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:
AA00008500:00007

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

li:,



.. N.J., I.F.R 317-331


/47 23


Issued August 1961


UNITED


STATES


DEPARTMENT


OF


AGRICULTURE


AGRICULTURAL


RESEARCH


SERVICE


PLANT PEST CONTROL


DIVISION


NOTICES


JUDGMENT
FUNGICIDE,


UNDER


AND


THE


FEDERAL


RODENTICIDE


INSECTICIDE,


Nos.


317-331


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).


L. R. CLARK
Acting Administrator, Agricultural Research


SON,
Service.


WAsHINGTON, D.C., June 15,1961.
$1t. Laelk of registration and misbranding of "STAPH 12 HOSPITAL TESTED
BACTERIACIDE." U.S. v. 13 one-pint bottles, more or less, of "STAPH
12 HOSPITAL TESTED BACTERIACIDE." Default decree of condem-
nation, forfeiture and destruction. (I.F. & R. No. 369. I.D. No. 38512.)


The p4ruct
reslerM wunde
examination of
were false and
whmn used as di


"STAPH 12
r the Federal
the product
misleading si
reacted, could


idiseae or kill all germ
- -..t November 1, 196(
bla, acting upon a repo
States District Court a 1
15 one pint l bottles, 1
BACTERIACIDE" at
economic poison which
bfy Save-Mor Drugs, on
It was allIed that
-Agrieutuir 'as required
It mas' tllegWd that


HOSPITAL T
Insecticide, I
showed that
nce they impli
be relied upon


I
t
ii


is, whereas it would
), the United States
irt by the Secretary
ibel praying seizure i
more or less, of "


DSTED I
ungicide,
he label
ed or rep
to prevent
not be e
Attorney
of Agric
or conde.
STAPH


Washington, D.C., alleging
had been offered for sale in
or about November 4, 1960 i
the product was not register
by section 4 of the act.
'the product was misbrande


the act in'that its labeling bore the statements
"Staph 12


HOSPITAL


3ACTERIACIDE" was not
and Rodenticide Act. An
ing bore statements which
presented that the product,
it all human infections and
effective for these purposes.
for the District of Colum-
ulture, filed in the United
nation and confiscation of
12 HOSPITAL TESTED
that the product was an
I the District of Columbia
in violation of the act.
red with the Secretary of
,d within the meaning of


ONE PINT


ACT







246


INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


[I.F.R.N.J.


FOR BACTERIACIDAL CLEANLINESS
GENERAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION, WASHINGTON,


-t .


D.C.


USE STAPH 12 to disinfect-kill germs
-deodorize hat.hrooms-sick rooms,
baby's room-scrub diaper pails.

WASH-walls, woodwork, furniture.
4% oz. per gallon of waiter

MOP UP-public rooms, floors, linoleum, tile.
1 oz. per gallon of water.

SLSH--toilet bowls--tubs kitchen drains
garbage disposal installation.
1 oz. per gallon of water.

LAUNDRY-babies' diapers, bed linen.
% oz. per gallon of water.


ANIMAL AREXAS-pet kennels and other areas.
1,4ox per gallon of water.

SICK ROOM-toilet seats, bed pans, beds, ....
all washable articles. ;i
Sosz. per gallon of water. :|i

and such statements were false or misleading since they implied or represented 1
that theprodlu when used as directed, could be relied upon to prevent all human
infections and iUseases r kill all germs, whereas, the product, when used as J
directed, could not be relied upon to prevent all human infections and diseases .
or kill all .germu p.:
On January 11, 1901, no ciimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation,
forfeiture and destruction Wr "entered, and the United States Marshal was .
ordered to destroy the produce
318. Lack of registration of "NEW POOLENE POOL PURIFIER" U.S. v.
515 sixteen-ounce containers, more or less, of "NEW POOLENE POOL
PURFIIEBL Default dtest of condemnation, forfeiture and destruc- H
tion. (I3.E & R. No. 364. I.D. No. 38320.)
The product "NEW POOi ElN POOL PURIFIER" was not registered under .iI
the Federga Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
On September 19, 4I9, ~ Tnited States Attorney for the Etasrn sic
of New ark acting upen a report by the-.Secretary of Agriculture, filed in
the United States District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and :Hi
confiscation of 515 sixteen-ounce containers, more or less, of "NEW POOLENE .
1p0o, PURIIERy'. at Jamaica, Long Island, N.Y., alleging that the product
was an economic poison which had been transported interstate on or about
April 14, 1960, by Home Products Division, Edsal Manufacturing Company,
from Hightstown, N.J., in violation of the act. i
It was alleged that the product was not registered with the Secretary of .
Agriculture as required by section 4 of the act. ..


Jr
*1.


H.


*""":! EE" 1:" EiEEi







81T-s81.31


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


~24?'


On June 21, 1960, the United States Attorney for the District of Madsaehetts,
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed hi thi Unlited Stats
District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and colseation df: 1,581
fourteen-ounce containers, more or less, of "NEW IMPTIOVED DIAPER-
WITE," at Boston, Mass., alleging that the product was an economic poison
which had been transported interstate, on or about March 30, 19f0; 'y Diaper-
wite, Inc., from New York, N.Y., in violation of the Federal Inseeicide, Fgi-
cide, and Rodenticide Act.
It was alleged that the product was misbranded within tie meaning of the
act in that its labeling bore the statements:


WITH


"NEW, IMPROVED
DIAPERWITE
HEXACHLOROPHENE TO STOP DIAPER RAMI
the Complete DIAPER WASH
1 DISINFECTS
2 WASHES
NO SOAP O;
BLEACH REQUIRED
a a K ; 1 < B /


DIAPERWIT
The Double-Duty.

(s perfect for
ALL :WWVIE THIN*4Se;. *
Nylon, roen, gd K
allS yii14eSs I:
DIREOTIONS
SBY SOAKING
Rinse out soiled matter from


V" j


t~li


I(i;:vr


diapers before drb1ppirg
them in D lt fiite solwtione
Prepare solution ig three tablespoonfuls of
Diaperwite in a gallon pail
of hot water while tfirl g.
Drop diapers in this solution
to soak ver night..
Rinse soaked diapers twice
in hot water and twice in
cold water. After 4ryg,
diapers. are-ready to use.


FOR
First
wite
Then
mach
otEher
perw
other
of Di
nload


A,"


WASHING MACHINE
, soak diapers in Diaper-
solution for one hour.
place diapers in washing
line (do not mix with
Stings in wash). Use pia-
ite as you would any
* powder (about cup
iaperwite to a regular
. No noan n r hblnr-h i


v:x


T:""r~i~x bj~,
:" :I1":~, ~ r
:
B",,,,l~g,:
...:;: i~


kk~L r
e,


r i


" """I
a r


i
:I" r


.... EE.


%, ::"
":"


""B I "1




* A"~~****Pi: iuNwtN ~


248


INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


[I.t.R.N.j.


It was alleged further that the product was misbranded within the meaning :
of the act in that its label did not bear an ingredient statement giving the name
and percentage of each of the active ingredients, together with the total per-
centage 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.
On October 10, 1960, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation
and forfeiture was entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed, by
the United States Marshal or given by him to a public or charitable institution
for use, and not for sale, as a waspin powder and not a disinfe4aSe
.1
320. Lack of registration, misbranding, and adulteration of "NEW AQUALENE
POOL SANITIZER." U.S. v. 212 eight-ounce bottles, more or less, of
"NEW AQUALENE POOL SANITIZER." Default decree of condem-
nation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I.F. & R. No. 365. I.D. No. 37080.)
The product "NEW AQUALENE POOL SANITIZER" was not register.
under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. An examination
of the product showed that it contained less than 6 percent of sodium hypo-
chlorite and more than S9 percent of inert ingredients and that the labels ofe ..
containers bore an ingredient statement which set forth variable percentage
for the active and inert ingredin .sa
On September 17, 1960, the Unit;i states Attorney for the Eastern District of
South Carolina, Chrleston Division, acting upon a report by the Secretary of
Agriculture, filed in the United States District Court a libel praying seizure for
condemnation and conflscationa 2 prf g-. bottles, more or less, of "NE_
AQUALENE POOL SANITIZ.R," at Chatiest6n, S.C., alleging that the product
was an economic poison which had been transported interstate, on or about
May 31, 1960, by lodent Chemical"[aptu, Inc., from Detroit, Mich, in viola-
tion 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 within the meaning of the
act in that its labeling bore the statements: ...


"New
Aqualene
POOL SANITIZER


OC6MPLET 4-AY
P00


4i n; ;


KEEPS
SAFE,


Disinfectant
Algaecide
Bactericide
Fungicide
POOLS CLEAN,
GERM-FREE


PROTECT YOUR CHILDREN'S
HEALTH USE Aqualene


I


I







art-f-dlu


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


44f~


SMALL PLAYPOOLS Approximately 4 feet to 6 f
capfuls.
LARGE PLAYPOOLS Approximately 8 feet to 14 fi
capfuls.
On exceptionally warm or sunny days, double the 4
first treatment, then treat pool with above amour
on usage of pool. With heavy bathing loads use i
hours. Aqualene is harmless to children and pets.
will provide a safe, clean pool throughout the summer
Contains:
Active Ingredients-Sodium Hypochlorite,
Inert Ingredients, 92%-94%


Iodent Chemical Co.,


eet In length, use 4
eet ixi lcith, tse 10

above osage on the
its dailf, depending
Aqualene every four
If used as directed
r.

