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:
AA00008500:00009

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

U1


r/*
A


-r *Nlr
:'i'' *rh


zs


. 352-371


Ug TED
'-


-Ir


Issued September 12


STATES


DEPARTMENT


OF


AGRICULTURE


AGRICULTURAL


RESEARCH


SERVICE


PESTICIDES REGULATION DIVISION


JUDGMENT
FUNGICIDE,


UNDER
AND R(


THE


DDENT


FEDERAL INSECTICIDE,
ICIDE ACT


Nos.


352-371


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. 135),
B. T. S HAW
Administrator, Agricultural Research Service
WASHINGTON, D.C., June 19, 1962


Lack of registration
of "ACME BRAND
more or less, each
AND MOLE KILL
under bond. (I.F.


and required information on label and misbranding
MOSQUITO AND MOLE KILLER. U.TS. 49 cases,
containing 6 boxes, of "ACM BRAND MOSQUITO
ER." Consent decree of condemnation and release
& R. No. 409 Ln. D.S o.i 2&.


The product, "ACME BRAND MOSQUE AN) MOTlE KIL~LE," was not
registered under the Federal Insecticide, higicide, and Rodenticide cet. An
examination of the product showed that the labels alxed to the containers of
the product did not bear a statement giving the name and address of the
manufacturer, registrant, or person for whopi the p luct w manufactured
or a statement of the net weight or measure tt the contents of the containers.
The labels also failed to bear an ingredient statement as required by the act.
On August 7, 1961, the United States Attorney for the Northern Trict 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 49 cases, more or less each containing 6 boxes, of "ACME
BRAND MOSQUITO AND MOLE KILLER," at River Grove, Ill., alleging that
the product was an economic poison which had been transported interstate, on
or about September 12, 1960, by Tri-State Manflacturing Co., Inc., from Love-
land, Ohio, in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the product was not Treistered with the Secretary of
Agriculture as required by section 4 of the act.
It was further alleged that the product failed to comply with the provisions


of the act in that
bear a statement of
It was further a


the labels affixed to the containers of the product did not
net weight or measure of the content.
alleged that the product failed to comply with the provisions


352.


QIFp






276


INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


II.F.R.N.J.


Tri-State Manufacturing Co., Inc., Loveland, Ohio, claimed ownership of the
product and requested its release under bond for the purpose of having same
relabeled so as to read on said label "SMOKE POT," and thus removing the
product from under jurisdiction of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act On August 23, 1961, a decree of condemnation was entered,
and it was ordered that the product be released to the claimant under bond.


353. M


isbranding of CONCRETEE POOL-GARD THE SWIMMING POOL PAINT
THAT PROTECTS AGAINST GERMS AND BACTERIA" and "ON-
CRETE GERM-RID THE CONCRETE FLOOR PAINT THAT PRO-
TECTS AGAINST GERMS AND BACTERIA." U.S. v. 20 one-gallon
containers, more or less, of "ONCRETE POOL-GARD THE SWIMMING
POOL PAINT THAT PROTECTS AGAINST GERMS AND BACTERIA"
and 15 one-gallon containers and 11 one-quart containers, more or less,
of CONCRETEE GERM-RID THE CONCRETE FLOOR PAINT THAT
PROTECTS AGAINT GERMS AND BACTERIA." Consent decree of
condemnation and release under bond. (I.F. & R. No. 404. I.D. Nos.
8280,. 38281.)


An examination of the products, "ONCRETE POOL-
POOL PAINT flAT BRO CEOTS AGAINST GERMI
"ONORQB GERM-RID THE CONCRETE FLOOR P
AGAINST GERMS Ai D BACTERIA showed that it
which refalsee and mieading.
Oa Apgcst 17, 1 the .Stae Attorney for
acting upon a report b the S ecrtary Agriculture,
District Court balib praying seizure for condemnati
one-gallon ntainers, more or less, of "ONCRETE P
MInrO POOL APINT THAT PROTECTS AGAINST G
aafid 1 one-gaon @containers and 11' one-quart con
CONCRETEE GERM-RID THE CONCRETE FLOOR P
AGMNBI GERMS AND) BACTERIA," alleging that tl
poisons which had been transported interstate, ot or a
OGcrete Products entc, i P y.i
Insecticide, W gii at e o


It was alegedthat thioduct, 'ONO ET POOL-G
POOL PAIN Th ROTTS AiNST GERMS
misbraded wit t teank g of the act in at its

(Containe l ae I)


"ONONCR]
0 LO-A -,
EI -"Z
SWINIENG
PA TN


GARD THE SWIMMING
S AND BACTERIA" and
AINT THAT PROTECTS
s labeling bore statements

the District of Nebraska,
filed in the United States
on and confiscation of 20
'OOL-GARD THE SWIM-
ERMS AND BACTERIA"
tainers, more or less, of
AINT THAT PROTECTS
ie products were economic
bout February 5, 1960, by
violation of the Federal


ARD THE SWIMMING
AND BACTERIA," was
labeling bore the state-


TEE
ARD

POOL
T


THAT PROTECTS
AGAINST GERMS


AND


* ~g


BACTERIA


* .


P O Q GA-i
TRADE MARK


-. -~r -~ a -. a- n


?1;
": r'


1






8522371]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


This coating is designed to give maximum alkali, water and abrasion resistance.
This is a breather type of paint and therefore it should ndtOake off
*


DIRECTIONS
POOL-GARD should be used as furnished. Surfaces must be cleaned thoroughly
by removing all wax, dirt, grease, oil, soap or any other type corrosive material.
Be sure to scrape off all loose paint, etc. Surface then should be allowed to dry
before applying a coat of POOL-GARD.
POOL-GARD will dry in about thirty minutes; however for best results allow
forty-eight hours of drying before subjecting to severe rwvice.


