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:
AA00008500:00005

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



N.J.. LF.R.


I


271-300


,y~?~p: ;


IssuQ itober W


4K)


UNITED STATES DEPARTME
AGRICULTURE

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVI

PLANT PEST CONTROL DIVISION


NOTICES


JUDGMENT UNDER THE FEDERAL INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


Nos.


271-300


The following notices of 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. 135d).


Acting Administrator


M. R. CLARKSON,
Agricultural Research Service.


ASHINGTON


I D.C.,


June


1960.


271. Lack of


registration


misbranding of "EASY


GLAMOUR "


U.S.


v. 71


8-ounce containers, more or less, 71 16-ounce containers, more or less, 71
QKt*te Ontainers, more or less, 23 1/-gallon containers, more or less,
and 3 1-gallon containers, more or less, of "EASY GLAMUR." Default


decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction.


.D-. No.


34544.)


& R. No.


310.


The product "
ticide, Fungicide
did not bear an


EASY GLA MUR" was not registered under the Federal Insee-


1


and Rodenticide Act.
ingredient statement.


It was


misbranded in


that


It was further misbranded in


its label
that its


labeling bore false and misleading statements.
On June 3, 1958, the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin,
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United States
District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation of 71 8-


ounce containers. more or


71 16-ounce containers


, more or less, 71 32-ounce


containers, more or less, 23 ~-gallon containers, more or less, and 3 1-gallon containers,
moreor less, of "EASY GLAMUR" at Milwaukee, Wis., alleging that the product


was an economic poison which had been transported interstate on or about May 1,
1958 by Glamur Products, Inc., from Syracuse, N.Y., in violation of the act.


It was alleged that the product was not registered with the Secretary of Agri-


culture as required under section 4 of the act.


""iP


" ""







208


INSECTICIDE


,FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


[ LF.R.N.,


It wasfurther alleged that the product was misbranded in that its labeling stated


in part:
l (Leaflet




"NEW easy glamour WITH COROBEX


H205R358)


DESTROYS


GERMS


FOR


WHOLE


MONTHS!
Creates a Halo Of Protection That Destroys New
Bacteria Tracked Into The Home!




Thy-


* *


Approved by U.S. Government and
scientific Laboratories.


independent


* *1,


(Leaflet
Mat No. A-2-58)


* *


Destroys Germs For 3 Whole Months


(Leaflet
Mat No. A-1-58)


DESTROYS GE R M S


FOR


MONTHS!


(Leaflet
Mat No. A-3-58)


Germs Destroyed For 3 Whole Months


Destroys


chairs


germs


sofas


as it spotlessly


cleans


carpets,


(Unnumbered
Leaflet)


Guaranteed germ-destroying action


*r *


so safe, sure and germ-free.


thoroughly destroys germs.


New


germs


germ-destroyin g


properties


fight


air-borne


new Easy Glamur with Corobex cleans rugs and
upholstery, keeps them as germ-free as a freshly
scrubbed floor.


germ-free protection
*


the safest, the finest and the most. effective germ-
destroyer i
*des *roys germs
destroys germs .


- S


.1


I.


211


:::':







271-300]


NOTICES


ZXDGMENT]


209


Microscopic-research proves germs are destroyed
by Easy Glamur with Corobex.


* *


Only Easy Glamur with Corobex destroys these
germs as it lifts out deep-down dirt destroys
germs that fall on rugs cleaned with Easy Glamur
for 3 long months afterward!


(
B

"'










ii""







:~


destroys germs


on application


* $


guarantees to keep upholstered furniture germ-free
for three months. Make sure your furniture is
completely free of germs this easy way.


* *


whisks away dirt and germs from every chair and
sofa.
*


auction of
atliafr~inal,


Syracuse
Tuesday


January 14, 1958 advertise-
ment)


fresh, germ-free, safe for babies,
families!
A *

rr A


product's


'Corobex'
effect,


germ-destroying
*


toddlers


, growing


properties


is actively antiseptic, self-sterilizing in


ud such statements were false or misleading since they implied or represented (1)
that the product had been approved bv United States Government laboratories


ad (2) that the product, when used as directed,
bacteria on application, (b) would destroy bactel


(a) would destroy germs and
ria tracked into the home, (c)


wauld keep rugs, upholstery, and other articles germ-free for three months, and
(C) would be self-sterilizing, whereas, (1) the product had not been approved by the
United States Government laboratories and (2) the product, when used as directed,
a) would not destroy germs or bacteria, (b) would not destroy bacteria tracked
ata the home, (c) would not keep rugs, upholstery, or other articles germ-free for
bne months, or (d) would not be self-sterilizing.
On June 24, 1958, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation and
forfeiture was entered and the United States Marshal was ordered to destroy the
prodaet
272. Lack of registration, lack of required information on labels, and misbranding
of "1%% DIELDRIN GRANULES 706010" U.S. v. 190 50-pound
bags, more or less of "11/4V DIELDRIN GRANULES 706010."
Consent decree of condemnation and release of the product under bond
for the purpose of bringing product into compliance with the act. (I.F. &
N. No. 311. I.D. No. 34499.)
IiJth product "1% % DIELDRIN GRANULES 706010" was not registered
der the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. It was mis-
&aed ii that its label did not bear an ingredient statement, directions for use, and
an ademate warnmin. or caution staff tement.


Is I


* *







INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


[I F.R.N.J.


ingredients Ory ;an Igredieat statement giving the names of each
each of the inert ingredients in the defending order of the pe
present in each classification, together with the total percent
ingredients.
It was further alleged that the product was misbranded in that
labeling did not contain directions for use, which are necessary
with, adequate for tle protection of the public.
It was further alleged that the product was misbranded with
the act in that its labels did not bear a warning or caution statf
be necessary and, if complied with, adequate to prevent inju
and other vertebrate animals.
Cadwell & Jones, Inc., Hartford, Conn. claimed ownership of
requested its release under bond for the purpose of bringing it into
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rbdenticide Act.
On July 3, 1958, a decree of condemnation was entered, and it w
Court that the product be released to the claimant under bond.


of the active and
rcentage of each
tage of the inert
its accompanying
and, if complied
n the meaning of
cement which may
ry to living man


the product
3 compliance
ras ordered b;


and
with


y the


273. Lack of registration of "PYRENONE NON-TOXIC INSECTICIDE FOR
USE IN FOOD PROCESSING PLANTS." U.S. v. 776 15-ounce con-
tainers, more or less, of "PYRENONE NON-TOXIC INSECTICIDE
FOR USE IN FOOD PROCESSING PLANTS." Consent decree of
condemnation and release under'bond. I.F. & R. No. 312. I.D. No.
34761.)
The product "PYRENONE NON-TOXIC INSECTICIDE FOR USE IN
FOOD PROCESSING PLANTS" was not registered under the Federal Insecti-
cide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
On June 12, 1959, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Cali-
fornia, Northern Division, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture,
filed in the United States District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation
and confiscation of 776 15-ounce containers, more or less, of "PYRE NONE NON-
TOXIC INSECTICIDE FOR USE IN FOOD PROCESSING PLANTS" at
Sacramento, Calif., alleging that the product was an economic poison which had been
transported interstate on or about January 22, 1958 by the Aerosol Corp., of the
South from Memphis, Tenn., in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the product was not registered with the Secretary of Agri-
culture as required bv section 4 of the act.


The California Division of
of the product and requested
into compliance with the act.
was entered, and it was order
the claimant.


Highways, State of California, claimed ownership
its release under bond for purpose of bringing it
SOn August 7, 1959, a decree of condemnation
ed by the Court that the product be released to


No. 274. Lack of registration of "INSECTICIDE PLANT FOOD MIX WITH 0.4%
ALDRIN." ;U.S. v. 125 80-pound bags, more or less, of "INSECTI-
CIDE PLANT FOOD MIX WITH 0.4% ALDRIN." Consent decree
of condemnation. (I.F.& R. No. 315. I.D. No. 34973.)
The product "INSECTICIDE PLANT FOOD MIX WITH 0.4% ALDRIN"
was not registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodent.icide Act.
On June 27, 1958 the United States Attorney for the District of Delaware, acting
upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United States District
Court, a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation of 125 80-pound
bags, more or less, of "INSECTICIDE PLANT FOOD MIX WITH 0.4% AL-
DRIN" at Brideeville. Del.. alleging the product was an economic poison which




'": ""



I
%
~iE ,"
I
IEEE"
'EEBEE
1EEBE,::
jj~jE


,: BE:


IWIE CIPE


JUDGMENT


211


Lack of registration and misbranding of "1/i% of B.HC." U.S. v. 200 50-
pound bags, more or less, of "11/2% B.HC." Consent decree of con-
demuiation. (I.F. & R. No. 317. I.D. No. 35233.)


.The product "1S% B.HC" was not registered under the Federal Insecticide,
ungicide, and Rodenticide Act. It was misbranded in that its labeling did not
bet an ingredient statement, directions for use, and a warning or caution state-
nent.
On July 16, 1958, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida,
eating upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United States
Thstrict Court, a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation of 200 50-
iund bags, more or less, of "1 %% B.HC" at Jacksonville, Fla., alleging the pro-
$ was an economic poison which had been transported interstate on or about
frl 2, 1958 from Waynesboro, Ga., by Atlas Agricultural Chemicals, Inc., in vio-
ohn of the act.
It was alleged that the product was not registered with the Secretary of Agri-
bulture as required by section 4 of the act.
It ras alleged that the product was misbranded within the meaning of the act
ani that the label borne by the product did not bear an ingredient statement giving
the name and percentage of each of the active ingredients, together with the total
percentage of the inert ingredients, 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, together with the total percentage
of the inert ingredients.
It was further alleged that the product was misbranded within the meaning
of the act in that the labeling accompanying the product did not contain direc-
tins for use which are necessary, and if complied with, adequate for the pro-
teetion of the public.
It was further alleged that the product was misbranded within the meaning
of the act in that the label for the product did not bear a warning or caution state-
ment which is necessary, and if complied with, adequate to prevent injury to
living man and other vertebrate animals.
SThe Florida State Board of Health claimed ownership of the product. On
Sletember 8, 1958 a judgment was entered condemning the product under seizure,
and ordering that it be released to the Floridn State Board of Health for use only
official programs of the Florida State Board of Health by trained personnel
of the said Board, or associated mosquito control districts, and that said product
ouill not be sold or otherwise disposed of contrary to the provisions of the Fed-
eral Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, or the laws of any state or terri-
tory.


