Notices of judgment under the Federal insecticide, fungicide, and rodenticide act

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Notices of judgment under the Federal insecticide, fungicide, and rodenticide act
Physical Description:
v. : ; 23 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
United States -- Agricultural Research Service
United States -- Plant Pest Control Branch
United States -- Plant Pest Control Division
United States -- Agricultural Research Service. -- Pesticides Regulation Division
Publisher:
The Service
Place of Publication:
Washington, D.C
Publication Date:
Frequency:
irregular
completely irregular

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Pesticides -- Law and legislation -- United States   ( lcsh )
Genre:
serial   ( sobekcm )
law report or digest   ( marcgt )
federal government publication   ( marcgt )

Notes

Dates or Sequential Designation:
Nos. 170-200 (issued Apr. 1954)-
Dates or Sequential Designation:
Ceased with June 1970 issue: Nos. 869-919.
Issuing Body:
Issued 1954-1957 by the service's Plant Pest Control Branch; 1958-Feb. 1962 by the service's Plant Pest Control Division; Sept. 1962-<Sept. 1965> by the service's Pesticides Regulation Division.
General Note:
Title from caption.
Statement of Responsibility:
United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, ...

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 004700307
oclc - 01780408
lccn - sn 98047303
System ID:
AA00008500:00001

Related Items

Preceded by:
Notices of judgment under the Federal insecticide, fungidide, and rodenticide act
Succeeded by:
Notices of judgment under the Federal insecticide, fungicide and rodenticide act

Full Text


I. F. R. 170-200


Issued April A154


'-1
0' i


UNITED


STATES DEPARTMENT OF


AGRICULTURAL


RESEARCH


AGRICULTURE

SERVICE


PLANT PEST CONTROL BRANCH


NOTICES


JUDGMENT
FUNGICIDE,


UNDER


AND


THE


FEDERAL


RODENTICIDE


INSECTICIDE,


ACT


Nos. 170-200


The following notices (If judgment relate to cases arising in the United States
District Courts and are approved for publication as provided in section 6 of the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U. S. C. 1946 ed. Supp,
V, 135d).
5M. R. OLARKSON,
actingg Administrator. Agricultural Research Service.


WASHINGTON, D. C., Mar. i, 1954.


adulteration


COMPOUND" and lack
teration of "LICRES."
portion. Plea of not g
nolo contender on coun
one and four, or a total
(I. F. & R. No. 1(0. I.D.


"KLOMINE


of required information, mi
U. S. v. ACME CHEMICAL
guilty on counts two, three,
ts one and four. Fine of $2Z
of $500. Counts two, three
Nos. 17971 and 17975.)


DISINFECTANT


sbranding and adul-
COMPANY, a cor-
and five, and plea of
50 on each of counts
, and five dismissed,


examination,


POUND," was
0.06 against S.
label. Further
tain directions
the protection o
Upon examine
dcent of 4.0 aga
efficient of 6.3


found t
aureus
examine
for use,
f the pu
ation, t
inst E.
as claim


the product "KLOMINE DISINFECTANT COM-
o have a phenol coefficient of 0.25 against E. typhose and
instead of a phenol coefficient of 1.4 as claimed on the
actionn of the product showed that the labeling did not con-
, which are necessary and, if complied with, adequate for


blic.


he pi
typm
med


showed that the labeling of
or measure of the contents o
by the act.
On September 12, 1951, tl
Wisconsin, acting upon a
United States District Colt
pany, a corporation, on or


product "LICR
osa and 2.7 ag
on the label.
the product di
f the contained
ie United Stat
report by the
t information
bout June 10,


E
;a


was found to have a phenol coeffi-
t S. aurcu. instead of a phenol co-
rther examination of the product
t bear a statement of the net weight
an ingredient statement as required


:es Attorney fo
Secretary of
alleging that I
, 1949 and Aug
J .


c the Eastern District of
Agrbicult, filed in the
the AcmI h~ical Com-
list 31, 1n
-' -


JUL


195t


Misbranding


Upon


$ $


f





.. :I
::.. ..li!E


i0i


INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


[I. F. R.N.J.


In count one, it was also alleged that the product was misbranded within the
meaning of the act in that the labeling accompanying it. did not contain directions
for use, which are necessary and, if complied with, adequate for the protection of
the public.
In count two it was alleged that the product was adulterated within the


meaning of the act in that it
ard or quality as expressed
"Phenol coefficient 1.4 (H. L.
cient of less than 1.4 by the H.
In count three it was allege
to its immediate container
measure of the content as reqi
In count four it was allege


that its label
age of each


inert ingredients
active and each o
of each present i
inert ingredients.
In count four
branded within t
tive to the produ


strength


la
d)


on its
Metho
L. Met
ed that
a label
uired bg
- -1 J. 1- --


1 or purity fell below the professed stand-
beling since the labeling stated in part:
" whereas the product had a phenol coeff-.


hod.
the product
bearing a s
7 the act.
h- --1- a


eu n2t1 int


did not bear an ingredient
of the active ingredients,


, or an ingredient sta
if the nert ingredients
in each classification,

it was further alleee


le prouuuct
it statement


"LICRES" did not have affixed
tatemient of the net welaE or


LICRES"


was misbranded in


giving the name and percent-


together with the total percentage of
tement iving the names of each of
in the Cescending oider of the percent
togketlr with the total percentage o

dhat the product "LICRES" was o


he meaning of the act in that the label
ct which were false or misleading since


"LICREB A highly refined liquor cresolis disinfectant,
for hospital use in surgery and obstetrics. Non-stainit
corrode metal or affect rubber. Phenol coefficient 6.5
matter, ,iter;, 371%. ** RBCOMMENDIDED D ILUT
surgical ad obstetrical antisepis, a 2 to 4% solution ol
S* whereas the product had a phenol coefficient (f I
Method and was not non-caustic.
In count five it was alleged that the product was adul
ing of the act in that its strength or purity fell below tl
quality as expressed on its labeIing since the labeling
coefficient, 63 (H. L. Mthod)" whereas the product h
less than 6.8 by the H. L. Method.
On September 3, 1952 the defendant enter ai plea of r
one and four and not guilty on counts two, and fi'
the court imposed a fine of $250 each on t one and
Counts two, three, and five were dismissed.


Lack of required information
seated in connection with it
of "Fortified Pine Oil Disin
rented in connection with
tion of "Pine-Crown Fortifit
and "Griffen's Fortified Pil
misbranding and adulterati4
ant Coeffi-ient 5 F. D. A.;
Killer;"' difference in subst
section with its registration
and misbranding and adul


ing
th
an
ng.

IO
SL


D's-1


blire statements rela-
e label stated in part:
tiseptic and detergent
non-caustic, does not
I. L. Method). Inert
NS For general use in
icres is recommended.


ess than 6.3 by the H. L.

terated within the mean-
he plrofesse(d standard or
stated in part: "Phenol
td a phenol coefficient of

iolo contender on counts
re, and on March 9, 1953
four, or a total of $500.


on label, difference in composition as repre-
s registration, misbranding, and adulteration
fectant :" difference in composition as repre-
its registration, x rnding a"s
ed Pine Oil Disinfectant Coefficient 5 F. D. A."
ne Oi li Thsnfect f fo iwcint 5
on of "Philmark Fortified Pine Oil Disinfect-


a
fn
t<


lack
nee f
, and
?ratio


fects, Deodorizes As It Cleans!
Elsa L. FreudenthaL and Agnes i
etal vice of Baltimore. Elsa


of registration of "Kor-X-All
rom the representations made i
misbranding of "Aerosol Glyco
in of "Supersol Bowl Cleaner,
" U. S. v. Bernard R. Freudi
1. David, co-partners trading as
L. Freudenthal and Agnes L.


Insect
n con-
-San;"
Dien-
enthal,
Chem-
David


4 -~-.-ztx


hp"d as party defendants and count fourteen struck from the infor-
flu I ut n r- I .l_ 1 I r' VA A. A n __--


jjK~


i


b-


"1






170-200 ]


C Es OF


11!


I., A." was found to cousitit of water, sosoppyl alcohol, light wood -ditilt
late, chlorinated phenol, and a small atlount of pine oil, and had a phenolpoeff-
eient of 1.7 instead of a phe~nol coefficient of 5, as claimed. A sample of "Aerosol
Glyco-San" was an aerosofboi mb containing methyl dodecyl benzyl trijnethyl
ammonium chloride, isopr alcohol, triethlene glycol, propylene glygol, and
a propellent. A sample oi :'uperso Bowl. Gleaner, isinfects, Deodorizes As
It Cleans was found to contain 23.26 percent of hydrogen chloride instead of
28 percent. as claimed. A sample of "Griffen's Fortified Pine Oil Disinfectant
Coefficient 5 F. DA.A." wa und -to conisat of water, soap, isopropyl alcohol,
light wood distillate, chlori i ed $enol, ad a small amount of pine oil, and to
have a phenol coefficient of 6.5 instead of a phenol coefficient of 5, as claimed.
On September 15, 1952, the United States Attorney for the District of Mary--
land, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District
Court information against Bernard R. Freudenthal, Elsa L. Freudenthal, and
b 4Nvid, co-partner0 trading as Chemical Service of Baltimore, alleging:
shipment; in interstate comce on or about Jauary 31, 1951, March 1, 1951,
"to"" er 3. 1950, October 10, 1950, January 24, 1951, and December 11, 1950 of
quan ties of "'Fortified Pine Oil Disinfectant," "Pine-Crown Fortified Pine Oil
iw 4Bt.pOoeficient 5," "Kor-X-All Insect Killer," "Philmark Fortified Pine
h i nett Coefficient 5 'F. D. A." "'Aerosol Glyco-San," "Supersol Bowl
Cleaner. Disinfects, Deodorize As It Cleans," and "Griffen's Fortified Pine Oil
Disinfectant Coefhicentit 5 "Dt. A." from Baltimore, Md., into the States of
ldina, sa scb usetts, Conrecticut, New Jersey, and the District of Columbia,
onltmof the bact.
Sc t one it was alleged that the product "Fortified Pine Oil Disinfectant"
was an economic poison within the meaning of the act, and that it was in
viola t i n that : .
S(1) product did not hwve affixed. to each of its immediate containers a
b bg e name, brand or trade-mark under which the product was sold.
(2) *e ioStut did not h&ve affixed to each of its immediate containers a
lbl b rn a, statement of the net weight or measure of the contents of such
con t iner.
hZn- uiet two it was allege that the composition of the product differed from
its cornpo!itou as represe d in connection with its registration in that the
product contained an oil ok than pine oil, to wit: a light wood distillate,
,no i .g n^^^aumed as atomponent of the product in connection with its
In count three it was alle that the "Fortified Pine Oil Disinfectant" was
misbranded within the mending of the act in that its accompanying labeling did
not contam directions for f which are necessary, and, if complied with,
tetor the protection aothe public.
S tent three it was alle that the product was further misbranded within
the meaning of the act inm the labels on its containers did not bear an
"' ingredient statement giving the name and percentage of each active ingredient,
tiigether 'with the total percentage of the inert ingredients, or an ingredient state-
g nit ivinur the name of ea sve ingredient, together with the name of each


and the total per
In count four
adulterated in t
had been substit
oTIn oount four
The meaning of
standard or qual


centage of the inert ingredients.


it
hat
ute4
it \
the
ity


In count five it w
Tlii nfota nt Ofnoffle'


was alleged that the "Fortified Pine Oil Disinfectant" was
an oil other than pine oil, to wit: a light wood distillate,
d wholly or in part fur the pine oil claimed to be present .
vas alleged that the priducrt was further adulterated Within
act in that its strength or purity fell below the professed
under which it was sold.
'as alleged that the product "Pine-Crown Fortified Pine Oil


i1n


t Fi 6tfl


A "


waR in il.,nHn"t ff thia nat in that the corn-






112


INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


[I. F. R. N.J.


quality
5 F. D.
of 5 F.
Sn A


uiderWBich it was sold, since iP~ labdling stated in part, "Coefficient
A.," which implied or represented that the product had a phenol coefficient
D. A., whereas, the phenol coefficient of the product was less than 5


J A-J. *fl.
In count rven it was
fectant" waS misbtanded
the statemhts:


alleged that the "Pine-Crown Fortified Pine Oil Disin-
within the meaning of the act in that its labeling bore


"Pine Crown Fortited, pie Oil iant Coefficient 5 F. D. A.
Contains Pine Oil Fortified With OPotent Bactericidal Agents
Cont Pine O Fo *Wt


Conents-Active Ingredients
Pine oil
Soap
Isopropyl Alcohol
Ortho-Benzyl-Par OhlorophenoL
Inert Ingredients
Water 10%