(Folder CONCRETEE POOL-GARD")


K


POOL-G AR


The Swimming Pool Paint that
Germ-Proofs All Concrete Surfaces
SELF YOUR

FOR THS ris T 1IM IN A SWIMMING
POOL rflNrT! a e's revolutionary
NEW I A in W im pbol paint. A
completely new d se e paint for-
mulation fiat aetua ~Efls germs and
bacteria, retards bai1terikl slime, inhibits
growth of fungi, provi d thie safe sani-
tation for swimming pools never available
before. ,
NOTE :" Te t the potectite gem
etda iiaddltve used in P3l3 & AR
MUat Wite ies amn 0White.


BOUR HEt A
HEALTH PROTECTION FOR QUM,
DREN, YOURBELB X TVOUR GUFS4 NWT
thanks to POOLOA4 you cean provide
your children, yourself ~a d others with
this .important protective saea r PO OL
GAR)D gives the concrete surfaces of your
pool a rugged pi0tective and de"rative
coating ieiful beauty. PORD
resists alkali, water and abrasi a r
contains the most permanent germicide
Available. It actually makes these sur-
faces self disf eti i
ELI ATES
BACTERIAL SLIM
fn"tW Vrfr' CANT flU. fTTflr Au' smrrT.U' 9A7STL


IEr.
:E E


d V
" ", 4



4 :inri
; ~',3,",T"4


:~&"r~jqEjii


&:


i ~






2"78


INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


[I.F.R.N.J.


NOW


POOL-GARD
GIVES A


GERM-PROOFS A
TRULY BEAUTIFl


(1) sO EASY TO APPLY
POOL-GARD CAN BE APPLIED
WITH BRUSH, ROLLER OR
SPRAY. ..


(3) GIVESB ON;
SERVICE
POOJL-ARD is a
paint, therefore it
off.


LASTING


i Breather'
should not


type
Sake


ALL CONCRETE SURFACES
UL PROTECTIVE FINISH


AND


(12) DRIES FAST
POOL-GARD dries to touch in 30
minutes. (For best results allow 48
hour :before subjecting to severe
service.)
(4) POOL-GARD is NOT EXTREME-
LY high gloss. It produces a
o g that is less slippery when
wet;. AN ADDED SAFETY
FACTOR (Comes in 4 beautiful
Color and white.)


POOL-GARD gives germ killing
protection on any concrete
wall surface.


111 .*flr


(Folder "WHAT THE
PAINTING CONTRACTOR
SHOULD KNOW ABOUT
POOL-GARD ..")


C E *
GERM-PRO0IN QUALITIlES: POOL-
GARItS germ-proofing qualities are govern-
ment tested and will combat and control
bacterial lime. This isUm is a perpetual
problem in most swiiing pools and is easily
mistaken for algae. Algae can be controlled
by water soluble chemicals thrown onto the
water.


*
and such statements were false or misleading since they impleid or represented
that the product, when used as directed, (1) would kill all germs and bacteria,


(2) would provide pool wall surfaces that are permanently germicidal
sanitizing, and self-disinfecting, (3) would give gem killing protection
concrete wall surfaces, (4) would provide safe sanitation for swimming
and (5) could be relied upon to at &s a safeguard to protect the hea
children and other occupants o swimming pools; whereas, the product,


, self-
to all
pools,
Ith of
when


used as directed, (1) would not kill all germs and bacteria, (2) would not
provide pool wall surfaces that are permanently germicidal, self-sanitizing, or
self-disinfecting, (3) would hot give germ killing protection to all concrete wall
surfaces, (4) would not provide safe sanitation for swimming pools, and (5)
could not be relied upon to act as a safe-guard to protect the health of children
or other occupants of swimming pools.


It was alleged that
FLOOR PAINT THAT
misbranded within the
ments:
(Container label)


the product "ONCRETRB GERM-RID THE CONCRETE
PROTECTS AGAINST GERMS AND BACTERIA," was
meaning of the act in that its labeling bore the state-


"ON CRE TE
GERM-RID
*UTHE
3ONCORETE LOOR
PAINT


F, B I i i1311


-!3






352-371]


NOTICES


Or JUDGMENT


279


resistance to bacterial and fungus growths permitting germicidal protection.
GERM-RID incorporates one of the most peMnanent germicides available today.
It effectively combats the fungi formation known as mildew. When applied
to concrete, it will reduce the chances for contacting infections, such as athlete's
foot and ringworm.
:
DIRECTIONS
PREPARATION: Where mildew conditions exist on the surface to be painted,
wash completely with a solution consisting of one pound of trisodium
phosphate to the gallon of warm water in order to definitely remove all
traces of mildew. Then thoroughly rinse the surface with clear water and
allow to dry.
FOR HOME USE:
4NFAINTED CONCRETE FLOORS AND PATIOS
surfaces must be cleaned thoroughly by removing all wax, dirt, grease,
oil, soap or any other type corrosive materials. Surface then should be
allowed to dry before applying a first coat of ONORETE PRIMER (which
"eliinates acid cleaning). The finish colored coat of GERM-RID may be
ippbie 6 to 8 hours after using ONCRETE PRIMER, however, it must be
applied within 48 hours... The finish colored coat should be allowed to dry
for 24 hours before using.
%kO IDUSTRIAL USE:
UNJPAINTED CONCRETE FLOORS
Clean floor area thoroughly with Sani-Flush, muriatic acid or zinc sulphate
wash. Sani-Flush treatment is recommended, as follows:
Wet floor area, completely-Sprinkle Sani-Flush evenly over wetted
SIar ea-Swish broom across this area to distribute Sani-Flush evenly and
1work it into concrete-Allow to stand a minimum of 30 minutes and
I rinsee thoroughly with clean water. Allow to dry.
Apply coat of ONORETE PRIMER as it comes from can or colored GERM-RID
i one pint of ONCRETE THINNER to gallon. Follow with finish colored
Sat as it comes from can). If ONCRETE PRIMER is used as first coat,
aily fish coat within 6 to 48 hours. If GERM-RID is thinned for first coat,
finish coat may be applied any time after 6 hours, if normal drying conditions
exist.
. ii_ PRiEVIOIUSLY PAINTED FLOORS:
i remove all loose paint, dirt, wax, grease, oil or other corrosive elements
preferaby with Sani-Flush wash as noted above. Apply one or two coats
of GERM-RID as described.
FOR .PAINTING METAL
Mdtal must be completely clean--remove all loose rust and old paint before
l applnag one or two coats of GERM-RID as needed.

