24642. Misbranding of White's Herb Tonic. u. s. v.· John w. White (Dr. J. w.
White). Plea of guilty. Fine, $50. (F. & D. no. 33760. Sample no.
61685-A.)
This case involved a drug preparation which was misbran:ded because of
unwarranted curative and therapeutic claims in the labeling.
On December 19, 1934, the United States attorney for the Northern District
of Alabama, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
324 FOOD AND DRUGS ACT [N. J., F. D.
district court an information against John W. White, trading as Dr. J. W.
White, proprietor of White's Herb Manufacturing & Remedy Co., Bessemer,
.Ala., alleging shipment by said defendant in violation of the Food and Drugs
.Act as amended, on or about January 8, 1934, from the State of .Alabama, into
the State of Pennsylvania of a quantity of White's Herb Tonic which was
misbranded .
.Analysis showed that the article consisted essentially of extracts of plant
:drugs, alcohol (less than 1 percent), and water.
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that certain statements regarding
its therapeutic and curative effects, borne on the bottle and package labels,
falsely and fraudulently( represented that it was effective as a system builder,
and as a remedy for syphilis, blood poison, rheumatism, kidney and liver
troubles, pellagra, indigestion, female troubles, pains in the back, hip Joints,
knees, gallstone, influenza and appendicitis; effective to take away that tired
feeling, give a good appetite, and put flesh on the bones; and effective to cure
scrofula. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the statement
"We, the undersigned, do hereby guarantee that the articles of Food and Drugs
listed herein or specifying the same are not adulterated or misbranded within
the meaning of the Federal Food and Drugs .Act, June 30, 1906, as amended.
Dr. J. W. White, Proprietor of White Herb Mfg. & Remedy Co.", borne on the
package label, was false and mjsleading since the article was misbranded within
the meaning of the Food and Drugs .Act of June 30, 1906, as amended.
On March 12, 1935, the defendant entered a plea of guilty and the court imposed
a fine of $50.