%-%ichigan
petroit 1, IMichigan"


and such statements were false or misleading since they implied or represented
(1,) that the product may contain 8 percent but not less than 6 percent of
sodium hypochlorite, (2) that the product contained not more than 94 percent
of inert ingredients, and (3) that the product, when used as directed, would
make pools germ-free; whereas, (1) the product contained less than 6 percent
of sodium hypochlorite, (2) the product contained more than 94 percent of inert
ingredients, and (3) the product, when used as directed, wouli not make pools
germ-free.
It was alleged further that the product was adulterated in that its strength
or purity fell below the professed standard or quality under which it was sold,
in that it contained less than 6 percent of sodium hypochlorite and more than
94 percent of inert ingredients.
On December 1, 1960, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation
and forfeiture was entered, and the United States Marshal was ordered to destroy
the product.
r
321. Lack of registration, lack of required information, and misbranding of
'"GARDENLITE INSECT REPELLANT" and "BAN-O-BUG INSECT
REPELLANT." U.S. v. 264 containers, more or less, of "GARDENLITE
INSECT REPELLANT" and 1.816 containers, more or less, of "BAN-O-
BUG INSECT REPELLANT." Default decree of condemnation, for-
feiture, and destruction. (I.F. & R. No. 367. I.D. Nos. 37925 nid
87926.)
The products "GARDENLITE INSECT REPELLANT" and "BAN-O-BUG IN-
SECT REPELLANT" were not registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fuaz
cide, and Rodenticide Act, and an examination of the products showed that the
labels affixed to the containers of the products did not bear statements of net
weight or measures of contents of the containers. The g~amination further
showed that the labels did not bear ingredient statements as required by the
act and the labels affixed to the containers of the products did not beat state-
ments giving the name and address of the manufacturer, registrant, or person
for whom the products were manufactured.
On October 24, 1960, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern 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 264 containers, more or less, of 'fGARDENLITE INSECT
REPELLANT" and 1,816 containers, more or less, of "BAN'O-BUG INSECT
REPELLANT," at Franklin Park, Ill., alleging that the products were economic
poisons which had been transported interstate on or about July 20, 1959 by the




:::. **... :..
..
': ...

250 INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT [LF.B.N.J, .
.i.H.
iHi.:


323. Misbranding of "SURE PURE WATER PURIFIER." U.S. v. 5 articles,
more or less, of "SURE PURE WATER PURIFIER." Default decree of
condemnation, forfeiture and destruction. (Q.F. & R. No. 371. I.D. No.
38452.)
Te device' sURi PiR W'wnrmJFI "' was recommended for purify-
ing water on business pleasure, adqthp! types of trips. The purpose was to
assure safe water *en trelg in where only unsafe water was available.
However, when tested, the product wap ineffetive for these purposes.
On December 15, 1960, the United Stat Axney for the District of Columbia,
acting uponra repotrbyite Secretury of Agriculture, 1fiied in the United States
District Court a libel, praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation of 5
articles, more or less, tt prodte "SURE PURE WATER PURIFIER" at
Washington, D.C., d tleig that the product was a device which had been
sold in the Distriet of olumtnbia by Surplus Sales Co., on or about September 1,
1960, in violation of the act.
It was aIfhgef that thl uet was misbranded within the meaning of the
act in thatQit lkAbeing st t lni p.rt:


jURE
A Guarantee
dof SafeSweet Water "
Dat Spoil
tha Business oi Pleasure I

a SURE PURE Water Fill


Trip

ter
X



x ""~rIBtPS KEEt:,


.i


total percentage of the inert ingredients, or, in the alternative 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
On November 18, 1960, no claimant having.appeared, a default depe of ;;
condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered that the United -
States Marshal destroy the products.

322. Lack of registration of "COMAR MUSKET." U.S. v. 524 two-pound con-
tainers, more or less, of "COMAR MUSKET." Default decree of con-
demnation, forfeiture and destruction. (I.F. & R. No. 377. I.D. No.
39123.)
Thte "poAduct O.AR MUSKET," was not registered under the FederaL- n
secticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
On F&itary l4 1t the T United States Attorney for the Districtn f Mfni
land, A~tiig upon a irepot tby the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United
States Dtstrlet COrt a libel, praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation
of 524 t-pmund containers, more or less, of "COMAR MUSKET" at Hebron,
Md., a~ig that the prect was an economic poison which had been trans-
ported intstate on or about October 25, 1960, by Comar Industries from White-
stbiii &4J in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the product was not registered with the Secretary of Agri-
culture as retired uidter secftin 4 t he act.
On March 2, 1961, ino claimant having appeared, a decree of forfeiture and
condemnation was entered and the United States Marshal was ordered to
destroy the product.






3 .7-ai1]


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


25i


Why risk debilitating sickness, discon
ness or pleasure time, take a SURE PUR
system to pure, clean and sweet drinl
travel.
SURE PURE uses a filter system that
tested and in use in many parts of the
is used to protect the potable water
United States on his personal airplane
65 of the world's major airlines.