OS ONLY ONCIRETE THINNER OR PURE GUM TURPENTINE FOR
;THINNING GERM-RID OR FOR CLEANING BRUSHES.


V


)


ALWAYS STIR BEFORE USING.
** "


"SPREAD HEALTH"
Concrete Floors in Minutes
With
(4ERM-RID






280


INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


I.F.LRN.J.


PREVENTATIVE... Guard against the formation and growth of bacteria;
prevent reinfection.
CONCENTRATED__ 100% Killing power for fungi such as those that cause
athlete's foot and ringworm.
PERMANENT--- The. ms mo~s permanent 40i u
GERM-RID.
CONSTANT,-_._.. Anti-bacterial properties while the paint film is intact.
NON-TOXIC_._-_.- Safe in application; harmless in constant contact.
LABO TORY Scientific proof that concrete floors can be made self-ds-
infecting, far safer than ever before.
BXTf It and Four outstanding colors give colorful beauty and health
PROTECTION. protection against bacteria.
.~~~~~~~~~ $ $M.: &**. *//:* 'S/:


The makers of ONCRETE bring you a new concept in concrete paint.
New GERM-RIP makes your concrete floors actively germicidal. Its
multiple action growth-preventing and killing action against bacteria
and g&rms. (CIM-RnYS rt gertdde affords concentrated germ
g po i ab ldin can now have safe sanitation
eer a" MlS before. *
lithe f iLTS a recek by aw qi renowned testing laboratory.
I I LTOP E A H lf INSTTUTE, INC. -- -
H e e itJ.,iiiiii~li the- t4 0 T 8 JMAi iiiiifiiiiiiiiylJcJ ^. s ------ W i 4N:LX^.&:^j: .*.:l:':':4^^ *: :**


'Our tests demonstrate that surfaces painted with GERM-RID exhibit self-
disinfecting properties with respect to the three representative test organisms
used, namely:
1. Micrioccus pyioi e (Elxtrnalbacteri a )
2. Escherichia co (lTernal bacteria)
3. Trichophytoni 1ri4tigitale (Fungi of athlete's foot-ringworm)
'This germ killing acion should proie a beneficial effect, especially on
surfaces where it is difficult or uneebnmie to apply disinfectant solutions.
'GERM-RID imports anti-bacteral activity to the painted surfaces with
respect to the test organisms. It not only inhibits their growth and multi-
plication, but also pauses a %marked iILLING effect.'
**


and such statements were faIe or misle ding since they implied or
that the product, when used as directed, (1) would provide perman
cidal, actively germicidal, and self-disinfecting floors, (2) would i
tinuous health protection against bacteria, (3) would kill all ger
would prevent reinlectiors; whkseas, the< roadut, when used as d
would not provide permanently gemiciedtl, aetlyly germicidal, or s
ing floors, (2) would not provide continuous healthy protection again
(3) would not kill all germs, and (4) would not prevent reinfection.
Oncrete Poductp Co, Port Byron, Ill., claimed ownership of the I
requested their release since the products had been brought into corn
the act, and consented to the entry of a condemnation decree. On
1961, a deee condemnation was entered, and it was ordered that
be released towaimaut.


represented
gently germi-
provide con-
ms, and (4)
directed, (1)
elf-disinfect-
nst bacteria,
products and
pliance with
October 13,
the products


354. Lack of registration of "CONCENTRATED AROFECT DISINFECTANT."
U.S. v. 27 one-gallon containers, more or less, of "CONCENTRATED
AROFECT DISTINFETANT.", Trefgult decree of condemnation and for-
feiture, and release of the product to the Toledo Community Chest,
Toledo, Ohio. (I.F. & R,No,418. I.D. No. 40512.)


_






352-371]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


281


1961, by the Arrow Chemical Prodacts, Iaue. from Detroit, Mich., in violation
of the act.
It was alleged that the product was not registered with the Seeretary of Agri-
culture as required by section 4 of the act-
On November 30, 1961, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation
and forfeiture was entered, and the United States Marshal was ordered to release
the product to the Toledo Community Chest, without cost, for their Lse.

