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:
AA00008500:00010

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
Ut
I


N.J., I.F.R. 372-396


Issued


May


1963


UNITED


STATES


DEPARTMENT


OF


AGRICULTURE


AGRICULTURAL


RESEARCH


SERVICE


PESTICIDES REGULATION


DIVISION


NOTICES


JUDGMENT
FUNGICIDE,


UNDER
AND R


THE


FEDERAL


ODENTICIDE


INSECTICIDE,


ACT


Nos.


372-396


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).
51. R. CLARKSON,
Acting Administra.tor, Agricultural Research Service.
WASHINGTON, D.C., December 10, 1962


372. Misbranding of "PINE ODOR DIS
containers, more or less, and 72
"PINE ODOR DISINFECTANT."
feiture, and destruction. ,(I.F. & R


The product "PINE ODOR DISIN
meaning ,ot. the Federal Insecticide, F
labeling for the product bore false and 1
On September 13, 1961, the United
of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, ac
Agriculture, filed in the United States
condemnation and confiscation of 43 o
one-pint containers, more or less, of "P
apoli, Ind., alleging that the product
transported interstate on or about Jan
facturing Company from Cleveland, 01
It was alleged that the product was
in that its labeling bore the statements:


INFECTANT."


one-pint containers, more or less, of
Default decree of condemnation, for-
. No. 411. I.D. Nos. 38792, 40081.)


FECTANT" was misbranded within the
ungicide, and Rodenticide Act in that the
misleading statements.


States
*ting u
Distri
ne-gall
INE O
was a
uary 4
1io, in


Attorney for the SoutL
pon a report by the
ct Court a libel praying
on containers, more or
DOR DISINFECTANT
n economic poison whi
and June 19, 1961, by
violation of the act.


iern District
Secretary .,of
g seizure for
less, and 72
," at Indian-
ch had been
Hunt Manu-


misbranded within the meaning of the act


"PINE ODOR
DISINFECTANT
*


Co-op Pine Odor Disinfectant
tion of ingredients used in the
i nrl l-f-a- Ti- n-,n 3-- i'rl


is a combina-
finest of hospital


13 one-gallon




... ...x:;- ; .. ..;r "ia~;B '"; '~'; i

an Annrn.,f n.r. ,TflA aNT RnDENITTCIDE ACT (I.F.R.N.J


INSEC1ICIDE,


DIRECTIONS for use--Homes and Related uses
Add to Water
Purpose Strength 1 gal. 100 gal. Comments


loors 4 tbsp. 1 gal. Scrub freely with this
oo1% sohtiot .

Woodwork
Tile
Cabiets
Closets

Sickroom 1% 4 tbsp. 1 gal. Was h lavatory, tub,
stool, walls and sick-
Ba th room room articles.
4"
andnb statements were false or misleading since they implied or represented
that the prodet, when aped as directed, (1) would disinfect floors, woodwork,
tile, cabinets, loss, a articles an surfaces in sickrooms and bathrooms
(2) would kill the pus gen (taphyloCocCus aureus), and (3) would be effective
for use as a disinfectant hospitals as was claimed or implied; whereas, fhS
prodt, when used as directed, (1) would not disinfect floors, woodwork, tile,
cabinets, closets, or articles and surfaces in sickrooms and bathrooms, (2) would
aot kill the pus germ (taifbylococcus aureus), and (3) would not be elective
or use asa disinfectant in hospitals as was claimed or implied.
On December 2, 191, n laimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation
aLei~te was enter and the United States Marshal was ordered to
dtroy the product.


Lack of registration and misbranding of "SAF-T-CLEAN P4
CLEANER." U.S. v. 118 one-quart containers, more or less, o
labeled in part "SAF-T-CLEAN PORCELAIN CLEANER."
of ownership by owner and the court ordered the product
(I.F. & No. 416. L.D. No. 40405.)


3RCELAIN
if a product
Disclaimer
destroyed.


he product "SAF-T-CLHAN PORCELAIN CLEANER" was not registered
under the Federal Ise Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and an examina-
tion of the product showed that the label affixed to the containers did not bear
an ingredient statement .
On October 23, 191, *the United States Attorney for the Western District of
Tennessee, Western Division, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agncul-
ture, filed in the United States District Court, a libel praying seizure for con-
demnation and confiscation of 118 one-quart containers, more or less, of
"SAF-T-CLEAN PORCELAIN CLEANER," at Memphis, Tenn., alleging that the
product was an economic poison which had been transported interstate on or
about July10,1961, by James Varley & Sons, Inc., from St. Louis, Mo., in violation
of the act.
It was qeged that the product was not registered with the Secretary of
Agriculture as required by section 4 of the act.
T4 m-n anla Ar-' t''^ 'hnrrunir t- wnui mishranded in that the label borne by the I


~~yurrr


RI~ Y


P U rr ur~l vu ~






372-S9tfl]


NOT~ICS


JtUflGMENT


295


374. Misbranding of pape vacuum ocaner bags "CHEMICALLY
TREATED WITH NIOMORGERM." U.S. 5810, meoft or less, paper
vacuum cleaner bags CHEMICALLY .TREATED WITH NO-
MORGERM." Claimant removed product from under jurisdiction of the
act. (I.F. & B: oI 40W1. L D. No. 8980.1)
eU *ihiuatLon 0f the product, parer vacuum cleaner bags *
!iCHEMICALLY TREATEt WITU NOMORGERM" showed that its labeling
bore statements which were false tnd misleading ;and that the labels affixed to
the containers of tp produi did pot bear an ingredient statement as required by
the act.
On June 27, 1961, the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New
f'aci d g uipo a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United
tts Districete Court a libel praying Meizure fof condemnation and confiscation
f 5100, more or less, paper vacaum eleaner bags "CHEMICALLY
TREATED WITH NOMAORGERM," at Brooklyn, NX.Y., alleging that the product
was an economic poison which had been transported interstate ion or about April
*G M ay 10, 1961, ,by Padeo Mantacturing Co., Inc., from New Brunswick, N J.,
inolation df the Federal Insecticide, Fungeide, and Rodenticide Act.
It was alleged that the product was misbranded within the meaning of the act
in that its labeling bore the statements:
v" HAVE BEEN CHEMICALLY
S- TREATED WITH *
SNO OR G E RM
S: The new miracle germicide
0BMWALY TREATED WITH
*I OMO R GERE
'The Germ Killer'
s I; 1 : *