Directions For Vtse
Be sure all dirt is swept up and removed before applying disin-
fectant. For proper, disinfectation, surface should be thoroughly
wetted with disinfectant solution as described below:
Solution A : Use 1 part of Dis. with 100 parts of wa ter
Solution B : Use 1 part of Dis. with 200 parts of water
Coefficient 5 F. D. A. against E. Typhi
As a Disinfectant
For Urinals and Toilets: Clean daily with Solution A. Pour ex-
cess solution in pail down urinal drains.
For Public Places: In schools, hotels, theatres, office buildings, etc.
wash freely all floors, desks, etc. with Solution A.
Cuspidors: Clean with Solution A. Leave small amount in cuspidor.
Garbage Receptacles, Etc.: Wash entire surface thoroughly with
Solution A.
Telephone and Dictating Machine Mouthpieces: Wash thoroughly
with Solution A.
Kennels, Stables, Chicken Houses,; tc.: Wash all surfaces thor-
oughly with Solution A. Allow to remain approximately 10
minutes and then mop up thoroughly with clear water.
*", -

which were false or misleading since the statements implied or represented
that the product: (1) was stronger and more effective for disinfecting purposes
than an ordinary pine oil disinfectant; (2) had a phenol coefficient of 5.0 F. D. A.
Method against E. typM (8. typhosaj ; (3) contained no oil other than pine
oil; and (4) when used as directed could be relied upon to disinfect urinals,
toilets, cuspidors, garbage receptacles, telephone and dictating machine mouth-
pieces, floors and desks in schools, hotels, theatres, and office buildings, surfaces
in kennels stables, and chicken houses, and all other surfaces, articles, and
places implied by the abbreviation "etc."; whereas, the product : (1) was not
stronger and more effective for distinfectig purposes than an ordinary pine
oil disinfectant; (2) had a phenol coefficient of substantially less than 5.0 F. D. A.
Method against B. typM (8. typhoes); (3) contained oil other than pine oil,
.muo- I-. 'n t .4\ ncnA yo Airprtl mould not be




;~;;



i.






""



"";

Z'

%;
iE:E



j~""
1,,E,
i


JUDGMENT


113


CONTA
OTHER


"PHILMARK
FORTIFIED
PINE OIL DISINIECTANT
COEFFICIENT 5 F. D. A.
INS PINE OIL FORTIFIED WITH
POTENT BACTERICIDAL AGENTS


*d *l *l


DIRECTIONS FOR USE
s1re all dirt is swept up and removed before applying disin-
actunt. For proper disinfection, surface should be thoroughly
Wetted with disinfectant solution as described below:
Solution A: Use 1 part of Dis. with 100 parts water
Solution B: Use I part of Dis. with 200 parts water
Coefficient 5 F. D. A. against E. Typhi


AS A.DISINFECTANT


For Urinals and toilets: Clean daily with Solution A.
solution in pail down urital drains.
For Public Places: In schools, hotels, theatres, office I
wash freely all floors, desks, etc., with Solution A.
EQspiorxs: Clean with Solution A. Leave small an
cuspidor.
Garbage Receptacles, etc.: Wash entire surface thorou
lution A.
Telephone and Dictating Machine Mouthpieces: Was
with Solution A.
,fenneIl, Stables, Chicken Houses, etc.: Wash all s
roughly with Solution A. Allow to remain for appr
minutes and then mop up thoroughly with clear water.


Pour excess


buildings, etc.,

iount in each


Lghly with So-


sh thoroughly

surfaces thor-
oximately 10


e91

which were false or misleading, since the statements implied or represented that
the product: (1) was stronger and more effective for disinfecting purposes than
ordinarqpine oil disinfectant; (2) had a phenol coefficient of 5.0 F. D. A.
Method against E. typM (8. typhosa) ; and (3) when used as directed could
be relied upon to disinfect urinals, toilets, public places, cuspidors, garbage re-
ceptaeles, telephone and dictating machine mouthpieces, kennels, stables, chicken
hoses, an all other surfaces, articles, and places implied by the abbreviation
"etc."; whereas, the product (1) was not stronger and more effective for dis-
infecting purposes than ordinary pine oil disinfectant; (2) had a phenol coef-
li cient of substantially less than 5.0 F. D. A. Method against E. typhi (S.
itypho p); and (3) when usqd as directed could not be relied upon to disinfect
Urinalg, toilets, public pla c cuspidors, garbage receptacles, telephone and
dictatitig machine mouthliie kennels, stables, chicken houses, and all other
surfaces, articles, and places ied by the abbreviation "etc."
1 itIn- cunit nine it was alleged hat the product was further misbranded in that
itd labeling bore the statement CONTENTS 1 GALLON *" which
was false and misleading, a statement implied or represented that the net
content of the product was 1 gallon whereas the net content of the product
was sstanflally less than 1 n.
In count ten it was alleged at the 'Philinark Fortified Pine Oil Disinfectant
Coeficit 5 F iD. A was arteried Within the meanninE of the act. in that


NOTICES


~~"" """I;;;







114


INSECTICIDE,


FloGICIrE,


AND RODEN!


L1CJDE


ACT


IL F.R.


*l r -
W i ashes ge
Sand o
South of t


:f~lr"


The fortified glycol SURFtACE GERMICOIDE

GLYOO-SAN, dispersed in the air, washes infectious bacteria aid
virus out or the air aid at the siirce. Formulated to coat and
kill, GLYCO-SAN rapidly reduces the baCterial blint in the air. It
kills surface bacteria almost inmedalttw upon eontactt


2 COATS &KILLS


GLYOO-SAN consisting of fortified glycols, attracts the germ, sur-
rounds it, and kills it.

These scientific principles explain why
Glyco-san'
is designed to attack & eliminate tifetious bacteria in the air ani
on the surface


GLYCO- $-
COATS THE
:GERM
COATING ACTION OF GLYCO-SAN
The microscopic particles of GLYCO-SAN
bacteria, and envelop the germ.
GLYCO-SAN
PENETRATES
AND KILLS
THE GERM
KILLING ACTION OF GLYCO-SAN
Fortified glycols provide penetrating and k
effectiveness is thus assured.
*'.
<* *


in the


attract the


killing activity.


G rea ter


Tests Show New
Vapor Prevents
Common Cold
*


The new cold preventative is based on using an invisible and odor-
less vapor of triethylene glycol in rioos where there are groups of
children or adults. The vapor is dispensed through an easy-to-use.
portable vaporizer that is very suitable for kindergartens, class
rooms, offices, nurseries or sickroonas.
PRODUCT LONG TESTED


Glycol vapor is said to be deadly to airborne germs.
is only one of the pests that this chemical affects.
Others are many of the children's diseases, nose a
J",- -. J L-. I- JI. -3a .3_ A. t ^-1 -


The cold germ


ind throat infec-


N. J.


i~rC
,:~


at>


'Bijiii~~~~


~ ::
:r, H;r


iE ,,


"" E
i
:i






170-200]


NOTICES


iJUDGMlENT


115


Dispersed in the ait as la spray, mist or vapor, it is designed to
attract, coat, penetrlt c ,and kill inftetios air-borne germs
*i


2 GLYCO-SAN
3 GLYCO-SAN
the surface.


env ees
peneWgtes


* germs in the air & on the surface.
S. and kills germs in the air-and on


* *,,


"* No longer can the microrganile enemy claim undisputed mas-
tery in the air: for iYCtO-SAN, the fortified glycol, is designated
to wash germs out ot the air and from the surface.
Germ life cIommoni found in the air
Not all germ life raud in the air need be dreaded. There are
many kinds of air-brne bacteria, however, that are potentially
dangerous. Thus, tr ly alarming conditions may prevail in the air
one breathes indoors. For example, these germs have been found in
sampling air :
1. Staphylooccus: **
SStreptococcus* *
*i, erle bacillus *
8. Pneuimococcus: 4 *
8. Cold virus: *
9. Meningococcus: ** *
1. Influenza virus. *
It is intended that GYLOQ-SAN provide complete destruction of the
nflectioUs germs, not wily in the air, but on the surface, too. In
other terms. GLYOCO-SAN is formulated to give real germicidal


action, onpled with hygroscopic penetration.

SGLYOOCSAN as a Contact Germicide
*
SThe truth is there is much yet to learn on the subject of the comn
cold. It is not known whether the contact is made by germs
i virus in the air or on the surface; or whether it is a combination
Sboth. However, GLYOO-SAN kills bacteria almost immediate
upon contact when sprayed, sponged or mopped on the surface.
*

GLTCO-SAN as a Deodorant
;* GLYOO-SAN kidl the putrefactive bacteria responsible
obnoxious odors.

Too, GLYCO-SAN elliates mildew fungi. Thus, it complete
ends musty, mildew, ohjectionaible odors.

Ued as a surface gerrde,, GLYCO-SAN almost immediately k
b.afteria and, of special importance, it kills odors at its source
Si^ endiRgthelifeof putrefactive germ matter.

LYCO-SAN destroy mildew fungi

iti m fhroh Co lon& n in c-nndmnn ainnn ^n^i n *r...n nf /l nc ony nnr rvy


Ion
or
iof
ely


for


ely


ills
by


%onl dnnnror


~<






116


SINECTICIDIE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND
5V. '^**'^ A '


RODENTICIDE
XX t


ACT


would no&agd mpesty mildew odors; (11n wd qot envelop or kill all germs in
the air or on surfaces; (12) would not coat, penetrate, or kill all infec-
tious air-borne germs; (13) would not have germ-killing powers against disease
contracted from the air;, (14) would not be a surface germicide for all germs;
(15) wod npot kill all surface bacteria.tbuost immediately upon contact; (16)
would not oat, envelop, penetrate, or kilt titXgerms; and (17) would not prevent
the common cold or destroy the virus of common cold.
In count thirteen it was alleged that thp o$puct "Supersol Bowl Cleaner Dis-
infects, Deoorizes As It Cleans "p was sriab ended within the meaning of the.
act, in that its labeling bore the statemrat ACTIVE INGREDIENTS:
Hydrogen Chloride 28%, Chlorinated Bfl 2.5%, Inert Ingredients 69.5%
* dichloro benzene *" which we ale or misleading since the product
contained less than 28 percent of hydrogen loride ap~d more than 69.5 percent
of inert ingredients.
In count fourteen it waS alleged that the Supersol Btwl Disinfects, Deodor-
izes As It Cleans" was adulterated witi the meaning of the act in that its
strength or purity fell below the professed standard of quality under which it
was sold.
In count fifteen it was alleged that the product "Griffen's Fortified Pine Oil
Disinfectant Coefficient 5 F. D. A." was in violation of the act in that its composi-
tion differed in substance from the composition of the product as represented in
connection with its registration, in that the product contained oil other than pine
oil, to-wit: a light wood distillate, which was not named as a component of the
production connection with its registration.
In count sixteen it *as alleged that the product was misbranded within the
meaning of the act, in that its labeling bore the sta tements:


CONTA
OTHER


"Griffea i
FORTIFIED
PINE OIL DISINFECTANT
COEFFICIENT 5 F. D. A.
INS PINE OIL FORTIFIED WITH
POTENT BACTERICIDAL AGENTS


CONTENTS


ACTIVE INGREDIENTS
Pine Oil
Soap
Isopropyl Alcohol
Ortho-Benzyl-Para-Chl o ro p h e no
INERT INGREDIENT
aater___ ---- ___- _.. 10


4i *


DIRECTIONS FOR


USE


Be sure all dirt is swept up and removed before a
fectant. For proper disinfection, surface should
wetted with disinfectant solution as described below
Solution A: Use 1 part of Dis. with 100 parts water
Solution B: Use 1 part of Dis. with 200 parts wat
Coefficient 5 F. D. A. against E. Typhi
AS A DISINFECTANT
Fnr TUrinals and Tnilot" fl nan ianily with Snintinn &A


