13483. Misbranding of Nature's Minerals Compound and High Potency Vitamin
B Complex tablets. TJ. S. v. Nature's Mineral Food Co., a partnership, 
and Perry B. Smith. Pleas of guilty. Partnership fined $500; indi- 
vidual, $100.    (F. D. C. No. 20162.   Sample Nos. 16633-H, 16634-H, 17225-H.)
INFORMATION FILED: October 2, 1946, Southern District of Indiana, against 
the Nature's Mineral Food Co., Indianapolis, Ind., and Perry B. Smith, a 
partner.
of Indiana into the State of Illinois. Accompanying the products were form 
letters bearing the heading "Good Morning," circulars entitled "Are You 
Suffering From Mineral Starvation," and leaflets entitled "Cause and Re- 
sults," "Prostate Glands," "Testimonials for Nature's Minerals Rheumatism," 
and "Abundant Health."
Analysis showed that the Nature's Minerals Compound consisted essentially 
of compounds of calcium, sodium, iron, and magnesium, and sulfates, phos- 
phates, chlorides, carbonates, free sulfur, and a trace of iodides. The High 
Potency Vitamin B Complex tablets contained thiamine chloride, nicotinic 
acid, and riboflavin.
NATURE OF CHARGE : Misbranding, Section 403 (a), the labeling of the products 
contained false and misleading representations regarding their efficacy in the 
treatment of various disease conditions and other abnormalities. The charges 
under Section 403 (a), which were based on these claims, were identical with 
the charges under Section 502 (a), as reported in notices of judgment on 
drugs and devices, No. 2336. In addition to the misbranding charges applicable 
to both products, the High Potency Vitamin B Complex tablets was further 
misbranded under Section 403 (a), in that the statement "High Potency Vitamin 
B Complex" borne on the label was false and misleading, since the product 
did not consist of high potency vitamin B complex, but would supply only the 
minimum adult daily requirement of Vitamin B1( and smaller proportions of 
the other vitamins of the B complex.
DISPOSITION : December 5, 1946. Pleas of guilty having been entered, the part- 
nership was fined $500 and the individual defendant $100.