NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 1139.
(Given pursuant to section 4 of tie Food and Drugs Act.)
MISBRANDING OF WHITTLE'S EPSOM-LITHIA WATER.
On April 19,1911, the United States Attorney for the Eastern Dis- 
trict of Tennessee, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agricul- 
ture, filed information in the District Court for said district against 
the Whittle Springs Co., a corporation, alleging shipment by it, in 
violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on or about May 23, 1910, from 
the State of Tennessee into the State of Georgia of a quantity of al- 
leged lithia water which was misbranded. The product was labeled: 
"Whittle's Epsom-Lithia Water Bottled at Whittle Springs and 
Health resort in East Tennessee A soft, light water easy assimilated 
Can be taken on the weakest stomach. This water retains its medici- 
nal properties unimpaired. In cases of Torpid Liver, Nervous In- 
digestion, Rheumatism, Gout, Diabetes, Bright's Disease, Cystitis, 
etc., this water will give positive and lasting results. Correspond- 
ence solicited. Address Whittle Springs Company, Whittle Springs, 
East Tennessee, U. S. A." The label bore the following analysis: 
Gr. per gal. Magnesium Sulphate, 58.29; Aluminum Sulphate, 
1.388; Iron Sulphate, 1.44; Manganese Sulphate, trace; Calcium Car- 
bonate, 32.904; Calcium Sulphate, 13.765; Lime Phosphate, trace; 
Potassium Sulphate, 2.163; Sodium Sulphate, 2.071; Sodium Chlo- 
ride, .961; Sodium Nitrate, trace; Lithium Sulphate, .229; Silicate, 
.758; Total, 113.850.
Analysis by the Bureau of Chemistry of the United States Depart- 
ment of Agriculture showed said analysis to be incorrect, and that 
said water did not contain enough lithia to be designated a lithia 
water, nor were the ingredients such as to justify the therapeutic 
claims made for said water. Misbranding was alleged because of 
the false and misleading statements on the label in the following re- 
spects: The constituent elements of said product were not such as 
to justify the claims made on the label as to the therapeutic efficacy 
and the product only contained 0.12 part per million of lithium, an
11338°—No. 1139—11
amount insufficient to entitle it to be classified as lithia water; because 
the label gives what purports to be an authentic analysis of the con- 
stituent elements of the product, which analysis is incorrect and mis- 
leading; because the words on the label "Epsom-Lithia Water" 
convey to the public that the product contains a sufficient amount of 
lithium to produce a therapeutic effect to be expected from water con- 
taining an appreciable amount of lithia, when, in fact, it contains but 
a very slight amount of lithia; and further in that the statement ap- 
pearing on the label, to wit: " In cases of Torpid Liver, Nervous In- 
digestion, Rheumatism, Gout, Diabetes, Bright's Disease, Cystitis, 
etc., this water will give positive and lasting results ", is false and 
misleading, as the correct analysis does not show the presence of in- 
gredients possessing therapeutic properties adequate to effect either 
positive or lasting results in any of the diseases mentioned.
On June 3, 1911, the defendant corporation pleaded guilty and was 
fined $10 and costs. The following order was entered: " Came the 
United States Attorney and came also the Whittle Springs Co. and 
W. H. Whittle, and for plea to the information filed against them 
in this cause say they are guilty in manner and form as charged 
therein. Whereupon it is considered and adjudged by the court that 
for their offense the said defendant Whittle Springs Company pay 
a fine of ten dollars and the costs of the cause, for which let execution 
issue. The U. S. Attorney not praying judgment against W. H. 
Whittle, this judgment of fine will not operate as to him. The 
amount of fine in this cause was fixed by the court at $10 because 
it appeared to the court that the default of the defendants consti- 
tuting a violation of the law was due to their reliance upon the 
certificate of two chemists and their belief in the correctness of the 
analyses of said chemists, and because it appeared to the court that 
since the information was filed herein, the defendants have complied 
with the requirements of the government in the branding of the 
water, and said default was not due to any deliberate or intentional 
violation of or wanton neglect of the provisions of the statute."
W. M. HAYS,
Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C, September 27, 1911.
1139
O