Safe Water for the Traveler


To the Sportsman
One of the most troublesome detai
enthusiast, hunter, fisherman or just
So-called safe water may be turbid, s
Spring, stream, river and lake water
Getting, carrying and keeping drin


the sportsman.
All of this can be
in your pocket. You
next stream, pond, lal
ing pure, clean, sweet
The SURE PURE
stomach to wander
containers.


avoided
siphon
ke or ra
water.
purified
where


fort and loss of valuable busi-
IE water purifier and treat your
king water wherever you may

has been repea tq laboratory
world for 30 yes. This filter
used by the President of the
and is standard equipment on


Safe Water for Sportsmen


Is confronting a camper, boating
plain hiker is his water supply.
;alty and odiferous.
can be anything.
king water is usually a chore to


by tucking a SURE PURE water purifier
your drinking and cooking water from the
in puddle and rest assured that you are us-


r


gives
you


you peace o
will without


mind and peace of
encumbering water


Your SURE PURE water purifier has been tested by an independent
laboratory to determine te efficiency of the filter elements in removing
bacteria, coliforms, turbidity, odors, chlorine and salt water.
These tests proved that your SUR)E PURE filter will protect you
and assure safe sweet drinking water from all normal sources.
7The test program was severe and the results assuring. The results
are compared for your information.
River water-6300 to 2 Bteria/O to 2olim
Shallow wells-1500 Bacteria/mi
Deep wells-84 to 160 Bacteria/ml
Unpolluted Springs-50 Bacteria/mi
City water (acceptable)
Less than 100 Bacteria/ml
Coliforms 1 or 2 colomnes.100ml
Your SURE PURE filter was tested wth water containing 190,00
Ba teria/mi and 31,0(0 coli/ml. No Ba2 ppa and N o Coliforms were
found in the water flowing from the ~B5E PURE unit.
Other tests proved that SlUBI PURiE moves all odors, all objee-
tionable tastes and even most of the slt m tidal waters.
SURE PURE removes all chlorine from heavily treated water.
Your SURE PURE filter gives prnfrom the first to the last
drop. It needs changing only when the flow is ireued to a trickle.
HOW'TO USE'YOUR SURE PURE FILTER
IThere is a filter element in your SURE PURE I itL It is properly


x ~"x~






252


INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


[ I.F...NJ:


and such statements were false or misleading since they implied or represented
that the product, when used as directed, (1) would assure safe, pure drinking
water from all normal sources, (2) would purify water from streams, ponds, l
lakes, rain puddles, wells, and other normal sources, and (3) would remove all .
bacteria and coliforms from water; whereas, the product, when used as directed,
(1) would not assure safe, pure drinking water from all normal soarece, (2) '
would not purify water from streams, ponds, lakes, rain puddles, wells, or other
normal sources, and (3) would not remove all bacteria and coliforms from
water..1
On January 17, 19,11, no claimant having appeared, a default decree of
condemnation and destruction was entered and the United States Marshal was
ordered to, destroy the product.
324. Lack of registration of a product, paper vacuum cleaner bags labeled in
part "TREATED WITH NOMORGERM." U.S. v. 84,950, more or less, i
taper vacuum cleaner bags labeled in part "TREATED WITH NOMOR-
GERM." Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction.
S(I.F. & R. No. 376. I.D. No. 38385.) iL;
The product, paper vacuum cleaner bags labeled in part "TREATED WITH .ii
NOMORGERM" was not registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act.
On January 27, 1961, 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 confiscation
of 84,950, more or less, paper vacuum cleaner bags labeled in part "TREATED |;:
WITH NOMORBItM"" at .Nw Brunswick, N.J., and alleging that the product *!
was an economic poison which had been transported interstate on or about
January 11 and January 12, 1961, by Paper Products, Inc., from Saugerties,
N.Y., and Broklp N.YJ ino latlon of the act.
It was alleged that the product was not registered with the Secretary of
Agriculture as r rel section 4 of the act.
On April 4 196 o pt ing appeared, a decree of condemnai on a
forfeiture was et0red, ait he United States Marshal was ordered to destroy -
the product. :
325. Lack of registration and misbranding of "M.E.D. MYCOBACTERIAL 4
ETHICAL DISINFECTANT." U.S. v. 163 eleven-ounce containers, more '.
or less, of "M.E.D. MYCOBACTERIAL ETHICAL DISINFECTANT."
Consent decree of condemnation and release under bond. cI.. & ..
339. I.D. No. 97586.)
The product "M.E.D. MYCOBACTERIAL ETHICAL DISINFECTANT" was ,
not registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
An examination of the product showed that the labels borne by the product did
not bear an tingreent state nt i~ a l Mited by the act.
On December 16, 1U9 t TUnited States Attorney for the Western District ,i
of Missouri, Western ivii acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agri-
culture, filed in th District Court a libel, praying seizure for condemnation r
and confiscation of 163 eleven-ounce containers, more or less, of "M.E.D. MYCO- I
BACTERIAL ETH I AL DISINFECTANT" at Kansas City, Mo., and alleging
that the product was an economic poison which had been transported interstate:.
on or about November 18, 1959, by M.E.D. Corporation of America, from Chicago,
Ill., in violation of the act. 2:
Tf two, ao a llnnnAn 4l< 4, 4 an A.n t a.. ti nJ c4-a..aaI ..i4 43. a Onn-n4. .w.. aC A-S




.'

I.*
I .31" r31]-' NOTICES OF JUDGMt

ruary 20, 1961, a decree of condemnation was e
the product be released to the claimant under suck


CENT


253


entered and it was ordered that
Bond.


