939. Misbranding of Effervescent Kruschen.    U. S. v. 17-5/6 Dozen Packages of
Effervescent     Kruschen.    Decree     of     condemnation     and    destruction.
(F. D. C. No. 6637.    Sample No. 64647-E.)
Analysis showed that this product consisted essentially of 18.7 percent an-
hydrous Epsom salt (magnesium sulfate) with small proportions of common
salt (sodium chloride), potassium chloride, sodium sulfate, and potassium sul-
fate, with an effervescent base consisting of a mixture of sodium bicarbonate
and citric acid.
On January 3, 1942, the United States attorney for the Western District of
Pennsylvania filed a libel against 17 5/6 dozen packages of Effervescent Krus-
chen at Pittsburgh, Pa., alleging that the article had been shipped on or about
August 22, 1941, from Rochester, N. Y., by E. Griffiths Hughes, Inc.; and charg-
ing that it was misbranded in that the following statements appearing in the
circular accompanying the article were false and misleading since they created
the impression that the article constituted an effective agent for reducing
weight, whereas it did not constitute an effective agent for such purpose: "As
an Assistant To Diet In Reducing Fat Kruschen Salts thru a wholesome stimu-
lating effect on the liver and bowels, and a mild diuretic effect on the kidneys
offers assistance to sensible eating in the problem of overweight. This has
similarities to the European Spa treatment for weight reduction and in a meas-
ure brings the so-called Spa treatment (sensible eating and mineral waters)
into the home without that extraordinary expense which accompanies visits
to such resorts."
On May 4, 1942, E. Griffiths Hughes, Inc., claimant, having submitted a peti-
tion for salvage, requesting the release of the product, an order was entered
that the product be released under bond for removal of the circular complained
of and for labeling in accordance with the requirements of the law, under the
supervision of the Food and Drug Administration. On August 3, 1943, the
claimant having consented to the vacating of the order and having stated that
it did not intend to defend, such order was cancelled and judgment of condem-
nation was entered, together with an order for the destruction of the product.