5780. Adulteration and misbranding of Ocean-Lax. J. S. v. 29 Bottles of Ocean- 
Lax. Decree of condemnation and destruction, (F. D. C. No. 6368. Sarapl& 
Nos. 40885-E, 40886-E.)
On December 6, 1941, the United States attorney for the.Eastern District of 
Pennsylvania filed a libel against 29 bottles'of Ocean-Lax at Philadelphia, Pa., 
alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce within the 
period from on or about July 3 to August 11, 1941, by Mineralized Foods, Inc., 
from Baltimore, Md.; and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded.
The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it contained deleterious sub- 
stances, the laxative drugs, senna pods, purging cassia, and rhubarb root, wnieht 
might render it injurious to health.
It was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statement, appearing on. 
the label, created the impression that the article was appropriate for food pur- 
poses, whereas, because of its content of cathartic drugs, it was not suitable for- 
such purpose "* * * Consists of an imported rare variety of Sea Vegetables 
high in alakalinity and food minerals carefully blended with * * . *  Each 
Ocean-Lax Tablet averages approximately iv milligrams of natural organic-
618827—45- 5
(
food iodine inseparably combined by nature with all of the other,organic Food 
, minerals^fiaturally found in the Sea Plant ingredients of Ocean-Lax and proven 
to be essentiaPto'health.   Note! " (Government Bulletin quotation.)    '. . . If 
- a salad of marine grass (sea-plants) could be'eaten daily by everyone, as is 
' largely the custom in Japan, simple goiter, in all probability would be relatively 
infrequent.'   *    *   *   Millions in foreign countries have for many- generations 
and still are eating Sea Plants as part of their diet."
The libel alleged that the product was also misbranded under the provisions 
of the law applicable to drugs, reported in drugs and devices notices of judgment, 
No. 913.
On March 4, 1942, Mineralized Foods, Inc., claimant, having filed an answer
denying the adulteration and misbranding charges in the libel, and having filed
a motion rfor removal of the proceedings to the District of Maryland, in which
District .the claimant had its principal place of business, the court denied such
.  motion.   The court's opinion in denying the motion is printed in drugs and devices
-'notice of judgment No. 913.
OnJanuary 7, 1943, the claimant having withdrawn its claim and answer, 
judgment of condemnation was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.