32. Misbranding of "STAPHEX BACTERICIDE DEODORANT FUNGICIDE
AEROSOL SPRAY." U.S. v. 140 containers, more or less, of "STAPHEX
BACTERICIDE DEODORANT FUNGICIDE AEROSOL SPRAY." Con-
sent decree of condemnation and release under bond. (I.F. & R. No.
370. I.D. No. 38288.)
The product "STAPHEX BACTERICIDE DEODORANT FUNGICIDE
AEROSOL SPRAY" was recommended as a bactericide for disinfecting arti-


cles and equipment in hospitals.
found to be ineffective for these pu
On November 28, 1960, the United
of New York, acting upon a report
the District Court a libel, praying
of 140 containers, more or less, of "
FUNGICIDE AEROSOL SPRAY," a
was an economic poison which had
June 3, 1960, by Thomasson of Pet
violation of the act.
It was alleged that the product w
act in that its labeling bore the stall


However
rposes.
States
by the
seizure
STAPH


when


tested,


the product


Attorney for the Southern District
Secretary of Agriculture, filed in
for condemnation and confiscation
EX BACTERICIDE DEODORANT


t New York, N.Y., alleging that the product
I been transported interstate on or about
insylvania, Inc., from Norristown, Pa., in


ras misbranded within the meaning of
tements:


"STAPHEX is a Bactericide and Fungicide
lasting residual activity. STAPHEX may b
economically when applied according to direct
lasting effect against organisms makes it outs
there is danger of re-infestation. Due to the
cation, many hidden areas not before reached
can now be fully protected.


iith amazing and
)e used effectively
ons. STAPHEX's
standingg in areas
aerosol method of
with aqueous solu


long-
and
long-
where
appli-
itions


S *


DIRECTIONS


FOR HOSPITAL


ROOMS:


After discharge of patient and following usual checkout cleaning.
Spray mattress, pillows, bed frames, toilet, and other accessories.
A systematic spraying program will kill many bacteria, fungi, and
odors.


SUGGESTED


USES:


Operating room equipment, nursery cribs, linen closets, labor rooms,
utility tables, telephones. Daily spraying of the shoe soles of Doctors,
Nurses, and Key Personnel.


ALSO


SPRAY


OUTER
TO


SIDE OF ALL SURGICAL DRESSINGS
PREVENT ODORS.


* S 5"


and such statements were false or misleading since they implied or represented


that the
tericide
room eq
phones,
implied
directed,


product, when used as directed, could be ri
for disinfecting mattresses, pillows, bed
uipment, nursery cribs, linen closets, labor
shoe soles of doctors, nurses, and key person
by the term "other accessories;" whereas,
could not be relied upon to act as a b


mattresses, pillows, bed frames,


toilets,


operating


lied upon
frames, t
rooms, ut
nnel, and
the produ
actericide
room eqi


to act as a bac-
:oilets, operating
ility tables, tele-
all other articles
ct, when used as
for disinfecting


lipment,


nursery


)I,


L


I






254


INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


[I.F.B.N.JI


327. Misbranding of "D.G.F. SPRAY DEODORIZER GERMICIDAL FUNGI-
CIDAL." U.S. v. 188 containers, more or less, of "D.G.F. SPRAY DE-
ODORIZER GERMICIDAL FUNGICIDAL." Default decree of condem-
nation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I.F. & R. No. 368. I.D. No. 38041.)
The product "D.G.F. SPRAY DEODORIZER GERMICIDAL FUNGICIDAL"
was recommended as a germicide, fungicide for use on surgical instruments,
operJing tables, and other equipment. It was also recommended For coDptio
varis types of bacteria. However, when tested, the product was found to be
ineffctive for these purposes.
On br 23, 1960, the United States Attorney for the Northern District
of Calltkrnia, 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 188 Tontainers, moe or leps, of "D.G.F. SPRAY DEODORIZER
GERMIQIDAL FUNGIOIDATL" t Oakland, Calif., alleging that the product
was an Ceonoie poison which had been transported interstate on or about
June 190, Iby Chase Products Co., from Broadview, Ill., in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the product was misbranded within the meaning of the
act in that its labeling bore the statements:
"D-G-F SPRAY
DEODOIZER-ECG I DA L- -FUNG ICIDAL
D-G-F Deqdprizer, Geric ideal gFdEungicidal Spray is a powerful space
and surface ermicidal--etiv against both gram positive and gram
negative bacteria.
D-G-F effectively controls resisanta strains of staphylococci; salmonella
typhosa; shiella paradysenteriae; salmonella schottmuelleri; eschericia
coli (Colon infections) microcossus pyogenes var. aureus, streptococcus
pyogenes, mycobacterium smegmatis. 'It is also effective, against gigLi
such as trichophyton interidigitale.
D-G-F is an excellent deodorizer and chemically destroys odor producing
bacteria. Reduces hazards of arborne infectious viruses.
Use D-G-F to disinfect surgical instruments, operating tables and other
equipment.
Use D-G-F to sanitize and deodorize waiting rooms, laboratories, oper-
ating rooms, examination rooms, kennels and other confinement areas.