Implying disin-
be thoroughly

er
er


Pnyri avInoau


Ir. F. It. N. 3.
iE^ "iT ,,,:"^"^^1X~9d ~iiiEEEiii~




i:
n:,,,,
iii
~~~ji~~t
~E """
f:. :


JU~1EiGMEN


117


,ennels, Stables, Chicken Houses, ete.: Wash all surfaces thor-
ugglby with Solution A. Allow to remain for approximately 10
minutes and tlirn m u thoroughly with clear water."


bid ere false
he product:
Sit re effective
KK^.^^ _K, *1KK ~-j.... M ~i **** .. ...t ~ 5 e* ...-.." ....... _


fectant;, (3) had a
(.. typhosa) ; and
urinals6 toilets, cus
.m6 oufhpfeces, flbors
surfaces in kennels
ahnd places implied
trained an oil other
stronger and more
De*KW 43) h
Method against E.
Shnt be relied upon


or misleading,


since


the statements


implied


or represented


(1) contained no oil othbr than pine oil; (2) was
for disinfecting purposes than an ordinary pine o
L phenol coefficient of 5.0 F. D. A. Method against
(4) when used as directed, could be relied upon to
pidors, gtbafge receptacles, telephone and dictating
and desks in schools, hotels, theatres, and office b
, stables, and chicken houses, and all other surfaces,
by the abbreviation "etc."; whereas, the product
than phi: oil, to-wit: a light wood distillate; (2)
effective for disinfecting purposes than an ordinary
Lad a phe~ .coefficient of substantially less than 5.0


typhi (: .yphaosa) ;
to disinfect urinals,


stronger
'il disin-
E. typhi
diisinfect
machine
buildings,
articles,
(1) con-
was not
pine oil
F. D. A.


and (4) when used as directed, could
toilets, cuspidors, garbage receptacles,


telephone and dletating machine mouthpieces, floors and desks in schools, hotels,
theatres, and office buildings, surfaces in kennels, stables, and chicken houses,
and all other surfaces, articles, and places implied by the abbreviation "etc."
In count seventeen it was alleged that the product "Griffen's Fortified Pine
Ut Disinfectant Coefficient 5 F, D. A." was adulterated within the meaning of
the act,rin that an oil other than pine oil had been substituted wholly or in
part for the pine oil claimed to be present.
Tin count seventeen it was alleged that the product was further adulterated
within the meaning of the act, in that its strength or purity fell below the
Bt6ofesWed standard or quality under which it was sold, since the labeling bore


p wants "Coefficient 5
proiiduict was less than 5 F. D. A.


r.


D. A.,


" ;whereas the phenol coefficient of the


! On February 6, 1953 Elsa L. Freudenthal and Agnes L. David were dropped
part defendants, and count fourteen was struck from the information. Ber-
trdtR, Weth~al entered a plea of guilty, and a fine of $2,000 and costs was

I 72. ack of registration and misbranding of "IC Brand Imperial Cotton Dust
i1 jIU. S. v. 494 50tpound bags, more or less, of "IC Brand Imperial
ottonh Dust 3-5-0." Default decree of condemnation and forfeiture
A> a nd "lt product delivered to the Arkansas State Prison Farm for use
i hsaitdfarm. I.F. &B. No.176. I.D.No.24980.)
The product "IC Brand Imperial Cotton Dust 3-5-0" was not registered under
t e" eroS Insecticide, Fun~ide, and Rodenticide Act. An examination of
re product showed that the Jabels affixed to the containers of the product did
ot bear an adequate ingredent statement, nor an adequate warning state-
et Th e product was als: found to be misbranded within the meaning of

iB KFebrugry 5, 1952, the pd States Attorney for the Eastern District of
4ransas, acting upon a rer by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
SStates Court libel ailng seizure for condemnation and confiscation
l494 -pound bags, more pos of "IC Brand Imperial Cotton Dust 3-5-0"
West Memphis, Ark., alleng that the product was an economic poison which
h een transported inter on or about December 23, 1950, from Shenan-
o iowa, to Indianola, Miss., by the imperial Chemical Co., and on or about


~ :aQr:C~~~:"" ""EE"" "
; ...

~Ri~-'


,,Ei
"E:
E~i


NOTICES






118


INSECTIC IDE


FUNGICIDE,


AND
*S **?


RODENTICIDE


ACT


[I. F. R. N. J.


the total percentage of the inert ingredients. The ingredient statement on the
label failed to fulfill the requirements of the act.
It was alleged tha the product was further misbranded within the meaning
of the act in that the labeling stated:
the act


COTTON4 DUST
IMPERIAL 5-0

DIRECTIONS:
'this material when aprlied 8 ,tporunds per acre will give
effective control on the folla ig seets: Boll Weevil, Cotton
Leaf Worm, *Garden Webw m, Cotton Aphid, *"
whereas the product was not a 3-5-40 Cottn dust, as conumuly recognized,
when used as directed would not control boll weevils cotton leafworm, ga
webworn,.and cotton aphid.
It was alleged that the product was tfrther misbranded within the mea
of the act in that the labels affixed to the containers of the product did not
a warning or caution statement which isM necessary ani, if complied with,
quate to prevent injury to living man and other vertebrate animals.
On January 27, 1953, no blaimant having appeared, a decree of condemns
and forfeiture was entered, and on Yebruar 11, 1953, it was ordered tHat
product be delivered to the Arkansas State Prison Farm for use on said far
s "* ^


and
rden

ning
bear
ade-

ition

m.
~8lE3


173. Lack of registration and required information on labels, and misbranding
of "EXTERM-O-LITE" and "LINDAWE INSECTICIDE." U. S. v. 971
cartons, more or less, of "EXTERMO-LITE ; 139 2&gram packages,
more or less, of "LINDANE INSECTICIDE (Refill)"; 499 circulars, more
or less, bearing the statement "9 TIMES MORE POWERFUL THAN
DDT and 100 display cards, more or less, captioned "For SURE Pest
Control." Consent decree of condemnation and release under bond.
(I. F. & R. No. 196. I. D. No. 24297.)
The product "EXTERM-O-LITE" vaporizer with one 20-gram package of
"LINDANE INSECTICIDE" was not registered under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. An examination of the product showed that the
labels failed to bear the name and address of the manufacturer, registrant or
person for whom manufactured, or the net weight or measure of the content.
The labeling of the outside container, or wrapper, also failed to bear an ingredi-
ent statement. The "EXTERM-O-LITE" vaporizers ith one 20-gram package
of "LINDANE INSECTICIDE," and 139 20-gram packages of "LINDANE IN-
SECTICIDE," were misbranded in that they bore labeling which was false or


misleading.
On July 8, 1952, the United States Attorney for the District of New


Jersey,


acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District Court
a libel praying seizure, for condemnation and confisction, of 971 cartons, more
or less, of EXTERM-O-LITE; 139 20-gram packages, ore or less, of LI NDANE
INSECTICIDE (refill); 499 circulars, more or less bearing the statement "9
TIMES MORE POWERFUL THAN DDT." and 100 splay cards, more or less,
captioned "For SURE Pest Control" at Cedar Knolls, N. J.. and alleging that
the products were economic poisons which had been transported interstate on
or about April 30, 1952, by the Candle-Lite Chemical Company from Miami, Fla.,
in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the product "EXTERM-O-LITE" vaporizer with one 20-
rrnm rInaSrItn ,f "TT'NTANI6 TNSICI'PTTTTnli" was not rpeiRtrpdi with ths


.1 '






170-2001


flOES"


OF JUflGMENT


119


giving the names of each tB the active and each of the inert ingredients in the
descending order of the Dpecentage of each present in each classification,
together with the total percentage of the iner ingredients.
The "EXTERM-O-LITE" Waporizes with one 20-gram package of "LINDANE
INSECTICIDE," and the 20-gram packages of "LINDANE INSECTICIDE,"
were misbranded in that their labeling bore statements which were false or mis-
leading as they implied that when used as directed:
(1) the products would he absolutely harmless; (2) the products would be


nine times-more power
would protect one's hi
of, the insects named
4 "V


insects'
space a
O-Lite 1
labeling
ucts we
would I
by the
used as
product
stances
against
plied b:
protect
of vent


?; (4) one E
against insect
unit would pi
, and those ii
muld free one'
be effective a
phrases "a i
directed: :
s would not
; (3) the prn
, or be a sur'
i the phrase
up to 15,000
ilation : 5)


home against

seets withitf 2
insects named
sects" and "all
It was allege
the "LINDAN
were further r


rful tjn DDT under all circumstances; (3) the products
3alth, comfort, and property against, and be a sure control
on the labeling and those impilied by the phrase "all. flying
term-OLite unit would protect up to 15,000 cubic feet of
under hiormal conditions of ventilation; (5) one Exterm-
tect a twoabedroom homte against the insects named on the


plied by the phrase 'all household insects";'
home of all insects within 24 hours; and (7)


(6) the prod-
the products


against the insects named on the labeling and those implied
holisehWt insects" ahd "all flying insects"; whereas, when
1) the products would not be absolutely harmless; (2) the
be nine times more powerful than DDT under all circum-
)ducts would not protect one's health, comfort, and property
e control of, the insects named on the labeling or those im-
"all flying insects"; (4) one Exterm-O-Lite unit would not
cubic feet of space against insects under normal conditions
one ExtermI-O-Lite unit would not protect a two-bedroom


the insects na ed" on the labeling or those implied by the phrase
,insects"; (6) the products would not free one's home of all in-
4 hours: and () the products would not be effective against the
on the labeling or those implied by the phrases "all household in-


fl

E
ni


20 grams," wh<
than 20 grams.
The Firstin (
quested its rele
ii """ieact. a
23, 1952, a dec












ueoreia. actin!
The produb t,


plied tihat the
tent of each con

orgia acting


ying insects,"
d that the products
IN SECTICIDE" cont
sbranded in thit the


areass


the net weight


"LINDANE INSECTICIDE (refill)" and
gained in the cartons of "EXTERM-O-LITE"
labeling bore the statement, "Net Weight-
of the contents of the containers was less


7o. of Cedar nolls, N. J., claimed ownership of the product, re-
mase under bond for the purpose of bringing it into compliance
nd consented to the entry of a condemnation decree. On 'October
ree of condeation was entered and it was ordered that the
asked to the cIiant under such bond.

registration a required information, and misbranding of "Cel-
U. S.. vfou -gallo drums, nineteen 5-gallon drums, sixty-
gallon constax s and seventy-one 1-quart containers, more or
"Celcure." sent decree of condemnation and release under
(L F. & NQ. NQS D, No. 25751.)
"Celcure," ot registered under the Federal Insecticide,
iodenticide A, An examination of the product showed that the
Sthe drums ioduct did not bear a statement of net weight
thecontents and the labels affixed to the 1-quart containers im-
net content of each container was 1 quart, whereas the net con-
tainer was less than 1 quart.
1952, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of
uuon a reuorfgb~ the Secretary of Aericulture. filed in the United


;






120


INSECTICIDE,


FU GID, AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


[I. F. R. N. ..


It was adged that the product failed toeoipply with the a'
affixed to t~l drums of the products did not bear a statement
measure of the contents of the Rums. ~t:
It was alleged :that the product was misbranded iffL t
Quart," wa false or misleading since the statement implied
the net content of each such container was I quart, whereas
each such ;container was less than 1 quart i.
American Celeure Wood Preserving Copfl p Jackso vi lle,
ership of te product and requested its rele under bond
bringing it into compliance with the act, d consent to
demnation decree. On December 5, 1952, adecree of condemn
and it was ordered that the product be released to the claim
^LiiiM~ijf -~tA~ccx uuu jrr5tx vi xx jpi xy^ M/Jof


ct in that the labels
of the net weight or

or represented that
the net content of


Fla., claimed own-
for the purpose of
the entry of a con-
nation was entered
ant under bond.


175. Lack of registration and required information on labeling and misbrand-
ing of "BUG-OrBAN INSECTICIDE VAPORIZER and BUG-O-BAN
INSECTICIDE VAPORIZER REFILL U. S. v. 65 units, more or less,
each unit consisting of 1 "BUG-OBTAN INSECTICIDE VAPORIZER"
and 1 "BUG-O-BAN INSECTICIDE VAPORIZER REFILL." Default
decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I. F. & R. No.
205. I. D. No. 25558.) '. r
The product, "BUG-O-BAN INSECTICIDE VAPORIZER al BIG-O-BAN
INSECTICIDE VAPORIZER REFILL" was hot registered under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. An examination of the proi4I
showed that the outside containers of the product did not have a label bea fink
the name and address of the manufacturer, registrant, or person for whom the
