US v. ART. OF FOOD CONSIST. OF 10 DRUMS, ETC., 75-93 C (1).

Decision Date31 August 1976
Docket NumberNo. 75-93 C (1).,75-93 C (1).
Citation414 F. Supp. 793
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. ARTICLE OF FOOD CONSISTING OF 10 DRUMS, MORE OR LESS, OF OROTIC ACID, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri

Barry A. Short, U. S. Atty., Wesley D. Wedemeyer, Asst. U. S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., for plaintiff.

Elliott P. Koenig, St. Louis, Mo., Dilling & Dilling, Chicago, Ill., for defendant.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

MEREDITH, Chief Judge.

This matter was tried to the Court. The Court has been duly advised by testimony, exhibits, and briefs of the parties. The Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Findings of Fact

1. This action was filed by the United States of America pursuant to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. § 301, et seq., to have seized and condemned, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 334, an article of food labeled in part: "Orotic Acid Anhydros" and "Orotic Acid Anhydros `Kyowa'" (hereafter called Orotic Acid).

2. The complaint for forfeiture was filed on January 30, 1975. The Orotic Acid was seized by the United States Marshal on that date. Thereafter, Robert Moravek intervened in this action and filed a claim and answer. A first amended complaint for forfeiture was filed on September 23, 1975, to substitute a different lot, but otherwise identical, Orotic Acid.

3. The Orotic Acid was shipped in interstate commerce to Private Formulae, Inc., in St. Louis, Missouri, where it was seized. At the time it was seized, it was being held for the purpose of further processing and sale. It was being held to manufacture "Magora" and/or "Calora" for the Miller Pharmacal Co., of West Chicago, Illinois. The Magora and Calora products as marketed were intended to be sold as dietary supplements and were intended to be sold as a food for humans.

4. Orotic Acid is found naturally in cow's milk. The Orotic Acid seized in this action was manufactured by a fermentation process, it was not obtained from cow's milk.

5. Based on the testimony and exhibits before this Court, the Court finds that Orotic Acid is not accepted among knowledgeable nutritionists and physicians as having either nutritional or therapeutic properties. There is no evidence that Orotic Acid is needed in the diet of humans to supplement the body's synthesis of Orotic Acid.

6. Orotic Acid was not in common use as a separate food ingredient in dietary supplements or in any other food prior to January 1, 1958.

7. Orotic Acid is not generally recognized recognized among experts qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate its safety as having have been adequately shown through...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • U.S. v. An Article of Food
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • 21 Mayo 1982
    ... ... AN ARTICLE OF FOOD, etc., Defendant, ... FoodScience Laboratories, Inc., ... § 348(a). 1 The court next held that the ... tablets under ... less than 4% of each tablet's weight (Record 10, 77 C 1647, Claimant's Answers to Plaintiff's ... ...
  • US v. 42/30 TABLET BOTTLES, CV 89-1626.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • 20 Diciembre 1991
    ...v. An Article of Food ... Food Science, 678 F.2d 735, 737-39 (7th Cir.1982); United States v. An Article of Food ... Orotic Acid, 414 F.Supp. 793, 793-94 (E.D.Mo.1976), aff'd mem., No. 76-1554 (8th This Court finds further support for classifying the ingredients of these dietary or nutritio......
  • United States v. Aangamik 15 Calcium Pangamate, 77 C 662
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • 29 Octubre 1980
    ...be a "food additive" as defined by the Act. In United States v. Article of Food Consisting of 10 Drums, More or Less, of Orotic Acid, 414 F.Supp. 793 (E.D.Mo.1976), aff'd. No. 76-1554 (8th Cir. 1977), the court found that orotic acid is both a food and an unsafe food additive within the mea......
  • National Nutritional Foods Ass'n v. Kennedy
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 16 Febrero 1978
    ...merely because it also qualifies as a food, cf. United States v. Article of Food Consisting of 10 Drums, More or Less, of Orotic Acid, 414 F.Supp. 793 (E.D.Mo.1976). Further, as Judge Gurfein has recently written for Yet, when we are dealing with the public health, the language of the Food,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT