314 



- 71 



Exactness, completely truthful statements of 

 objective vers ill I tude are frequently subordinated 

 to PI atant. spectacular, suggestive or dubious 

 representations in order to breakdown sales 

 resistance or to create a demand for a product 

 hitherto not found necessary to the happines"i~or 

 the «'*ii-beinq of the general pubUc ." femphasU 

 added} UJ p. Supp at 337 



In developing these propositions even further. District Judge Meaney 

 pointed out that 1n situations where conflict exists between 

 manufacturers and the public on advertising and labeling Issues, U.<. 

 Congress, ln establishing statutory boundaries, clearly had In mind 

 "that the public should be adequately and truthfully informed as to what 

 It Is purchasing." Thus he goes on, the Food, Drug, and Cos«t1c Act 

 imjst be constructed so as "to effectuate the purpose of protecting the 

 buying public which Is largely beyond self protection In the 

 circumstances of modern life. ( Citizen 62 Cases of JAM v U.S. 1951 340 

 U.S. 593,596, 71 S.CT.515, 95L.ED.S66 Kordel v. U.S. 335 U.S. 345, 69 S. 

 Ct. 106, 93 L.Ed. 52; U.S. v. Dotterweich 1943 . 320 U.S. 277, 280, 64 

 S. Ct. 134, 88 L.ED. 48 1943)." 113 F. Supp. at 337. See also U.S. v 

 Article - Sudden Change . 409 F. 2d 734, 740 (2d Cir. 1969) and U.S. v. 

 An Article of Oniq...Bacto - Unldlsk 394 US 784, 22 L. Ed 2d. 726, 733, 

 In which the court stated: 



At the outset, it is clear from Sec. 201 that the word 

 "drug" Is a term of art for the purposes of the Act, 

 encompassing far more than the strict medical 

 definition of the word. If Congress had Intended to 

 limit the statutory definition to the medical one 1t 

 could have so stated explicitly, or simply have made 

 reference to the official United States Pharmacopoeia, 

 or the National Formulary, as It did in the first of 

 the three sections of Sec. 201 (g)(1) and let the 

 definition rest there. The historical expansion of 



