521. Adulteration and misbranding of Dr.   Senftner's Glucocinine.     U.  S. v. 27
Boxes and 12 Boxes of Dr. Senftner's Glucocinine. Default decree of
condemnation ordering product delivered to Food and Drug: Administra-
tion for technical use.     (F. D. C. No. 4009.    Sample Nos. 31575-E, 31576-E.)
On March 21, 1941, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of
Michigan filed a libel against the above-named product at Detroit. Mich., alleging
that it had been shipped by the Glucocinine Co. of America from Richmond
Hill, N. Y., on or about January 20 and 30, 1941; and charging that it was
adulterated and misbranded.
Annalysis of a sample of the article showed that it consisted essentially of
powdered plant tissues including potato strach.
It was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from, or its
purity or quality fell below, that which it purported or was represented to
possess, namely: (Carton label) "Ingredients-Plant Insulin substances," (cir-
cular entitled "Glucocinine") "(Vegetable Insulin)" and "(Plant Insulin)," and
(circular entitled "Glucocinine in Diabetes Mellitus") "Glucocinines are ex-
tracted by a special process. The resulting preparation is * * * free from
carbohydrates."
* Except Nos. 534 and 536.    See also Nos. 429, 430, 433-437, 439, 440, 442-444, 446,
450-453, 485.
It was alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that the statements (carton label)
"Ingredients-Plant Insulin substances," and (circular entitled "Glucocinine")
"(Vegetable Insulin)" and "(Plant Insulin)," were false and misleading.
,(2) In that representations in the labeling that it was a "plant insulin" which
would be efficacious when administered orally in the treatment of diabetes
mellitus, that it was "An answer to the intelligent diabetic's prayer," that it
was "positively unsurpassed," and that it would help to stimulate the pancreas
gland to produce insulin of its own, were false and misleading since it would
not be efficacious for the purposes recommended. (3) In that its label failed
to bear the common or usual name of each of the active ingredients.
On May 13,1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was
entered and the product was ordered delivered to the Food and Drug Adminis-
tration for technical purposes.