2645. Adulteration and misbranding of fortified cod-liver oil.    TJ. S. v. Seaboard
Supply Co.,  Inc.     Plea of nolo  contendere.     Fine,  SI50.     (F.  D.  €. No.
2890.    Sample Nos. 1236-E, 14209-E, 78465-D.) -
This product was found to be deficient in both vitamin D and vitamin A.
On January 8, 1941, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of 
Pennsylvania filed an information against Seaboard Supply Co., Inc., Philadelphia, 
Pa., alleging shipment within the period from on or about January 2 to on or 
about March 28, 1940, from the. State of Pennsylvania into the States of West 
Virginia and Delaware of quantities of fortified cod-liver oil that was adulterated 
and misbranded. It was labeled in part: "50 Lbs. Net Sea-Clo-400-D Highly 
Fortified Cod Liver Oil In Dry Base."
The article, was alleged to be adulterated in that valuable constituents thereof, 
i. e., vitamins D and A, had been in whole or in part omitted or abstracted 
therefrom.
It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements "Sea-Clo-400-D * * * 
In place of each 4% lbs. straight 85-D Oil use 1 lb. Se.a-Clo-400-D. In place of 
each 1 lb. Fortified 400-D use 1 lb. Sea-Clo-400-D. For each 5 pints 85-D Oil 
used, replace with 1 lb. Sea-Clo-400-D," and "Guaranteed to contain 400 A. O. A. C. 
units of Vitamin D. per gram. When this product is packed it contains more 
than 1000 units of Vitamin 'A' per gram, but due .to a difference of opinion of our 
many authorities regarding the stability of Vitamin 'A' from -Cod Liver Oil when 
added to feeds, we are making no claim for it," appearing in the labeling, were 
false and misleading since it contained less than 400 units of vitamin D per gram 
and it contained much less than 1,000 units of vitamin A per gram, and 1 pound of 
said food would not be equivalent in feeding value or as a source of vitamin D and 
vitaminA to 4% pounds of straight 85-D cod-liver oil, 1 pound of fortified 400-D 
cod-liver oil, or 5 pints of 85-D cod-liver oil.
The article was also charged to be adulterated and misbranded under the pro- 
visions of the law applicable to drugs, as reported in D. D. N. J. No. 481.
On March 24,1941, the defendant having entered a plea of nolo contendere, the 
court imposed a fine of $150.