DIRECBTIONS FOR


USE


Clean object to be sprayed using usual cleansing methods. As a
germicidal surface spray, hold >spenser Upright and spray 6 to 8 inches
from surface until surface is wet. Avoid contamination of food stuff.
As a deodorizer and air sanitizer, hold can upright and point valve
opening away from face. Spray upwards into corner of room as well as
center of room, filling room with mist.
CAUTION
The contents of this container are under pressure. Do not puncture
container nor dispose of same in fire or incinerator. Container
not be stored in direct sunlight or where temperature exceeds 120 degrees
F. Do notwet ar sh painted or plastic surfaces with this spray.
a** n
QO rl C@lift c h~a4-ta~v4e a xjw~ TE PChT*A cirA A^ha Wi^-alj a jlvft AnM9#a-S we ran +TA-W 4 wwa d1 u dkwa *M^vunwhomm na -j







317-331]


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


25~


senteriae, salmonella schottmuelleri, eschericia coli (Colin infections) miCrocos-
sus pyogenes var. aureus, streptococcus pyogenes, mycobacterium smegmatis, and
trichophyton interidigitale in spaces or on surfaces.
On May 1, 1961, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation and
forfeiture was entered, and the United States Marshal was ordered to destroy
the product.

328. Lack of registration, misbranding and adulteration of "DAVIS KAPUT."
U.S. v. 460 ten-pound bags, more or less, of "DAVIS KAPUT." Default
decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I.F. & R. No.
375. I.D. No. 35864.)


The product "DAVIS KAPUT'
cide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
that it contained 0.24% of disc
2.25% disodium methylarsonate
such that when used as directed
vention of crabgrass nor would i
of crabgrass seeds.
On January 31, 1961, the Uni
of Illinois, acting upon a report


was not registered under
k Act. An examination of
idium methylarsonate hex
hexahydrate as claimed.
the product would not be
t kill crabgrass or prevent


ted
.by


States A
the Sec


United States District Court a libel, praying
fiscation of 460 ten-pound bags, more or less.
Ill., and alleging that the product was an ecoi
ported interstate on or about June 12, 1959,
Brunswick, N.J., in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the product was not
Agriculture as required by section 4 of the act.
The product was alleged to be misbranded
that its label bore the statements:


the Federal Insecti-
the product showed
;ahydrate instead of
The deficiency, was
effective for the pre-
further germination


attorney for the Northern District
retary of Agriculture, filed in the
seizure for condemnation and con-
, of "DAVIS KAPUT" at Chicago,
nomic poison which had been trans-
by W. A. Cleary Corp., from New


registered


with


the Secretary


within the meaning of the act in


"ACTIVE INGREDIENTS


**Disodium Methylarsonate hexahydrate


**Total Arsenic as Elemental,,all in Water
Soluble Form


2.25%'


0.r58%6


and such statements were false misleading since they implied or represented
that the product contained 2.25% of disodtoi methylarsonate hexahydrate and
0.58% of water soluble arseni .whereas, the product contained less than 2.25% of
disodium methylarsonate hexahydrate and less than 0.58% of water soluble
arsenic. :
It was alleged that the product was further misbranded within the meaning
of the act in that its label bore the statements


DAVIST~


1!:


117
PT


0 ""


A
r ^^


4, "f


KILLS
d'1-i A' 'N .L~ r nccE 1"


:: h
Vy,8 i


"":


xg I ""f
i:i i ~ "~"B


rrslE~
,







256


INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


[I. F.r.NS.


When may KAPUT be used?


Any time of the year!! (see chart below)


IONS FOR USE OF KAPUT


Apply evenly the contents of bag by mechanical spreader ov
of lawn area : (50 ft. x 50 ft or 25 ft. x 100 ft. etc.). (Rins
grass after application).
In rare instances a second application may be necessary.
is apparent within 10 days, make second application.
THESE DIRECTIONS APPLY TO APPLICATIONS AT
OF THE YEAR


TIME TABLE OF


MAY 1 TO JULY


er 2500 sq. ft.
e granules off

If no "kill'

ANY TIME


APPLICATION


- 1. Will kill existing crabgrass and will
prevent further germination of
crabgrass seeds.
S..


/JL 1 t:'


o~tk 15


Some crabgrass prevention will be in-
dicated the following summer from
this treatment.


OCTOBER 15 TO APRIL 30


- :1.


ivnssa~m f


Will prevent crabgrass for the fol-
lowing summer.


*** :;.
S I ... 3 <

and such statement *6te false or misleading since they implied or represented
that the product, whef t ub S iArectp (1) would effectively prevent crabgrass,
(2) would effectively kill crabgrass, an (3) would effectively prevent germina-
tint trabgraSs ds; .e the product, when used as directed, (1) would i
not efetively prevent craibgrass, (2) would not effectively kill crabgrass, and
(8) wotd t effectively prevent germination of crabgrass seeds.
It was allged that e hpd~ket was further misbranded within the meaning ,,,
of the act in that the ingredient statement did not appear on that part of the
immediate container of the retail package which is presented or displayed under
customary conditions of purchase, that is, on the front panel.
It was further 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 as expressed on its labeling since its labeling bore the statements: ,
"*** ACTIVE INGREDIENTS


**Disodium Methylarsonate hexahydrate


2.25%


S..