355. Lack of registration and required information on label, and misbranding
of "KELLERMEYER CHEMICAL CO. MASTER PINE OIL DISIN-
FECTANT." U.S. v. 25 onegallon cans, more or less, of "KELLER-
MEYER CHEMICAL CO. MASTER PINE OIL DISINFECTANT." De-
fault decree of condemnation and forfeiture, and release of the product
to the Toledo Community Chest, Toledo, Ohio. (.LF. & R. No. 419. I.D.
No. 40517.)
The product, "KELLERMEYER CHEMICAL CO. MASTER PINE OIL
DISINFECTANT," 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 a statement of net weight or
measure of the contents of the containers, an ingredient statement, or directions
for use.
On November 1, 1961, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of
Ohio, Western Division, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture,
filed in the United States District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation
an confiscation of 25 one-gallon cans, more or less, of "KELLERMEYER
iG HMICAL CO. MASTER PINE OIL DISINFECTANT," at Toledo, Ohio,
tiegirg that the product was an economic poison which had been transported
interstate, on or about August 1, 1961, by Arrow Chemical Products, Inc., from
Detroit, Mich., 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.
I t was alleged that the product failed to comply with the provisions of the
in that the labels affixed to the containers of the product did not bear a state-
Lontt of the net weight or measure of the contents of the containers.
SIt was further alleged that the product was misbranded in that the labels
7 4sied to the containers of the product did not bear an ingredient state-
t 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 name 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 wap further alleged that the product was misbranded within the meaning
of the act in that the labels did not contain directions for use which are neces-
ary and, if complied with, adequate for the protection of the public.
f bOn November 30, 1961, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation
ant forefeiture was entered, and the United States Marshal was ordered to
release the product to the Toledo Community Chest, without cost, for their use.


i C Lack orlegistratio
EMUL ION" and
DUST." U.S..V, v
CIDES ENDRIN


Stwenty-five-pound
STOXAPHENE D


n of ELCO INSECTICIDES ENDRIN AND DDT
t "PELCO INSECTICIDES 14-7 TOXAPHIENE DDT
r one-gallon jugs, more or less, of "PELCO INSECTI-
AND DDT EMULSION" and 9 fifty-pound hags and 10
bags, more or less, of "PELCO INSECTICIDES 14-7
hT DUST." Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture,


6;


"::
""I



"EE
)r:


B;

C
,Ej
I
X
i" b"



"E
:",
i

Eg
Ei
(E"






282


INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


rI.F.R.N.J.


or less, of "PELCO INSECTICIDES 14-7 TOXAPHENE DDT DUST," at South
Hill, Va., alleging that the products were economic poisons which had been trans-
pbrted interstate, on or about May 29, 1961, by W. R. Peele Company, Inc., from
Clayton, N.., i violation -of. the act.
It was alleged that the products were not registered with the Secretary of
rAgriculture as require by Weetion 4 of the a ct.
On September 20,1961, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation
and forfeiture was entered and the United States Marshal was ordered to

357. .Lk of registration and misbranding of "NO-RUB FOR GLASS." U.S. v.
1~,4U ne-pint containers, more or less, of "NO-RUB FOR GLASS."
Default decree of condemnation and forfeiture. (I.F. & No. .
I.D. No. 38681.)
The product, "NO-RUB FOR GLASS," was not registered under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, ad Rodenticide Act and the labels afxf. t con-


trainers of theproduct bore false or misleading statements.
On May 18, 1961, the United States Attorney for the Distect
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, fied in
District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and co
one-pint containers, more or less, of "NO-RUB FOR GLASS,"
alleging that the product was an economic poison wchih had
interstate, on or about April 11, 1961 and April 20, 1961, by
Co., Inc., from New York, N. Y., in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the product was not registered with
Agriculture as required by section 4 of the act.
It was further alleged that the product was misbranded wi
of the act in that its labeling bore the statements:


,,


of Massachusetts,
the United States
nfiscation of 1,413
at Boston, Mass.,
been transported
Wilbert Products


the


Secretary


within the weaniang


"No-rub
FOR
GLASS
the
GLASS
and
METAL
CLEANER


NEW!
GERM PROOFs
AS If CLEANS
*
DISINFECTS TOO:
:..
FOLLOW THESE SIMPLE DIRECTION S
WILBERT "NO-RUB" FOR (4LASS cleans, polishes and disinfects all
glass and metal surfaces without hard rubbing. Simply wipe "No-Rub"
For Glass on the surface to be cleaned, allow t to dry for a few seconds,
then wipe off with a clean DRY cloth. All dir, stains, tarnish and film
come off as itf by magic A cellulose sponge is most convenient to use on
windows and mirrors. On silverware and other metals a soft cloth
should be used.
*on
and 8ucrh statements cwA fniuK nr itmiFMl||ntW Crinro n thonr inliod nri rcnrac.aanfcau


i 11;' "; ~


.11


Y:^~r






832-371]