276.


Lack of registration, misbranding, and lack of required information on labels
of "CLIEN-ODOR MINIATURE BLOCKETTES PINE," "CLIEN-ODOR
MINIATURE BLOCKETTES ODORA," "CLIEN-ODOR MINIATURE
BLOCKETTES CEDAR," and lack of registration and misbranding of
"CLOROBEN," and "LIEN 592 WASTE TREATMENT." U.S. v. 18 con-
tainers, more or less, of "CLIEN-ODOR MINIATURE BLOCKETTES
PINE"; 18 containers, more or less, of "CLIEN-ODOR MINIATURE
BLOCKETTES ODORA;" 18 containers, more or less of "CLIEN-ODOR
MINIATURE BLOCKETTES CEDAR"; 11 one-gallon containers, more
or less, of "CLOROBEN"; and 11 one-gallon containers, more or less,
of "LIEN 592 WASTE TREATMENT." Default decree of condem-
nation, forfeiture and destruction. (I.F. & R. No. 313. I.D. Nos.
34547, 34549, 34554, 34560, 34561.)


itt-sue i


,,,,,,E r ,,


r f; "







212


INSECTICIDE,


AND tIODrNTIIDE


ACE


[ .F.R.N.J.


PINE"- 18 containers, more or less, of "CLIEN-ODOR MINIATURE BLOCK-
ETTES ODORA". 18 containers, more or less, of "OLIEN-ODOR MINIATURE
BLOCKETTES CdEDAR"; 11 one-gallon containers, more or less, of CLORO-
BEN"*and 11 one-gallon containers, more or less, of "LIEN 592 WASTE TREAT-
MENT" at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, alleging that the products were economic
poisons which had been transported interstate on or about May 1, 1958, April
23, 1958, February 27, 1958, August 15, 1958, and March 27, 1958, by Lien Chem-
ical Company, from Franklin Park, Ill., in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the products were not registered with the Secretary of
Agriculture as required under section 4 of the act.
It was alleged that the products were misbranded within the meaning of the
act in that their labels did not bear an ingredient statement giving t he name
and percentage of each of the active ingredients, together with the total percent-
age of the inert ingredients, 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, together with the total percent-
age of the inert ingredients.


It was further alleged that the products "CLIEN-ODOR
PINE," "CLIEN-ODOR MINIATURE BLOCKETTES
"CLIEN-ODOR MINIATURE BLOCKETTES CEDAR" did
ments of net weight or measure of the contents.
On July 9, 1958, no claimant having appeared, a decree of for
demnation was entered and the United States Marshal was ord
the products.


MINIATURE
ODORA," and
not bear state-


'feiture and con-
lered to destroy


Lack of registration and misbranding of "INTERWOVEN SANI
SOCKS." U.S. v. 39% dozen, more or less, of "INTERWOVEN
ITARY SOCKS." Default decree of condemnation and release
bond for purpose of removing the product from under jurisdiction
act. (I.F. & R. No. 319. I.D. No. 35016.)


TARY
SAN-
under
of the


The product "INTERWOVEN SANITARY SOCKS" was not registered under
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, and an examination of
the product showed that the labels affixed to the containers of the product did not
bear an ingredient statement as is required by the act.
On September 18, 1958, the United States Attorney for the District of MIary-
land, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United
States District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscate ion of
39% dozen, more or less, of "INTERWOVEN SANITARY SOCKS," at. Balti-
more, Md., alleging that the product was an economic poison which had been
transported interstate, on or about August 20, 1958, by Interwoven Stocking Com-
pany, from Martinsburg, W. Va., 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.
It was alleged that the product was misbranded with the meaning of the act in
that the labels affixed to the containers of the product did not bear an ingredient
statement giving the name and percentage of each of the active ingredients, to-
gether with the total percentage of the inert ingredients, or an ingredient state-
ment 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, together
with the total percentage of the inert ingredients.
Interwoven Stocking Co. claimed ownership of the product, requesting its re-
lease under bond for the purpose of removing the product from under the jurisdic-
tion of the act, and consented to the entry of a condemnation decree. On Febru-








an-son


NOTICES -OF


JVDGWT


213


The product
misleading.
On Novem
of Illinois, W
Sed in the U
and confiscate


more


or


more or
Rockford
which ha
Varley &
It was
culture a
It was
in that it


less
less


was misbranded in that its labeling bore claims that were false and

Lber 12, 1958, the United States Attorney for the Northern District
western Division, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture,
united States District Court, a libel praying seizure for condemnation
ion of 91 1-gallon containers, more or less 95 5-gallon containers,
, 7 15-gallon containers, more or less, 12 30-gallon containers,
and 9 55-gallon containers, more or less. of "CREME-COTE" at


I, Ill., and Freeport, Ill., alleging'that the product was an economic poison
d been transported interstate on or about July 15, 1958 by James
Sons, Inc., from St Louis, Mo., in violation of the act.
alleged that the product was not registered with the Secretary of Agri-
s required by section 4 of the act.


asller
~slal


(Container
Label)


gei
bel


Ldth
iing


at


the product was misbranded within the meaning of the act


bore the statements:


"FABULOUS EMULSION
CREME-COTE
2-PHASE ACTION:
CLEANER FOR
ALL FLOORS
'IT'S ANTISEPTIC'
with

HEXACH LOROPHENE
U.S.P. SPECIFICATION


HOW TO
CREME-COTE


'USE
SOLUTIONS


ASPHALT TILE, LINOLEUM, PLASTIC A
FLOORING-------------
VINYL AND CORK -.- --.-- -..
TILE, TERRAZZO AND MARBLE -.--.-
WOOD FLOORS ....--------------------
GYMNASIUM FLOORSA- .--...
PAINTED WALLS AND FLOORS ------
FURNITURE AND WOODWORK ..
LEATHER AND PLASTIC UPHOLSTERY
AIRCR AFT .-.............. ..-------
VENETIAN BLINDS ... ~,-,. ~-~.
STAINLESS STEEL ...------
PORCELAIN SURFACES AND ALL HARD
ALUMINUM AND CHROMIUM -_.


FOR GENERAL MAINTENANCE
TINE DAMP MOPPING OF ALL


,ND


RUBBER


----------------------------
- ----------------------------
-- -- -
-- ----------------------------
-----------------------------


TILES


-------


AND DAILY ROU-
TYPES OF FLOORS_


SOL
SOL
SOL
SOL
SOL
SOL
SOL
SOL
SOL
SOL
SOL
SOL
SOL


TION
TION
TION
TION
TION
TION
TION
TION
TION
TION
TION
TION
TION


SOLUTION


HOW TO
CREME-COTE


MAKE
SOLUTIONS


Mix 1 part CREME-COTE with 100 parts water. Approximately 2 oz. to
a gallon of water. Approximately a cupful to a pail of water.
"MJ 1 ,n.+ CrWM1irT'f nrn ;i+h Kf norv+.o rnro+rn. Annywarrimo+olr 4 rvz +in a


b


P







$14


INSECTICIDE,


'FUNGICIDE,


"AND RODENTICIDE


ACT


[I.F.R.N.J.


(Placard
Labeling)


:"CREME-COTEHA
DILUTION CHART


CREME-COTE is a revolutionary new type emulsion cleaner. It is superpower-
iui, extra safe and contains protective hexachlorophene. Follow directions care-
fully for best results. Regular use of CREME-COTE assures spotlessly clean,
antiseptically clean, odorless premises,


NOW TO


USE


CREME-COTE SOLUTIONS


ASPHALT


TILE,


LINOLEUM,


PLASTIC


FLOORING---_ -------------------
VINYL AND CORK ..-...
TILE, TERRAZZO AND MARBLE .
WOOD FLOORS --.-.---.-...... m -m
GYMNASIUM FLOORS....--_ ---
PAINTED WALLS AND FLOORS___
FURNITURE AND WOODWORK .


LEATHER A
AIRCRAFT__
VENETIAN
STAINLESS
PORCELAIN
ALUMINUM


.ND


PLASTIC


AND


RUBBER


-------------------
------ ------ -----
- --- ---- ------ --
-- -
-- -
--- -
-- -- --- -- -


UPHOLSTERY


BLINDS_ --- ---
STEEL___-------D ALL HARD
SURFACES AND ALL HARD
AND CHROMIUM ..UM....


FOR GENERAL MAINTENANCE
TINE DAMP MOPPING OF ALL


AND
TYPES


TILES___


- -


DAILY ROU-
OF FLOORS_


SOLUTI
SOLUTI
SOLUTI
SOLUTI
SOLUTI
SOLUTI
SOLUTI
SOLUTI
SOLUTI
SOLUTI
SOLUTI


SOLU
SOLU


TION
TION


SOLUTION


HOW TO
CREME-COTE


MAKE
SOLUTIONS


Mix 1 part of CREME-COTE with 100 parts water. Approximately 2 oz.
to a gallon of water. Approximately a cupful to a pail of water.
Mix 1 part CREME-COTE with 50 parts water. Approximately 4 oz. to a
gallon of water. Approximately a cup and a half to a pail of water.
Mix 1 part CREME-COTE with 30 parts water. Approximately 6 oz. to a
gallon of water. Approximately 2 cupfuls to a pail of water.
Mix 1 part CREME-COTE with 15 parts water. Approximately 8 oz. with
a gallon of water. Approximately a pint to a pail of water.
Whenever possible use hot or warm water for making solutions for faster


cleaning action.