*Ftantl- Arannir an flarinantal sail in


Wa tc Rnlnhal,


DIRECT


:trj





NOTICES OF
j l--431i NOTICES OF


JUDGMENT


329. Misbranding and adulteration of "DIAMOND G-P-K DISINFEC 'ANT"
U.S. v. 173 one-gallon cans, more or less, of "DIAMOND GA-K DISI1,
FECTANT." Consent decree of condemnation and release under bond.
I T T& flR NTo nIn Tf l1n7t


* a. a w *L. .t 5


The label of the p
phenol coefficient of .5
for floors, walls, base
However, when used a
tested it was found to
On September 12, 1
ware, acting upon a r
States District Court
of 1783 one-gallon cans,
Wilmington, Del., alle
been transported intej
tional Chemical Labo
violation of the act.
It was alleged that
act in that its labeling


product
) and w
ments,
s direct
possess
960, the
report b,
a libel,
, more o
going th:
state o
ratories


"DIAMOND G-P-K DISINFECTA T" claimed a
as recommended for use as a general disinfectant
sinks, bathrooms, and other places and surfaces
ed, it was not effective for these purposes and what
a phenol coefficient of less than 5.,
. United States Attorney for the District of Detl


II
a
11


the Secretary of Agr
rayingg seizure for con
less, of "DIAMOND (
t the product was an
i or about February 2Z
of Pennsylvania, Inc.,


the product was misbranded
bore the statements:


icultu
idemn
3-P-K
econo
3 and
from

with


re, filed in the United
action: a0 confiseati
DISINFECTANT" at
mie pojtAs which had
Apri 11 tk60, by Na-
Phladelphia, Pa. in

n the meaning f tfli


"DIAMOND
G-P-K
DISENFECTANT


PHENOL COEFFICIENT 5


F.D.A.


METHOp


PINE


OIL


DISINFECTANT


Phenol Coefficient 5 F.D.A. METHOD
Disinfectant-Deodorant--Germicide--Cleaner


A POWERFUL PLEASANT DISINFECTANT, GEMI:
CIDE AND DEODORANT WHICH IS GUARANTEED
TO BE 5 TIMES STRONGER THAN PURE CARSBOLI
ACID WHEN TESTED AGAINST THE E. TYPHQSA
GERM BY THE F.D.A. METHOD
ESPECIALLY RECOMMENDED FOR:
GENERAL DISINFECTING OF FLOORS, WALLS iU8
BASEMENTS, SINKS, BATHROOMS, TOILETS, UIti


OUTHOUSES, STABLES, KENNELS, CO
OR ANY SURFACE, TO PREVENT THE
TERIA. AS A DEODORANT WHICH IS N
1 TO 3 HOURS AFTER USE.


OPS, CUnDO iy w
SPREAD OF BAC1,
hOT1CEAFlj jft


hi
A" E /4
ii j <


aw4f ~l


*


DIRECTIONS


FOR USE


GENERAL DISINFECTING: Remove all filth
premises and use a solution of one part Pine Oil
- .- parts of water. This mixture acts a4 a disinfectant
',,germ.
SS,


and such statements were


and 1::t
Disinfeata
against E
.*^ ~ /


. the
nt7100r
. Typhesa


i,1 rTh


false or misleading since there implied or represented


IlUI VIV`IVII







IN S EUTCIB


FUNGICIDE,


AND


BODENTIOIDE


ACT


[I.P.a.NJ.


It was further 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 as expressed on its labeling, since its labeling bore ,the statement,
"Phenu Coefficient 5 F.D.A. METHOD," whereas the product had a phenol
coeficient of less than 5 F.D.A. method.
Catini chemicall Laboratories of Pennsylvania, Inc., Philadelphia, Pa.,
claimed ownership of the product and requested its release under 'bond pursuant
to the' act and consented&6 the entry of a condemnation decree. On January 7,
1961, a decree of condemnation was entered and it was ordered that the product
be released to the claimant under such bond for bringing the product into
confliwliknce wth the act

3M0. Mbrafddin and adrlteration of "CHEMCIDE SODIUM HYPOCHLO-
RITE SOLUfIlOT~ U.S. v. 76 one-gallon containers, more or less, of
i EfMCIDE SODIUM HYPOL~EORIDH SOLUTION." Decree of con-
i de*iation and forfeiture (fL.t & IL No. 373. I.D. No. 37788.)
SThe trituct 'd ifMCIDr si) M HYPOHLORITE SOLUTION" was
3prq eintefl to contain 40% sodium hyporite. However, upon examination
two samples were found to contain SA and 5.60'%, respectively, of sodium
hypochlorite.
On January 19, 1961, the United BStates Attorney for the District of Kansas,


acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture
District Court a libel, praying seizure for condemn a
one-gallon containers, more or less, of ~'OHEFCID
RITE SOLUTION"'.t tWihita, Kan., ape" aihath th
poison which had been transported interstate on o
Chemco Products, Inc., from Tulsa, Okla., in violation
It was alleged that te product wa.y Psbrandild
act in that its labeling bore the statements
"***S~oiujj Iypochlorite t
/ *:^-- I^n : r9(*.


