United States v. 8 Cartons, Containing Plantation 'The Original' Etc., Molasses
primary document · 1951
LINK
SUMMARY
Federal district court opinion (W.D.N.Y., same docket family as the companion source hauser-molasses-libel-1951-i, decided 2 August 1951), located via the CourtListener search API and read via a proxy fetch of the CourtListener opinion page (a direct automated fetch of courtlistener.com returns HTTP 202 with an empty body, so no verbatim text from this opinion is quoted in the bundle; facts are paraphrased only). Facts: the government's libel targeted 25 copies of Look Younger, Live Longer seized as unlawful 'labeling' for 'Plantation' blackstrap molasses. The court found that the 'customary practice' at Nature Food Centres, in response to an in-store invitation to 'come in for full information,' was for staff to hand a prospective molasses buyer a copy of the book, and that the government alleged the book's claims (added youthful years; correcting vitamin deficiency; relief from menopausal complaints and other ailments) functioned as the product's labeling. The publisher's motions to dismiss (arguing the book was not 'labeling' and that seizure violated freedom of the press) were DENIED, allowing this libel to proceed. The opinion is a ruling on the legal definition of 'labeling' under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; it does not adjudicate the truth or falsity of Hauser's dietary claims.
NOTES
The companion 1951 opinion to hauser-molasses-libel-1951-i, this ruling (2 August 1951) concerns a different, later shipment tied to the same point-of-sale scheme: Nature Food Centres invited customers to “come in for full information” beside displays of “Plantation” blackstrap molasses, and it was the store’s “customary practice” to hand a prospective buyer a copy of Look Younger, Live Longer in response. The government’s libel treated the book, so distributed, as the product’s unlawful “labeling,” carrying claims that the molasses would add youthful years and relieve various common complaints. Unlike the companion action, the publisher’s motions to dismiss here were denied, and the libel was allowed to proceed. The bundle treats this as a documented federal regulatory action targeting the commercial use of Hauser’s book, not as a judicial finding on the medical merits of his dietary claims, which the opinion does not reach.