T74. Adulteration and misbranding of Vi-Penta Drops 'Roclie'. TJ. S. v. 234 Vials
of "Vi-Pentn Drops 'Roche'. Default decree of condemnation and destruc-
tion.    (F. D. C. No. 4833.    Sample No. 69145-E.)
This product was represented to contain 9,000 U. S. P. units of vitamin A per
0.6 cc. but in fact contained not more than 3,500 U. S. P. units of vitamin A
per 0.6 cc.
On May 27, 1941, the United States attorney for the Southern District of
New York filed a libel (amended September 16, 1941) against the above-named
product at New York, N. Y., alleging that it had been shipped in interstate
?commerce on or about April 22, 1941, by Hoffman-La Roche, Inc., from Nutley,
N. J.; and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded.
The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength differed from
and its quality fell below that which it was represented to possess, namely,
9,000 U. S. P. units of vitamin A per 0.6 cc, since it contained much less than
?9,000 U. S. P. units of vitamin A per 0.6 cc.
It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, (circular) "Each
10-minim dose of Vi-Penta Drops contains: Vitamin A 90Q0 U. S. P.
Units * * * Indications for Vi-Penta Drops * * * For the normal
growth and development of infants or children. In cases of malnutrition,
lowered resistance or run-down states. During prolonged illness such as in-
fections, anemias, tuberculosis, typhoid, etc. * * * For gastrointestinal
conditions, such as diarrhea, colitis, etc. When restrictions in diet are neces-
sary, as in obesity, diabetes, catarrhal jaundice, etc. Whenever the total food
intake must be increased, as in hyperthyroid conditions. For the treatment of
certain skin diseases, such as eczema. In certain allergic conditions, such as
those due to milk, eggs, wheat, etc. During periods of temporary or persistent
vomiting (in infancy, childhood, or pregnancy). In the prophylaxis or treat-
ment of abnormal dentition (or gum and tooth conditions)," were false and
misleading since it would not be efficacious for such purposes.
It was also alleged to be adulterated and misbranded under the provisions
?of the law applicable to food, as reposed in notices of judgment on foods.
On March 17, 1942, Hoffman-La Roche, Inc., claimant, having consented to
the entry of the decree, judgment of condemnation was entered and the product
was ordered destroyed.
DRUGS FOR VETERINARY USE