In the Matter of the Complaint Against

 ABATIN COMPANY,
 154 East Erie Street at
 Chicago, Illinois 60611

 P.S. Docket No. 3/3
 

 April 24, 1974
 

 William A. Duvall Chief Administrative Law Judge
 

 H. Richard Hefner, Esq. ,
 Law Department, United States Postal Service,
 Washington, D. C., for Complainant

 Charles Rowan, Esq. ,
 Rowan, Slaby, Mueller & Ilse,
 324 East Wisconsin Avenue,
 Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for Respondent  
 

 Before:  William A. Duvall , Chief Administrative Law Judge

This matter came on for hearing as scheduled on April 10, 1974. In the Complaint, the United States Postal Service (Complainant) charges the Abatin Company, Chicago, Illinois (Respondent) with seeking to obtain remittances through the mail upon the basis of the following allegedly materially false representations:

A. That ABATIN causes "aversion (dislike) toward ALL intoxicating drinks";

B. That ABATIN "eliminates desire for more alcohol..."; By implication, Respondent represents in substance and effect:

C. That ABATIN is a medically recognized and approved method of withdrawal from alcohol; e.g.,

"Not classed as a treatment or cure, but IT IS a recognized method of withdrawal from alcohol." ... "Aversion treatment recognized by Medical Authorities."

D. That ABATIN, even when taken "secretly" (i.e., without the user's knowledge) will effectively stop an alcoholic habit; e.g.,

"May be given secretly," (in bold face type) "... to break the Drinking Cycle quickly." "It is not represented as a treatment or as a permanent 'CURE' but a means of temporarily interrupting the drinking cycle."

The evidence received at the hearing established, among other things, that the Respondent does use the mails in the sale of a product called Abatin; that the Respondent in its advertising material does make the representations set forth above; and that Abatin comes in the form of tablets, each of which contains 500 milligrams of animal charcoal and 200 milligrams of bone meal. There probably are other ingredients but their presence, identity and quantity are unknown.

The Complainant called as its only witness a medical doctor, who is also a psychiatrist, who is abundantly qualified from the standpoint of his experience, education and training in the field of treatment of alcoholics.

When questioned about the animal charcoal that is one of the ingredients of the product involved in this case today, the doctor stated that he did not know of the existence of this substance prior to the time that he was contacted in connection with this case. That contact was made a week before the hearing. After that contact was made, he read some medical articles which indicate that the ingredient, animal charcoal, has some usefulness in creating a sensitivity to alcohol; that, therefore, it could be inferred that it is useful in the treatment of alcoholism.

The doctor stated in reply to a question that if the product is effective, he is unaware of that fact. If the product is ineffective, he is unaware of it. If the product is effective, the doctor is unaware how effective it may be or is.

I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not stating this in any way to criticize the doctor. His forthright and frank answers are most commendable. He certainly demonstrated in his testimony that he is well qualified to treat alcoholics. And the fact that there is some obscure product about which he heard only last week, in my understanding, certainly is no criticism, but that it is not the point at issue here.

The point is whether the Complainant has sustained his required burden of proof to establish that the product will not do those things which the Complainant charges the Respondent with representing.

The first representation which the Complainant says the Respondent makes in his literature is that Abatin causes an aversion or dislike towards intoxicating drinks. The expert called by the Complainant to give testimony on that subject stated that he does not know whether the product is effective when taken for this purpose.

The same thing is true with reference to the representation that Abatin eliminates the desire for more alcohol. It is simply not shown in this record whether animal charcoal produces that result or not. The fact that there are favorable medical articles on the subject of the use of this ingredient indicates that the use of the ingredient is recognized and approved by at least a segment of the medical profession.

In regard to the last representation charged by the Complainant -- that Abatin, even when taken secretly, will effectively stop an alcoholic habit -- there is just no proof in this record as to the truth or falsity of that issue.

Being persuaded as I am that there is no proof of the falsity of the charges set forth in the Complaint, I think it would be extravagant and wasteful to proceed with the remainder of this hearing; to take this group out to Chicago and have the Respondent call expert witnesses. That would be a useless thing to do.

In view of that conviction, predicated on the lack of proof of falsity of the Respondent's representations, the Respondent's motion to dismiss this Complaint is granted.