NOIES OF


JUDGMENT


288


358. Misbranding of IRIVERDALE BACK RUBBER SOLUTION." U.S. v. 7
five-gallon cans, morelor :less of "RIVERDALE BACK RUBBER SOLU-
TION." Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction.
(I.F. & R. No. 415. I.D. No.39634.)
An examination of the product 'tRIVERDALE BACK RUBBER SOLUTION,"
showed that it contained an ipgretien not named in the ingredient statement
and that when used as directed or in anqqrdanCee with commonly recognized prac-
tice, the product would be injurious to living man or other vertebrate animals.
On October 9, 1961, the United States Attorney for the Western District of
Wisconsin, acting upon a report by the Seeretaft of Agriculture, filed in the
United States District Couirt a libel praying seizure for condemnation and con-
fiscation of 7 five-gallon cans, more or less, of "RIVERDALE BACK RUBBER
SOLUTION," at Platteville, Wise. alleging that the product was an economic
poison which had been transported interstate onf or about July 6, 1961, by the
Riverdale Chemical Company from Chicago Heights, Il., in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the labeling of the product did not bear an ingredient state-
ment within the meaning of the act since the product contained an active in-
gredient, namely aldrin, which was not set forth in the ingredient statement on
the labeling.
It was further alleged that the product was misbranded Within the meaning of
the act in that the product, when used as directed or in accordance with com-
monly recognized practice, would be injurious to living man or other vertebrate
animals.
On November 6, 1961, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation
and forfeiture was entered and the United States Marshal was ordered t6 destroy
the product.
359. Lack of registration and misbranding of "VERISHEEN WITH GERMI-
CIDE." U.S. v. one drum containing fifty-five gallons, more or less, of
"VERISHEEN WITH GERMICIDE. Consent decree of condemnation
and release under bond. (I.F. & R. No. 406. LD. No. 40113.)
The product, "VERISHEEN WITH GERMICIDE," was riot registered under
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, and the labels affixed to
the containers bore statements which were false or misleading.
On July 28, 1961, the United States Attorney for the District of Maine,
Southern Division, acting upon a report by the Seeretary of Agriculture, filed in
the United States District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and
confiscation of one drum containing fifty-five gallons, more or less, of "VERI-
SHEEN WITH GERMICIDE," at Augusta, Maine, alleging that the product was
an economic poison which had been transported interstate, on or about March 17,
1961, by The Veritas Company, Inc., from Medway, Mass., 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 further alleged that the product was misbranded within the meaning
of the act in that the label stated in part:
*
VERIS H EEN
WITH
GERMI IDE
DIRECTIONS FOR UBLE: For general light cleaning of walls, floors,
furniture, etc., use a dilution oz. of Verisheen w/Germicide per gallon of
water.
.T S._ -_ -_j*__- ...... S- _-3- j- I -, SA l j l-- __ -n A






284


INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICI DE


ACT


SI.F.R.N.J.


with the act and consented to the entry of a condemnation decree. On October
18i 191, a consent decree of condemnation was entered and the product was
eteaset the claimant under bond.
360. M~anding of RIVERDALE BACK RUBBER SOLUTION. U.S. v. I
fivegallon tap, more or less, of "RIVERDALE BACK RUBBER SOLU-
TION." Dealt decree of condemnation, forfeiture and destruction.
(I, & B. No. 423. I.D. No. 39674.)
An exapiina4 of the product, "~iyERDALE BACK RUBBER SOLU-
TION," showed that it contained an inrwtent not named in the ingredient
statement and that when usqd as directed or in accordance with commonly
recogied -practice, the product would be .njurioe to living man or ae
vertehate animals.
On November 28, 1961, the United States Attorney for the Northern District
of Indiana, Sputh Bend DiviWon, acting upon a report by the Secretary of
Agriculture, filed in the Unlitpd States Cistrict uflrt a libel praying seizure
for condenation and confiscatioq of 1 five-gallon can, more or less, of "RIVER-
DALE BfOK RUBBER SOLUTION," at Rochester, Ind., alleging that the
product was an economic poison which had been transported interstate on or
about June 20, 1961, by the Riverdale Chemlcal Company from Chicago Heights,
Ill., in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the labeling of the product did not bear an ingredient
statement within the meaning of the act since the product contained an active
ingredient, namely aldrin, which was not set forth in the ingredient statement
on the labeling.
It was further alleged that the product was misbranded within the meaning
of the act in that the product, when used as directed or in accordance with
commonly recognized practice, would be injurious to living man or other
vertebrate animals.
On December 29, 1961, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation
and destruction was entered, and the United States Marshal was ordered to
destroy the product.
361. Lack of required information on label and misbranding of "ME-HI ELEC-
TRONIC BUG KILLER" Units. U.S. v. 287, more or less, "ME-HI
ELECTRONIC BUG KILLER" Units. Default decree of condemnation,
forfeiture and destruction. (I.F. & R. No. 417. I.D. No. 39588.)
An examination of the product, "ME-HI ELECTRONIC BUG KILLER" Units,
showed that the labels affixed to the containers of the product did not bear a
statement of net weight or measure of the contents of the containers, a warning
or caution statement, nor an ingredient statement as required by the net: and
the claims made on the labels were otherwise false and islea d ing.
On November 8, 1961, 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 287, more or less, "ME-HI ELECTRONIC BUG KILLER" Units, at Atlantic
City, N.J., alleging that the product was an econpmie poison which had been
transported interstate, on or about ;ugust 29, 1961, by Me-Hi Enterprise, Inc.,
from Los Angeles, Calif., in violation of thd act,
It was alleged that the prodluci failed to comply with the provisions of section


3 of the act in that the labels affixed to the containers of the
bear a statement of the net weight or measure of the cobients o
It was alleged that the product was misbranded within the
act in that the labels affixed to the containers of the product


product did not
f the containers.
meaning of the
did not bear an


,EP






352-3711


? qfEs OF


JDGMhENT


285


(Retail Carton


"ME-HI
ELECTRONIC BUG E
ELECTRONICALLY 4
CONVECTION DRIY


MILLERR
CONTROLLED
VAPORIZER


'olde
Reta
K
I
L
L
S


Inside ME-H
Carton) BUG
FLIES
ROACHES:
MOTHS
ANTS
FLEAS
SI LV ERFISH
SPIDERS
MO SQ UITOS
CRICKETS
MOST INSECTS


I ELECTRONIC
KILLER
SURE DEATH
TO EXPOSED
PESTS & INSECTS

"V


*r *


ME-HI


BUG


KILLER:


Controls insects up to 15000 cubic
feet with normal ventilation. Is
economical. Uses no more current
Than an electric clock.


*; *


ME-HI


ME-HI


BUG


BUG


K I LLER:


KILLER:


Is clean and o
harm Humans,
and is safe to
directed.
Permeates the
secticide. Bugs
They can't escs


dorless. It will not
Pets, Food, or Plants,
use, when used as

air with Lindane in-
s crawl away and die.
tpe it.