SOAP SCUM


APPROVED ALL
USED SAFELY (


PURPOSE ANTISEPTIC
'N ANY SURFACE NOT


CLEANER
HARMED


WHICH CAN
BY WATER.


** *I)







271-300]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


215


(Carton Containing 4 jugs


or containers)
"FABULOUS EMULSION
CREME-COTE
2 PHASE ACTION
CLEANER
FOR ALL FLOORS
'IT'S ANTISEPTIC'
ITH HEXACHLOROPHEN
(U.S.P. SPECIFICATIONS)


:i
:E


Your


Protection


These Premises
Are Cleaned Daily With
ANTISEPTIC CREME-COTE


a>S:


t 1


Leanelt or r'Old
ELIMINATES
TOILETS & UR
SANITIZESES


er


Labeling


"NEW


ODORS IN
INAIJS
TOILET


ALL-PURPOSE

CLEANS AND
KILLS GERMS
AND BACTERIA
IN THE
SHOWER


LIQUID


NEW!' All-Purpose
4 LIQUID CLEANER!
Ad It's Antiseptic with HEXACHLOROPHENE
CREEME-C O TE cleans, deodorizes and sanitizes in one operation.


CLEANER!


KEEPS BATH-
TUBS ANTI-
SEPTICALLY
CLEAN



Floors have to'be


(mopped periodically-why not accomplish the deodorizing and sanitizing in the
same operation and give your guest the peace of mind that bath room and fixtures
are free of germs and most delightfully scented. Why not keep ALL your prem-
ises immaculately clean with CREME-COTE. It's simple-it's easy.


FAST ACTION!
CRIEME-COTE has lightning-fast
action and yet is absolutely safe to
use anywhere. Protects the users
hands at all times from bacteria iin-
f lai a nd prevents chapping, raw-
s anid skin &irritations.

(eor Leaflet Labeling
'rABILOUS CREME-COTE


"1 K
t. *


Most bacteria are on floors and fixtures-
CREME-COTE kills them all.
S*


"FABULOUS
EMULSION


CREME-COTE
CLEANER


plus
HEXACHLOROPHENE
U.S.P. SPECIFICATION
trv Aft trn fl flQ


AND NOW A
'BACTERIA BARRIER'
CREME-COTE LEAVES AN INVISIBLE i
CROSCOPIC 'GERM-PROOF SURFACE'
ANY SURFACE CLEANED-INCLUDI
THE SKIN!







2i16


INSECTICIDE,


nfl


O DfiTICIDE


ACT


[L.F.R.N.J.


CREME-COTE BACTERIA BARRIER

CREME-COTE actually provides the cleaned areas with an 'invisible glove'
exerting definite antiseptic properties. It is agreed it is not feasible to destroy all
the bacteria on a floor surface (because more will be tracked in by normal traffic)
but it does make sense to destroy the germs that are on the floor during the
cleaning process and which find their way into the mop bucket or rinse bucket. In
addition an invisible microscopic layer of hexachlorophene is left on the floor sur-
face and finds its way into the pores of the floor to exert a powerful deodorizing
and germ inhibiting action. Just as hexachlorophene soaps leave your skin with
a protective coating so does CREME-COTE leave your floors and painted wall
surfaces
with a
"BACTERIA BARRIER'

and such statements were false or misleading since they implied or represented (1)
that the product was an approved all purpose antiseptic cleaner, (2) that regular
use of the product would assure antiseptically clean premises, (3) that the product
that the product would kill all bacteria on floors and fixtures, (4) that the product
would provide surfaces with a bacteria barrier as defined in its labeling, (5) that.
the product would protect the user's hands at all times against bacteria, (6) that
the product would sanitize toilet seats and floors, (7) that the product would kill
germs and bacteria in the shower and (8) that the product would keep bathtubs
antiseptically clean; whereas, (1) the product was not an approved all purpose
antiseptic cleaner, (2) the regular use of the product would not assure antiseptically
clean premises, (3) the product would not kill all bacteria on floors and fixt ures, (4)
the product would not provide surfaces with a bacteria barrier as defined in its
labeling, (5) the product would not protect the users's hands at all times against
bacteria, (6) theproduct would not sanitize toilet seats and floors, (7) the product
would not kill germs and bacteria in the shower and (8) the product would not
keep bathtubs antiseptically clean.
It was alleged that the product was further misbranded in that the label borne
by the product did not bear an ingredient statement giving the name and precent-
age of each of the ingredients, together with the total percentage of the inert
ingredients, or an ingredient statement giving the names of each of the act ive 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 the inert.
ingredients.
James Varley & Sons, Inc., St. Louis, Mo., claimed ownership of the product
and requested its release under bond for the purpose of bringing the product into
compliance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.,
On January 26, 1959, a consent decree of condemnation was entered and it was
ordered by the Court that the product be released to the claimant under bond.


279.


Lack of registration and misbranding of "AEROSOL, INSECTICIDE, DDT,
AND ALLETHRIN." U.S. v. 435 cases, more or less, of "AEROSOL, IN-
SECTICIDE, DDT AND ALLETHRIN." Default decreeof condemnation
and forfeiture, and it was ordered that the seized product be released to
St. Elizabeth's Hospital, Washington, D. C. (L.F. & R. No. 308. I.D. No.
35101.)


The product "AEROSOL, INSECTICIDE, DDT AND ALLETHRIN" was
not registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
Unon examination, the nrodnnt was found to be misbranded, in that it. did not


;jj
II
I/:







271-300]


.NQTLCEB, 07


~fJ~pQE


217


It was alleged that the product was not registered with the Secretary of Agri-
culture as required by section 4 of the act.
It was further alleged that the product was misbranded within the meaning
of the act, in that its labeling bore the statements:


TYPE


SPEC.


0-I-SOS


INGREDIENTS


Active ingredients:
Allethrin (allyl homolog of Cinerin
Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
Aromatic Petroleum Derivative So
Deodorized Kerosene
Inert ingredients:


and such
(1) that
of the G
trichloro
other th
failed to
eral Ser
methane
such sta
On Ap
nation a
condemn
Departn


Ivent


0.6%
2.0%
5.0%
7.4%


Dichlorodifluoromethane 42.5 %
Trichloromonofluoromethane 42.5%
** *" .100.0%
i statements were false or misleading since they implied or represented:
the product met the requirements of specification No. 0-1-508, Type 1
general Services Administration; (2) that the product contained 42.5% of
monofluoromethane; and (3) that the product contained no ingredient
an the ingredients listed in such statements; whereas, (1) the product
meet the requirements of specification No. 0-1-508, Type 1 of the Gen-
;ices Administration; (2) the product contained no trichloromonofluoro-
; and (3) the product contained an ingredient other than those listed in
tements, namely, methyl chloroform.
)ril 20, 1959, no claimant having appeared, a default decree of condem-
nd forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered that the confiscated and
ied product be delivered to the Supply Officer of St. Elizabeths Hospital,
lent of Health, Education, and Welfare, Washington 25, D.C., for official


280. Misbranding of "VES-PHENE GERMICIDAL DETERGENT." U.S. v.
79 1-gallon containers, more or less, of "VES-PHENE GERMICIDAL
DETERGENT." Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture and de-
struction. (I.F. & R. No. 325. I.D. No. 35333.)
The product "VES-PHENE GERMICIDAL DETERGENT" was mis-
branded in that it would not act as a germicidal detergent in hospitals when
used as directed.
On January 5, 1959, the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey,
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United States
District Court, a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation of 79
1-gallon containers, more or less, of "VES-PHENE GERMICIDAL DETER-
GENT" at Jersey City, N.J., alleging that the product was an economic poison
which had been transported interstate on or about August 20, 1958 by Vestal,
Inc.. from St. Louis. Mo., in violation of the act.


It was a
in that it.s


alleged that the product was misbranded within the meaning of the act
labeling bore the statements:


"VES-PHENE
j~~~d f. ..


~:, ?'.


"" XE
ii








218


INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


[LF.R.N ,.


faces whih hrbor bte I addition, VES-PH ENE is a
free-rinsing product that does not leave ~a insulating film and is,
therefore, ecomdd for conductie floor in hospital operat-
ing rooms.


DIRECTIONS FOR USE
FOR GENERAL DISINFECTION use 1 part
parts water (1% fluid onoces per gallon). FOR
CLEANING AND DISINFECTION damp m
PHENE in 60 to 70 parts water (2 ounces per


VES-PHENE in 100
GENERAL LIGHT
op with 1 part VES-
gallon).


PRODUCT DATA
VES-PIHENE
I INTRODUCTION
Detergent kermicides have been used for many years in hospitals and
similar institutions for all-purpose disinfection and light cleaning of
floors, walls, equipment and even instruments. Generally, deter-
gent germicides contain only sufficient detergent ingredients to pene-
trate soil and bring powerful germicidal ingredients into contact
with bacteria. The detergent ingredients, in other words, are used
primarily to promote germ killing. Such formulations are expen-
sive as cleaners because their low detergent content necessitates their
use in high concentration to obtain effective soil removal.
VES-PHENE is the first available product in which carefully for-
mulated heavy-duty cleaners are combined with compatible germici-
dal agents in sufficient concentration to produce both an effient
cleaner and an efficient germicide. In addition, VES-PHENE is free-
rinsing and is approved for use on conductive floors in hospitals.