WV r
:"~l ~4'%1 Th ~;,
I"F~si"8,1 8
,,% .P i4


DISPOSABLE
V ACUUM,
CLEAN:E
*



Guaranteed for your protection this bag has been chemically treated with
pOMQO E R ,heaew miracle germicide that is unconditionally guaranteed
Syestry on contact bacteria drawn into this bag in cleaning
Stao, hremafitat full germ killing potency for the life of the bag.
Now! In addition to picking up dust, your machine will circulate pure, un-
contaminated air free of diseasease carrying bacteria-no other ,bag can offer this
vital family health protection. Be sure the bags you buy have the NOMOR-
GRRM double gurantee.

Attate nts were false or misdeading since they implied or represented
reclwhen ausedoas 0treate4, (1) woQld kill all germs and act as a
(2) wmld destroy on entaet all bacteria drawn into the bag, :(3")
would result in the circulation of air which is free of disease carrying bacterial
and (4) would provide v famlly? health protection; whereas; the product
when used as diretedl r (1) wol not k ll:Q$ germs or act as a germicide, (2)
would not destroy on contact all bacteria dBwu into4ht bag, (8) would not ire-
sit in the circulation of air which is freeAdisgea pe carrying bacteria, and ii(9
would not provide vital family health on.
was further alleged that misbranded within the meaning
f.the net in that its label did n4 ti krtiedientnt statement vine the nnmP







S


INSEC iICIDE


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


[I.F.R.N.J.


7L. oi~r fistratior of "RI-H MALATHION 57%", "REPEL INSECT RE-
PELLENIp R4M DIELDRIN 17%", and "R-H DALIRHAP." U.S. v. 48
oeib- pint containers, more or less, 60 eight-ounce containers, more or less,
Sand 168 four-ounce ntinerr lessi eR -H MALATHION 57%";
156 five-ounce containers, mre or. less, of REPEL INSECT REPEL-
LENT"; 48 iht-onrace contawets, more or ls, 204 one-quart bottles,
org ore and 2 one-pint containers, more or less, of '"R-H DIEL-
N nd 4 -o ht-bi ntaimners,s more or less, and 24 one-pint
r .tntateir bEa iIALIoA Consent decree of con-
demnaioin a reeae iund bb ld: 1(IF.F & ItNo. 414. I.D. Nos. 40703,
p407o u7 07, 4079,.
The products, "R-H MALAP HIOQI 57P*", '"REPEL INSECT REPELLENT",
"B-H DIELIRIN 17", and "'RLH BAI HAP), were not registered under the
FPedieral TInse;tcide, Fungici~aefnd Jodentiide ~ Act.
On October 20, -961, the U~ited states AtterAFey tr the Northern District of
Teras Lubboe Dicision, acti~ gupon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture,
filed in the United States Distttct iOrart a libel prhying seizure for condemnation
and confiscation of 48 ene-pint containers,: moreor less, 60 eight-ounce con-
tainers, more or les and 168 fe ounte container more or less, of "R-H MALA-
THION 57%"; 156 five-ounce containers, more or less, of "REPEL INSECT
REPELLENT"? 48 eighti-once containers, more or less, 204 one-quart bottles.
more or less, and 192 one-pint containers, more or less, of "R-H DIELDRIN
17%"; and 24 eight-ounacecontainers, more or less, and 24 one-pint containers,
more or less, of "'R-H IDAEIRHAP""w Lubbock, Texas, alleging that the prod-
ucts were economic poisons which had been tinasported interstate, on or about
March 3, 1961 and June 23, 1961 by the Reasor-Hill Corporation, from Jackson-
ville, Ark., in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the products were not registered with the Secretary of
Agriculture as required by sectieon4 l the act.
The Reasor-Hill Corporation of Jacksonville, Ark., claimed ownership of the
products, requested their release under bond for the purpose of bringing them
into compliance with the actiand consented to the entry of a condemnation
decree. On February 19, 1962, a decree of condemnation was entered, and it
was ordered that the products be released to the claimant under bond.


376. Misbranding of "AMWAY GERlMICDAL CONCENTRATE." U.S.
twelve-ounce bottles, more or less, ,f "AMWAY GERMICIDAL
CENTRATE." Consent decree of condemnation and destruction.
& R. No. 426. I.D. No. 40526.)


v. 59
CON-
(I.F.


The product '"AM WAY GERMICkDi C T ATE," was misbranded
within the meaning of the Federal naseciticide, Fungicige, and Rodenticide Act,
in that the labeling for the product bore false and misleading statements.
On January 26, 1962, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of
Ohio, Eastern Division, ~eting p n a epery tt Secretary of Agriculture,
filed in the United States It)itriet COdurt, a litel taying seizure for condemna-
tion and confincatioi of 59 twelveMunce bottles, more or less, of "AMWAY
GERMICIDAL CONCGETRATE," at Akfron, Oh alleging that the product was
an economic poison which had been trasport interstate on or about Septem-
ber 20, 1961, by Amway Sales *iA, from Ada Mieh., in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the product was misbrand within the meaning of the act
in that its labeling bore the stertiedt ;t
'"Amwar


rJ~1EIC;1HIIV*i kl


U






372-396]


:111 i i~KOTIOE


OF JoDGMENT


297


DILUTION DIZtOTIONS


STo 5gaL water ad^ eormieida GConcentrate in
these amounts to make recommended solutions.