product was manufactured, nor the net weight or measure of the contents o0 the
containers, nor an ingredient statement as required by the act.
On August 4, 1952, the United States Attorney for the Southern District'tfa
fornia, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the Uit
States District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation
of 65 units, more or less, each unit consisting of 1 "BUG-O-BAN INSECTICIDE
VAPORIZER" and 1 "BUG-O-BAN INSECTICIDE VAPORIZER REFILLr,
at El Segundo, Calif., alleging that the product was an economic poison which
had been transported interstate, on or about June 25, 1952, by Bug-O-Ban, Inc.,
from Flint, Mich., in violation of the act. ..
It was alleged that the product was not registered with the Secretary of Ag4i,
culture as required by section 4 of the act.
It was alleged that the product failed to comply with the provisions of the act
in that the labels affixed to the outside container of the product did not bear a
statement giving the name and address of the manufacturer, registrant. ir
person for whom manufactured, and a statement of the net weight or measure of
the contents of the containers.
It was alleged that the product was misbranded in that the labels did not bear
an ingredient statement giving the name andpercentage of pnch of the active
ingredients, together with the total percentage of the inert ingredients, or an
ingredient statement giving the names of each of the actite and each of the inert
ingredients in the descending order of the percentage of each present in each
classification, together with the total percentage of thqinert ingredients.
On December 1, 1952, no claimant having appeared a default decree of con-
demnation and forfeiture was entered, and the Urkna States Marshal was
ordered to destroy the Bug-O-Ban Insecticide Vaporizers, to sell the insecticide
at public auction, and to pay the proceeds, less costs anqicharges, to the Treasury
of the United States.
Q~ ..







370-2001 NOTICES OF .JU~IGMENT


121


weight or nmea
by the act.
On September
of Califormia. a
United States;
tiiscation (*f 3.5
and 300 circuilti


sure


u-lin
leI iIi
Iistl
7 bhi
rs, in


or chest into 1 '('etl


Calif. nal
intersta ti
in violati
It was
culture a:
It was


bear
It
act ii
perce
inert
ingre


trt' r4.
~r the


guj
1v1,~
Nt'S.
ii I1't
air


leging thie pr
o


on
a; '
ol


a static
was a
1I that


ldient .


or oni
of th
legend !

leged

alleged
its 1;
dof ea
tdient


I
1
(e


'I ~ ln
ai. lt


con i enl


u n ingredient
11 1. aJll HlngriU~KJ


statement


as rqured


J2, he United Sitates Attorney for the Southern District
ion a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
GCoypt a libel prafflgr ppsirure for condemnation and con-
mnore or less, each, litaining 4 disks of "CEDADISK"
or less, bearing th statement, "INow! Turn any drawer
l'heqt with Amazin g NEW COEDADISK," at Los Angeles,
luct was an economic -poion which had been transported
Augisht 12, 19n5, by Cedacote Corp., from Memphis, Tenn.,


thatt the product was not registered with the Secretary of Agri-
eld by .section 4 ofthe act.
furt lr that the labels on the containers of the product did not
,ft net weight or measure of the content of the containers.
I rhnr rhe proet was misbranded within the meaning of the
iliel-: did not bear an ingredient statement giving the name and
ich native ingredient, together with the total percentage of the
1s, a In ingredient statement giving the name of each active


together


with the name of each and the total percentage of the inert


ingred lets.
On February
and forfeiture
the product.

177. Lack of
Lindan

bond.


23,
waviI


15) .i. no olaimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation
eite red, and the United States Marshal was ordered to destroy


registration and required information on label of "BUG-GIT
e Pellet Vapeoizer Units." U. S. v. 299, more or less, of "BUG-
indane Pelle|t Vaporizer Units.' Released to claimant under
( F. & $. Nor213. I. D. No. 26012.)


The product "'BUG-GIT Liadane Pellet Vaporizer Unit" was not registered
under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
On November 7. 1952, the, United States Attorney for the Northern District
of Indiana, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
T nhited States District Oonuri a libel praying seizure for condemnation and con-
Ifisficion of 299. more or lesg "BUG-GIT Lindane Pellet Vaporizer Units" at
Wfrsaw.i, id.. alleging that 4e product was an economic poison which had been
transported interstate on or bout August 15, 1952, by the Lindavap Sales Corp.
from Ann Arbor. Mich.,in v ition of the act.
S^ was alleged that the product was not registered with the Secretary of
|ialsre us required by section 4 of the act.
The Lin10aap Sales Oorpof Ann Arr, Mich., claimed ownership of the
product and requested its ease under bond for the purpose of bringing the
product into compliance W1ie act. On March 25, 1953, a decree was entered
and it was ordered that odnct be released to the claimant under bond.

B. "a "t and adu ion of "Master BRAND TOXAPHENE WITH
SULPHUR." U. Sftysix 5-po5und containers, more or less, of
"Master BRAND T ENE WITH SULPHUR." Consent decree of
condemnation and rease under bond. (I. F. & R. No. 214. I. It No.

l examination a sm 'ter BRAND TOXAPHENE WITH SUL-
PHUR" was found to contain benzene soluble chlorine equivalent to 15,S8
percent toxaphene instead a ept *eq of toxaphene as claimed on the label.


I


i


i


!






122


INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


[Il.. K. N.J.


It
act in


'in


was alleged that the product was misbranded witi
thatZe labeling bore the statement ts

BRAND
STOXAPHENE WITH SULPHUR
ANALYSIS
ACOSIY INGREDIENTS
toxapheue 'Tedahnical Chlorinated Camph
Content 67% to 69%) ----------------
Sulphur
I- -.- .. .--- -- -- --- -: --- -
INERT INGIREDIENTS :-_ ------__--_ -_-
Sulph urFinenesi: 93% p assib No. 325 US


the meaning of the





) (Chlorine
.__20%


_ ____-----40%
rS Sieve,"


which implied that the product contained 20 percent of toxaphene (technical
chlorinated camphfne, chlorine content S6 to i9 percent), whereas the
product contained less than 20 percent p e (technical chlorinated cam-
phene, chlorine content "7 to 69 percent)i.
It was alleged that the product was adulteated within the meaning of the
act in that the labeling stat ed
'i"Master
BRAND
TOXAPHJEN WITH SULP R
ANALYSIS
ACTIVE INGREDIENTS:
Toxaphene (Technical Chlorinated Camphene) (Chlorine
Content 67% to 69%) ---__ ------------ 20%
INERT INGREDIENTS p:_ _-_--, --------------------40%
Sulphur Fineness: 95% passing No. 325 USS Sieve."
which implied that the product contained 20 percent of toxaphene (technical
chlorinated camphene, chlorine content 6T percent to 69 percent, whereas
the product contained less than 20 percent toxaphene (technical chlorinated
camphae;, chlorine content 67 percent toO per cent).
Stevens Industries, Inc., of Dawson, Ga., claimed ownership of the product
and requested its release under bond pursuant to the act, and consented to the
entry of a decree of condemnation. On November 28, 1952, a decree of con-
demnation was entered, and it was ordered that the product be released to the
claimant, under bond, for the purpose of brringing it into compliance with the
act.


Lack of registration oi
NOL COEFFICIENI1
"SURE-PINE PINE
5." Default decree o
& R. No. 217 I. D. No.


f "'SURE-PINE PINE OIL DISINF
S5." U. S. 239 1-pint bottles, T
OIL DISINFECTANT PHENOL
f condemnation, forfeiture, and des
26247. )


ECTANT PHE-
nore or lessqwf
COEFFICIENT
traction. (I. F.


The product, "SURE-PINE PINE OIL DISINFECTANT PHENOL COE
CIENT 5," was not registered under the deral Insecticide, Fungicide
Rodenticide Act.
On December 8, 1952, the United States Attorney fbt the Southern Distr
Mississippi, acting upon a report by the Secretary eL Agriculture, filed i
United'States District Court a libel praying seizure pr condemnation and
fiscation of 239 1-pint bottles, more or less, of "SfE-PINE PINE Oft
INFECTANT PHENOL COEFFICIENT 5," at Gulfport, Miss., alleging


PFJI-
, and 1
ict of
n the
I con-

that


iene


,,






170-200]


NOITICES


JUDGMENT


123


180. Lack of registration and misbranding of "Staneo Neutra-Lustre," "Stanceo
Sani-Sour," and "Stanco-Aceti-Sour." U5. S,. fifteen 50-pound con-
tainers and six 150-pound containers, more or less, of "Stanco Neutra-
Lustre"; ten 5-pound containers ai five 350-pound containers, more or
less, of "Stanco Sani-Sour"; ten 10-pound containers and ten 50-pound
containers, more or less, of "Stanco-Aceti-Sour." Consent decree of
condemnation and release under bond. (I. F. & R. No. 218. I. D. Nos.
26276, 26277, 26278.)
.The products "Stanco Nettra-Lustre," "Stanco Sani-Sour" and "Stanco-Aceti-
Sour" were not registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenti-
cide Act. An examination of the products showed that the labels on the con-
tainers of the products did not bear an ingredient statement as required by the
act.
On December 9, 1952, the United States Attorney for the Southern District
of California, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
United States District Court a libel, praying seizure for condemnation and con-
fiscation of fifteen 50-pound containers and six 150-pound containers, more or
less, of "Stanco Neutra-Lustre"; ten 50-pound containers and five 350-pound
containers, more or less, of "Stanco Sani-Sour"; and ten 10-pound containers
and ten 50-pound containers, more or less, of "Stanco-Aceti-Sour" at Los Angeles,


Calif., all
ported in
successor
the act.


eging that the products were economic poisons which had been trans-
terstate on or about September 25, 1952, by the Keefer Starch Co.,
to Standard Chemical Works Co. from Columbus, Ohio, in violation of


It was alleged that the products were not registered with the Secretary of
Agriculture as required by section 4 of the act.
It was alleged that the products were misbranded in that the labels affixed to
the containers of the products did not bear an ingredient statement giving the
; 4~ percentage of each of the active ingredients, together with the total
percentage of the inert ingredients in the products, or an ingredient statement
giving the names of each of the active and each of the inert ingredients in the
descending order of the percentage of each present in each classification, to-
ith the total percentage of the inert ingredients in the products.
Los Angeles Soap Co., Los Angeles, Calif., filed claim to the products and re-
M tlir release under bond pursuant to the act, and consented to the entry
of a decree of condemnation. On February 5, 1953, a decree of condemnation was
entered, and it was ordered that the products be released to the claimant under
S~ purpose of bringing them into compliance with the act.

181. Adulteration and misbranding of "W. P. LIQUID BLEACH AND
ANER ** A *ISINFECTANT DEODORANT BACTERICIDE
AND GERMICIDE" U. S. v. 478 1-quart containers, 100 1-gallon con-
t alters and 300 1%-g~Ion containers, more or less, of "W. P. LIQUID
LEACH AND CLEANER A DISINFECTANT DEODORANT
BACTERICIDE ANf GERMICIDE" Default decree of condemna-
t .i forfeiture, and destruction. (I. F. & R. No. 220. I. D. No. 25378.)
U w4Ation, 2 sample of the product "W. P. LIQUID BLEACH AND
*R A' DISIN]BCTANT DEODORANT BACTERICIDE AND
IDE were found tta in 4.29 percent and 4.42 percent, respectively,
ch ite inst of .25 percent as claimed on the labels of the
SOn DenbTmer 24, 1952. thefite States Attorney for the Eastern District of
Oklahoma, acting upon a g ort bh the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
United States District Cou a d libel aing seizure, for condemnation and con-


i.

i;i;;""i


I_

ii

:i

i" :i



":






124~


INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


[I. F. R.N.J.


. It was alleged that the product was


adulterated, inl that its


fell below the professed standard or quality under w]
labels, affixed to the containers of the product bore
xINGREDIENI'S BY WEIGIIT SODIUM HYPOCI
INGREDIENTS 94.75,." which implied or represent
tainted 5.25 percent of sodium hypuchlorite and not n
inert inre tenty,7vwhrens the prltduct contained less t
hypochlorit and more than 94.75 percent of inert in
It was alleged that the product \as misbranded in
statement:, ACTIVE INGREDIENTS BY WE
CHLORITh 5.25% INERT INGREDIENTS 94.756
false or misleading, since thee$implied or r~wsented
5.25 percent of sodifi hypochltirite a d" more r
ingredients, whereas the product contained less thiii 5.
chlorite andl more tln 947i5 percent of ipert ingred
No claimant having appeared, a dcitreie O idem
entered; and the United Stat es Marshal as berea t
it be determined by him econoimically exed ent, to
containers and dispose ot the dfihtainers 0I5reoof byS