***fl


and such statements


the product,


were false or misleading since they implied or represent ed that


when used


rooms, shower and locke
are high, other surfaces
ment and instruments;
disinfect floors, sick roo
where soil and bacterial
teria, or hospital floors,
On February 10, 1959


as directed, would disinfect flm
er rooms, all areas where soil a:
which harbor bacteria, and h<
whereas the product, when u,
ms, operating rooms, shower
contamination are high, other
walls, equipment or instrumen


doors, sick rooms,
nd bacterial con t a
hospital floors, wall
sed as directed, s
tnd locker rooms,
surfaces which ha
ts.


opei
mir
ls,
'oul
all
rbo


.ting
tion
luip-
not
ireas
bac-


, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation


and forfeiture was entered and the United States Marshal was ordered to destroy
the product.
281. Lack of registration and misbranding of "PRO NYLON COMBS." U.S. v.
279 dozen, more or less, of "PRO NYLON COMBS." Default decree
of condemnation and forfeiture, and it was ordered that the seized product
be released to the District of Columbia, Washington, D.C. (I.F. & R. No.
318, I.D, No. 35002.)


The product "PRO NYLON COMBS" was not registered under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. It was misbranded in that its label
did not bear an ingredient statement.
On August 14, 1958, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia,
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United States
District Court a libel praying seizure and condemnation and confiscation of 279
dozen. more or less of "PRO NYLO N COMBS" at Washinufton D.C. alleging


.







271-3001


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


219


On April 20, 1959, no claimant having appeared, a default decree of condemna-
tion and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered that the confiscated and
condemned product be delivered to the Administrative Services Office of the
District of Columbia Government, Washington, D.C., for its use only, and not for
sale.


282.


Lark of registration and misbranding of "431 MECHANIZED DIVISION,"
"950 THE WESTERNER HORSE AND RIDER," and "454B OLD
HOMESTEAD." U.S. v. 143 containers, more or less, of "431 MECH-
ANIZED DIVISION," 143 containers, more or less, of "950 THE WEST-
ERNER HORSE AND RIDER," and 323 containers, more or less, of
"454B OLD HOMESTEAD." Consent decree of condemnation and
release under bond. (I.F. & R. No. 323. I.D. Nos. 35046, 35047, and
350 8.)


The products "431 MECHANIZED DIVISION," "950 THE WESTERNER
HORSE AND RIDER," and "454B OLD HOMESTEAD" were not registered
under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. An examination
of the products showed that the labels borne by the containers did not bear ingre-
dient statements. The products were misbranded in that their labels bore
statements which were false or misleading.
On November 28, 1958, the United States Attorney for the District of Maryland,
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United States
District Court, a libel praying seizure of condemnation and confiscation of 143
containers, more or less, of "431 MECHANIZED DIVISION," 143 containers,
*I more or less, of "950 THE WESTERNER HORSE AND RIDER," and 323
containers, more or less, of "454B OLD HOMESTEAD" at Baltimore, Md.,
Alleging that the products were economic poisons which had been transported
interstate on or about April 25, 1958, and September 30, 1958, by Payton Products,
Inc., from Brooklyn, N.Y., 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.
1 It was alleged that the products were misbranded within the meaning of the
act in that their labels did not bear ingredient statements giving the name and
percentage of each of the active ingredients, together with the total percentage
of the inert ingredients, or ingredient statements 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, together with the total percentage of the
inert ingredients.
It was alleged further that the products were misbranded within the meaning
oft he act in that their respective labeling bore the statements:
"THIS TOY IS
GERM-FREE
TO PROTECT YOUR CHILD
PERMANENTLY
STERILIZED

this toy is permanently antiseptic-will not harbor disease carriers
LABORATORY TESTED-EFFECTIVE FOR EVER"
and such statements were false or misleading since they implied or represented (1)
4 In n4. 4hLn rt.>wii.n-2i A. nS-n n n. eTr nntrt A n wtnnn IO\ 4-kl *4 *1,.i jn n..ntt, l ,l 4-c nIrnt'an a^fn fAn ;l 4'C







220


INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AMD


RODE ICID E


ACT


[I.F.R.N.J.


283. Misbranding of "WILBERT FRESH-PINE," U.S. v. two 55-gallon drums,
more or less, of "WILBERT FRESH-PINE." Default decree of con-
demnation and forfeiture, and it was ordered that the seized product be
delivered to the Resident Superintendent of the District of Columbia Jail.
(I.F. & R. No. 322. ID. Nos. 35005 and 35049.)
The product "WILBERT FRESH-PINE" was misbranded within the meaning
of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, in that its labeling
bore false or misleading statements.
On November 24, 1958, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia,
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United States
District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation of two
55-gallon drums, more or less, of "WILBERT FRESH-PINE," at Washington,
D.C., alleging that the product was an economic poison which had been transport-
ed interstate on or about July 31, 1958 by Wilbert Products Company, Inc., from
New York, N.Y., in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the product was misbranded within the meaning of the act
in that its labeling stated in part:


"WILBERT
FRESH-
PINE
CLEANS
DEODORIZES
DISINFECTS


FRESH-PINE DIRECTIONS, for


MODERN


HOUSEKEEPING.


Use 1 tablespoon Fresh-Pine to 1 quart of water.
woodwork, venetian blinds, walls, windowsills, etc.
Does not stain.
FLOORS. Use 2 tablespoons Fresh-
Pine per quart of water for cleaning
linoleum, asphalt or rubber tile, wood
or cement floors. Just mop or wipe to
remove dirt, grease, etc. Floors will
be left clean and sanitary without any
added soap or rinsing needed.


Remove dirt and grime from
No soap or rinsing necessary.


BATHROOM. A fe
Pine in toilet bowl will
ize. To clean and di
seat, urinal, shower
tablespoons per quar


w drops of Fresh-
effectively deodor-
isinfect tub, toilet
floor, etc., use 2
t of water.


KITCHEN. A little Fresh-Pine down
the drain of sink and tub cuts grease and
ends foul odors. Use diluted 1 table-
spoon per quart of water to wipe out
refrigerator, storage cabinets, ovens, etc.
Air for 15 minutes before renlaeinu food.







271-300]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


221


product whe
bathrooms, (
(h) all other
On March
nation and fe
demned proc
Columbia Ja


I IICt
') kit
>urf:i
12,
rfeit
Iet \
i fr


of Columbia Jail.


surfaces and articles implied by the term "etc."; whe
d as directed, would not act as a disinfectant for (a) flt
tchens, (d) toilets, (e) towels, (f) sick rooms, (g) baby th
ces and articles implied by the term "etc."
1959, no claimant having appeared, a default decree of
u re was entered and it was ordered that the confiscated
be turned over to the Resident Superintendent of the D
use only as a solution in water for washing floors at the


treas the
oors, (b)
ings and

condem-
and con-
istrict of
District


Misbranding and adulteration o
"GRIFFIN'S PHENO-MINT", "
"GRIFFIN'S GOLDEN PINOL".
or less, of "GRIFFIN'S PHENO-P
or less, of "GRIFFIN'S PHENO-I1
1-gallon containers, more or less,
and 15 5-gallon containers and 11
of "GRIFFIN'S GOLDEN PINOL'
forfeiture and destruction. (I.F. &
35419 and 35420.)


f "GRIFFIN'S PHENO-PINE",
GRIFFIN'S LILAC SCENT", and
U.S. v. 5 1-gallon containers, more
INE"; 14 1-gallon containers, more
IINT"; 2 5-gallon containers and 5
of "GRIFFIN'S LILAC SCENT";
1-gallon containers, more or less,
'. Default decree of condemnation,
R. No. 327, I.D. Nos. 35417, 35418,


The pr
in that it
upon exa
than was
The pi
ated in t.
and upon
than was
as a disin
The pr
in that it
upon exa


than cli
as direc1
The p
ated in
and less
oil which
On Fi
Washing
culture,


Li


oduct
poss(


"GRIFFIN'S PHENO-PINE"


sse


d a phenol coefficient of less, than that claimed on its label and


mination was found
claimed on the label.
product. "GRIFFIN'S
iat it possessed a phe
examination was foue
claimed on the labe


to contain more water and less active ingredients

PHENO-MINT" was misbranded and adulter-
nol coefficient of less than that claimed on its label
ad to contain more water and less active ingredients
I and when tested, it was found to be ineffective


fectant. when used as directed.


oduct. "GRIFFIN'S LILAC SCENT" was adulterated and misbranded
possessed a phenol coefficient of less than that claimed on its label and
mination was found to contain more water and less active ingredients
med. It was also found to be ineffective as a disinfectant when used


ted.
)roduc
that it
than
h was
ebruar
gton S
filed i


t U'G
was
the a
not i
y 5,
'outhi
n t.h


demnation and
FIN'S PHENO-
PHENO- I NT
of "GRIFFIN'S
containers, more
alleging that t.h
interstate by Gri
September 25, 11
in violation of th
It was alleged


GRIFFIN'
found to
mount of
lamed in
1959, the
ern Divis
SUnited


confiscation of 5 one-gallon contain
PINE"; 14 one-gallon containers,
"; 2 5-gallon containers and 5 1-ga
LILAC SCENT"; and 15 5-gall(
or less, of "GRIFFIN'S GOLDEN
e products were economic poisons
iffin Bros. Inc., on or about August
358, October 9, 1958, and October


ie act
that


the product "GRIFFIN'S PHENO-PINE" was misbrand-


ed within the meaning of the act in that its label stated in part:
E WTDU T PWTNT'Q


S GOLDEN PINOL" was misbranded and adulter-
possess a phenol coefficient of less than that claimed
pine oil claimed and contained oil other than pine
the ingredient statement.
United States Attorney for the Eastern District of


all other


was misbranded and adulterated


ion, acting upon a rep
States District Court a


ort by the Secretary of Agri-
,libel praying seizure for con-
ners, more or less, of GRIF-
more or less, of "GRIFFIN'S
Illon containers, more or less,
on containers and 11 1-gallon
T PINOL" at Yakima, Wash.,
which had been transported
22, 1958, September 18, 1958,
28, 1958, from Portland Oreg.







