1278. Misbranding: of Paracelsus.    V. S. v. 9 Cans, 2 Cans, and 9 Cans of Paracelsus.
Default decree of destruction.     (F. D. C. No. 11825.    Sample Nos. 3786-F,
3787-F.)
On or about February 18, 1944, the United States attorney for the Western
District of Missouri filed a libel against 9.cans, each containing 160 grams, 2
cans, each containing 320 grams, and 9 cans, each containing 600 grams, of
Paracelsus at Kansas City, Mo., alleging that the article had been shipped on
or about November 29 and December 16, 1943, from Cleveland, Ohio, by the
American Biochemical Corporation; and charging that it was misbranded.
Analysis of samples disclosed that the article was a mixture of inorganic salts,
principally sodium phosphate, calcium lactate, potassium chloride, table salt,
magnesium sulfate, sodium bicarbonate, and lesser quantities of other chemical
salts.
The article was alleged to be misbranded because of false and misleading
statements on the can label and in the accompanying circulars entitled
"Paracelsus Food and Health," "Here's What They Say About Paracelsus,"
"Paracelsus Its Aim and Object," and "The Active Life of These Two," which
represented and suggested that the article was of substantial value as a dietary
supplement in respect to the mineral elements, calcium, chlorine, iron, iodine,
lithium, manganese, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, sodium, sulfur, silicon,
and copper, and that these elements are not ordinarily present in adequate
amounts in the average diet; that the article was a body builder and a tonic;
that it would correct all disorders arising from dietary deficiencies; that it
was effective in the treatment of arthritis, rheumatism, neuritis, coughs, asthma,
and general debility; that it was of value in improving the functions of all body
organs; that it would provide vigor and vitality, aid digestion, and purify blood;
and that it was a combination of inorganic minerals in their most assimilable
form that would supply minerals necessary in normal nutrition in most desirable
portions.
The article was also alleged to be misbranded under the provisions of the law
applicable to foods, as reported in notices of judgment on foods.
On April 20, 1944, no claimant having appeared, judgment was entered order-
ing that the product be destroyed.     '