thereof to the costs of tbhe cse.


which
the
ILO
ited
nore
han


strength or purity


it was sold,
statements:
RITE 5.25r,
that the pr
than 94.75
5.25 percent


O

(


since the
"ACTIVE
INERT
duct con-
ercent of
)f sodium


gredients.
that its labeling bore the
EIGHT SODIUM HYPO-
," which statements were
that the product contained
han 74.75 percent of inert
.25 percent of sodium hypo-
ients.
nation and forfeiture was
o destroy the product, or if
destroy the contents of the
ale, and apply the proceeds


182. Adulteration and misbranding of "W. P. LIQUID BLEACH AND
CLEANER A DISINFECTANT DEODORANT BACTERICIDE
AND GERMICIDE." U. S. v. 2,S0g .luart containers and 299 -gallon
containers, more or less, of "W. P. LIQUID BLEACH AND
CLEANER A DISINFECTANT DEODORANT BACTERICIDE
AND GERMICIDE." Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and
destruction. *(I. F. & R. No. 221. I. DWNo. 26261.)
Upon examination, 3 samples of the product "W. P. LIQU II) BLEACH AND
CLEANER ** A DISINFECTANT DEODORANT BAC'TERICIDE AND
GERMICIDE" were found to contain 4.30 percent, 4.30 percent, and 4.21 percent
respectively, of sodium hypochlorite instead of 5.25 percent as claimed on the
labels ofthe product.
On December 24, 1952 the United States Attorney for the D'strict of New
Mexico, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United
States District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and con fiscat ion of
2,098 1-quart containers and 299 's-gallon containers, more or less, of "W. P.
LIQUID BLEACH AND CLEANER A DISINFECTANT DEODORANT
BACTERICIDE AND GERMICIDE," at Clovis, N. Mex., alleging that the proa-1
uct was an economic poison which had been: transported interstate, on or about


August 21, 1952, 1
Federal Insectiici
It was alleged
fell below the pr
labels, affixed to
INGREDIENTS
INGREDIENTS
trained 5.25 perce
inert ingredients,


hypochlorite
It waBs alle
statements:
CHLORITE
false or misled
FO OK "r^^w^^v4


mnd
ged.


331


Obas. H. Netherson Co., frpm Dallas. Tex., in violation of the
Fungicide, an Rodent"ide Act.


that the product was adulterated in
ofessed standard or quality nnder v
the containers of the p~ruet, bore
BY WEIGHT SrODIUM WHYPOC-'
94.75%," which implied pr.represe
.nt of sodium hypochidrit anid not
whereas the product copaited less
more than 94.75 percent bf inert ingrE
that the product was mislranded ii
LJlc LUtjIj U 1^ W<&*ILItiUtm-ls~andeI 1


"ACTIVE INGREDIENTS BY W
5.25% INERT INGREDIENTS 94.75'
fading since they implied, or represent e'
~n# sn h n 'i nn h 1r t 4t n nA .. -


F
71
ii


that its strength
vhich it was sol
the statements:
HLORITE 5.25
noted that the p
more thlian 94.75
than 5.25 percent
edients.
n that its labelil
EIGHTT SODI-U
e," which state
, that the produce
iIfn Al Er rtnnne,


h or puri y
d since the
"ACTIVE
C. INERT
product con-
percent ofb
t of sodium


[1,

It


g bore the
I HYPO-
lents were
contained


i
h
i


'






170-200]


TICESR


OF JUOSMENT


4125


The
2174
under
action
produ


Lack of registration, +and misbran d'hg.of "CUNILATE 2174 W. P.,"
"CUNILATE 2174, "UNILAT 2174- XY "CUNILATE DOP,r aid
"SOCCI 6040 \ P. v. forty-thep 400-pound drums, more or ess,
of "CUNILATE 2114 W. P."; se 400-pound drums, more or less, of
"CUNILATE 2174":wo 400-pound drums, more or less, of "CUNIlATE
2174 XY"; two 400rwnd drums, more or less, of "CUNILATE DOP";
and ten 400-pound drums, more or less, of "SOCCI 6040 W. P." Consent
decree ot condemnation and release under bond. (I. F. & R. No. .22.
I. D. Nos. 25731. 25732, 25733, 25734, 7535.)
i products "CU NILAt~1 2174 W. P ," '"OCNILATE 2174," "COUNILATE
XY," "CUN1LATE DOP," and "SOCCI 6040 W. P." were not registered


th
of
Lcts


e Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodentieide Act, and an eixmin-
the products showed thtt the label affixed to the containers of the
did nut bear ingredient statements and directions for use as required


by the act.
On January 15, 1953.


of New
the Uni
confisca
W. P.."
pound d
or less,
6040 W.
which h
and Oct
Ill.. in v


York,


acting


ted States
tion of fort
seven 4-00-
ruofs. more
of ('. IL


P.'" at
ad beet
ober 10
* .-*


loifa


It was al
Agriculture
It was al
e~Th prod
centages of
he i""nert Ini


1Ui
y-t
pot
or
AT


Brook I
1 transj
q, 19 2,.


.1011 O
leged
as re
leged
nets
each
gredi


nite
the United


States Attorney for the E


upon: a report by the


Jes
ElI
U"U1


Secretary


of Agric


et Court a libel praying seizure for con
ee 400-pound drums, more or less, of "C
drums, more or less, of "CUNILATE
., of "CUNILATE 2174 XY," two 400-pou
)OP"' and ten 400-pound drums, more or
N. ., alleging that the products were et
ted interstate on or about June 11, 1952,


the Scientific


f the act.


I that
quired
that
did no
of the
ents, o


the products w
by section 4 of i
the products w
,t bear ingredie
active ingredie
,r ingredient sta


eastern District
culture, filed in
idemnation and
UNILATE 2174
2174," two 400-
nd drums, more
less, of "SOCCI
economic poisons
August 6, 1952,


Oil Compounding Co., Inc., from Chicago,

ere not registered with the Secretary of
lhe act.
ere misbranded in that the labels borne
nt statements giving the names and per-
nts, together with the total percentage of
Ltements giving the names of each of the


active and each of the inert ingredients in the descending order of the per-
centages of each present in each classification, together with the total percentage
of Jhe inert ingredients.
t d that the products did not contain directions for use which
are necessary and, if complied with, adequate for the protection of the public.
The. Scientific" Oil Compoudaing Co., Inc., of New York, N. Y., claimed owner-
of are productss and requested their release under bond pursuant to the act,
cpinTt d to the entry of3 a decree of condemnation. On February 27, 1953,
a decree of condemnation was entered and it was ordered that the products be
released to the claimant under bond for the purpose of bringing them into
compliance with the act.

84 Lack of registration of "lPESTGO UNITS," and "PESTGO CRYSTALS."
U .+ 2~ "PESTGO lINITS," more or less; 91 packages, more or less,
f "iPESTGO CRYS LS;" 200 circulars, more or less, captioned
PJPESTG NEW .L NEW ELECTRIC PEST CONTROL VA-
P OIZ SU1NIT ..BSOLUTELY NEW!:;" and 150 leaflets, more or
ils beritg the stInnt "HERE'S THE PESTGO WAY AN
INSE.CTR.EE HOM 4LB, KITCHEN OR OFFICE." Default de-
cree of condemnatio o fture, and destruction. (I. F. & R. No. 227.
:re: o: *mato: e and


The


I. D. No. 24730. )
products "PESTG(


S, a i.'PESTGO CRYSTALS," were not reg
::+"" wee no


ff


)


t






126


TNSTreCTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


[I. F. H. N.J.


ucts wer Wcono i ons which
Columbit blsPFestgo Distributors of Washi
It wa alleged that thle products were
Agricultt as required by section 4 of the ai
On Api 8, 195,, no claimant having aj
and forfeiture was entered and it waso


i for sale in the District of
t violation of the act.
tered with the Secretary of
* l 1Q1"" 1 ^ l'a ^ 'b* :i' 1^ "*; / .^ :i..^..^..^ l


S..
appeared,
ed that


a decree


condemnation


the product be destroyed.


Lack of registration and required inform
of "PESTGO UNITS (AM el 2) I S
EiTGOr UNITS"E (Model 3i. Default
feiture, and destruction. (I. F. &fo.


The product "PFESTG UNITS"


tion on labels and misbranding
Lv. 20 cases, more or less of
decree of condemnation, for-
225. I. D. No. 24721.)


(Model2),, consisting of one "Pestgo" vapor-


izer and one -ounce package of "Pestgo Crystals", was
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act,
of the product showed that the labels affiyd to the outs
retail packages of the product failed to bear a statement o
ure of content or an ingredient statement, t required by the
On February 16, 1953, the United States Attorney for the
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture ,Aled
District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation a
cases, more or less, each containing 12 "PEBTGO UNITS'


more, Md., alleging that the product was an economic
transported interstate on or about July 23, 1952, by U
from Miami, Fla., in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the product was not registered
Agriculture as is required by section 4 of the act.
It was alleged that the product was misbranded wit


not regist,
and an ex
ide contain
f net weigh
act.


ired under
examination
Lers of the
t or meas-


District of Maryland,
in the United States
Lnd confiscation of 20
" (Model 2) at Balti-


poison
niversa


with


which had been
1 Products, Inc.,


the Secretary


tin the meaning of


act in that the labels on the outside containers of the reta il packages of the
product did not bear an ingredient statement giving the name and percentage
of each active ingredient, together with the total percentage of the inert ingre-
dients, or an ingredient statement giving the name of each active ingredient,
together with the name of each and total percentage of inert ingredients.
It was further alleged that the product failed to comply with the provisions
of the act in that the labels on the outside containers of the retail packages of
the product did not bear a statement of the net weight or measure of the contents
of the containers.
On April 23, 1953, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation and
forfeiture was entered, and the United States Marshal was ordered to destroy
the product:


Lack of registration and required information and misbranding
ODISPAN" and "DEODISPRAY". U S. 70 bottles, more o
"DEODISPAN" and 238 cans, more or less, of "DEODISPRAY".
decree of condemnation, forfeiture and destruction. (I. F. & R
I. D. Nos. 26290 and 26291.)


of "DE-
r less, of
Default
. No. 226.


The product "DEODISPAN" was not registered un r the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, and an examination od tbhe product showed that
the labels on the containers of the product did not Wr a statement of the net
weight or measure of the contents of the containers, an ingredient statement
as required by the act. The labeling accompanying: e product also failed to
contain directions for use, which are necessary and,;; complied with, adequate
for the protection of the public.
The product "DEODISPRAY" was not registered under the Federal Insecti-
cide, Fungielde, and Rodenticide Act, and an examine n of the product showed






170-200]


NOTICES


JUDGMlE~r


127


It was alleged that et were unregistered with the Secretary of
Agriculture as required by on 4 of the act.
It was further alleged t he labels boote by the products did not bear state-
ments of net weight or mea of the cdntnats.
It was alleged that the "s borne bythe respective products did not bear an
ingredient statement giving the name and percentage of each of the active in-
gredients, together with thp total percentage of the inert ingredients, or ingredi-
ent statement giving the amines of each of the active and each of the inert
ingredients in the descending order of the percentage of each present in each
classification, together with the total pereemnige of the inert ingredients.
It was alleged that the product "DEOJSPAN" was further misbranded in
that the labeling accompanying the produtt did not contain directions for use
which are necessary and, if eofilied with, adequate for the protection of the
public.
It was alleged that the product "DEODISPAN" was further misbranded
within the meaning of the act, in that the labeling borne by the product stated:
(bottle label)
"DEODISPAN


DISINFECTANT
DEODORANT
CLEANSER


contains
Chlorophyll and
Hexachlorophene


&Br


sheiki


-E -n -p -


A balanced blend of prified soapless detergents that is a highly
1 %petive derpnaltologi' "n tattU, non-alergenic, non-irritating, all
impose cleanser with powerful deodorant and germicidal properties.
Effective against mogt types ofi bacteria and at least 14 types of
piogenic fungi. An excellent antiseptic for abrasions and open
Wonds, contains soothing lanolin and will not dry the skin.
fl troys bacteria responsible for putrefaction and leaves a residue
'on hands and other surfaces that keeps them antibacterial for sev-
rali hours. Makes sk," dishes, instruments surgically clean.
f^ ** **
re or advertisement
4t from "The Professiodx*l
fi l~fl I


"SOAPLESS
DEODISPAN
CLEANS
DI SFE OT S
DJDPrIEZS
._., p.^W Ws'


ereusively
rful deod0on


e is that cleanse
1t.


or the, funeral profession, DEODISPAN con-
B& ~disinfectants, plus special detergent
more thoroughly than soap based compounds.
! ;. "!*: ;


B


:: ""I



:::E""

~"":
E:





Ei""
::"I


:E



J:~~EEi"i kl
;s:: i:i
"ir
; ;;;


L, .ir


;:i"""Pe
,~,:


i it
,~"r


x,

I;"";i("i,"lr,,,
", :9;;"


i


CEu~ur I






128


INSECTICIDE.


FUNGICIDE.


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