( See opposite panel
200 ppm solution:
p(:|pm soltition:
8 ppi solution.
1600 ppm sol:


for how to use)


*K, *


Von.

2 oz.


(2 tspn.)
(1 tbsp.)
(2 tbsp.)
(4 tbsp.)


NOTE: Use only in recommended dilations. Use
only as sterilizing agent. Nat for use as food
preservatives Observe proportions when using
with LOCC washing solution. Non-flaamnable, non-
volatile, non-irritating, when used as directed.


*l,


EAItING & DRINKING ESTABLISHMENTS :
dishes, glassware, flatware-Use 8 sink system
1st sik wash; 2nd sink-rinse with water
to remove soap; 3rd si-rins In 2 ppm
j Amway Geymicidal soldtfi ftqr 2 mip. Use Am-
SW47 Qt-1 test papers to determine strength of
remain solution after use.
Ice Cream Scoops--Wash-with OC) solution.
rinse with 400 ppm Amway lGermicidal solution.
Rinse before use. Coffee urns, refrigerators,
cold storage rooms-After washing, sterilize
with 4001 ppm seiution Amway Gernicidal solu-
tion o eliminate odors, radeidity, nfold, and
slime. (2 min. exposure), Rinse before use.


Utensils,


SWIMMING POOS :: Algaecde for all pools-2
ppm or 1 piitt t 80,000 gall~wr pool 20 x 40).
Add 1 pt. every week to 10 days.
BARBER AND BEAUTY SHOPS Instruments-Dip
for 2 minutes in 1600 ppm solution between
Sfor each patro Hand wash--200 ppm solu-
tion.
GE ERAL STERILIZINOG f 400 ppm solution as spray
on toilet;. rest room oflos, ete. 400ppm solu-
tite for sprkyi~gianimal.and poultry shelters
8~er eaning 200 ppm Soluation for final rinse
of diapx whR Food indutry equipment t -
pm f insig oer flushig, 400 ppm fr moppng
or sponging, al(Oppdflspray. Rinsebefore
re-use.


1Z4Ufln


COMBI ZpfCLZANI
dprd I
on oppo panel with 40
cidal solution for a comip
S.. and sanitizer.


V lr


& STERILIZING SOLU-
solution described


cleaner


IB hnu a-ia *


."~ll$ I> r (i ~~l l


Jut


B I


:~~CP:rE" ^
;;x;


~" "":
':f


; ;Fd
:~,~"~A"
~~c"ij
I~-zi:6


blJ:'IFD4cg


,J'8D)lmhii
g


~)asx~
""p~lk~r


:" ih


", ""i:
:Jarr


i E i i a i E,, i ~ a EI :I,r rbllx~: n xlri E







m


INSECPJ1IDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


[ LF.R.N.J.
..... l^jE~


Amway Sales Corporation.
and consented to the entry of
directing its destruction. On
destruction was entered and
the product.


Ada, Michigan, claimed ownership of the product
a decree condemning the product under seizure and
May 9, 1962, a consent decree of condemnation and
the United States Marshal was ordered to destroy
K>i. : ., .i ; Pi;x ,ii:i ,,; cr


." U


377. Misbranding of t'ATtRSO 'S DAIRY CATTLE DUST." U.S. v. five
one-pound Cartons, or less, of "PATTERSON'S DAIRY CATTLE
DUST." Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction.
(I.F. & U. No. 427. I.D. Nos. i83083, 40766.)
The product "PATTERSON'S DAIRf lCATL DUST was nfibranded withi
The product "PATTBER1TS was nJte mded
the meaning of the Federal Xtsetid Fungicide, and odtde Act ini
the product contained an Sadditkonal active ingedien" namely benzene hexa-
chloride, which as not nased in th* Inredient statement, and when used as
directed or in accordance itti cotiunonly reeognised prti6, it wol b,
injurious to living man or other vertebrate animals.
On January 31, 1962, teTUnid Stes Attorney for the District f
acting upon a report by the Sere y of Agriculture, filed ii t. o Unit|EiW
District Court, a libel pray~ingsi r or 'c ndemnation i confiset
five one-pound cartons, more or les, of "PATTERSON'S DAIRY CO
DUST," at Kansas City, aKahns., allng that the produt was an economic prison
which had been transported nterst on or abol^ut Webrt 1, 161, by Pearson-
Ferguson Chemical to., from CansasCity, Mo.. in violtb of the a t.
It was allied that the product was misbranded within the meanil4 p
the act in that its labeling bore the statements:


"PATTERSON'S
DATRY CATTLE DUST
EACH POUND OF TI~S PROD TOT WILL
TRE T UP TO ONE CO laOR AEN SHEEP
.OR A AIJ' SEASOi:N.


ACTIVE INGREDIENTS
Methosyehlor, teehnieal*_z._.._- l-
INERT INGREDIENTS :-- I a- a
*Equivalent to 4.4% 2,2-bisa (p-rthory-
phenyl) 1,1,1-trichloroethane and A%
other isomers and reaction prbct.


5%
9r5%l


*"
whereas the product contained:an additional active igredt namelyy
hexachloride, which was not named in the ingredient statement.
It was further misbranded within the meaning of the act in that the
when used as directed or in accordance with c on ted.
would be injurious to living man orother verbatebate mal
On May 23, 1962, no claimant having appeared, a decree of conde
and forfeiture was entered and the United States Marshal was orn
destroy the product.


