10348. Misbranding of Yogurt Culture. IT. S. v. International Yogurt Co. and 
Ricbard Tille. Pleas of nolo contendere. Fine of $200 against each 
defendant; fine against company remitted. (F. D. C. No. 16567. Sample 
Nos. 73780-F, 28602-H, 28617-H.)
INFORMATION FILED : April 15, 1946, Southern District of California, against the 
International Yogurt Co., a 'partnership, Beverly Hills, Calif., and Richard Tille, 
a partner and manager of the firm.
ALLEGED SHIPMENT : On or about November 15 and December 13, 1944, from the 
State of California into the States of Arizona and Washington.
PRODUCT: Bacteriological examination of samples of the article showed it to be 
a starter culture, containing viable lactobacilli.
LABEL IN PART: (Bottle) "Original Bulgarian Yogurt Culture From the Lab- 
oratory of International Yogurt Company Beverly Hills, California Prepared 
under the Scientific Supervision of Eosell Bacteriological Dairy Institute La 
Trappe, Canada."
NATURE OF CHARGE: Misbranding, Section 403 (a), certain statements in ac- 
companying circulars entitled, "ABC of making Genuine Bulgarian Yogurt at 
Home," "Yogurt Culture a Health Aid," and "Keep Young With Eosell Insti- 
tute Yogurt Culture," were false and misleading. The statements in the 
circulars represented and suggested that the article would keep one young; 
that it would create in the user the feeling of general well-being and health ; 
that it would cause the increased longevity implied in the expression "Adds 
life to your years and years to your life"; that it would prolong life by elimi- 
nating self-poisoning (auto-intoxication); that it would prevent premature 
old age; that it would be of great benefit in many types of gastrointestinal 
disturbances; that it would prevent injury of our most precious organs, 
arteries, brain, liver, and kidneys; and that it would aid delicate digestion 
The article would not be efficacious for the purposes claimed.
DISPOSITION : May 6, 1946. Pleas of nolo contendere having been entered on 
behalf of the defendants, the court imposed fines of $100 on each count, a total 
of $200, respectively, against both the partnership and the individual de- 
fendant.   The fine against the partnership defendant was remitted.