16194. Misbranding of Improved Min-E-Vita.    U. S. v. Helios Foods, Inc., and
Harry H. Grahn (Min-E-Vita Products Co.).   Pleas of guilty.   Fine
of $250 against defendants jointly.    (F. D. C. No. 25623.    Sample Nos.
47745-H, 48261-H, 15932-K.)
INFORMATION FILED:    January 16, 1950, Northern District of Illinois, against
Harry H. Grahn, trading as the Min-E-Vita Products Co., Chicago, Ill., and
against Helios Foods, Inc., Chicago, Ill., and Harry H. Grahn, president of the
corporation.
ALLEGED SHIPMENT : On or about April 8, 1948, by Harry H. Grahn, trading as 
the Min-E-Vita Products Co., from the State of Illinois into the State of 
Michigan; and on or about September 25 and November 21, 1946, by Helios 
Foods, Inc., and Harry H. Grahn, president, from the State of Illinois into 
the State of Colorado.
LABEL IN PART : "Improved Min-E-Vita A Unit Combination of Minerals and 
Vitamins * * * Contains * * * only the essential elements required 
in the normal human body. Calcium Potassium Phosphorus Aluminum 
Iron-Sodium Copper-Iodine Magnesium Manganese * * * Each Capsule 
Contains Not Less Than: Vitamin A —5000 U. S. P. Units Vitamin Bx —333 
U. S. P. Units Vitamin C —600 U. S. P. Units Vitamin D —500 U. S. P. 
Units Vitamin B2-G —1000 Gammas—Riboflavin Vitamin E —2 Minims Wheat 
Germ Oil PLUS 10 Milligrams {Calcium Pantothenate    *    *   *."
NATURE OF CHARGE: Misbranding, Section 403 (a), certain statements in the 
labeling of the article, including leaflets entitled "Persons Who Are Obese"
«hd "Reduce to Normal," booklets entitled "Min-E-Vita versus Obesity" and 
"Helios Formula Min-E-Vita a Valued Agent," and a letter addressed to the 
consignee of one of the shipments, were false and1 misleading. The state- 
ments represented and suggested that the article and be efficacious in the 
treatment of borderline anemia, cancer, graying of the hair, wrinkles, colds, 
nay fever1, asthma, pimples, acne, eczema, hyperacidity, acidosis, arthritis, gen- 
eral debility, dysmenorrhea, insomnia, nervous disorders, waning sexual vigor, 
brittle nails, diabetes, high blood pressure, kidney disorders, heart disease, de- 
generative conditions, digestive disorders, and sick headache; that the article 
would insure bouyant health, intensive vitality, and a good complexion; that 
it would reduce weight to normal, maintain a positive nutritional balance, build 
resistance to disease, and prevent premature old age; and that the article, 
by reason of its content of potassium, aluminum, sodium, magnesium, and 
manganese, was of dietary significance. The article would not be efficacious 
for the purposes represented, and it had no dietary significance by reason of 
its content of potassium, aluminum, sodium, magnesium, and manganese.
Further misbranding, Section 403(j), the article purported to be and was 
represented for special dietary uses by man by reason of its vitamin properties 
in respect to vitamin A, vitamin Bi, vitamin C, vitamin D, vitamin B2, vitamin 
E, and calcium pantothenate, and by reason of its mineral properties in 
respect to calcium, phosphorus, iron, and iodine; and its label failed to bear, 
as required by the regulations, a statement of the proportion of the minimum 
daily requirements for vitamin A, vitamin Bi, vitamin C, vitamin D, vitamin B2, 
calcium, phosphorus, iron, and iodine, which would be supplied by the article 
when consumed in a specified quantity during a period of one day; and, further, | 
the label failed also to bear, as required by the regulations, a statement that 
the need for vitamin E and calcium pantothenate in human nutrition has not 
been established.
Further misbranding Section 403 (a), (portion of the article) the label 
statement "Each Capsule Contains Not Less Than: Vitamin Bi—333 U. S. P. 
Units Vitamin C —600 U. S. P. Units" was false and misleading since one 
shipment of the article contained, per capsule, smaller amounts of vitamins 
Bi and C than declared.
The article was alleged also to be misbranded under the provisions of the law 
applicable to drugs as reported in notices of judgment on drugs and devices 
No. 3055. 
DISPOSITION :   March 22, 1950.   Pleas of guilty having been entered, the court 
imposed a fine of $250 against the defendants jointly.