In the Matter of the Complaint Against ROYJEL, INC., 144 Mason Street and P. O. Box 1037, at Greenwich, Connecticut 06830 P.S. Docket No. 1/127August 18, 1972
William A. Duvall Chief Hearing Examiner
APPEARANCES: H. Richard Hefner, Esq. Consumer Protection Division Law Department United States Postal Service Washington, D.C. 20260 for the Complainant No Appearance entered for the Respondent
1/ This proceeding was initiated on July 5, 1972, by the filing of a complaint by the Assistant General Counsel of the Consumer Protection Office, United States Postal Service. This complaint contained allegations that the Respondents, ROYJEL, INC. and P. O. Box 1037 at Greenwich, Connecticut, were engaged in conducting a scheme or device for obtaining money or property through the mail by means of false representations, contrary to the provisions of Section 3005 or Title 39, United States Code. The essence of the scheme alleged to be conducted by Respondents, is the sale of a product called ROYJEL on the basis of false representations that it will be beneficial to the user in terms of the user's sexual ability and desire and in the general improvement of the user's health and well-being.
The first witness called by the Complainant was Inspector Gene F. McHale who testified that among his duties is the function of investigating individuals or enterprises who may be engaged in conducting businesses contrary to the provisions of Section 3005 of Title 39, United States Code.
On April 7, 1972, Inspector McHale received an envelope bearing the return address of the Respondent in this case. The envelope was addressed to R. J. Johnson of Boonville, Indiana. This latter name is a test name used by Inspector McHale in the exercise of his duties as a Postal Inspector. This envelope was unsolicited and it contained among other things a four-page circular which advertises and offers for sale the product known as ROYJEL.
Inspector McHale ordered the product through the use of his test name. He made the required remittance of money and in due course, he received from the Respondent an envelope which has been identified and received in evidence as Complainant's Exhibit No. 6 in which was enclosed, among other things, a plastic container which has in it a label showing that it contains 30 tablets of ROYJEL. The ingredients of the product ROYJEL are stated to be royal jelly, five milligrams; Vitamin E. five international units.
In the complaint, it is charged that Respondent, in the conduct of the business, makes the following representations in respect to its product:
(a) "Royjel" is an effective aphrodisiac or sexual stimulant for both men and women.
(b) "Royjel" has been scientifically proven and accepted as an effective aphrodisiac or sexual stimulant.
(c) Use of "Royjel" will result in mental and physical rejuvenation.
(d) Use of "Royjel" will result in prolongation of the life of the user.
(e) Use of "Royjel" will result in prolongation of the period of time during which the user may achieve sexual gratification and fulfillment.
(f) Use of "Royjel" will restore diminished or lost sexual capacity and interest.
(g) Use of "Royjel" will banish tiredness and result in a general increase of the energy level and strength of the user.
(h) The ingredients or chemical formulation of "Royjel" constitutes a new and unique scientific development not previously available to the general public.
It is charged that these representations are materially false.
Attached to this decision as Appendix A is a copy of the advertising circular used by Respondent in soliciting through the mails the sale of its product.
Examination of this circular, when considered as a whole and when viewed in the light of the impact it would be most likely to have on the average reader, leads inevitably to the conclusion that the Respondent does make or make in substance, or create the impression, that its product will accomplish the results set forth in the charges of the complaint. In other words, the Respondent does make the representations set forth above as Charges (a) through (h) of the complaint.
The next witness called to testify in support of the complaint was Dr. Raymond Barzilai. Dr. Barzilai is a doctor of medicine who is uniquely qualified to testify in regard to the issues in this case.
Dr. Barzilai has conducted extensive research in the literature on the subject of the effect of the ingestion of royal jelly, which is the ingredient of the Respondent's product on which the greatest emphasis is placed in its advertising circular. Dr. Barzilai testified that royal jelly is the secretion of the retropharyngeal glands of the bee. It is, in fact, a rich variety of honey and is comprised of the same ingredients as honey. The principal use of royal jelly is as a food substance for the queen bee, the function of which is to lay eggs in the hive to propagate bees.
The other ingredient listed on the label of Respondent's product is Vitamin E. Dr. Barzilai testified that the generic name for Vitamin E is tocopherol and that Vitamin E is one of the fat-soluble vitamins. A deficiency of Vitamin E in rats will produce such manifestations as loss of hair and reduction of fertility rate. There is no known occurrence of Vitamin E deficiency in the human body. Adequate amounts of Vitamin E are contained in the average diet to prevent the occurrence of a deficiency of Vitamin E in human beings. In fact, attempts artificially to create a deficiency of Vitamin E in higher animals have failed.
Dr. Barzilai testified that royal jelly has no capability as an aphrodisiac and that it has never been scientifically proved or accepted as such. Respondent's product ROYJEL will not result in mental and physical rejuvenation; it will not result in the prolongation of life of the user and it will not banish tiredness or result in a general increase of the energy level and strength of the user. Respondent's product will not result in a prolongation of the period of time during which the user may achieve sexual gratification and fulfillment and it will not restore diminished or lost sexual capacity and interest.
The ingredients of ROYJEL are easily obtainable in foods or preparations readily available over the counter to the general public and they do not constitute a new and scientific development, not previously available to the general public.
In connection with his duties at the Food and Drug Administration, Dr. Barzilai conducted an investigation that extended over a period of three years, during which time he concentrated primarily if not exclusively upon the work that had been done and the investigations that had been made into the effectiveness of royal jelly as a benefit to mankind. This investi- gation convinced Dr. Barzilai that there is no special benefit to be derived from the ingestion of royal jelly. And in view of the ready availability of Vitamin E, Dr. Barzalai concludes that there is no benefit to be derived from the ingestion of ROYJEL, the product which Respondent is offering for sale.
The nature of Dr. Barzalai's duties is such that if a beneficial use for royal jelly should be discovered, it would come with great speed to his attention. Dr. Barzilai keeps abreast of the literature in regard to this subject and he has discussed it with his peers and his colleagues in the profession. The testimony as to the lack of efficacy of royal jelly and, hence, of Respondent's product, represents the consensus of informed medical and scientific opinion on this subject.
In the light of the evidence received in this case, I make the following findings of fact and conclusion of law:
1. The Respondent is engaged in the sale throough the mails of a product known as ROYJEL.
2. In the conduct of the business described in Finding of Fact No. 1 Respondent makes the representations which are set forth in the complaint in subparagraphs (a) through (h) of paragraph 3.
3. The representations found to have been made by the Respondent in connection with the sale of its product known as ROYJEL, are materially false as a matter of fact.
It is concluded as a matter of law that the Respondent is engaged in a scheme for obtaining money or property through the mails, contrary to the provisions of Section 3005 of Title 39, United States Code.
In view of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusion of law, a mail stop order as provided in the governing statute should be issued against this Respondent.
__________________