18493. Adulteration and misbranding of Enricho No. 1 and Enricho No. 2. U. S. v. Dawe's Mfg. Co. Plea of guilty. Fine, $1,500. (J\ D. C. No. 23223. Sample Nos. 19334-H, 51504-H.) INFORMATION FILED: December 4, 1947, Southern District of Illinois, against the Dawe's Mfg. Co., a corporation, Peoria, III. ALLEGED SHIPMENT: On or about March 21 and 27, 1946, from the State of Illinois into the States of Iowa and Minnesota. PRODUCT: Analyses disclosed that the Enricho No. 1 contained per gram 70 U. S. P. units of vitamin D, 50 U. S. P. units of vitamin A, more than 100 micro- grams of riboflavin, approximately 86 micrograms of vitamin Bi, approxi- mately 70 micrograms of ascorbic acid, and 119 micrograms of niacin; and that the Enricho No. 2 contained per gram 200 U. S. P. units of vitamin D, 53 micrograms of riboflavin, 50 micrograms of vitamin Bi, less than 25 U. S. P. units of vitamin A, and approximately 80 micrograms of ascorbic acid and 75 micrograms of niacin. NATURE OF CHARGE: Enricho No. 1. Adulteration, Section 402 (b) (1), valu- able constituents, vitamins A and D and ascorbic acid, had been in part omitted and abstracted from the article. Misbranding, Section 403 (a), the label state- ments "Vitamin D3 (Chick) 100 AOAC Units (Per Gram) 45,400 AOAC Units (Per Pound) Vitamin D2 (4-Legged Animals) 100 USP Units (Per Gram) 45,400 USP Units (Per Pound) Vitamin A 100 USP Units (Per Gram) 45,400 USP Units (Per Pound) * * * Ascorbic Acid 100 Mcgm. (Per Gram) 45,400 Mcgm. (Per Pound)" were false and misleading, since the article contained less than those amounts of vitamin D3, vitamin D2, vitamin A, and ascorbic acid. Further misbranding, Section 403 (a), certain statements on the label of the article were false and misleading, since they represented and suggested that the article by reason of its vitamin C content would be of value to farm animals; that it would be of aid to poultry and livestock in preventing and recovering from setbacks and sickness due to shortage of vitamins; that the use of the article would insure health of animals; that the article would be efficacious by reason of its vitamin content in the cure, mitigation, treatment, and prevention of infections in poultry and livestock; that the article was necessary to supply the vitamins and minerals which are indispensable for poultry and livestock; that growth, feathering, appetite, blood, digestion, and utilization of feed of poultry, and growth, bones, coat, production and re- production, blood, appetite, and digestion of 4-legged animals are frequently affected by the vitamin and mineral intake; that it would be efficacious in the prevention in poultry of low disease resistance, rickets, and paralysis; that it would be efficacious in the prevention in 4-legged animals of low disease re- sistance, rickets, diarrhea, anemia, night blindness, nutritional scours, and paralysis; that it was an extra rich food; that it would be efficacious in the treatment of weak, run-down, and convalescent birds and animals, backward flocks, sickly animals, and females during pregnancy and nursing; that it was rich in the complete vitamin B complex; and that poultry and livestock had a need for a supplement rich in the complete vitamin B complex. The article would not be of value to farm animals by reason of its vitamin 0 con- tent, in that farm animals have no need for vitamin 0; the article would not insure the health of animals; the article was not necessary to supply the vita- mins and minerals indispensable for poultry and livestock, in that many poultry and livestock rations adequately supply the vitamins and minerals needed; growth, feathering, appetite, blood, digestion, and utilization of feed of poultry, and growth, bones, coat, production and reproduction, blood, appetite, and di- gestion of 4-legged animals are seldom affected by the vitamin and mineral intake, but are often affected by factors other than vitamin and mineral intake; it was not an extra rich food; it was not rich in the complete vitamin B com- plex ; poultry and livestock have no need for a supplement rich in the complete vitamin B complex; and the article would not be efficacious in the treatment and prevention of the above-mentioned disease conditions. Enricho No. 2. Adulteration, Section 402 (b) (1), a valuable constituent, vitamin A, had been in part omitted and abstracted from the article. Mis- branding, Section 403 (a), certain statements on the label of the article were false and misleading, since they represented and suggested that the article contained 50 U. S. P. units of vitamin A per gram and 22,700 U. S. P. units of vitamin A per pound; that it would be of value for use by poultry by reason of its content of 11 vitamins and 5 trace minerals, including niacin, vitamin Bi, choline, pyridoxine, vitamin K, vitamin E, vitamin O, iron, copper, and sulfur; that it by reason of its vitamin 0 content would be of value to farm animals; that it would be of aid to poultry and livestock in preventing and recovering from setbacks and sickness due to shortage of vitamins; that the use of the article would insure the health of animals; that the article would be efficacious by reason of its vitamin content in the cure, mitigation, treatment, and prevention of infections of poultry and livestock; that the article was necessary to supply the vitamins and minerals which are indispensable for poultry and livestock; that in the case of poultry, egg production, hatchability, feathering, appetite, assimilation of food, shells of eggs, lower resistance to disease, blood, and the thyroid are frequently affected by the vitamin and mineral intake; that the article was rich in the complete vitamin B complex; and that poultry and livestock have a need for a supplement rich in the com- plete vitamin B complex. The article contained less vitamin A * than repre- sented ; it would not be of value for use by poultry by reason of its content of 11 vitamins and 5 trace minerals, as mentioned above; it would not be of value to farm animals by reason of its vitamin O content, in that farm animals have no need for vitamin C; the article was not necessary to supply the vitamins and minerals which are indispensable for poultry and livestock, in that many poultry and livestock rations adequately supply the vitamins and minerals needed; in the case of poultry, egg production, hatchability, feathering, appetite, assimilation of feed, shells of eggs, low- resistance to disease, blood, and thyroid are seldom affected by vitamin and mineral intake but are often affected by factors other than vitamin and mineral intake; the article was not rich in the complete vitamin B complex; poultry and livestock have no need for a supplement rich in the complete vitamin B complex; and the article was not efficacious for the purposes represented. The articles were alleged also to be misbranded under the provisions of the law applicable to drugs, as reported in notices of judgment on drugs and devices, No. 2443. DISPOSITION : January 5,1948. A plea of guilty having been entered, the court imposed a fine of $1,500.