222


INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


[ LP.R.N.J.


water; whereas, (1) the product had a phenol c
the product contained less than 38.5% of active i
of water.
It was alleged that the product "GRIFFIN S
within the meaning of the act in that its strength
standard or quality as expressed on its labeling
ment, "PHENOL COEFFICIENT 5", whereas
cient of less than 5.
It was alleged that the product "GRIFFIN'S I
within the meaning of the act in that its label st


efficient of less than 5, and (2)
ingredients and more than 61.

PHEN O-PINE" was adulterated
or purity fell below the profesttf
since its labeling bore the state-
the product had a phenol coeffi-


IHENO-M INT" was
sated in pa rt :


"Griffin's
PHENO-MINT


PHENOL COEFFICIENT 5 F.D.A
Active ingredients:
Isopropanol-Vegetable Soap
Ortho-benzyl-para-chlorophenol-Methyl
Inert Ingredients: Water


METHOD


33%


Salieylate


67 '0


Use as a Disinfectant


This disinfecta
To disinfect, b
floors, cellars,
nals, sinks, etc
water; mop in


nt should always
e sure areas are
basements, toilet
., use 234 ozs. of
regular manner.


be diluted with water before using.


cleaned then apply as
rooms, bathrooms, la
this preparation to ev
If it is impractical to


places, use 4 ounces per gallon of water and spray
entire surface. To disinfect kitchen tables, drain


tho
bo:


follc
vato
ery
mon
Iroug
irds,


tile, linoleum, glass, rubber, syrup cans, soda fountains,
cars, garbage cans: Rinse thoroughly with a dilution of 2


ref
1 C


)w\s: For
ries, uri-
gallon of
) specific
;hly over
marble,
rigerator
ouncess of


this product to a gallon of water after cleansing in regular manner,
allowing contact for five minutes.


and such statements were false or misleading since they implied or represented (1)


that the product had a phenol coefficient of 5, (2) that the
not less than 33% of active ingredients and not more than
that the product, when used as directed, would disinfect t t
surfaces mentioned in such statements and those implied by t
as, (1) the product had a phenol coefficient of less than 5, (2)
less than 33% of active ingredients and more than 67% of w
uct, when used as directed, would not disinfect the article
mentioned in such statements or those implied by the term
It was alleged that the product "GRIFFIN'S PHENO-M:
within the meaning of the act in that its strength or purity ft
standard or quality as expressed on its labeling since its label
"PHENOL COEFFICIENT 5", whereas the product had


prod)ict
67 of w
ie article
he term
the prod
'iter, and
es, place
"etc".
INT" wa
ell below
ing bore


a pheno


cont' ined
vater, and
's, places
'etc.'; wh
tict contain
(3) the pi
s or surfL


not
(3)
and
ere-
ned
rod-
ices


is adulterated
the professed
the statement
coefficient of


less than 5.
It was alleged that the product "GRIFFIN'S LILAC SCENT'
within the meaning of the act in that its label stated in part.:


"Griffin's
LILAC SCENT


misbranded


wa'S


mnisbranded


(


A


.


- I---


I


m








271-300]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


223


FOR USE AS A
DISINFECTANT

First clean thoroughly the areas, articles, or surfaces to be disin-
fected. Dilute one part LILAC DISI NFECTANT with eighty (80)
parts water.


For disinfect ing floors,
atories, garbage cans,
glass, rubber, soda foul
cars. The areas, artic
with the solution after
solution should be for


llars, base
sinks, drain
gains, refrige
s, and surfa
hey have b
duration of


ents, rest rooms, bathrooms, lay-
boards, marble, tile, linoleum,
rators, cooling rooms, refrigator
ces, should be rinsed or sprayed
een cleaned. Contact with the
five minutes.


and such statements are false or misleading


that the product
less than 39% of
the product, 'whi
faces mentioned
(1) the product. I
less than 39% of
uct, when used :
mentioned in suc


Itw
within
stand
ment,
cient c
It w


I


h


ac
i n
ac(
IC


as aniegea tnai
the meaning (
rd or quality
"PHENOL C
if less than 4.
as alleged that


ed within the meaninE


ad a phenol coefficient of 4,


tive ing
used as


such


if


redient
direct


s~ta terne n


phe
e ini
ect(
tern
he r
the


as ex
OEF]


mnol coel
i *


t
I


0S

Thi


and n
I, woui
and t
eient i
i


since they


t more t
1 disirnf
3se imp
Less th
.1i


that
than 6
ect th
lied b)
an 4,
a a'-i-


grealents ana more than or
?d, would not disinfect the
ents or those implied by th
product "GRIFFIN'S LILA
act in that its strength or p
pressed on its labeling sine
FICIENT 4". where:,. the


implied or represented (1)
the product contained not
1% of water, and (3) that
e articles, places and sur-
y the term "etc"; whereas,
(2) the product contained
of water, and (3) the prod-
rt icles, places or surfaces


e term "etc".
C SCENT" was adulterated
urity fell below the professed
e its labeling bore the state-
product had a phenol coeffi-


the product "GRIFFIN'S GOLDEN PINOL" was misbrand-
g of the act in that its label stated in part:


"Griffin's
GOLDEN PINOL
Makes a Pure Milky White
Solution in Water

This product conforms
to Commercial Standard

CS69-38-Coeff. 5 (By FDA Method)


Active Ingredients:
Inert. Ingredients:


Pine Oil 80%, Soap 10% --- - -
VWater --------------- -- -.. ._._.- .


90%
10%


DIRECTIONS


FOR DISINFECTING: Clean
part of PINOL to 100 parts of
with the new solution to disinfect


the area or articles first. Use 1
water and wet again thoroughly


* *'


and such statements are false or


that th r


irndmlet.


hnd


a nhannnl (nA


misleading s
fimplmlt nf .5


since they implied or represented (1)
I' 9 tht the nrntri!t nnt a.innd nRO


][jj


q.


t1








224


INSECTICIDE,


nn eGIMM,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


i .lC.R.N$J.


It was alleged that the product "GRIFFIN'S GOLDEN
adulterated within the meaning of the act in hat oils other
pine wood distillate oils, had been substituted in part for the
present in the product.
On March 23, 1959, no claimant having appeared, a de
and forfeiture was entered and the United States Marshal w
the products.


285.


PINOL" was fumbshE u
than pine oil, namely
pine oil claimed to be


cree of condemnation
ras ordered to destroy


Misbranding and adulteration of "NEW EASY GLAMUR WITH EXCLU-
SIVE COROBEX" U.S. v. 24 8-ounce containers, more or less, 155 16-
ounce containers, more or less, 192 quart containers, more or less, and 18
one-half gallon containers, more or less, of "NEW EASY GLAMUR
WITH EXCLUSIVE COROBEX." Default decree of condemnation and
forfeiture, and it was ordered that the seized product be delivered to the
Administrative Services Office, District of Columbia Government. (I.F.
& R. No. 328. I.D. No. 36314.)


The product "NEW EASY GLAMOUR WITH EXCLUSIVE COROL
misbranded and adulterated in that it contained less active ingredi
more inert ingredients than was claimed on the label, and that it also
or misleading statements.
On April 21, 1959, the United States District Attorney for the District
bia, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the Uni
District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscatio
ounce containers, more or less, 155 16-ounce containers, more or less,
containers, more or less, and 18 one-half gallon containers, more or less,
ington, D.C., alleging that the product was an economic poison which
transported interstate on or about September 5, 1958, November 18,
January 12, 1959, by Glamur Products, Inc., from Syracuse, N.Y., in vi


the act.
It was alleged that the
in that its label bore the
(Container
label)


EX" was
ients, and
bore false
of Colum-
ted States
n of 24 8-
192 quart
at Wash-
had been
1958, and
olation of


product was misbranded within the meaning of the act
statements:
"ACTIVE INGREDIENTS:
Octyl pheuoxyethoxy ethyldimethylbenzyl
Ammoniumchloride-3.2 %
Cetyl dimethyl benzyl
Ammoniumchloride-0.8 %
INACTIVE INGREDIENTS-96.0%


"JUST APPLY -__ __--------------
LET DRY"


New easy glamur with exclusive COROBEX
* Wool, Nylon, Rayon, Cotton, Leather, Plastics.


Instantly, safely Deep-Cleans All*
Rugs & Upholstery. Exclusive
COROBEX Guarantees Germ-
Proof Protection for 3 Months


TO PREPARE: Brush or vacuum
article FOR UPHOLSTERY, use
Med. white bristle brush (not nylon);
FOR RUGS, same brush with long
handle. Shake Well. Mix 1 part
Easy Glamur to 8 parts cool water,


NOTE: Test all fabrics for
ness-try Glamur on inconsp
Glamur won't harm an yt
won't harm. Climate may
appearance, but Glamur is in
paired.


color fast-
icuous spot.
thing water
change its
no way im-


- S







NOTICES


(Leaflet.
accompanying
product)


"The


JtTGMIT


It3


THI


THAT


lost revolutionary cleaning
century!
ONLY RUG AND UPB
CLEANER
GERM-PROOFS AS IT (
NEW EASY GLAMU
With COROBEX


225


news


[OLSTERY
LEANS .,
R


(An Easy Glamur EXCLUSIVE!)
* Guarantees Three Whole Months
protection for all treated fabrics!
Creates a halo of protection that
bacteria tracked into the home.
* Approved by U.S. Government and
pendent Scientific Laboratories!


of Germ-free


destroys


new


Leading Inde-


* Makes all other cleaners obsolete! Yet so mild
and gentle, nontoxic, deodorizes, noninflammable,
odorless!
JUST APPLY-LET DRY! CLEANS QUICK-
EST CLEANS SAFEST! CLEANS EASIEST!


