2142. Misbranding of Singer's Earth Crust Minerals.    IT. S. v. E. Albert Singer
(Chain   of  Lakes  Duck  Farm).     Plea  of  nolo   contendere.     Fine,  $60.
(F. D. C. No. 17773.   Sample Nos. 8446-F, 59901-F, 23601-H.)
INFORMATION FILED: March 27, 1946, Northern District of Illinois, against E.
Albert Singer, trading as Chain of Lakes Duck Farm, Barrington, 111.
ALLEGED SHIPMENT: From the State of Illinois into the States of Wisconsin,
Indiana, and Texas. The product was shipped on or about November 12,
1943, and February 18 and October 17,1944, and was accompanied by a number
of display placards which were shipped with the product, and by. a number of
circulars which were shipped on or about December 28, 1943, and during the
early part of March 1944. The placards were entitled "Livestock and Poultry
Raisers," and the circulars were entitled "Singer's Earth Crust Minerals" and
"All Livestock, Fowl and Plant Life Must Have Minerals." The product was
a mixture of dirt dug from the defendant's farm, mixed with calcium carbonate,
salt, and rock phosphate.
NATURE OF CHARGE: Misbranding, Section 502 (a), the label statements "Phos-
phorus (P) not less than 10 Per Cent * * * Calcium (Ca) not less than 20
Per Cent" were false and misleading since 2 shipments of the article contained
materially less than 10 percent of phosphorus and materially less than 20
percent of calcium. Further misbranding, Section 502 (a), the label state-
ment "Keep Live Stock and Poultry Healthy" and certain statements appearing
in the circulars and placards accompanying the article were false and mislead-
ing. These statements represented, suggested, and created the impression
that the article would be effective in keeping livestock and poultry healthy;
that it would prevent poor digestion, loss of appetite, run-down condition, and
diseases in general; that it would be effective in removing any species of
worms from the intestines of livestock and poultry; that it would lower mor-
tality and prevent the disease condition of poultry known as range paralysis;
and that use of the article would save feeding costs. The article would not
be effective for the purposes stated.
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.
DISPOSITION: June 11, 1946. The defendant having entered a plea of nolo
contendere, the court imposed a fine of $10 on each of the 6 counts.