[I. F. R. N. J.


whereas such


statements


were


false or


misleading since


they


implied


or rep-


resented t, when used as directed, the product: (1) would make dishes and
instruments surgically clean; I2) would be an all purpose cleaner with power-
ful germnddal properties: (3) would provide maxiimumn reduction of bacterial
count a~4 a effective against mosr types of bacterial and pathogenic fungi;
(4) woi~l4estroy bacteria responsil ie for putretication ; (5) would be a superior
disinfectant;: and ti) would provide positive protection; whereas, when used
as direte the product : (1) would not make dishes and instruments surgically
clean ; ( ) Would not be an all purpose cleaner with powerful germicidalu o r -
erties; (3~ would not provide maximum reduction of bacterial count or be -~
feetive against most tyaes of bacteria or pathogenic fungi; (4) would not de-


stroy bacteria responsible
fectant; and (6) wouldn't
It was alleged that the
within the meaning of the
( Can lah1 l 1


i -vwf Ym-.- --*' if-- '*^


for putrefication: (5) would not be a superior disin-
p;owide positive protect ion.
product "DEO DISPRAY" q'was further misbranded
ac t int hat te borne by the product stated :


DEODORANT ahd DISINFECTANT
for
PUTREFACTIV- AREA S
JLJ qlf i "-H" .J *lti-- Ml~JiL


DEODISPRAY
INSTRUCTIONS


Hold container upright, point valve at area to be trend
button on valve.
Spray body thoroughly with a sweeping motion, back
that entire area is treated.
Be sure to turn body so that front and back as well
are thoroughly covered with powerful DEODI SPR A Y.
To deodorize and purify the air, (spray in short burst
to reach all nooks, corners, furniture and 'pockets' '
inated air might remain stagnant.
This pressure-type container has been designed to I
mum coverage and maximum benefits.
DEODISPRAY
PRODUCT


ted and press

and forth so


both sides


s. taking care
'here jcitam-


)rfvide


mani-


of a HUNDRED USES!
Positive Germicide. Kills


Odors


of Cancer,


Floaters-Kills Bacteria and Fungi. Safe Disi
Fabrics, Bedding, Clothing, Dishes. Protection
in Vaults and Graves. Spray for Clearing
Sterilizing Instruments, Tables, Floors. Deih
ing Waste Containers, Garbage Unitsr: For Fr
Air Conditioning Units. Relieves Sunburn, Poi
Eczema, Insect Bites and Stings.-and inmIIImie
funeral establishments, hospitals, doctors' nlticest


Gangrene,
infectant fo
against BW
Room Atn
irizing al rl
"esheniing,
sou Ivy, Sk
r i'ile other
an]d hollues.


U leers,
r Hands,
)dy Mold
oisphere.
Sreriliz-
'urifying
:in Rash,
lusles in
U,


(Circular
sheet from
Embalmer")


3r advertisement
"The Professional


"IN THE


AMBI LANCE


Keep a can of DEODISPRAI


medicine kit, spray
before starting o

feet and clear th
at the way DEO


aI
Oll


e air.
DISP


few
r pic
Yoi
RAY


S(R) in the
short bursts
up, to disin-
1 he amazed
RI freshens






17O-2o00J


JUDGMENT


129


Whereas such statements were false or miisleadig since they implied or repre-
sented that, when used asB eted, the predlt: (1) would sterilize and disin-
&U#tiels and surfal listed on it:labreiltg; (2) would purify the air,
() would kill .all ba teria and fmgi and flplode deadly bacteria into
Sobivi on; whereas when used as directed, the product: (1) would not sterilize
o $f the articles or nufaces listed o its labeling; (2) would not purify
fte air; anid ()i would not kil1 all bacteria o fungi or explode deadly bacteria
into oblivion.
y ,l9"53, no claimant hqing appqeed, a dperee of condemnation and
forfeiture was entered, and t as ordered tiat the products be destroyed.

At"fikc of registration of "RIlSHELL DDT-25-EMULSIFIABLE DDT
: ~l~ SECTICIDE," and "KRISHELL IPC SELECTIVE GRASS KILLER".
SI S. v. two 50-gallon drums, one 50-gallon drum containing 40 gallons,
i:Vl rtwo 5-gallon drpms, more or less, of "KRISHELL DDT-25-EMUL-
SI FABLE DDT INSECTICIDE", and two 5-gallon drums, more or less,
of SHELL IPC SELECTIVE GRASS KILLER". Consent decree
Sof condemnation and release under bond. (I. F. & R. No. 199. I. D. Nos.
S25117 and 25118.)


Tfhe
l~Io rr


products, "KRISHELL DDT-25-EMULSIFIABLE DDT INSECTICIDE",
ICRrSUELT IPC SELECTIVE GRASS KILLER", were not registered
the Tederal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act.


On July 8, 1952, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Cali-
warnia, acting on a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United
aMtes District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation
of two 50-gallon drums, one 5S0gallon drum containing 40 gallons, and two 5-gal-
Ion drums, more or less, of "KRISHELL DDT-25-EMULSIFIABLE DDT
INSECTICIDE", and two 5-gallon drums, more or less, of "KRISHELL IPC
SELECTIVE GRASS KILLER" at Tulelake, Calif., alleging that the products
were economic poisons which had been transported interstate on or about April
15, 1952, and May 5, 1952, by the Krishell Laboratories, Inc., from Portland,
Oreg;, in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the products were not registered with the Secretary of
AgicuIlture as required by section 4 of the act.
The Wtshll Laboratories, TInc., of Portland, Oreg., claimed ownership of the
yrodiucts, requested their release under bond for the purpose of bringing them
into compliance with the act, and consented to entry of a condemnation decree.
On August 22, 1952, a decree oif condemnation was entered and it was ordered
that the products be released tothe claimant under bond.

188. Lack of registration of "CED-AIR DURABLE PAINT". U. S. v. 287
* i: l$ jiiound containers al 143 5-pound containers, more or less, of "CED-
AIR DURABLE PMA r'. Consent decree of condemnation and release
under bond. (I. F. & r o. 219. I. D. No. 26289.)
A The product, "CED-AIR DB 3ABLE PAINT" was not registered under the
4edr Insectieide~ Fungicide,, d Rodenticide Act.
er 1 1952, the sited States Attorney for the Southern District
irnia, eting upon a 'fort- by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
UStates D i "trit Court b ,el praying seizure for condemnation and con-
scation of 287 2-pound containers and 143 5-pound containers, more or less, of
U-AIk DURARLE PAINT' at Lps Angeles, Calif., alleging that the product
was an ec-onoimic poison wh* ta hpn transported interstate, on or about
November 12. 1952, by Ced-Air Products, Inc., Kansas City, Mo., in violation of


fla.~ antt,


*'*'v *vw i ":


^KKKKKKKKKK
K^K^KK^KKK^KK


NOTICES
P






130


BSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


AE "


RODENTICIDE


ACT


[ I. F. R. N. J..
xx


189. Misbranding and adulteration of "KREOLE PINE Sanitary Fluid, D-
odorant, Disinfectant." IT. S. v. Manhattan Kreole Products, Inc, plea
m contendere to count four and counts one, two and three dismissed
onuGmeumtent's motion. Fine of $100. (I. F. & R. No. 168. D. N0s.
22t0 and 24240.)
An exazihiton of samples of "KREOt IIfPE Sanitary Fluid, Deodorant,
Disinfectat showed that the product o sa no disinfecting value even in
its undiluted state and was entirely ineffectYve as a disinfectant; ,so the n-
gredient statement appearing on the label was printed in such small type and
was not prominently placed thereon conspifiruo ess as to render i
likely to be read and understood by the ordinary individual under customary
conditions of purchase d4 uise.
On August 8, 1952, the United StateA kori y for the Eaterisi of
New York, acting, iponi a report by ti: dtetary ot Agriculture, filed in tb
United States District Court information aS the *ML nbattn Keol Pro
ucts Inc., alleging .shipments estate c i erce,n or abot Stember 5j
1950 and. January 22, 1952 fromi BrookLyi, N Y., to Jersey City, N-. J., o quan-
tities of "KREOLE PINE Sanitary Fluid,D D orant, Disinfect.nt" wb*ch were
adulterated and misbranded within the meaning of the edal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
In count one, it was alleged that the product was mtisbraiudede wa
meaning of the act in that the labeling borne on its e0ntainers as
misleading since the label stated in part: i i


"KREOLIC

Sanitary Fluid, Dtodorant,
Disinfectant
*
One part of Kreole Pine to twenty parts of water makes a n
white solution that gives your house hospital cleanliness. It
all the work of soap. Deodorizes, leaving a pleasant pine
Disinfects and helps rid your home of unseen germs. Can be
wherever soap and water are used4 Non-irritating to the
Coef. plus 1 when tested against Staph. aureus or E, Typhosa
Active.
*,


whereas the product had a phenol coefficient of less than 1.0 aga
aureus (S. aureus) and less than 1.0 against K. typhoae (8. typhosa
used as directed, would not disinfect or help rid a home of unseen
would be of no value as a disinfectant.
It was alleged that the product was further misbranded within t
of the act in that the ingredient statement appearing on the label
in such small type and was not prominently placed thereon with su(
ousness as to render it likely to be read and understood by the or
vidual under customary conditions of purchase and use.
In count two it was alleged that the prodiict was adulterated
meaning of the act in that its strength and purity fell below the st
quality expressed on its labeling, since the labeling stated in part:
1 when tested against Staph. aureus or E. typhosa 20"," whereas
had a phenol coefficient of less than 1.0 against 8taph. aureus I S. a
less than 1.0 against E. typhosa (8. typhosa).
In count three it was alleged that the product wa misbranded
meariing of the act in that the labeling borne on its utainers wa


il~k
does
3dor.

sk i n.
20".


linst Staph.
), and when
germs, and


he meaning
was printed
ch conspicu-
dinary indi-

within the
andard and
"Coef. plus
the product
rureus) and


within the
.s false and


*** ****** ***/*


"""


:"

""







c,
,ii:






170-200]


NOTICES


J JUDGMENT


131.


all the work o01
Disinfects and t
whenever soap
Coef. plus 1 wh
Active.


f soa, Deodorizes fry yg. a pleasant pine
helps Id: ypur home0 een germs. Can be
and water are us~ N irritating to the
en tesed against Staph ureus o E. Typhosa


odor.
used
skin.
20.


whereas the product
aureus (8. aureus) a
when used as directed
and would be of no val
It was alleged that
of the act in that the
in such small type, a
to render unlikely it tF
customary conditions
In count four it wa
meaning of the act in
quality expressed on


1 when tested
had a phenol
less than 1.0 al
On October
tender to co
Government's


I



i


against
coefficiel
against E
20. 195"
unt fou
motion.


had a phenol coefficient of less than 1.0 against Staph.
ind less than 1.0 against A. typhosa (S. typhosa), and
, would not disinfect or help rid a home of unseen germs,
ue as a 0infetant.
the product was further misbranded within the meaning
ingredientfatement appearing on the label was printed
nd was placed thereon with such inconspicuousness, as
) be read and understood by the ordinary individual under
)f purchase and use,
s alleged that the product was adulterated within the the
that its strength and purity fell below the standard and
ts labeling, since the labeling stated in part: "Coef. plus
Staph, aureus or E. typhosa 20" whereas the product
it of less than 1.0 against Staph. aureus (S. aureus) and
. Uyphosa (8. typhosa).
-. the defendant corporation entered a plea of nolo con-
r. Counts one, two and three were dismissed on the


The ccurt imposed a fine of $100.


Lack of
brandii
31, mor
fault di
223. I.


registration and lack of required information on labels and
ng of "PEST-O-RIL VAPOR INSECT KILLER UNITS." U.
*e or less, "PEST-O-KIL VAPOR INSECT KILLER UNITS"'.
ecree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I. F. & R.
D. No. 26659.)


mis-
S. v.
De-
No.


product "PEST-O-KIL VAPOR INSECT KILLER
vaporizer and one package labeled "Ortho Lindane,


ider the Feder
the product s
il package (lid
* person for wf
the contents:


1 February
;etts, acting
es District
1, more or
Mass., alle
sported into


Ashland,

tWas
Ere as
It w as


of the con
It was
not bear


Ky..


aleged that the product was not registered with the Secretary of Agri-
required by section 4 f the act.
alleged tha, tlhe aaaffixed to the outside containers of the retail
did ne the nastnad address of the manufacturer, registrant,
for whom manufaetp :4 ir a statement of the net weight or measure
tents.
furt her alleged that he outside containers of the retail packages did
an ingredient statetnt giing thet name and percentage of each of


OP'


10.
upor
Coun
less.
going


UNITS",
' was not


consisting
registered
amination
of the re-
registrant,
r measure


from


The
one


al Insceticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. An ex
showed that the labels affixed to the outside container
not bear the fame and address of the manufacturer, 1
lam manufactured; or a statement of the net weight o


