27895. Nutri-Kings tablets.   (F.D.C. No. 45269.   S. No. 43-241R.)
QUANTITY:   3   360-tablet btls. and 2   540-tablet btls. at Berkeley, Calif.
SHIPPED :   On unknown date, from New York, N.Y., by Universal Nutritions, Inc.
LABEL IN PART: (Btl.) "Universal Nutritions * * * Nutri-Kings Food Supple- 
ment These vitamins and minerals supplied in part from a special base of: 
Alfalfa Leaves, Pacific Coast Kelp, Parsley, Zein, Soy Bean and Watercress.
To insure proper potencies additional vitamins and minerals were added. 
* * * Universal Nutritions, Inc., Dist. New York 13, N.Y."
ACCOMPANYING LABELING: Leaflets entitled "Universal Nutrition * * * Fall, 
1960."
LIBELED :   12-9-60, N. Dist Calif.
CHARGE : 402(a) (2) (C)—when shipped and while held for sale, the article con- 
tained a food additive, namely, folic acid, which was unsafe within the mean- 
ing of section 409, since it and its use or intended use were not in conformity 
with a regulation or exemption in effect pursuant to section 409; and 403(a) — 
the listing on the label of the article of the ingredients, namely, alfalfa leaves, 
Pacific Coast kelp, parsley, zein, soy bean, watercress, choline dihydrogen 
citrate, dl-methionine, inositol, para-aminobenzoic acid, biotin, vitamin K 
(Menadione), rutin, manganese, cobalt, copper, zinc, magnesium, potassium, 
fluorine, molybdenum, chlorophyllins, and lemon bioflavonoid complex (addi- 
tional nutritional factor), was false and misleading since such listing repre- 
sented that the ingredients so listed were present in nutritionally significant 
quantities for special dietary uses, whereas, such ingredients were not present 
in nutritionally significant quantities for special dietary uses.
The libel alleged also that the article was misbranded under the provisions 
of the law applicable to drugs as reported in notices of judgment on drugs 
and devices.
DISPOSITION : Universal Nutritions, Inc., claimed the article and filed an answer. 
Thereafter, on or about 1-30-61, pursuant to stipulation of the parties, the case 
was removed to the U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. N.J.
On or about 8-28-61, the libel was amended to allege that the article was 
adulterated within the meaning of 402(a) (2) (C) in that it contained an unsafe 
food additive.
On 11-29-61, the claimant having consented to a decree on the ground that 
the article was adulterated as alleged and without an adjudication of the mis- 
branding charge, judgment of condemnation and destruction was entered. On 
12-7-61, an amendment to the above decree ordered the U.S. marshal for the 
N. Dist. of Calif, to destroy the article.