378. Lack of registration, lac of required information on the labels, and mis-
branding of "ROUGH GRIND" and CORN MEAL." U.S. v. 3 one-
hundred pound drurni moire r Ies, of "ROUGH GRIND," and 2 one-
hundred pound drums, more or less, of "CORN MEAL." Default decree
of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I.F. & R. No. 425. I.D.


bei


product,
praRcti eS


nationn
dered to


..,r .


s ;


1






372-396]


NOTICES OF


SUfMENT


29


District Court, a
one-hundred pour
hundred pound d
alleging that the
been transported
Control Service, I
It was alleged
Agriculture as req
It was alleged


I
I
I


libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation of 3
d drums, more or less, of "ROUGH GRIND," and 2 one-
rums, more or less, of "CORN MEAL," at Burlington, Vt.
products were intended for use as economic poisons and had
interstate on or about November 1S, 1961. by Abalene Pest


nc., from Pough
that the produce


keepsie,
ts were


N.Y., in violation of the act.
not registered with the Secretary of


uired under sectioir4 of the act.
that the product were misbrjntded in


that the labels borne


by the products did not bear ingredient statements giving the name and per-
centage 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.
I, t as further alleged that the products were misbranded within the mean-
ing of the act in that their labels did not bear warning or caution statements
are necessary and, if complied with, adequate to prevent injury to
man or other vertebrate animals.
It was further alleged that the products were misbranded within the mean-
fig of the act in that the labels did not contain directions for use which are
i necessary and, if complied with, adequate for the protection of the public.
It was further alleged that the products were misbranded within the meaning
of the act in that the labels on the immediate containers did not bear state-
:" ents of the name, brand or trade-mark under which the products are sold.
t was farther alleged that the products were in violation of the act in that
the labels on the immediate containers did not bear statements of the net
weight or measure of the contents of the containers.
Ox June 4, 1962, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation
fal foreittre was entered and the United States Marshal was ordered to
daty the products.


s ibrandig and adulteration of UPERMACHEM HOUSEHOLD SPRAY."
i. 628 sixteen-ounce containers, more or less, of "PERMACHEM
KOUSEHOLD SPRAY." Consent Decree of Destruction and the Court
ordered the product destroyed. (I.F. & R. No. 390. I.D. No. 38390.)
The prbdet "PERMAOHEM HOUSEHOLD SPRAY" was misbranded in
that its labeling bore statements which were false or misleading. An examina-
tion of the product showed that it contained less than 0.0208% of bis (tri-n-
bttin) oxide and less than a total of 00908% of three quaternary ammonium
c..mounds claimed as 0.0856% dialkyl dimethyl ammonium chloride, 0.0200%
methyldodecylbenzyl trimethyl ammonium chloride, and 0.0050% methyldo-
yxyltlene his (trimethyl ammonium chloride).
On April 10, 1901, the United States Attorney for the Distriet of New Jersey,
cting upon a rm t by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United States
Dstict Court, a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation of 628
ateen-oance containers, more or less, of "PERMACHEM HOUSEHOLD
at BEaas LJ,, alleging that the product was an economic poison
which had been transported interstate on or about January 11, 1961, by Per-
m Home Products Corp., from Port Jervi, N.Y., in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the product was misbranded within the meaning of the
at In that it labeling bore the statements:
"ACTI INGREDIENT:
Satana


***^*^.






800


INSECTICI D E,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


[I.F.R.N.J.


and ~ g s;ptatements were false or misleading since they implied or represented
that the prodget contained 0.0203% of his (tri-n-butyltin) oxide and a total of
0.0906% of three quaternary ammonium compounds claimed as 0.0656% dialkyl
dime t mmoniq ehlode, 0.0200 meth yldodecy lbenzyl trimethy 1 am-
monium chloride, f 0. Q5Q% p metbyld odalxyltlene bis (trimethyl ammonium
chloride) whereas, the prod uct cQnaed Jqss than 0.0203% of bis (tri-n-butyl)
Wi :a*n less :than a @tal of 0.0906% of three quaternary ammonium com-
pounds claimed as 0.0656% dialkyl dimethyl ammonium chloride, 0.0200%
methyld4odyleeybeny trimethyl ammonium chloride, and 6.005% methyldo-
eeeyt tlen is (i( taefli yl.Pmmp chloride).
It was ,l11eged -thett the product was further misbranded within the meaning
of the act in that its 1abtig" bore te t sta teen ts :
"e
chbem
hosehond spray
SEW OSFITFAL METHOD I
i .*-*KILLS 90% OF' :
THE TAL NUMBERi: 'i ii

STOPS ILDEW,

DE CAY, ODORS
it RJfL ING VMIOST BACTERIA 2
ii : AUNGI BAT GAUSTE THEMi :
~ iO E T-i E i FO R W "E3EK S
AFTER S PRAYING
S" ^ ; i Pe p a "
ch e
FOR PERMACHEM PROTECTION THROUGHOUT THE
- / H M Wr~I OG LASTING ANTISEPTIC EFFECTITVE-
Sprg pas s .rectfey on clothing sholipe oots, walls
Sand flors of nmnrsery. xng romaine, estr", tv cellar,
beddingl, rmattresus, pholry, a carpeting and
rugs, laundry hampers, garbage pails, animfial ateas. Will
f not burn or stdiri iKills 99% of total inibuer of deadly
r- ihous~ho!1 germa
DIRECTIONS
FIRST REMOVE AND DI SARD WBITE CAP.
St : ~P im-ehem prtotec the -miae
HoI~btttle 8-12 inches from ob t Cover surface with
spray mist. Dampen-to not ibdki
,i iPeratiehep~ rotect ettiihg
Si^iSpray ounte cloth~ig and hosBinside and oat. Repeat
"" e "ei y three tsnnths :orfter a teh cleaningi
SI: i To pow erspli Ptachem :
Remove eprayeiea. Polir Peimachem liquid into paint
S:: sprayer o Vaaluri enilane spray attachmbnt.
To treat mildew, mold and frmgs ::
W:i i ash bn taiint e rfaees thJorouglb wit soap and
water before spraying.
*"


(Tsilfl~. I~







872-396]


NOTICES


;JrDO)GMEjNT


-i301


PERMAC
ALL PU
MILDEW
APPLICA
Developed
the world
Protects tl
nursery..
drapes...
... uphol
becomes al


HEM H
RPOSE
, FUNG
.TION.
[for, and
* *


he
. 1
w
StE
n


home
bedroo
'alls .
ery ,
active


HOUSEHOLD SPRAY, THE WORLD'S MOST POWERFUL
GERIMICIDE, KEEPS ON KILLING GERMS, ODORS,
US. ROT AND DECAY FOR MONTHS AFTER

I used in, leading hospitals everywhere throughout


.. everyone and everything ing it Every room...
m... livingroo. .. attic.., bath .bedding...
. clothing... shoes ... drawers... shelves... closets
garbage can ... furniture ... everything ... actually
germicidal killing agent for months and months.


