2819. Misbranding of Crawford's Formula 53 with Vitamin E and Crawford's 
Ridia. U. S. v. 9 Bottles and 4 Bottles of Crawford's Formula 53 with 
Vitamin E and 1 Bottle of Crawford's Ridia. Default decree of con- 
demnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 3556, 3557. Sample Nos. 32615-E, 
32621-E.)
The labels of both of these products failed to bear the common or usual name 
of each of the ingredients; Crawford's Ridia also bore false and misleading state- 
ments, including representations that it was a suitable supplementary food for 
diabetics.
On January 6, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Arizona 
filed a libel against the above-named products at Tucson, Ariz., alleging that 
Formula 53 had been shipped on or about July 18, 1940, by Walter Bopp from 
Eagle Rock, Calif., and that Crawford's Ridia had been shipped on or about 
August 12, 1940, by Crawford Foods, Inc., from Los Angeles, Calif.; and charging 
that they were niisbranded.
Cx'awford's Formula 53 with Vitamin E was alleged to be misbranded In that 
its label failed to bear the common or usual name of each of its ingredients since 
the names "lucerne" and "capsicum," appearing on the label, were hot the common 
or usual names of the ingredients alfalfa and cayenne pepper, respectively. 
• Crawford's Ridia was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that the statements on 
the label, "Supplementary Food for Diabetics,   *   *   *   Ridia is a Food Adjuvant
to regularly prescribed diets. Ration—Five or more tablets after each meal, 
according to supplementary needs in the diet," were false and misleading since 
the article possessed no properties which made it of peculiar use as a supple- 
mentary food for persons suffering with diabetes; (2) in that the statement on 
the label "Contains Fatsia Horrida and vegetable matter as excipient" was false 
and misleading in view of its actual composition; and (3) in that its label failed 
to bear the common or usual name of e.:ch of its ingredients.
The libel alleged that Crawford's Formula 53 was also misbranded under the- 
provisions of the law applicable to drags and devices as reported in D. D. N. J. 
No. 441.
On February 21, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna- 
tion was entered and the products were ordered destroyed.