylvania.
R. G. Truax, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.