* *


So safe it is used in hundreds of hospital nurseries throughout the


IT'S THE
M FREE WORLD OF PERMALCHEM.


* 2kt


nd such statements were false or misleading since they implied or represented
that the product, when used as directed, (1) would kill all types of germs,
(2) would act as an effective germicide for months after application, (3) would
il bacteria for weeks after spraying, (4) would protect individuals from deadly
shuBid germs which contaminate clothing, shoes, bathrooms, walls, mat-
hl Se upholstery,, draperies, carpeting, rugs, laundry hampers, garbage pails,
Siazial areas, and (5) would act as an effective germicide for all purposes;
rea, the product, when used as directed, (1) would not kill all types of
,(2) would not act as an effective germicide for months after applica-
(*)1 would not kill bacteria for weeks after spraying, (4) would not pro-
tmividuals from deadly household germs which contaminate clothing, shoes,
44ioms, walls, mattresses, upholstery, draperies, carpeting, rugs, laundry
rs garbage pails, or animal areas, and (5) would not act as an effective
grmid4e for all purposes.
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
as expressed on its labeling since its labeling bore the statements:


"ACTIVE
* *


INGREDIENTS:


Dialkyl* Dimethyl Ammonium Chloride- ....- --
Bis (tri-n-butyltin) Oxide ------ ---- -
Methyldodeeylbeazyl Trimethyl
Ammonium Chloride ....-- -------- --- -- ---- -
Methyldodecylxyltlene Bis
(rimethyl Ammonium Chloride) ---- --


0.0656%
0.0203%

0.0200%

0.0050%


* *)


gaa sgth statements represented that the product contained 0.0203% of bis (tri-
SutLtin) oxide and a tot@a of 0.0906% of three quaternary ammonium com-
poun claimed as 0.0656% dialkyl dimethyl ammonium chloride, 0.0020%
m thfodeeylesnzyl th~iethyl ammonium chloride, and 0.0050% methyldode-
cylsy tlsep bie (trimethyl amaonium chloride) ; whereas, the product contained
less thn .20S% bis(tri-n-bityltin) oxide and less than a total of 0.0906%
of three ua ternary ammonium compounds claimed as 0.0656% dialkvl dimethvl


F: E






802


INSECTICIDE,


PUNGIUWE,


4NDRO N:TIDZ


380. Misbranding of "SArDAHLS SILICONE CLIPPER. UBE.. U.S.
eight-ounce conta more or 18o, of "SANDAHL'S SILICONE CLIP-
PER IhBE." lt ree of condemnation, forfeiture and destruc-
tion. (I.F. & R. No 4. l.D. No. 8) '.
The product "SANDABVS SILICONE CLIPPER LUBE" was advertised for
use as a sterilizing agent for clipper blades, electric razors, razors, and shears.
However, the label aixed to the containers of the product did not contain direc-
tions for use which are necessary and, f compiled with, adequate for the pro-
tection of the public. t
On February 19, 192, the United States Attorney for the Northern District
of Illinois, acting upori a report by them eeretary of Agriculture, led isth
United States District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and con-


fiscation of 27 eight-ounce containers, more or less, of
CLIPPER LUBE," at Chicago, Ill., alleging that the
poison which had been transported interstate, on or
L. R. Sandahl Mfg. Co., (MRcay's), from Madrid, Io
It was alleged that the product was misbrarided
labeling did not contain directions for use which are


"S ANDAH L'S SILIJ OE
product was tan "ecltoi
about January 3, i by
wa, in violation of the act.
in that its accompanying
necessary and, if bo


with, adequate for the protection of the public.
On March 16, 1962, no claimapt having appeared a decree of condemnationt
forfeiture and destruction was entered, and it was ordered that the Unit
States Marshal destroy the product.
381. Lack of registration, misbranding, and adulteration of "STA-KLER#
BATHROOM APPLIANCE DISINFCTS~ EFIIA FOR STA
KLEEN BATHROOM APPLIANCE," and a paying abeln
aNO ONE LIKES TO CLEAN TOILET BOWLS" ,IS. 278 containers,
more or less, 6f STA-KLEEN BATHROOM APPLIANCE DI
INFECTSi" 21 containers, more or less, of "REFILL FOR STA-KLBEE
BATHROOM APPLIANCE," and accompanying labeling consisting of 51S
leaflets, more or less, entitled 'NO ONE LIKES TO CLEAN TOIZt
BOWLS."" Default decree of condemnation and forfeiture and it 8a
ordered that the seized products be delivered to the Federal teforltk
at El Reno, Okla., for use only as a general disinfectant anid thb a~ei
paying labelingbe destroyed. (I.F. & No. 43. I.D. Nos. 4,46800.
The products "STA-KLEEN BATHROOM APPLIANCE .. ,* DAa
FECTS," and "REFILL FOR STA-KLEEN BATHROOM APPLIANCE," were
not registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, anid Rodenticide Act.
Upon examination, the products were found to be misbranded and adulterated
in that they contained less active ingredient and ignore inert Inredients than
were claimed on the labels, and they also bore false or misleaig statements.
On March 8, 1962, the United States Attorney for the Western District of
Oklahoma, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
United States District Court a libel praying aeirtre for condemlition and con-
fistion of 273 containers, more of less, of "STA-KLEEN BATHROOM AP-
PLIANCE DISINFECTS," 21 containers, more or less, of "REFILL
FOR STA-KLEEN BATHROOM APPLIANCE,". and accompanying lberw e0?
sitting of 500 leaflets, more or less, entitled "NO ONE L sKES Ov
TOILET BOWLS," at Oklahoma City, Okla., alleging t products i tec16nomi
poisons which had, been transported interstate on or about April M,. ay 12,and
July 17, 1961, by Sta-Kleen Company, from Pboenx, Ariz. in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the products were not registeredd with the Secretary of
Agriculture as required under section 4 of the act.