"JUST
LET


APPLY_._.-_.. .....-.. ---
DRY!"


Instantly, Safely Deep-Cleans All*
Rugs & Upholstery. Exclusive
COROBEX Guarantees Germ-Proof
Protection for 3 Months.


New easy glamour with exclusive COROBEX
*Wool, Nylon, Cotton, Leather, Plastics.

and such statements are false or misleading since they implied or represented (1)
that the product contained 3.2 percent Octylphenoxyethoxyethyl dimethyl benzyl
ammonium chloride, 0.8 percent cetyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride, and
96.0 percent inactive ingredients, (2) that the product would germ-proof as it
cleans, (3) that it would guarantee germ-free protection for three months, (4) that
it dest roved bacteria tracked into the home, and (5) that it was approved by;U.S.
Government laboratories; whereas (1) the product contained substantially less
than a total of 3.2 percent octylphenoxyethoxyethyl dimethyl benzyl amfionium
chloride, and 0.8 percent cetyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride, and contained
substantially more than 96.0 percent inactive ingredients, (2) the product would
not germ-proof as it cleans, (3) the product would not guarantee germ-proof pro-
tection for three months, (4) the product would not destroy bacteria tracked into
the home, and (5) the product was not approved by U.S. Government laboratories.
It was alleged that the product was adulterated within the meaning of the act, in
that its strength or purity fell below the professed standard or quality since its
label bore the statements:
"Active ingredients: Octyl phenoxyethoxy ethyldimethylbenzyl
ammoniumchloride-3.2%, Cetyl dimethyl benzyl
ammoniumehloride--0.8%; Inactive ingredients-96.0%"
whereas, the product contained substantially less than a total of 3.2 percent of
octylphenoxyethoxyethyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride, and 0.8 percent of
cetyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride and contained substantially more in-
active ingredients than 96.0 percent. On VlMay 21, 1959, no claimant having ap-


271-3001







226


JMrsEcTICD


JVNGXII8,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


[LF.R.N.J.


On December 23, 1958, the United States Attorney for the Western District of
Washington, Northern Division, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agri-
culture, filed in the United States District Court, a libel praying seizure for con-
demnation and confiscation of 27 1-gallon jugs, more or less, of "SPEED LITE
BF-811," 7 1-hundred-pound drums, more or less, of "SPEED LITE GERMA-
TEX," and 79 1-gallon jugs, more or less, of "SPEED LITE BAN" at Seattle,
Wash., alleging that the products were economic poisons which had been trans-
ported interstate by Patek & Co., on or about August 29, and September 26, 1958,
from San Francisco, Calif, in violation of the Act.
It was alleged that the products were not registered with the Secretary of Agri-
culture as required by Section 4 of the Act. Patek & Co., claimed ownership of the
products, and requested their release under bond for the purpose of bringing them
into compliance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
On January 18, 1960, a consent decree of condemnation was entered, and it was
ordered by the Court that the products be released to the claimant under bond.
287. Misbranding of "VIRAC AQUEOUS SOLUTION 1 : 500." U.S. v. 23
1-pint bottles, more or less, of "VIRAC AQUEOUS SOLUTION 1 : 500."
Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture and destruction. (I.F. & R.
No. 326. I.D. No. 35409.)


The product "VIRAC AQUEOUS SOLUTION 1: 500" was misbrand(
to excessive claims made in the labeling, and when used as directed, the p
would not act as a disinfectant or germicide for floors, walls, table tol
surgical equipment.
On January 12, 1959, the United States Attorney for the Western Dist
Washington, Northern Division, filed in the United States District. Court
praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation of 23 1-pint bottles, more
of "VIRAC AQUEOUS SOLUTION 1 : 500" at Seattle, Wash., allegir
product was an economic poison which had been transported interstate
about September 15, 1958, by Ruson Laboratories, .Inc., from Portland,
in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the product was misbranded within the meaning of t
in that the labeling borne by the product stated:


ed due
product
)s and
rict of
a libel
3r less,
ig the
on or
Oreg.,
.he act


"VIRAC


AQUEOUS SOLUTION 1


:500


INSTRUMENT STERILIZATION. Immerse instruments briefly
in VIRAC solution. At no time is it necessary or desirable to leave
metallic instruments or needles in VIRAC for longer than 20 minutes
They may then be stored in a solution of Ruson Chloride or other
good cold sterilization medium to which adequate rust inhibitor has
been added.

VIRAC AQUEOUS SOLUTION 1: 500
SUGGESTED USES AND DILUTIONS
VIRAC AQUEOUS SOLUTION 1: 500 is an inexpensive, supe-
rior, all-purpose germicide which has been .compounded largely for
office and prescription use.

INSTRUMENT AND CATHETER








271-300] E


Y


'77r


OtICEE or


anuar


227


hot). Because of the lethal action of VIRAC against spores and
spore-bearing organisms, B. tuberculosis and virus, this iodophor
gives great confidence values when employed to disinfect critical areas
in and about the hospital.


and such statements were false or misleading since they implied or represented
that the product, when used as directed, (1) would sterilize plastics, rubber, stain-
less steel and endoscopic instruments and (2) would disinfect floors, walls, table
tops and surgical equipment; whereas, the product, when used as directed, (1)
would not sterilize plastics, rubber, stainless steel or endoscopic instruments or
(2) would not disinfect floors, walls, table tops or surgical equipment
On June 4, 1959, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation and
forfeiture was entered and the United States Marshal was ordered to destroy the
product.


Lack
MA
of
of c
No.


of registration and misbranding of "DORSEY'S K-9 FLEA AND
NGE KILLER." U.S. v. 241 three-ounce packages, more or less,
'DORSEY'S K-9 FLEA AND MANGE KILLER." Default decree
condemnation, forfeiture and destruction. (I.F. & R. No. 329. I.D.
36380.)


The product
registered under
examination of t
product did not
On May 1, 19


Virginia,
States
241 three
MANGE
poison w
K-9 Pro
It was


"DORSEY'S K-9 FLEA AND MANGE KILLER" was not
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. An
he product showed that the labels affixed to the containers of the
bear an ingredient statement.
59, the Unitedx States Attorney for the Southern District of West


acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United
district Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation of


,e-ounce
KILLEi
which had
ducts C'
alleged ti


as required by se
It was alleged
act in that the la
percentage of ea(
of the inert ingre
the active and ea'
age of each press<


packages, more or less, of "DORSEY'S K-9 F]
." at Logan, W. Va., alleging that the product was a
been transported interstate on or about February 5
i., from Flowery Branch, Ga., in violation of the act.
ihat the product was not registered with the Secretary of
action 4 of the act.
that the product was misbranded within the meal
Sbels did not bear an ingredient statement giving tht
ch of the active ingredients, together with the total
hdients, or an ingredient statement giving the name
ch of the inert ingredients in the descending order of t
3nt in each classification, together with the total pe


LEA AND
n economic
!7, 1959 by

Agriculture


ning of the
3 name and
percentage
s of each of
he percent-
Trcentage of


the inert ingredients.
On June 4, 1959, no claimant having appeared, a default decree of condemna-
tion and forfeiture was entered and the United States Marshal was ordered to
destroy the product.
289. Lack of registration and misbranding of "LAMCO SANITIZER AND DE-
ODORIZER." U.S. v. 43 one-gallon containers, more or less, of
"LAMCO SANITIZER AND DEODORIZER." Default decree of
condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I.F. & R. No. 330. I.D.
No 35641.)


The product "LAMCO
istered under the Federal
misbranded in that when


SANITIZER AND DEODORIZER" was not reg-
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. It was
used as directed the product could not be relied upon


288.







228


INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND 0ODENTICIDE


ACT


[ E. .R.N.J.


It was further alleged that the product "LAMCO SANIWZER AMID DPE
DORIZER" was misbranded within the meaning of the act, and that the label
stated in part:


"Lamco
SANITIZER
and
DEODORIZER
PLEASANT!
REFRESHING!
LASTING!
KILLS UNPLEASANT ODORS
PREVENTS GROWTH OF MOLDS
ELIMINATES ODOR-CREATING ORGANISMS


Use Lamco SANITIZER & DEODORIZER in HOSPITALS,
SCHOOLS, FACTORIES, OFFICES, RESTAURANTS, CAF-
ETERIAS, HOTELS, MOTELS,


USE Lamco SANITIZER &
SICKROOM, KITCHEN,
LAR, ATTIC, GARBAGE
CLOSETS


DEODORIZER EVERYWHERE
BATHROOM, BEDROOM, CEL-
CONTAINERS, DIAPER PAILS,


Lamco Sanitizer and Dedorizer eliminates odor-creating or-
ganisms and should be sprayed in every room including toilets
and washrooms.
HOSPITALS
Spray LAMCO Sanitizer and Deodorizer in factory washrooms,
cafeterias, offices, etc.
FACTORIES and OFFICES


Prevents growth of molds.
Eliminates odor creating organisms
Kills objectionable odors immediately
Non-toxic
Non-poisonous harmless to normal skin


and such statements were false or misleading since they implied or represented (1)
that the product would be harmless to humans under the conditions of use set
forth in such statements, (2) that the product, when used as directed, would elim-
inate odor-creating organisms, and (3) that the product would be an effective
sanitizer when used in hospitals, schools, sick rooms, factories, offices, restaurants,
cafeterias, hotels, motels, and all other places implied by the term ''etc."; whereas
(1) the product would not be harmless to humans under the conditions of use set
forth in such statements, (2) the product, when used as directed, would not elimi-
nate all odor-creating organisms, or (3) the product would not be an effective sani-
tizer when used in hospitals, schools, sick rooms, factories, offices, restaurants,
cafeterias, hotels, motels or all other places implied by the term "etc."