in ingredient statement as required by the act.
953,. the UTited States Attorney for the District of Massa-
l a report bi the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United
t a libel paying seizure for condemnation and confiscation
"PEST-O lL VAPOR INSECT KILLER UNITS", at Bos-
that the. duct was an economic poison which had been


ersta te, on or about December 10, 1952, by The Bug-ger Co.,


in violation of te Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide






132


VNSECTICID E,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


[[. F.R. N. J.


191. Lack of registration and required information
of "PESTGO UNITS (MODEL 2)" and
SIZE)". U. S. v. 6 cases, more or less, e'
Iitns mIODEDLr 2) and 6 cases, more
"PESTGO UNITS (LARGE SIZE)" Defa
forfeiture, and destruction. (i &R N

The irtt *'b'PESTGO UNITS (MODEU 2)" an(
SIZE)" were not registered uader ithi W dr
Rodenticide Act. Each "PESTGO UX DEL
vaporizer (Model 2) and one ,-2-ounce package
"PESTGO UNIT (LARGE SIZE)" cosnmteof one
and one 2-once packagof Pestgc O ysta An
labels on the outside containers of the retail pack


in on labels ar
"PESTGO Ui
ach containing
or less, each
mit decree of
o. 224. I. D.

d "PESTGO U
Insecticide,
2)" consisted
of Pestg-. C
Pestgo vap(ori
pxahinination s
:ages of the p


id misbranding
NITS (LARGE
g 12 "PESTGO
containing 12
condemnation,
Nos. 24722 and


NITS
Fungic
I of on
'rystal!
zer ila
hiiw\ed
product!


( LA RGE
'ide, and
e Pestgo
s. Each
rge size)
that the
s did not


bear a statement of the net weight or meas~i e of the contents of the conti4ers
or an ingredient statement as required by thePact.:
On February 16, 1953, the Unita States;Attorney fofrthe district of Maryland.
acting upon a report by the Secrwtary Of Agriculture, filed in the United States
District Court a libel praying seiSuri for condemnation and contiscation of 6
cases, more or less, each containing 12 "PESTGO UNITS (MODEL 2)" and 6
cases, more or less, each containing 12 "PISTGO U1SITS (LARGE SIZE)'" at
Baltimore, Md., alleging that the products were economic poisons which hiad
been transported interstate, on or about 3une 20, 1952, July 3, 1952, July 9, 1952,
and August 21, 1952, by Pestgo Distributors, from Richmond, Calif.. in violation
of the act.
It was alleged that the products were nqt registered with the Secretary of
Agriculture as required by section 4 of the act.
It was alleged that the products were misbranded in that the outside con-
tainers of the retail packages of the respective products did not bear an in-
gredient statement giving the name and percentage fT each of the active in-


gredients, together with
ingredient statement givi
inert ingredients in the
in each classification, toge
It was further alleged
packages of the products
of the content of the conta
On April 23, 1953, no


and forfeiture was
destroy the products.


the total percentage of the inert ir
ing the names of each of the active
descending order of the percentage
ether with the total percentage of the
that the labels on the outside contain


igred
and
of
inert
ners


ient
eac
each
i ng
of t


did not bear a statement of the net weight or


iners as required by the act.
claimant having appeared, a


entered,


decree of


United States Marshal


s, or an
h of the
present
redients.
he retail
measure


coudemnatlou
is ordered to


192. Lack of registration and misbranding of "CLORTON CLORIZE", lack
rof registration and misbranding tf "iLORTON LILACIDE" and lack of
registration and required information on label of "CLORTON PYNA-
CIDE PHENOL COEFFICIENT 5, D. A." U. S. v. Ben Van Etten,
an individual. Plea of guilty and fine of $100 and costs. ( I. F. & R. No.
137. I. D. Nos. 19973, 19974, 20233 and 20234.
The product "CLORTON CLORIZE" was not registered under section 4 of
the act. The product was misbranded ti that the label did not bear a proper
ingredient statement. The product was also misbranded in that the direc-
tions for use were indefinite and inadequate for the protection of the public.
The product "CLORTON LILACIDE" was not registered under section 4 of
the act. It was misbranded in that the net content was less than claimed on


::jj






~~fillrti~g


OF JUIOMENT


133


about January 20, 1949, Otober 28t 1049, faniary 16, 1950, and December
T, 1948, respectively, tra sported the 'abdveoa med products interstate from
SI to St. Louis, and that ach of the products was an economic
poison within the meaning atthe actI
. It was alleged that none of the products were registered with the Secretary
Of Agriculture as required by section 4 of the act.
It was alleged that the product "CLORTON CLORIZE" was misbranded
within Ith meaning of the acet in that the active ingredient was not so desig-
aate~f, and the percentage ci active ingredient was stated as "when bottled"
which is indefinite and may be misleading. It was further alleged that the
'predut "OLORTON CLORIZE' was misbranded in that the labels statd:
S. i "C S OcORTON CLORIZEB
FOR USE IN
CHEESE FACTORIES, DAIRIES, MILK PLANTS, RESTAURANTS,
HOTELS, TAVERNS AND SODA FOUNTAINS


*
GERMICIDE DISINFECTANT
*


MILK EQUIPMENT--Clean all surfaces thoroughly
/ with CLORIZE.
Utensilf may be submerged for a few minutes, if ;
i Use clean water at all times in making CLOI
SWater may be either warm or cold.


Consult your local or state authorities regarding
Chlorine required for Chlorine Rinse solutions.


before rinsing

so desired.
IIZE solution.


volume


* a,"


rnereas
f the l
isinfect
It was


the directions for use were indefinite and inadequate for the protection
public and might be misleading since the concentration required to.
was not stated.
alleged that the product "CLORTON LILACIDE" was misbranded in


that the labels s
1 gallon. It was
active ingredient
indefinite and mi
It was alleged
FICIENT 5, F. I
active ingredient
did not bear a s
On September
imposed a tine of


193.


t
S
s


ated "ONE GALLON" whereas the net vol
further alleged that the product was misbh
were not designated, and the name "clorin
h t be misleading.
that the product "CLORTON PYNACIDE
. A." did not comply with the provisions of


ume was less than
randed in that the
ated phenols" was

PHENOL COEF-
the act in that the


s were not so designated, and the label borne by the product
statement of net weight oir measure of the content.
14, 1953, the defendant entered a plea of guilty and the Court
$100 and costs


Lack of registration, misbranding, and adulteration of "HARRIS
OIL DISINFECTANT COEF. 3" and lack of registration anm
branding of "FAZT PINE OIL DISINFECTANT COEF. 5."
'*'. tjColental Soap corporation a corporation. Plea of guilty.
af $200 and costs. (I. F. & R. No. 212. I. D. Nos. 22189 and 25190.)


PINE
d mis-
U.S.
Fine


The products *'HARRIS PINE OIL DISINFECTANT COEF. 3" and
"FAZT PINE OIL DISINFECTANT COEF. 5" were not registered under
the Federal Insecticide, Fufgicide, and Rodenticide Act. An examination of
the product "HARRIS PINSOL NPFECTANT ** COEF. 3" showed
that the Inhels on the contatnes did not bear an ingredient statement as re-


&TICES


B






S34


INSECTICIC E


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


[I. F. R. N.J.


and "FAZT PINE OIL DISINFECTANT COEF. 5," and that the prod-
ucts were economic poisons within the meaning of the act.
In coa oe it was alleged that the product "HARRIS PINE OIL DiSiN-
FECTANT OOWf@. 8" had not been registered with the Secretary 6o
Agriculture as required by section 4 ofii t :srt
In count two it was alleged that tl ont was misbranded within the mean-
ing of the act in that its lbels did not bern ~~ingredie statement~ i
name and percentage of each of the eiw rgreditents, together with the total
percentage of the inert ingredients, or an ingredient statement giving the names
of each d the active and :each of the inert ingredients in the descending order
of the nercentare of each resent in each classification, together with the total


percentage of the inert ingredients.
In count two it was alleged that the poduct
the meaning of the act in that the labels stated
"HARRIJS
PINE OIL
DISINFITANTi


was ult sbranded within
1~~~~^ ":
/ .


flO~it W'


-- -ti ,
which represented or implied that the product had a phenol coefficient of 3 and
that the product met the requirements of the accepted trade standard for pine
oil disinfectants, to wit, Commercial Standard 69-388 which require pe
disinfectants to contain no mineral oil and not more than 10 percent of water,
whereas said product contained mineral oil and more than 10 percent of
In quiat three it was alleged ~thqt the product was adulterated within the
meaning of the act in that the labels stated
"HARRIS
PINE OIL DISINFECTANT
**
S3COEF. 3""
which represented or implied that the product had a phenol coefficient of 3 and
that the product met the requirements of the accepted trade standard for pine
"oil disinfectants, to wit, Commercial Standard 69-38, which requires pine oil
disinfectants to contain no mineral oil and not more than 10 percent of water,
whereas said product contained mineral oil and more than 10 percent of water.


In count four it was alleged that the product "FAZT PINE OI
ANT COEF. 5" had not been registered with the Sece
culture as required by section 4 of the act.
In count five it was alleged that the product "FAZT PINE OI
ANT COEF. 5" was misbranded in that its labels di
ingredient statement giving the name and percentage of eacl
ingredients, together with the total percentage of the inert ing
ingredient statement giving the names teph of the active a
inert ingredients in the descending order of the percentage of
each classification, together with the total percentage of the inert
On March 11, 1953, a plea of guilty was entered andi fine of
was imposed.


Lack of registration of "I-KAY INSECT KILLERS" and
LINDANE FOR I-KAY (INSECT KILLER)". U. S. v.
INSECT KILLERS", more or less and forty-four 1-ounce pac
or less, of "GENUINE LINDANE FOR I-KAY (INSECT
nfanlit fdor.ron f ,ernnimnntioinn. fnarfetiiira.. smnd dalpstnrution..


L DISINFECT-
retary of Agri-


L DISINFECT-
d not bear an
i of the active
yredients, or an
nd each of the
each present in
ingredients.
$200 and costs


"GENUINE
23 "I-KAY
kages, more
KILLER)".
rT i &R_


CEi'


"":


"^^"E::E~I


~-E







170-200]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


5f35


ported interstate on or about June 11, 1952 and June 18, 1952, by the Beton
Metal Products Company from Boston, Mass in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the products were not registered with the Secretary of
Agriculture as required by section 4 of the act.
On March 16, 1953, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation
.and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered that the products be destroyed.


Lack of registration and mi
U. S. v. 1,194 units, more
100 leaflets, more or leE
Invention *"; and 1(
MATIC INSECTICIDE
condemnation, forfeiture,
No. 26898.)


'IL


'branding of "Automatic INSECT-O-SHADE".
or less, of "Automatic INSECT-O-SHADE";
;, bearing the statement "An Amazing New
) circulars, more or less, captioned "AUTO-
Revolutionary New Invention". Decree of
and destruction. (I. F. & R. No. 230. I. D.


The product,


"Automatic


INSECT-O-SHADE"


was not registered under the


Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
An examination of the product showed that the
trainers did not bear an ingredient statement.


On June
acting upo
District C
1,194 units
material a
which had
'Supply Cor
It was
.Agriculturi


labels


borne


the con-


19, 1953, the United States Attorney for the District of Nebraska,
n a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United States
ourt, a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation of
, more or less, of "Automatic INSECT-O-SHADE" and accompanying
t Omaha, Nebr., alleging that the product was an economic poison
been transported interstate on or about May 5, 1953 by Universal
npany, Inc., from Faribault, M inn., in violation of the act.
alleged that the product was not registered with the Secretary of


as required by


section 4 of


It was alleged that the product wae
act in that its labels did not bear an i
percentage of each active ingredient, t
inert ingredients in the product, or an
each active ingredient. together with t


he act.
s mishranded within the meaning of 1
ingredient statement giving the name a
togetherr with the total percentage of 1
ingredient statement giving the name
he name <,f each and total percentage


the inert ingredients
On July 17, 1953,
and forfeiture was
paying material be


in the product.
no claimant
entered, and
destroyed.


having appeared, a decree of condemnation
t was ordered that the product and accom-


Lack of registration and required information on label of "FLYDYZER"