:"Ti~i


^iiii









0":
0E~





0~i

>1;;






872-396]


NOtTECES


J'TDiWEW


303


It was further alleged that the products were misbranded within the mean-
ing of the act in tha their labeling bore the statements:


(Container
carton)


*"STA-KLEEN
BATHROOM APPLIANCE
*$
DISINFECTS AND-
PURIFIES.: INSTALL IT
AND FORGET IT.


* *$


EASY 1 MINUTE-NO TOOLS NECESSARY
INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS
BEND WATER INLET TUBE (A) UP OUT OF OVERFLOW
PIPE (B).
HANG UNIT IN (B) AS SHOWN-BE SURE SMALL FLEXIBLE
TUBE IS DOWN INSIDE PIPE (B) AS SHOWN.
SLIDE LARGE FLEXIBLE TUBE (C) ONTO WATER INLET (A)
AND OTHER END ONTO STRAIGHT END OF UNIT AS SHOWN.
CLEAN TOILET BOWL THOROUGHLY BEFORE INSTALLATION
FOR BEST RESULTS." .


(Leaflet)


0"N ONE LK1E1
TO CLEAN
TOILET BOWLS
*


and such state
sented that th
toilet bowls, w


FITS EASILY INSIDE ALL TOILET TANKS,
OUT O S SIGHT AS SHOWN. 'TAKES ONLY
1 MINUTE TO INSTALL. NO TOOLS
NECESSARY. DISINFECTS AND PURIFIES-
JUST INSTALL IT AND FORGET IT."
iments were false or misleading in that they implied or repre-
e products when used as directed would purify and disinfect
whereas, thie products, when used as directed, would not disinfect


and purify toilet bowls.
It was further alleged that the products we:
meaning of the act in that their labeling bore the
"Aetlye Ingredients:
Caleium Hypochloqite--
Inert Ingredientsa.--....._


re adulterated
statement:


within


70%
80%"


thereby professing a standard of 70% of calcium hypochlorite and
inert ingredients, whereas, they contained less than 70% of calcium
rite and more than 30% T e ift ingredfcnts.
On April 9, 1962, no claimant having appeared a decree of condo
and forfeiture was entered a it was ordered that the said produce
p e delivered to the Fedekai Reformatory at El 1teiio, Okla., by ti
Iates Marshal, for use only as a general disinfectant, arid that th
States Marshal should destroy tle' accompanying labeling.
U82 Lack of registration and mnabrqnding of "THE lHYON BAG
PURIFIER." U.S. v. 15 aricles, more or less labeiea in pa
* HYON BAG WATER.JURIFIER"' Default decree of condemn
feiture, and detns (IF. R Y. .ID. No. 4106


1 30% of
hypochlo-
lemnation
ts should
te United
te United


WATER
rt "THE
tion, for-
8.)







~O4


INSE)PICIDE


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTIC:


IDE ACT [T.F.R.N.J.


WATER PURIFIER," at New York, N.Y., alleging that the article was an
economic poison which had been transported interstate by Hydronics Corp.,
on o about October 12 and November 29, 1961, from Bala-Cynwyd, Pa. in
violabn, of the act. ;:
It was alleged that the arfide was not registered with the Secretary
of Agriculture as required under s&tibn 4 of the act.
It was alleged that the article was nisbranded within the meanti of t
act in that its labels did fat bt an ingredient statement giving the name
percentage of each active ingred1n "tgetbh with the total percentage of
the inert ingredients, in the article, or, in, the alternative, an ingredient e-
ment giving the name t each acti ingredient, together with the name of e
and total percentage of te inrt its,
The article was further mwisbhrande d within the meaning tf he ad that
its labeling bore the statements:


(Carton
label)


FOR


@@STHEnTOr BAG
wnTEi PURIFIER
DIS NfTIOI ( ND CLAR ~CATION
WtTU Rla MATERIALS
NO OIOINH. NO BOILINGC
NO4
SAFE SA IAFE. SA E
DRIFtKNG WATER


KILLS HARMFUL BACTERIA
IN 5 MINUTES .


Pt: Ck.4-i


Sat
>2i"~


1

IS




: I
'EBII
:EEa













I:,


Now 1YOU -AN BE SURE O1F OBTAINING
SAFE, OLEAN
: DRINKING IATER


(Folery
inside carton)


HYE IOXO BAG
FOR
Water Disinfectioa and Clarifration


WHEN TO USE THEIi HYON


BAG


1 1 > : 4"~
S "ISs~
i. s jd i:
770 rlt


The Hyon iag should be used whenever
there is any question as to the safety of the
available water for di"king or tookiing
purposes.
Travelers to foreign countries, visits to
areas with inuamiliar wf~r supplies anp asC
vacationing motorists, hikers, ca mI pes oat-
men, etc., will find the wonveiente an saety
of thQ Hyon Bag ts ibe insurance agaJint dis-
agreable upset cased by contaminated
water.
Hyon treated water should be used for
drinking, mixing beverages, making ice, etc.
WHAT THE HYON B~A DO

The Hyon "Bag will insuri that york-
a* w a i s .- .