~BI







271-300 1


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


"'229


Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation of 17 one-gallon con-
tainers, more or less, of "BETTER HOMES MOTH-A-TERIA" at Omaha, Nebr.,
alleging the product was an economic poison which had been transported inter-
state, on or about May 5, 1959, by BETTER HOMES LABORATORIES, INC.,
from Atlantic, Iowa, in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the product was not registered with the Secretary of Agri-
culture as required under section 4 of the act.
On July 17, 1959, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation and
forfeiture was entered, and the United States Marshal was ordered to destroy the
product.


291.


Lack of registration, misbranding, and adulteration of "INSTITUTIONAL
DEO-CLEAN." U.S. v. 19 one-gallon containers, more or less, of
"INSTITUTIONAL DEO-CLEAN." Default decree of condemnation,
forfeiture, and destruction. (I.F. & R. No. 333. I.D. No. 36663.)


The produce
Federal Insec
product was f
benzyl ammoi
On July 22,
ington, acting
States Distric
19 one-gallon
\rancotuver, \
transport ed in
Oreg., in viola
It was alleg
culture as req
It. was furti
the Act in th:
nium Chloridi
implied or rep
ammonium ch
of any known


It was f
the Act. in
expressed
Benzyl An
stant ially
On Nov
demnation


urt-
tha'
on

less
emn
I an


t
't

t1


t


"INSTITUTIONAL
icide, Fungicide, and
und to contain less thi
i u m chloride than was
1959, the United State
upon a report by the
Court a libel praying


DEO-CLEAN" was not registered under the
Rodenticide Act. Upon examination, the
an the amount of any known alkyl dimethyl
claimed on the label.
s Attorney for the Western District of Wash-
Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United
seizure for condemnation and confiscation of


containers, more or less, of "INSTITUTIONAL DEO-CLEAN" at
Vash., alleging the product was an economic poison which had been
terstate on or about April 1, 1959, by Hel-Mar, Inc., from Portland,
Ltion of the Act.
red that the product was not registered with the Secretary of Agri-
uired under Section 4 of the Act.
her alleged that the product was misbranded within the meaning of
nt its labeling bore the statement, "Alkyl Dimethyl Benzyl Ammo-
e 5.0%," and such statement was false or misleading since it
presented that the product contained 5% of alkyl dimethyl benzyl
iloride; whereas, the product contained substantially less than 5%
alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride.
ler alleged that the product was adulterated within the meaning of
t it.s strength or purity fell below the professed standard or quality as
its labeling since its labeling bore the statement "Alkyl Dimethyl
nium Chloride 5.0%"; whereas, the product contained sub-
than 5% of any known alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride.
ber 18, 1959, no claimant having appeared, a default decree of con-
d forfeiture was entered and the United States Marshal was ordered


to destroy the product.
292. Lack of registration of "GRAND QUALITY FOAMING CLEANSER." U.S.
v. 449 containers, more or less, of "GRAND QUALITY FOAMING
CLEANSER." Default decree of condemnation and forfeiture. (I.F.
& R. No. 342. I.D. No. 36618.)


The produce
istered under
On February
New York, a
United States
cation of 44t


t, "GRAND QUALITY FOAMING CLEANSER," was not reg-
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
*y 17, 1960, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confis-
9 containers, more or less, of "GRAND QUALITY FOAMING


)

i








230


INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


I .F.R.N.J.


No. 293. Lack of registration of "DDT E MULSIFIABLE CONCENTRATE" and
"TOBACCO DIST." U. 23 i1lini containers, more or less,
of'"DDi ULSIFIABLE CONCENTRATE" and 25 50-pound bags,
more or less, bf "TOBACCO DUST." Cbuseut decree of condemna-
tion and release under bond. I.F. & B. Ni. 332. I.D. Nos. 36412
and 36415.)
and ,


The products "DDT EMULSIFIABLE CONCENTRATE" an(
DUST" were not registered under the Federal Insectiide, Fungicid
cide Act.
On June 11, 1959, the United States Attorney for the Eastern D
Carolina, Florence Division, acting upon a report by theiSecretary
filed in the United States District Court a libel praying seizure for
and confiscation of 23 1-gallon contains, more or less, of "DD
ABLE CONCENTRATE" and 2 SOrpound bags, more or less, (
DUST" at Loris, S.C., alleging that the products were economic
had been transported interstate by Quality Chemical Corp. on or
1959, and May 8, 1959, from Lumberton, N.C., and Greenville, N.
of the act.
It was alleged that the products were not registered with th
Agriculture as required by section 4 of the act.
The Quality Chemical Corp. of Wilson, N.C., claimed ownership
and requested their release under bond for the purpose of brin!
compliance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticid
On September 18, 1959, a consent decree of condemnation was
was ordered that the products be released to the claimant under bor


d "TOBACCO
e, and Rodenti-
istrict. of South
of Agriculture,
* condemnation
r EMULSIFI-
)f "TOBACCO
poisons which
* about May 1,
C., in violation


Secretary


of the products
ging them into
e Act.
entered and it
Id.


Lack of registration and misbranding of "SKEETER
OR OUTDOOR INSECT REPELLENT CANDLE."
more or less, each containing one "SKEETER SCA
OUTDOOR INSECT REPELLENT CANDLE."
condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I.F. & I
36503.)


The product,
REPELLENT C
Fungicide, and R<
On November
Columbia, acting
States District C
92 cartons, more
OR OUTDOOR
alleging that the
interstate on or a


SCATTER INDOOR
U.S. v. 92 cartons,
TTER INDOOR OR
Default decree of
R. No. 337. I.D. No.


"SIKEETER SCATTER INDOOR OR OUTDOOR I
1ANDLE," was not registered under the Federal Ins
odenticide Act, and its label failed to bear an ingredient st
2, 1959, the United States District Attorney for the Di
upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in th
ourt a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confis'
or less, each containing one "SKEETER SCATTER I
INSECT REPELLENT CANDLE," at Washingtoi
product was an economic poison which had been tra
,bout July 9, 1959, by Kindl Products, Inc., Ridgewood,


NSECT
ecticide,
atement.
district of
e United
cation of
INDOOR
n, D.C.,
nsported
N.J., 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.
It was alleged that the product was misbranded in that thelabel borne by the
product did not bear an ingredient statement giving the name and percentage of
each of the active ingredients, together with the total percentage of the inert in-
gredients, 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, together with the total percentage of the inert


ingredients.
4% ."-* a a-k ai -* nW f


. S t A. .


294.







271-300]


4i i


JUDGMENT


41


. 231


and confiscatii
PROVED FL
poison which 1
Pensacola, Fla.
It was allege
ture as require
The Cheme.
requested its r
the Federal In
On October


.214


UFF" at


one-pin
Mobile,


b bottles, more
Ala., alleging !


>r le$ of, f
e pdre d t w


iad been transported interstate a nir touWt Augu
., by The Chemex Co., in violation f the coii
d that the product was not registered with the Secl
d by section 4 of the act.
x Co., of Pensacola, Fla., claimed qwnersIip of
lease for the purpose of removing it frdnmbnder t
isecticide, Fungicide, arid Itodenticide Act.
16, 1959, the product was released to the claimant


ras an .economic
st i0, 1959, from

retary of Agricul-
the product and
he jurisdiction of

for this purpose,


296. Lack of re
KLEEN."
TREATED
lease und
The product,
under the Federa


tion of the pr
not bear an ii
On October
setts, acting
States Distric
of 142 12-ou
KLEEN" at
poison which
Super Kleen,
Fungicide, an


gistration and misbranrding of "CONCENTRATED SUPER
U.S. v. 142 12-ounce containers, more or less, of "CONCEN-
SUPER KLEEN." Consent decree of condemnation and re-
er bond. (I.F. & R. Na 83& 36.D.; No. 3@875.)
"CONCENTRATED SUPER KLEEN," was not registered
1 Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, and an examina-


oduct showed that the labels or the containers of the product did
ingredient statement as required by the act.
* 19, 1959, the United States Attorney for the District of Massachu-
upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United
.t Court a libel, praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation
nce containers, more or less, of "CONCENTRATED SUPER
Cambridge, Mass., and alleging that the product was an economic
had been transported interstate on or about September 25, 1959, by
Inc., from New York, N.Y., in violation of the Federal Insecticide,
id Rodenticide Act.


It was alleged that the product
culture as required by section 4 of
It was alleged that the product
in that. the labels affixed to the con
statement giving the name and
together with the total percentage
ment giving the names of each of
the descending order of the pierce
gether with the total percentage c
Super Kleen, Inc., New York,


requested its rel
jurisdiction of t
March 23, 1960,
was released unc
of the act.


was not registered.with the Secretary of Agri-
Sthe act.
was misbranded within the meaning of the act
tainers of the product did not bear an ingredient
percentage of each of the active ingredients,
of the inert ingredients, or an ingredient state-
the active and each of the inert ingredients in


ntage
)f the
N.Y.


ease under bond for th
,he Federal Insecticide
a consent decree of coi
ler bond for the purpo:


of each present in each classification, to-
inert ingredients.
, claimed ownership of the product and
.e purpose of removing it from under the
, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. On
idemnation was entered, and the product
se of removing it from the requirements


Lack of registration of "SAGE AIR REFRESHER." U.S. v. 536 5t/i-ounce
aerosols, more or less, of "SAGE AIR REFRESHER." Consent decree
of condemnation and forfeiture. (I.F. & R, No. 343. I.D. No. 36622.)