You can't see it or taste it. Has
no effect on skin, clothing or furni-
ture. This is a proven product.
Thousands are now in use.

and such statements were false or misleading since they implied or represented
that the product, when used as directed, (1) would be harmless to humans, pets,
and food, (2) would be safe under all conditions of use, (3) would kill roaches,
moths, ants, fleas, silverfish, spiders, crickets, and all other insects implied by
the term "most insects," and (4) would cause "sure death" to all exposed pests
and insects; whereas, the product, when used as directed, (1) would not be harm-
less to humans, pets, and food, (2) would not be safe under all conditions of use,
(3) would not kill roaches, moths, ants, fleas, silverfish, spiders, crickets, or all


other insects implied by the
death" to all exposed pests a
On December 27, 1961, no
and forfeiture was entered,
destroy the product.


term "most insects," and (4) would not cause "sure
nd insects.
claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation
and it was ordered that the United States Marshal


362. Lack of registration of "IMPROVED 'FLY GONE' FLY AND INSECT
KILLER." U.S. v. 21 units, more or less, of "IMPROVED 'FLY GONE'
FLY AND INSECT KILLER." Default decree of condemnation, for-
feiture and destruction. (I.F. & R. No. 398. I.D. No. $8531.)






286


INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


[I.F.B.N.J.


which had been
Home Mfg. & Sal
It was alleged
culture as require
On August 24,
forfeiture and de
Marshal destroy


transported interstate on or
es Co., from Piqua, Ohio, in vio
that the product was not regi
ed by section 4 of the act.
1961, no claimant having api
destruction was entered, and it v
the product.


about December 12, 1960, by The
nation of the act.
ste red i th&w e Secretary of Agn-

peared, a decree of condemnation,
vas ordered that the United States


363. Lack of registration of "MATTRESS SPRAY BED FRESHENER." U.S. v.
464 six-ounce containers, more or less, of a product labeled in part
"MATTRESS SPRAY BED FRESHENER." Default decree of condem-
nation, forfeiture and destruction. (I.F. & R. No. 434. I.D. No. 41037.)


The product "MATTRESS
under the Federal Insecticide+
On February 26, 1962, the
chusetts, acting upon a report
States District Court, a libel


SPRA!
Fungic
United
by the
prayiw


Y BED FRESHENER" was not
ide, and Rodenticide Act.
States Attorney for the District
Secretary of Agriculture, filed in
, seizure for condemnation and c


registered

of Massa-
the United
confiscation


of 464 six-ounce containers, more or Ipss, of "MATTRESS SPRAY BED FRESH-
ENER," at Boston, Ma. aegig hat t g product was an economic poison
which had been tansporte interat n or about November 22, 1961, by O'Neill
Brands, Inc., from Pi1adlpia Va., iolktiin of the act.
It was alleged that the product was ttered with the Secretary of Agri-
culture as required under section 4 of e act.
On April 2, 1962, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation and
forfeiture was entered ind it wt orere4 th t the product be destroyed.
364. Misbranding of "CLEAN RAY ULTRAVIOLET STERILIZER MODEL GB-
1-15A." U.S. v. 4 articles, more or less, labeled in part "CLEAN RAY
ULTRAVIOLET STERILIZER MODEL GB-1-15A." Default decree of
condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I.F. & R. No. 403. I.D. No.
40050.) f
The article "CLEAN RAY ULTrAVIOLET STERILIZER MODEL
GB-1-15A" was recomnmenied to sterile arb ber and beauty shop tools. How-
ever, when tested, the artidee was found to t ineffective for these purposes.
On July 6, 1961, the TUnited States Attorney for the Middle District of Ten-
nessee, Nashville Division, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture,
filed in the nite State District libel praying seizure for condemnation
and confiscation of 4i articles, more or less, labeled in part "CLEAN RAY
ULTRAVIOLET STERILIZER MODEL GB-1-15A," at Nashville, Tenn., and
alleging that the artie as an economic poison which had been transported
interstate on or about April 3, 1961, by E. Morris Manufacturing Company, from
Detroit, Mich., in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the article was misbranded within the meaning of the act
in that its labeling bore the statements:


"INFRA
CORP.
OLARKSTON MICHIGAN
*USA


Ultraviolet


STERILIZER
CAUTION
THIS STERILIZER IS DESIGNlED FOR USE WITH GERMI-
OIDAL LAMPS AND MUST BE INSTALLED IN COMPLIANCE
WITH COMPETENT rTrfTilAT, nDTrTi'PTO~In n rnA rnuAi


Clean Ray






352-371]


NOTICES OF


JUDGMENT


287


2. Care of Tube.
a. The expected life of the Germi'idol Tube is one year. It is norma
the tube to produce blue light beyond the effective life of germni
radiations.
b. Cleanliness is an important factor in the efficiency of this unit.
tube must be kept free of dust and grease films. Also the reflector
tray should be dusted frequently with a dry cloth.
c. Adequate sterilization occurs within four minutes after tools are
posed to direct rays within the cabinet.


I for
didal


Sex-


* *


FOR


YOUR PROTECTION


THE TOOLS USED IN THIS
SHOP ARE STERILIZED BY
CLEAN RAY ULTRA VIOLET
INFRA Corporation-Clarkston, Michigan


and such statements were false or
that the articles, when used as
shop tools; whereas, the articles,
barber and beauty shop tools.
On January 5, 1962, no claiman
and forfeiture was entered, and
destroy the articles.


misleading since they implied or represented
directed, would sterilize barber and beauty
when used as directed, would not sterilize

t having appeared, a decree of condemnation
the United States Marshal was ordered to


365. Lack of registration, lack of required information, and misbranding of
"PARA DICHLOROBENZENE." U.S. v. 1432 packages, more or less, of
"PARA DICHLOROBENZENE." Default decree of condemnation, for-
feiture, and destruction. (IF. & R. No. 421. I.D. No. 40972.)