filed in t
on and
SODIUM
product
about J
Fthe act.


ivithin


;he
con
IM
wa
ruli


United States
fiscation of 76
HYPOCHLO-
Ls an economic
7 13, 1960, by


the meaning of the


0%
09.*4*"


and such M~ oent were fI iisleaddtince they implied or represented
that the ~rodu4et Mctsited 10 6fsbdittim ~titrite and 90% of inert ingre-
dients; whereas th' product contained l es thiki i0% of sodium hypochlorite
and more ian 9A'of 4ni~ nigredi ts.
It was alleged that the product was adulterhted within the meaning of the
act in that its strength or parity felt od:eH po~i feesed standards or quality
as expressed pth it0 labeling sined i bei boii the statement, "Guaranteed
Active Izrditis; <iHypohlde 1 ,"Whereas~ the product contained
less that lodinmi hpdhl rte.
On Marc b %de t of c emuntfon and forfeiture was entered, and
it was o6Aiied that tle^ Anct be: delivered to the Institute of Logopedics,
Wichita, Kans.
831. Lack of registration gf ?'thER'S CHEESE FLAVORED WARFARIN
RAT & MOUSE KILt*R PELLETS," "TYLER'S READY MIXED WAR-
FARIN EAT & MOUSE KILLR BAIT," and "TYLER'S WARFARIN
CONCENTRATE RAT AND MOUSE KILLER." U.S. v. 162 one-pound
eintainers, more or oIs, of ER'S CHEESE FLAVORED WAR-
FARIN RAT & MOUSE KILLER PELLETS;" 186 one-pound containers,
more or less, and 42 five-pound containers, more or less, of "TYLER'S
iii r UIATlV MiTRii WAUWARITN RAT. A MOIITE KITI.I.RR RAiTI" an fl J







17-al31]


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


259


containers, more or less, of "TYLER'S CHEESE FLAVORED WARFARIN
SRAT & MOUSE KILLER PELLETS ;" 186 one-pound containers, more or less,
and 42 five-pound containers, more or less, of "TYLER'S READY MIXED WAR-
FARIN RAT & MOUSE KILLER BAIT;" and 38 four-ounce containers, more
or less, and 5 one-pound containers, more or less, of "TYLER'S WARFARIN
CONCENTRATE RAT AND MOUSE KILLER," at Portland. Oreg., and alleging
that the products were economic poisons which had been transported interstate
on or about December 16, 1960, January 3, January 11, January 19 and February
7, 1961, by Tyler Products, from Puyallup, Wash., 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.
Subsequent to the seizure action the products were registered with the Secre-
tary of Agriculture. C. Frank Tyler, an individual, claimed ownership of the
products and on May 12, 1961, a consent decree of condemnation was entered
and the products were released to the claimant.


INDEX


TO NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT 317-331


N.J. No.


Ban-O-Bug Insect Repellant
Penn Wax Works, Inc.-.
Chemeide Sodium Hypochlor-
ite Solution
Chemco Products, Inc_-_
Comar Musket
Comar Industries -
D.G.F. Spray Deodorizer
Chemical Fungicidal
Chase Products Co .. -
Davis Kaput
W. A. Cleary Corp ...
Diamond G-P-K Disinfectant
'National Chemical Lab-
oratories of Pennsyl-
vania, Inc--..---
Gardenlite Insect Repellant
Penn Wax Works, Inc-..
M.E.D. Mycobacterial Ethical
Disinfectant
M.E.D. Corporation of
America
New Aqualene Pool Sanitizer
KIodent Chemical Co., Inc.
New Improved Diaperwite
Diaperwite, Inc......


N.J. No.


New Poolene Pool Purifier
Home Products Division,
Edsal Manufacturing
Co. -m m- a- -m -m m -m -m -
Staph 12 Hospital Tested
Bacteriacide
Save-Mor Drugs----.
Staphex Bactericide Deodor-
ant Fungicide Aerosol
Spray
Thomasson of Pennsyl-
vania, Inc..----------
Sure Pure Water Purifier
Surplus Sales Co. ---.
Treated with Nomorgerm
Paper Products, Inc...--..
Tyler's Cheese Flavored War-
farin Rat & Mouse
Killer Pellets
Tyler's Ready Mixed War-
farin Rat & Mouse
Killer Bait
Tyler Products ........--
Tyler's Warfarin Concentrate
Rat and Mouse Killer
Tyler Products...----.......













:E,::"
18:
""E:"EE:


"--" : "


.I****


4ti
I i. I .
h .'c.*.,
'-.1 ..n

1. .4%.S


4::i

?:1


I =


kt ;'


.7!


* 'tjn


: *4 2i.


I I
~ a


I.


,.... ...:' .:;:E:
" .." iii.

.:
IH II*I.


" """ "



"""
,,i,,i,


::JEE:J:::J
:i
~"



:""


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA



o i i ii UI HIII 111liiI1 IB 11111111ii
3 1262 08588 8377


PX


;;I ;iji


I~r'