776. Adulteration  and misbranding of cod-liver  oil.     IT.  S. v.  5  Barrels  and  1
Drum of Cod-Liver Oil. Default decrees, of condemnation. Portion of
product- ordered- disposed of for stock and poultry feed; remainder or-
dered destroyed.    (F. D. C. Nos. 7567, 7586.    Sample Nos. 71520-E, 80695-B.
This product differed from the pharmacopoeia! standard since it was not
partially destearinated, and it was off in color and odor and high in free fatty
acids. The oil in the drum contained smaller amounts of vitamin D and vitamin A
than those declared on the label.
On May 26 and 29, 1942, the United States attorneys for the Southern Dis-
trict of Ohio and Eastern District of Missouri filed libels against 5 30-gallon
barrels of cod-liver oil at Mt. Orab, Ohio, and 1 30-gallon drum of cod-liver oil
at St. Louis, Mo., which had been consigned on or about February 17 and
April 4, 1942, alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce
by the Swiftide Co., from Portland, Maine; and charging that it was adulterated
and misbranded. The article was labeled in part: "Swiftide Brand Cod Liver
Oil."
It was alleged to be adultered in that it was represented as a drug the name
of which is recognized in an official compendium but its quality fell below the
standard set forth in that compendium and the manner in which it differed
from such standard was not stated on the label.
It was alleged to be misbranded in that the name "Cod Liver Oil" was false
and misleading since it was not cod-liver oil. A portion was alleged to be
misbranded further in that the statements (drum) "Guaranteed to Contain
Not Less Than 200 A. O. A. C. Units Vitamin D" and "Not less than 1,000 Units
Vitamin A Per Gramme," were false and misleading since it contained not more
than 100 A. O. A. C. units of vitamin D and not more than 700 U. S. P. units
of vitamin A per gram. The oil in the drum was also alleged to be misbranded
under the provisions of the law applicable to foods, as reported in Notices of
Judgment on Foods.
On June 30, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation
was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.
DRUGS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF FALSE AND MISLEADING CLAIMS5
DRUGS FOR HUMAN USE