The product


"PARA


DICHLOROBENZENE"


was not registered


under the


Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, and an examination of the
product showed that the label affixed to the containers of the product did not
bear a statement of net weight or measure of the contents of the containers.
The examination further showed that the label did not bear an ingredient state-


meant as required by
did not bear a stat
registrant, or person
On November 21,
Island, acting upon
States District Cour


he act and the label affixed to the containers of the product
ment giving the name and address of the manufacturer,
or whom the product was manufactured.
961, the United States Attorney for the District of Rhode
report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United
a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation


of 1432 packages, more or less, of "PARA DICHLOROBENZENE," at Provi-
dence, R.I., alleging that the product was an economic poison which had been


transported interstate on
Malden, Mass., in violation
It was alleged that the
culture as required by sect
It was further alleged
of the act in that the label
a statement of the net i
It was further alleged 1
the act in that the label o
address of the manufactu
a statement of the name,


S. -.._ ------__---


I m- lr ,l -- i* iflflfl I


or about September 7, 1961
of the act.
product was not registered
ion 4 of the act.
that the product failed to
1 affixed to the containers
eight or measure of the


, by Blox Chemical Co., from

L with the Secretary of Agri-

comply with the provisions
of the product did not bear
contents of the containers.


that the product did not comply with the provisions of
in the immediate containers did not bear the name and
Lrer, registrant, or person for whom manufactured, or
brand, or trademark under which the article was sold.
4-h+t 4-ha

..






288


INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODE5NTICIDE


ACT


[I.L.R.N.J.


366. Lack of registration, lack of required information, and misbranding of
"HARI-KARI LINDANE VAPORIZING UNITS" and lack of registration
of "NEODANE PELLETS." U.S. v. 359, more or less, "HARI-KARI
LINDANE VAPORIZING UNITS" and 49 cartons, more or less, each
containing twelve packages of "NEODANE PELLETS." Default decree
of condemnation, forfeiture and destruction. (I.F. & R. No. 405. I.D.
Nos. 39367, 39368.)
The products "HARI-KARI LINDANE VAPORIZING UNITS" and "NEO-
DANE PELLETS" were not registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rotenticide Act. An examination of the "HARI-KARI LINDANE VAPOR-
IZING UNITS" showed that the label affixed to the containers of the product
did not bear a statement of net weight or measure of contents or an ingredient
statement as required by t"he act.
On August 3, 1961, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of
Texas, Dallas Divisin at upon a report byl the Secretary of Agricultlure
filed in the United Sta District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation
and confiscation of 359, more or less, "HARI-KARI LINDANE VAPORIZING
UNITS" and 4f- cattone more or less, each containing twelve packages of
"'NEODANE PELLETS," at Greenville, Texas, alleging that the products were
economic poisons which had been transported interstate on or about March 8
and June 1, 1961, by The Neodane Company, from Torrance, Calif., 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.


It was further alleged that the labels on the reta
KARI LINDANE VAPOIV ING UNITB" did not be
weight or measure of the contents of the containers.
It was further alleged that the labels on the reta
KARI LINDANE VAPORIZING UNITS" were misbr
of the act m that their labels did not bear an ingred
name and percentage of each active ingredient, tog
centage of the inert ingredients, in the units, or, in the
statement giving the name of eaqe active ingredien
of each and total percentage of the inpr ingredients, in
04October 4, 19 1, no claimant bpving appeared,
demnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was
States Marshal destroythe products


il
ar


cartons of the "HARI-
a statement of the net


il cartons of the "HARI-
anded within the meaning
client statement giving the


ether with the to
i alternative, an ing
t, together with h
the units.
a default decree
ordered that the


tal per-
gredient
ie name
of con-
United


367. Lack of registration of "MILDARE PXY 75N." U.S. v. one drum contain-
ing 100 pounds, more or less, of "ILDARE PXY 75N." Default decree
of condemnatiptI forfeiture, and destruction. (I.F. & R. No. 424. I.D.
No. 4094.)
The product, "MILDARI PXY 75N," ras not registered under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
On December 14, 1961, the United States Attorney for the District of Massa-
chusetts, acting upon a report by the Sgwetary of Agriculture, filed in the United
States District Court a lbe praying u for condemnation and confiscation
of one drum containing 400 punds, moe or less, of "MILDARE PXY 75N," at
Amesbury, Mats., lraeging that the )roduet was an economic poison which had
been transported titeretate, on or about September 22, 1961, by Metro-Atlantic, i
Incorporated, from Centredale, R.I., in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the product was not registered with the Secretary of Agri- i
culture as required by section 4 of the act.





352-371]


NOTICES


~vw


289


368. Lack of registration of "EGG CLEANER-SANITIZER," "D&L UDDER
WASH," and "C50 RINSE." U.S. v, 1 three-pound containers and three
one-hundred-pound containers,e or less, of "EGG CLEANER-
SANITIZER," 35 one-quart containers and 80 one-gallon containers,
more or less, of "D&L UDDER WASH," and 28 one-quart containers
and 80 one-gallon containers, more or less, of "C50 RINSE." Consent
decree of condemnation and release of products for purpose of bringing
them into compliance with the act. (I.F. & R. No. 350. I.D. Nos. 35857,
35858, 35859.)
The products, "EGG CLEANER-SANITIZER," "D&L UDDER WASH," and
"C50 RINSE" were not registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act.
On April 15, 1960, the United States Attorney for the Western 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 con-
fiscation of 155 three-pound containers and three one-hundred-pound containers,
more or less, of "EGG CLEANER-SANITIZER," 35 one-quart containers and
80 one-gallon containers, more or less, of "D&L UDDER WASH," and 23 one-
quart containers and 80 one-gallon containers, more or less, of "050 RINSE"
at LaCrosse, Wis., alleging that the products were economic poisons which had
been transported interstate on or about January 13, 1960, by Kern-Stone Products
Company, from Chicago, Ill., in violation of the act.


