8090. Misbranding of Supplemental Concentrates Formula No. 4 and Formulated 
Foods Formula No. 13. P. S. v. 94 Packages of Formula No. 4 and 52 
Packages of Formula No. 13. Default decree of condemnation and 
destruction.     (F. D. C. No. 11447.    Sample Nos. 53826-F, 53828-F.)
LIBEL FILED : December 22,1943, District of Arizona.
ALLEGED SHIPMENT: On or about November 9, 1943, by the Dietary Eesearch 
Laboratories, Los Angeles, Calif.
PRODUCT: 94 packages of Formula No. 4 and 52 packages of Formula No. 13, at 
Tucson, Ariz. Examination disclosed that Formula No. 4 consisted essentially 
of alfalfa and wheat, with small amounts of other vegetable material and 
possibly animal tissue; and that Formula No. 13 consisted essentially of garlic 
and parsley.
LABEL IN PART: "Supplemental Concentrates Formula No. 4 20 Vegetable 
Concentrates Combined with Raw Liver, Heart Muscle and Stomach Lining 
Vitamins A, B. D, B and G Present in their Natural Form," and "Formula 
No. 13 Garlic-Parsley."
VIOLATIONS CHARGED: Formula No. 4, misbranding, Section 403 (j), the article 
purported to be and was represented as a food for special dietary uses by man 
by reason of its content of vitamins A, B, D, E, and G, and its label failed to 
bear, as required by the regulations, (1) a statement of the quantity of vita- 
mins A, B, D, E, and G in a specified quantity of the article; (2) a statement 
of the proportion of the minimum daily requirement for vitamins A, B, D and 
G supplied by the article when consumed in a specific quantity during a
period of 1 day; and (3) a statement that the need for vitamin E in human 
nutrition has not been established.
Formula No. 13, misbranding, Section 403 (a), the statements in the label- 
ing, "A Dietary Supplement in the presence of High Blood Pressure," and "A 
dietary supplement processed and formulated to provide an effective adjuvant 
to the regular or prescribed diet," were false and misleading since the article 
would not be effective in relieving high blood pressure and was not an adjuvant 
to the diet.
The articles were also alleged to be misbranded under the provisions of the 
law applicable to drugs, as reported in notices of judgment on drugs and de- 
vices, No. 1329. 
DISPOSITION:   February 7, 1944.   No claimant having appeared, judgment of 
condemnation was entered and the products were ordered destroyed.