1044. Misbranding of Rheumatox. U. S. v. Arnold Xydegrger (Rhemnatox Co.),
Plea ot gfuilty. Ftae, $250. (F. D. C. No. 8737. Sample Nos. 91680-E,
1406-F.)
On December 31,1942, the United States attorney for the Northern District of
Ohio filed an information against Arnold Nydegger, trading as the Rheumatox
Co., Cleveland, Ohio, alleging shipment on or about April 20 and July 15, 1942,
from the State of Ohio into the State of Michigan of quantities of Rheumatox.
Analysis of this article showed that is consisted essentially of an aqueous solu-
tion of sodium salicylate, methenamine, potassium citrate, potassium iodide,
emodin-bearing drugs, and a small amount of alcohol.
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the name under which it
was sold, "Rheumatox," and the word "Rheumatox" in the firm name under
which the defendant traded, were misleading since the name suggested and
created in the mind of the reader the impression that the article would be
efficacious in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of rheumatism,
whereas it would not be so efficacious. It was alleged to be misbranded further
because of false and misleading statements in its labeling which represented and
sciatica, rheumatic pains, and gout; that the article would neutralize and
eliminate deposits or uric acid; that it would break down deposits of uric acid
crystalline salts and cleanse the blood stream; and that it would be efficacious
in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of arthritis, neuritis, lumbago;
sciatica, rheumatic pains, and gout. It was alleged also to be misbranded in that
it was not designated solely by a name recognized in an official compendium, and
it was fabricated from two or more ingredients arid its label did not bear the
common or usual name of each active ingredient, since the article contained
the active ingredient potassium iodide,, and its label failed to bear a statement
that the article contained that ingredient.
On June 22, 1943, the defendant entered a plea of guilty and on July 3, 1943,
the court imposed a fine of $250.