Opinion ID: 1476714
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: At Best the Label Tells Only a Half-Truth

Text: The appellants seek to bolster up this argument by pointing out that the label itself contains the notation: This preparation does not contain any known therapeutically useful constituent. Since iodine is a therapeutically useful ingredient, they say, the label itself indicates that iodine is not present. There are two answers to this argument. In the first place, this so-called disclaimer itself is untruthful. The appellant Bavouset himself admitted on the stand that posterior pituitary, which, as we have seen, is one of the ingredients of Indoform, does have therapeutic value. He also testified that he didn't manufacture whole ovarian, another constituent, to be a meaningless product. The appellants seek  without avail, we think  to weaken the effect of this testimony by Bavouset's later lame and somewhat cryptic explanation that In this particular solution, this form would not be measurable. In any event, we cannot say that the court erred if it believed from the evidence  as we do  that posterior pituitary and whole ovarian do have some therapeutic value. Assuming, however, for the sake of the argument, that the disclaimer does tell the truth, it cannot cure the vice of the half-truth or equivocation in the use of the expression thyroid substance in a preparation that contains no iodine. Section 321(n) of 21 U.S.C.A. provides that omissions as well as representations shall be taken into account in determining whether the labeling is misleading. In Research Laboratories v. United States, supra, 167 F.2d at page 418, we held that the scientific half-truths in the labeling alone make out a case of actionable misbranding. Specific reference to self-contradictory labels is found in H. N. Heusner & Son v. Federal Trade Commission, 3 Cir., 106 F.2d 596, 597: Accordingly, the petitioner, a Pennsylvania manufacturer of cigars which contain only Pennsylvania tobacco, but are branded `Havana Smokers', has been ordered to cease and desist from using the word `Havana' to designate its product. We are asked to modify this order so as to permit the retention of the word `Havana' with an appropriate `qualification', i. e., the legend: Notice. These Cigars are made in the United States and only of United States tobacco.' The difficulty of petitioner's position lies in the fact that the implication of the word `Havana' is totally false. The purchaser can be guided by either label or legend, but not by both. [Emphasis supplied.] [3] So here, the purchaser of Indoform could be guided by either the labeling thyroid substance, which implies the presence of a therapeutic ingredient, or by the disclaimer of the presence of any such ingredient. Obviously, the implication of presence and the negation of presence cannot both be true. In the language of the day, this Indoform label strikes us as a bit of scientific double-talk. The Supreme Court has repeatedly denounced equivocation and evasion by those who come within the reach of a statute that enunciates Governmental policy. Whether the subterfuge is accomplished by suppression or contradiction, the vice is the same. Referring to the Food and Drugs Act of 1906, 21 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq., the Supreme Court, in United States v. 95 Barrels of Vinegar, 265 U.S. 438, 442, 443, 44 S.Ct. 529, 531, 68 L.Ed. 1094, used the following language: The statute is plain and direct. Its comprehensive terms condemn every statement, design, and device which may mislead or deceive. Deception may result from the use of statements not technically false or which may be literally true. The aim of the statute is to prevent that resulting from indirection and ambiguity, as well as from statements which are false. It is not difficult to choose statements, designs, and devices which will not deceive. Those which are ambiguous and liable to mislead should be read favorably to the accomplishment of the purpose of the act. [4] So here, it would have been not difficult to choose statements that would not deceive. The simple legend, This preparation does not contain iodine, would have been sufficient.