It was alleged
Agriculture as req
Del Atkinson d,
products and req
compliance with 1


that the products were not r
luired by section 4 of the act.
/b/a D&L Products, LaCrosse
luested their release for the
the act and consented to the


registeredd


with


the Secretary of


, Wis., claimed ownership of the
purpose of bringing them into
entry of a condemnation decree.


On April 25, 1962, a consent decree of condemnation was entered, and it was
ordered that the condemned products be released to the claimant.
369. Lack of registration of "SANI-CAL QUATERNARY AMMONIUM CON-
CENTRATED GERMICIDE." U.S. v. 23 one-gallon containers, more or
less, of "SANI-CAL QUATERNARY AMMONIUM CONCENTRATED
GERMICIDE." Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruc-
tion. (I.F. & R. No. 431. I.D. No. 40476.)


The product, "SANI-CA
GERMICIDE," was not re
Rodenticide Act.
On February 27, 1962, 1
of Florida, acting upon a
United States District Coi
fiscation of 23 one-gallon


NARY
alleging
intersta
Atlanta
It wa
culture


AB
tl
Lte,
, G
s a
as


IMONI
hat the
on or
8a., in v
alleged 1
require


UM
pro
abo
iola
that
d by


CO:
duct
ut S
tion
the
sect


LL QUATERNARY AMMONIUM CONCENTRATED
gistered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and


the United
report by
urt a libel i
containers,


NCENTRAT
was an eco
september 28


States Attorney for the Southern District
the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
rayingg seizure for condemnation and con-
, more or less, of "SANI-CAL QUATER-
EDI GERMICIDE," at Jacksonville, Fla.,
)nomic poison which had been transported
,, 1961, by The Dettelbach Co., Inc., from


of the act.
product was not registered with the Secretary
:ion 4 of the act.


of Agri-


On March 28, 1962, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation
and forfeiture was entered and the United States Marshal was ordered to
destroy the product.


Misbrandin
container
~ndl anra a


lg of "HH 10% CHLORDANE DUST." U.S. v. 103 one-pound
*s, more or less, of '"HH 10% CHLORDANE DUST." Default
an1 aonm of r sanIn r orf 4itm Qnr anrral unwyrtriA nrataraal +*n ito rAaluauarndi






290


INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


[ I.F.R.N.J.


at West Concord, Mass., alleging that the product was
which had been transported interstate on or about June 6!
1961, by the Hubbard-Hall Chemical Company, from Port
tipn of the act.
It was alleged that the product was misbranded within
act in that its labels bore the statement:
o0%
Chlordane
1 dust
Cotrotls Japanese Beetle rGnb ts,
Outworms, Chinehbugs & Wireworms
eta" g@ 4~ri


an economic poison
, 1961, and August 2,
land, Conn., in viola-
n the meaning of the


DIRE0IONS TOR UKE
Lawns

Garden Soils
** *
THE HUBBARD HALL
CHEMICAL CO.
Waterbury, "doinecticut

ONE POUND
This can contains one pound net
of material as indicated. Con-
siderable settling may have
occurred due to shipping and
handling.


and such statement was false or misleading since it represented
weight of the product was one pound, whereas the Uit we i t of
was less than one pound.
On March 29, 1962, no claimant having appeared, a decree of c
and forfeiture was entered, and the product was ordered to be
given to a charitable institution.


that the net
the product


ondemnat ion
destroyed or


371. Lack of registration and required information on label and misbranding of
"STERI-TIZED 301." U.S. v. 99 bottles, more or less, each containing
approximately two ounces, of "STERI-TIZED 301." Default decree of
condemnation, forfeiture and destruction. (I.E. & R. No. 387. I.D. No.
39411.)
The product, "STERI-TIZED 301" was not registered under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act; the labels affixed to the containers
of the product did not bear the name and address of the manufacturer, regis-
trant, or person for whom the product was manufactured; the labels did not bear
a statement of net weight or measure of the contents of the containers; and the
labels did not bear an ingredient statement as required by the act.
On March 23, 1961, 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 ebemnation and confiscation of 99
bottles, more or less. each containing atnroximatelv two ounces. of "STERI-





352-371] NOTICES OF JUDGMENT 291

did not bear a statement of net weight or measure of the contents of the
containers.
It was further alleged that the product was misbranded in that the labels
affixed to the containers of the product did not bear an ingredient statement
giving the name and percentage of each active ingredient, together with the
total percentage of the inert ingredients in the product, or an ingredient state-
ment giving the name of each active ingredient, together with the name of each
and total percentage of the inert ingredients.
On January 29, 1962, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation
and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.










.1
H



:ii
HI



:'



II



.il
II


I
*i






p


;i; i" it


: E

i"


1 i.l",

F. .E:: E i E i
x"

";,r~;"i;



i ,,

:: j "E i i i ~ j


E""e ~::,i: :::*~

~ i:: Exl "" i I

E""iP:~ "

i; i ; (I













UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


11111 111111 IIIIII11111 1111111 111111 111111111 IiiUiII
3 1262 08588 8393





*iH:
gi*



"il
.....













I!



Hi
..







......l



iii

III
H*
















.1
"**






H!!











...i
.i'ii..









"I


]i