(Vaporizer) and one 1-ounce package of "FLYDYZER GAMMAMATIC
FLY AND INSECT CONTROL INSECTICIDE No. 49494". U. S. v. 699
cartons, more or less, each containing one "FLYDYZER" (Vaporizer)
and one 1-ounce package of "FLYDYZER GAMMAMATIC FLY AND
INSECT CONTROL INSECTICIDE No. 49494; and 1,500 leaflets, more
or less, bearing the statement "FLYDYZER KILLS Flies Roaches .
Mosquitoes Ants Gnats Flying Moths And All Other Insects".
Consent decree of condemnation and release under bond. (I. F. & R. No.
191. I. D. No. 24849.)


The product


:DYZER
49494" w
cide Act
name an
factured


" FILPDf l


GAMMAMATIC
as not registered
and the labels a
d address of the
as required by thi


SER" (Vaporizer I and one 1-ounce package of "FLY-
FLY AND INSECT CONTROL INSECTICIDE No.
under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenti-
ffixed to the containers of the carton did not bear the
manufacturer, registrant, or person for whom manu-
e act.


e






136


INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE; AMD ODE


NTWTCDE ACT [T. F.R.N..


It wa lieged that the product was not
culture as required hy section 4 of the act+
It wasr ateged tat the product failed
act, in that the labels affixed to the conta
name and dress of the manufacturer, r
factured ..i
The Amrex Corp., of Miami, Fla., daim
its release de bond for the purpose


registered with the Secretary of
glBE *Sva ~ k VI W *, ** < :" 4XB" 1:, *^ "<*<< ""

to comply with the provisions of the
liners of the product did not bear thee
registrant, or person for whom manu-
t~x li


?d ownership of the product, requested
ing it into compliance with the


act, and consete to the entry of a coc tmpaio degree
A coient decree of condemnation was entered on April 27, 1953 and amended
August 4i 1953, proyidig that the pRnes ninsecticide be released under bond
to the claimant, and that the vapor r and tleaflets be forfeited to the United
States of America, and that the c.c which w~e intended to be used as part of
the vaporizers be delivered to the Federal Reformatory for Women at Alder-
son, W. Va.
197. Lack of registration of "CaEMIcAt EEPILL fat the INSECT-MASTER
AUTOMATIC INSECTICIDE VAPORIZER". U. S. v. ninety-one 1-
ounce packages, more or less, of "CEMICALiREFILL For the INSECT-
MASTER AUTOMATIC INSECTIPWE VAPDRIZER". Default decree
of condemnation and forfeiture, and it was ordered that the seized prod-
uct be released to the Virginia Deprtgment of Agriculture, Richmond, Va.
(I. F. & B, No. 234. I. D. I o. 28001:)
The product "CHEMICAL REFILL For the INSECT-MASTER AUTOMATIC
INSECTICIDE VAPORIZER" was not registered under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act.
On August 24, 1953, the United States attorney for the iEastern District of
Virginia, acting upon a report by the Secetary of Agriculture, filed in the United
States District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation
of ninety-one 1-ounce packages more or less, of "'CHEMICAL REFILL For the
INSECT-MASTER AUTOMATIC INSEOTIOIDE VAPORIZER", at Richmond,
Va., alleging that the product was an economic poison which had been transported
interstate on or about July 16, 1953 by Associated Products Inc., from Pittsburgh,
Pa., in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the product was not registered with the Secretary of Agri-
culture as required by section 4 of the act.
On September 16, 1953, no claimant having appeared, a default decree of con-
demnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered that the confiscated
and condemned product be released to the Virginia Deplrtment of Agriculture,
Richmond, Va.
198. Lack of registration and required information on label and misbranding
of "DALAMAR-X FLY KILLER" Unis and "REFILL for DALAMAR-X
FLY KILLER" IL S. v. 11 "DUAAMAR-X FLY KILLER" Units, more
or less, and thirty /z-oz. packages more or less, of "REFILL for DALA-
MAR-X FLY KILLER." Deftut degree of condemnation, forfeiture,
and destruction. (I. F. & R: No. 238. I. D. No. 27681.)
The products, "DALAMAR-X FLY KILLER" UnitWnsiating of one vaporizer
and one container of "REFILL for DALAMAR-X FLY KILLER," and the sepa-
rate containers of "REFILL for DALAMAR-X FLY KILLER," were not regis-
tered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
The label on the outside containers or Wrappers of the retail packages of the
"DALAMAR-X FLY KILLER" Unit did not bear a statement of net weight or


'~"xE:
:~~~11111111


,..






170-200]


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


37j


It was further
the retail package


violation c
measure of
It was f
was misbr
containers,
ment giving
with the t
giving the
descending
with the to
On Nove
demnation


,f the
the co
further
anded
, or wr
g the r
otal pD
names
order


alleged tha|z the labe on the outside containers or wrappers of
es of the product, "DALjAMRfX FLY KILLER" Unit was in
act in that: it did not r a statement of the net weight or
ntents of the containers.
alleged that the product, "DALAMAR-X ELY KILLER" Unit,
within the meaning of the aet in that the label of the outside
appears of the retail packages did not bear an ingredient state-
la me and pceneRage oe .jn of -the active ingredients, together
rcentage of the inert ingredients, on an ingredient statement
of each of the. active and each of the inert ingredients in the
of the percentage of each present in each classification, together


tal percentage of the ine ingredients.
mber 12, 1953, no clainfant having appeared, a default decree of con-
and forfeiture was entered, and the United States Marshal was


ordered to destroy the products.


Lack of registration an4 required information on label of "FLY-BYE"
Units and '"FLY-BYE" INSECTICIDE.' U. S. v. 9 "FLY-BYE" Units,
more or less, and nine 11/2-oz. packages, more or less, or '"FLY-BYE"
INSECTICIDE.' Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and de-
struction. (I. F. & R. No. 239. I. D. No. 26576.)


The products,
of '"FLY-BYE"
not registered i
and an examine
the outside cont
weight or measu
On September
of Iowa, acting
States I)istrict


of 9
* "FI
were
ary ;


Agri
It


"'F
FlI
Ind(
tiol
ain
re (
S14


ur
Cc


'FLY-BYE'" 1
Y-BYE" INS
economic poi
0, 1953, by G(
.. in violation


was
cultu
was


packages
weight or
On Oct


leged
as req
rather
the p
ea sure
er 26,


and forfeiture was
destroy the products.


LY-BYE" Unit, consisting of one vaporizer and one package
y and Insect Killer' and "FLY-BYE" INSECTICIDE,' were
?r the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act,
a of the product "FLY-BYE" Unit showed that the label on
er nf the retail package did not bear a statement of the net
,f the contents of the container.
, 1953, the United States Attorney for the Southern District
n a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United
rt, a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation


Tnits.


more or less, and nine 1 -oz.


packages, more or less, of


5ECTICIDE', at Des Moines, Iowa, alleging that
i~ons, which had been transported interstate on o
general Manufacturing and Distributing Company,
of the act.
that the products were not registered with the
uired under section 4 of the act.
alleged that the label on the outside containers
rodiuct, "FL YPBYE" Unit, did not bear a statem4
of the contei s of the container.
1953, no claimant having appeared, a decree of (


entered,. and
.i


the United


States


Marshal


the products
r about Janu-
from Quincy,

Secretary of

of the retail
ent of the net

condemnation
is ordered to


200. Lack of registration a inisbranding of "BARCO 12% B. H. C. DUST
CONCENTRATE." 1 a. Bareo Chemicals, Inc., a corporation. Plea
of guilty. Fine of $500, 41.. F. & R. No. 228. I. D. Nos. 20599 and 25250.)
-Yhe product "BAROO 12% 0; C. ST CONCENTRATE" was not regis-
SrTh FMeral Inseet ieFungicide, and Rodenticide Act. An analysis
$Ith roduct showed that it ne ined an average of 6.38 percent of the gamma
isomer of benzene hexachlori ad 43.30 percent of other isotners of benzene
hexachloride instead of 12 of the gmma isomer of benzene hexachloride
and 74 percent of other isomerbf beene hexachloride as claimed on the label.
fn Mar 1 1O1'Q fth TTidt.rl Qf t-nc A t-tr.nnT -Pn +thn Qr nidhn flihr Tic

JI






138


INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


[I.F. R.N.J..


"BARCO
12% BHC(
DUST CONCENTRATE *
ACTIVE INGREDIENTS:
Gamma Isomer of Benzene Hexachloride __.
Other Isomers of Renzene Hexacbloride_
INERT__ T
TTOTAI- -
imtplied or represented that the product contained 12
of benzene hexachloride, 74 percent of other isom


chloride, and not more than 14 percent of inert ingredients, where
contained less than 12 percent iof the gamma isomer of benzene
less than T74 &treat of other isomers of benzene hexachloride, and
percent of inert ingredients.
In count three it was alleged that the product was adulterat
meaning of the act in that its strength or purity fell below the profe
or quality tnder which it was sold. since its labeling stated in p
"ACTIVE INGREDIE
Gamma Isomer B s e Hexachloride------------
Other Isomers of Benzene Hexacihloride
INERIT I NGIIEDIENT -- -_ -_-- -----
which implied or represented that tie poducttoatained 12 percent
isomer of beazene hexachlari; 74 percent of other isomers of
chloride, and not more than 14 percent of inert ingredients, where!
contained less than 12 percent gf The gaima isomer of benzene
less than 74 percent of other isowptr of .bemne hexachloride, and
percent of inert ingredients.
On October 23, 1953, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to c<
two, and count three was dismissed. A fine of $350 was impose
one and $150 under count two. Court costs were assessed in the am,


12%
74%
14%

percent of the gamma
ers of benzene hexa--


as theprd
hexachlorde,
more than 14

ed within the.
hssed standard
a rt:

12%
74%
14%"
of the gamma
benzene hexa-
as the product
hexachloride,
more tha n 14


counts one and
i under count
ount of f$3A.I


INDEX TO


NOTICES OF


JUDGMENT


1703-200


N. J. No.
Automatic Insect-O-Shade:
Universal Supply Company,
Inc..... 195
Barco 12% B. H. C, Dust Concen-
trate:
Bareo Oiemicals. Inc .. 200
Bug-Git Lindane Pellet Vaporizer
Units:
Lindavap Sales Corp ...... 177
Bug-0-Ban Insecticide Vaporizer;
and NB-O-Ban Insecticide Va-
porizer Refill:
Bug-O-Ban, Inc ...._._- .... 175
Cedadisk:
Oedacote ( -rpp 178
Ced-Air Durable, Paint


Ced-Air Products, Inc_____
Celcure:
Amerilan Celeure Wood Pre-


N. J. No.


Ounilate2174 W. P.: Cunilate 2174;
Cunilate 2174 X Y Ou nilate
DC6P; anti Socei 64040 W. P.
tibentizic (Iil Compounding Co.,
Inc_-__. ___-_r___31
Dalatmar-X Fly Killer Units: and
ekfi l fr Dalamar-X Fly" Killer:
ly Dni. Inc-------------- 198
Dleodislrin : and eodislrnay :
S: ndertakers Supply COo----- 186
tetn-0O-LiUte: and Lindane Insec-
ticide:
Candle-ite OaChmicait 0 aod,,
Ey+ye Units; and Fly-Dye Insee-
tieid e:
General Mlanufacturing and


SFlydyze
dvzer


distributing Company
r I Vaporizer I ) and
Gammamatic Fly and


Fly-
In-


which
isomer


iiir~







INDEX


139


Disiufectant I5.


M s


All Insect I
San: nnd S
I)isinfects.
Cleans
Chemical
nmore
arris Pine (
Coef. 3: ;in
infectant *
Continent


tion -.
1(' Brand I
3-5-0:
Imperial
I-Kay Insect
Linda ne
Killer)
Boston
pany -.
Klomine *


pound
Acn
Kreole
odora
Mai
I


1e
P
nt
Ih
n<


D. A.


N. J. No.
* Knr-X-


Killer: Aerosol Glyco-
upersol Bowl Cleaner.
IDeodorizes As It


Service


)il I)isinfec'tant
Id Fazt Pine O
t f


" o',l f o.
So;ap Oor


Balti-


i11


'pol*8 -


milierial Co

Chemical Co_
Killers; and Genuine
for I-Kay (Insect


Metal


Products


* Disinfectant


and iicres:
Chemical Co..
ine Sanitary
, Disinfectant:
attan Kreole
S


Inc_
Fluid.


Conm-




. De-


Products.


Krishell DDT-25-Emultifiable DDT
Insecticide; and Krishell IPC
Selective Grass Killer:
Krishell Laboratories. Inc_ --


Master Brandl


IN


-phur:
Stevens
estg< Uinits
Pestgo
ingtoi
?stgo U:nits
Univers


N. J. No.
Toxaphrsae With Sul-


Industries, Inc _.. 178
: and Pestgo COrystals:
Distributors of Wash-


I

a


(Model 2):
I Products, Inc- 85


Pestgo Units I Model 2)
Pestgo Units ( Large Size)
Pestgo Dist ibutors ..


Pe.t-O-K
Units:
The
Stanco
Sani-S(
Sour:
Keef
Sa
Co
Sure-Pini


ii


Va p.)r


Insect


and


Killer


Bu g-er Co -.----- 190
Neutra-Lustre; Stanco
our; and Staneo-Aceti-

er Starch Co., successor to
ndard Chemical Works


Pine


- ------------180
Oil Disinfectant


Phenol Coefficient 5:
F. Uddo & Sons 0o -.-_-----. 179


. P. Liquid
* A Di
Bactericide
Chas. H.
'. P. Liquid
* *A Di
Bactericide
('has. H.


Bleach and Cleaner
isin fectant Deodorant
a nd Germicide:
Netherson Co-- -
Bleach and Cleaner
sin fectant Deodorant
and Germicide:
Netherson Co---


E





UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IliH II I1 II Ii 11111IllIlllIl


IIII illHII
57 03


S~


III 11111
1262


p.B


i i