The product, "SAGE AIR
eral Insecticide, Fungicide, an
On February 15, 1960, the


Jersey,
States
536 5! '2
N.J., a


acting upon a report I
District. Court a libel p:
-ounce aerosols, more or


leging t.h


at the product


REFRESHER" was not registered under the Fed-
Id Rodenticide Act.
United States Attorney for the District of New
)y the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United
raying seizure for condemnation and confiscation of
:less, of "SAGE AIR REFRESHER," at Carlstadt,
was an economic poison which had been transported.
-~ ^ -^ 4 /^' v 9. *T rf XTr


on







232


SETIID


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


[ LF.R.N.J.


Misbranding of"LOTBERT PROFESSIONAL MULTI-DRYER." U.S. v.
two articles labeled in part "LOUBERT PROFESSIONAL MULTI-
DRYER." Consent decree of condemnation and release to claiman t
(I.F. & R. No. 341. I.D. No, 37205.)


The articles labeled in part "LOUJBERT PROFESSIONAL MULTI
were devices which were misbranded within the meaning of the Federal
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
On February 15, 1960, the United States Attorney for the Distric
Island, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in
States District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and c
of two articles labeled in part SLOUERT lPROFESSION A L I U LTI
at Providence, R.I., alleging that the articles were devices which had
ported interstate on or about November 17, 1959, by House of Louis, i
Andover, Mass., in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the articles were misbranded within the meaning
in that their labeling bore the statements:


Insecticide'


t of Rhode
the United
;onfiscation
-DRYER"
been trans-
!rom North


g of the act


"LOUBERT
Professional
MULTI-DRYER


THE WONDERFUL, NEW LOUBER T
MULTI-DRYER AND STERILIZER
For Brushes, Combs, Scissors,
Instruments, Accessories
Sterilizes and dries brushes conveniently and quickly-in a few
minutes, constant protection against germs assured by the germ-
killing sterilizer.


and such statements were false or misleading since they implied
that the articles would kill germs and would sterilize brushes,
instruments, and all other items implied by the term accessories
articles would not kill germs or would not sterilize brushes, comb,
Inents, or all other items implied by the term "accessories."
The House of Louis of North Andover, Mass., claimed ownership
and requested their release for the purpose of removing them I
jurisdiction of the act.
On March 25, 1960, a consent decree of condemnation was e
articles were released to the claimant upon their removal from unc
tion of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.


or represented
combs, scissors,
s"; whereas the
scissors, instru-

p of the articles
From under the


entered and the
ler the jurisdic-


299. Lack of registration and misbranding of "SOIL LIFE." U.S. v. 240 50-
pound bags, more or less, of "SOIL LIFE." Release to claimant for
purpose of removing product from under jurisdiction of Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. (I.F. & R. No. 335. I.D. No. 35826.)
The product "SOIL LIFE" was not registered under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. An examination of the product showed that the
labels affixed to the containers of the product did not bear an ingredient statement
or directions for use.
The United States Attorney for the Southern District of Illinois, Northern Di-
vision, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United
g+.0n-1rfio l lm rfi f i'v a c 1v nm n n ^y^ a n r+ r 0+. +ra.- v ,.., lnnjAlain o n at ii A nan on a ny ^







271-300]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


4.- 233


present in
ingredients.


each


classification,


It was alleged that th
labeling did not contain
with, adequate for the
John W. Dabler, Mar
ber 20, 1959, submitted
locations claiming that
would not. advertise by
the meaning of the Fed
ordered that the produ<


together


e product was
n directions
protection of
nlius, Ill., clai
an affidavit s
'SOIL LIFE'
any means t
Leral Insectici
et. be released


with


total


percentage of


inert


s further misbranded in that its accompanying
for use which are necessary and if complied
the public.
med ownership of the product and on Novem-
tating that (1) he would make no further pub-
" was a cure for Dutch Elm disease and (2) he
;hat "SOIL LIFE" was an insecticide within


de, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
to the claimant.


It was


Lack of registration and misbranding of "MUR-SANI-MASK." U.S. v.
one drum containing 25 gallons, more or less, of "MUR-SANI-MASK."
Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I.F. & R.


No. 346.


No. 36627.)


The product,
secticide, Fungi
showed that, the
dient statement
On February
Pennsylvania, a
United States D


cation of
at Downi
had been
Co., from
It was
culture as
It was


"NIUR-SANI-MASK," was not register
cide. and Rodenticide Act.. and an ex.


label affixed
as required 1
24. 1960. the


acting
ist.rict


one drurr
ngton, P-
transpor
Pa tersot
alleged ti
required
alleged t.


upon
Couri


i containing
i., and all'
ted inters
, N.J., in
hat the pi
I by sectic
iat the pr


e
t.

r(
)I
o


in that the label affixed to
giving the name and percent
total percentage of the inert
names of each of the active


to the container of the proi
by the act.
United States Attorney f
report by the Secretary (
a libel, praying seizure for
g 25 gallons, more or less,
going that the product was
ate, on or about July 20,
violation of the act.
)dulct. was not registered w
n 4 of the act.
duct was misbranded with
the container did not bea
,ge of each of the active ing
t ingredient, or an ingred
and each of the inert ingi


!red under the Federal In-
amination of the product
duct did not bear an ingre-

or the Eastern District of
)f Agriculture, filed in the
condemnation and confis-


of "MUR-SANI-MASK,"
an economic poison which
1959, by Utility Chemical

'ith the Secretary of Agri-


1in the meaning of the act,
r an ingredient statement
redients, together with the
lent statement giving the
redients in the descending


order of the percentage of each present in each classification, together with the
total percentage of the inert ingredients.
On March 23, 1960, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation
and forfeiture was entered, and the United States Marshal was ordered to destroy
the product.








234


INSECTICIDE


,FUNGICIDE


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


[.LF.R.N.;.


INDEX TO NOTICES OF JUDGMENT 271


-300


N.J. NO.


eoso. Insecticide, DDT
Allethrin


o mc-u



o 31)
,~=0
f--o

Ar CY


a
a
a


SNational


Chernica


Lamco


Labora-


toes L ,... -------I---
Better Ho mea Moth-A-Teria
Better Honm s Laiorsitories,

Clien-Odor Miniature Block-
ettes Cedar
Lien Chemaicl Company.--
ClieixOdor Mnfiature Block-
ettes Odora
Lien Chemical Company-.
Clien-Odor Miniature Block-
*-4 -.A j-n I- i


SWete ns. n i
Lien Chemwal Company ..:.
Cloroben
Lien Chemical Company ---
Concentrated Super Kleen
Super Kleen, Inc ._
Creme-Cote
James Varney & Sons, :Inc.-
DDT Emulsifiable Concentrate


Q Quality


Chemical


tion .-.----..- -
Dorsey's K-9 Flea and Mange
Killer


K-9 Products Co -


Sanitizer


Deodorizer


Lamco


Chemical


Lien 592 Waste


276

. 7 ,


~ 2 76


296

278


293


Corpora-


-- -- -


Easy Glamur
Glamur Products, Inc ..--.
454B Old Homestead
Payton Products, Ine._-.
431 Mechanized Division


Payton Products, Inc___-_--
rand Quality Foaming
Cleanser


and


Company.


Treatment


Lien Chemical Company _
Loubert Professional Multi-
Dryer


House of Lou
Mur-Sani-Mask


is--.....


rJ. NO. .


289

276


Utility Chemical Company_
New and Improved Fluff
The Chemex Co __ _- -- -
New Easv Glamur With Exclu-


sive
Glamur


950 The


Rider


Corobex
Products,


Westerner


Inc : ---


Horse and


) Payton Products, Inc_ ...--
: 1% Dieldrin Granules* *


706010
Triangle Chemica
l *2% of B.HC


Company.


Atlas Agriculture Chemicals,


Inc--_--------


Pro Nylon Combs
SPro-Phy-Lac-T


288
271

282

282


Pal Products Manufacturing
Corp _- ------ --- --
Griffin's Golden Pinol


Griffin Bros.


Griffin's


Inc _


Lilac Scent


Griffin Bros.


Griffin's


Inc_ _-


Pheno-Mint


Griffin Bros. Inc_-


Griffin


's Pheno-Pine


Griffin Brc
Insecticide


is. Inc_-
Plant ]


Food


With 0.4% Aldrin
Dorchester Fertilizer Co
Institutional Deo-Clean


Mix

- -


Hl-. i~ar, Inc ----- -- -- -- --


PT


Cnompany-Toxic
renoine Non-Toxic


cide for


Brush


Insecti-


Use in Food Proc-
r'|


essing plants
Aerosol Crop -......------
Sage Air Refresher


Sage Labora


Skeeter


catt


Outdoor I
Candle
Kindl Produ
Soil Life
Leo Gerlem:
Speed Lite BP
Patek & Co
Speed Lite Ba
Patek & Co
Speed Lite Ge
Patek & Co
Tobacco Dust


Quality


stories, Inc...---- 297
er Indoor or
Insect Repellent

icts, Inc --...-- 294

an---------- 299


._.... .286
rmatex
.... ...... 286


Chemical


Corporation----


Ves-Phene Germicidal Detergent
Vestal, Inc__--------------


Virac


Aqueous


Solution


1.-5nn


293
280


;c~El~


Cl


^