AI >;.P~


it ""4


r ws4
,X ~4 VEj 4~


4I


2xi
4,
kl
ia;,
V:1


~*
ii


I"P~j i14% t


IE Zra


; ~ ;)I. .~






372-396']


NOTICES:


OF JUDGMENT


305


he tube
t is filte
When
lolds ap
'Ref. U.
Water


w which may be a attached to the nozzle,
wred and clarified.
filled to the fill line, the Hyon Bag
proximately one quart,
S. Public fiealth Manual for Recomrnn
Sanitation Practices.


CAUTIONS .
The Hyon Bagwill treat up to 5 gallons of
water-after which it should be replaced. Do
not use more than one season.
Always use cleanest water available. Discard
Bag if filter becomes clogged.
In emergency, when only very muddy or turbid
water is available, allow water to remain in Bag
for 20 minutes after second mixing. Continued
use of muddy water will shorten life of Bag,
If water temperature is under 40F., allow water
to remain in Bag 20 minutes after second mixing.
The carrying pouch may be used to transfer
untreated water to the Hyon Bag. If this is done,
'be sure to rinse pouch with treated water to clean."


label)
K, K K K


FOR3t


AP is,:


"HYON BAG
WATER PURIFIER
DISINFECTION & 'CLARIFICATION
with
Hyla
DIRECTIONS FOR USE


1. Fill to line through top zipper opening
with cleanest water available.
2. Close zipper, seal top ,by folding down.
8. Hold bag firmly at top and bottom, turn
upside down several times to mix, then
hang by strap for 'at least 5 minutes.
4. Repeat step number 3.
5. Pull plug from nozzle to draw water. If
desired, fit tube over nozzle to fill canteen
or container. Tube will increase flow
of water.
CAUTION

With new bag discard first filling.
Bep nozzle and tub ielean.
Never diup contents outof top opening
of bag.
In emergency if extremely col, or muddy
water must be used,'hang 4 "15 minutes
after step number 4.
Life qf bag wifi be shoetened when treating
very muddy iate


:: ~
U~~ :~8

I


ended


IgiaBrl ,~:


; ":
:T:i;r*


i:~""6js".~a
,';"k(~ I""


*^


B" """E


E;^


]1






30I..


INSEC~TICID


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


LI.F.R.N.J.


On February 27, 1962, no claimant having
and forfeiture was entered and the Unit
destroy the articles.
383. Lack of registration and required infor
"SANI-TROL TREATMENT
CLOTHS." ;U.S. v. 11 one-gallon con
gallons, more or less, of a product
TREATMENT FOR DUST MOPS &
of condemnation ~pd forfeiture, and
eral Reformateoy at EI Sepo, Okla.,
R. No. 480. I.D. No. 40798.)


: appeared, a decree of condemnation
ed States Marshal was ordered to


'mat ion
FOR
trainers
labeled
DUST
release
for s


on label and misbranding of
DUST MOPS & DUST
and one drum containing 25
in part "SANI-TROL *
CLOTHS." Default decree
'of the product to the Fed-
at that institution. I(I.F. &


The product "SAI-Tt bi TREATMENT FOR DUST MOPS & I
CLOTHS" was not registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
Rodenticide Act, aad the T'aaffidit to the containers of the product di
bear a statement giv!nig th endW address of the manufacturer, regisi
or person for whom the prodiet was manufactured; arid the labels did not
an ingredient statement equfred by the act.
On February 20, 1962, the United States Att0ot 3 the Western Distri
Oklahoma, acting uA a port the Secretary of Agrewture, filed i
United States District Ctottt ~ libel tyinryg sei~tlre" fb endemna tion and
fiscation of 11 one-gallon ctners d one um talig 25 gallons,
or less, of a product labeled In part "SANI-TROL TREATMENT
DUST MOPS & DUST OLOTTIS," at Oklahoma City, Okla., alleging tha
product was an economic poison which had been transported interstate,


about October 6, 1961,
in violation of the act.
It was alleged that
culture as required by
It was alleged that
act in that the labels


)UST
and
d not
trant,
bear


ict of
n the
con-
more
FOR
t the
)n or


by Frontiert Chemical Products, Inc., from St. Louis, Mo.,

the proitet was not registetid with the Secretary of Agri-
section 4 of the act.
the product failed to comply with the provisions of the
:affixed t the containers Of the product did not bear a


statement giving the name and address of the manufacturer, registrant, or per-
son for whom the product was manufactured.
It was further alleged 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 active intent, gather ith the total percentage
of inert ingredients, in the product, or, in the alternative, an ingredient state-
ment giving the name of each active ingredient, tog etherwith the name of each
and total percentage of the inert ingredients, in the product.
On April 5, 1962, no claitant having appeared, a default decree of condemna-
tion and forfeiture was entered and the United States Marshal was ordered
to deliver the product to the Fedeal Ietormatory t El Reno, Okla., for use
at that institution.
384. Lack of registration and required iifdrhation on label, misbranding, and
adulteration of "MARK 7 GIERII LIQUID SYNTHETIC DETER-
GENT." U.S. v. 11 one-gallon containers, more or less, of "MARK 7
GERMICIDAL LIQUID SYNTHETIC DETERGENT" Consent decree
of condemnation and release under bond. 1 II. R. No. 437. I.D. No.
39995.)
The product MARKK 7 AGfALA I U9SQTJ1 HCtnSETIC DETERGENT"
was not registered under tei etal nei" Pde ide, and Rodenticide
Act; an examination of the product showed that the bels affixed to the con-
tainers of te product did ndot bear a sataAQpm irtf ne f weight or measure of






372-396]


NOTifaES OF


JUDGMENT
m/ w A*^v^ AT"i a^A 'J


307


It was alleged that the fodt was not registered 'with the Secretary Of Agri-
culture as required by setio i4 of the act
It was alleged that the prodiet was misjranded within the meaning of the act
in that the label stated in part:"

"DIRECTIONS
Apply MARK-7 solution with a spray, sprinkler, or clean
mop. Works equally well with hot, cold, hard or soft wa-
ter. Rinse surface well to carry off dirt and soil loosened
by MARK-7.
MARK-7 can be used safely on any standard floor or wall
surface such as Terrazzo, Marble, Concrete, Magnesite,
Terra Cotta, Travertine, or Granolithie as well as on
softer surfaces such as Asphalt, Rubber, Linoleum, Vinyl,
Hardwood, Painted Surfaces, Sealed or Unsealed Floors.


NET CONTENTS


- GALLONS


PHENOL COEFFICIENT: Exceeds 12 against Salmonella
Typhosa and Staphlococcus Aureus.


DILUTION DIRECTIONS

For light regular cleaning, use 3 to 4 ounces (1 cup)
MARK-7 per gallon of water. For heavier soil conditions,
use 5 to 8 ounces (1 cup) MARK-7 per gallon of water.
To strip War, Remove Rubber Burns, etc., use 9 to 10
ounces (1% cup) MARK-7 per gallon of water.
Whether you apply MARK-7 with a spray, sprinkler, or a
mop, allow solution to soak for 3 to 5 minutes before
scrubbing or mopping up. Rinse well for best results.


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


1( ) that the product had a phenol coeflici


"Salmonella
when used
wall surface
whereas, (1
germs or ba
the product,
floor or wal


Typhosa" and "St
as directed, would
e and all other su
) the product did
cteria "Salmonella
when used as direct
1 surface or all othe


It was further alleged that t
of the act in that its strength


quality as expressed on


aphtlocoeo
act as a
races im
not have
Typh osa"
ed, would
r surfaces
he produce
or purity


its labeling, since


ent of 12 against the germs or bacteria
1s Aureus" and (2) that the product,
t germicide on any standard floor or
plied by the term "softer surfaces";
a phenol coefficient of 12 against the
and "Staphlooccus Aureus" and (2)
not act as a germicide on any standard
implied by the term "softer surfaces."
t was adulterated within the meaning
fell below the professed standard or
its labeling bore the statement:


"PHENOL COEFFICIENT:


Exceeds 12 against Salmonella Typhosa
and Staphloccus Aureus."


and such statement represented that the product had a phenol coeficient of 12
against the germs or bacteria "Salmonella TUyposa" and "StaphZoooccus Au-


reus"; whereas, the
germs or bacteria '
It was further al
the labels affixed t<


i product had a phenol coefficient of less than 12 against the
'Salmonella Typhosa" and "Staphlococcss Aureus."
alleged that the product failed to comply with the act in that
o the containers of the product did not bear a statement of


l
l






30S


INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


ROETOIDFE


II.F.R.N.J.


385. Misbranding of "SELIG'S ASEPTENE" and "NEW! STAPH-KILL." U.S.
v. one drum, containing 55 gallonS, more or less, of a product labeled in
part "SELIG'S ASEPTENE" and 228 one-pountt containers, more or less,
of a product labeled in part "NEW! STAPH-KILL. Default decree of
condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I.F. & R. No. 435. I.D. Nos.
41413 and 41414.)
An examination of the products "SELIG'S ASEPTENE" and "NEW! STAPH-
KILL," showed that their labeling bhre statements which were false and
misleading.
On March 7, 1962, the United Staten Attorney for the Western District of
Missouri, Western Division, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agricul-
ture, filed in the United States District Court a libel praying seizure for condem-
nation and confiscation of one drum, containing 55 gallons, morp or less, of a
product labeled in part "SELIG'S ASEBPTENE" and 228 one-pound containers,
more or less, of a product labeled in part "NEW! STAPH-KILL," at Kansas
City, Mo., alleging that the products were economic poisons which had been
transported interstate, on or about December 15, 1961, by The Selig Company
from Atlanta, Ga., in violation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Roden-
ticide Act.
It was alleged that the product "SBLIG'S ASEPTENE" was misbranded
within the meaning of the act in that its labeling bore the statements:
"SELIG'S
Aseptene
A Hospital Tested Germical Cleaner

FDA Phenol Coefficient M Pyognes Var. Aureus, 12
FDA Phenol Coefficient S. Typhosa, 8
Selig's Aseptene is a synthetic germicidal detergent formulated
for use in hospitals, clinics, schools, and institutions.
Contains no soaps, caustics, or abrasives-cleans thoroughly,
leaves surfaces clean and film free.
For general cleaning and disinfecting of floors, walls, woodwork,
glass, stainless steel and other surfaces, dilute 4 to 8 ounces
of Selig's Aseptene to a gallon of water. Scrub in conventional
manner or with scrubbing machine. Rinse with clear water.
For cleaning and disinfecting operating rooms, nurseries, surgical
suits, and recovery areas, dilute 8 ounces per gallon of water and
either sprinkle, spray, or mop on floors and remove with clean mop
or wet pick-up vacuum.

and such statements were false or misleading since they implied or represented
(1) that the product had a phenol coefficient of 12 against the germn or bacteria
"M. Pyognes Var. Aureus," and (2) that the product, when used as directed,
would disinfect floors, walls, woodwork, glass, stainless steel, and all other sur-
faces implied by the term "other surfaces"; whereas (1) the product did not
have a phenol coefficient of 12 against the germ or bacteria "M. Pyognes Var.
Aureus," and (2) the product, when used as directed, would not disinfect floors,
walls, woodwork, glass, stainless steel, or all other surfaces implied by the term
"other surfaces."
It was alleged that the product "NEW! STAPH-KILL" was misbranded
within the meaning of the act in that its labeling bore the statements:


(Front


A~


"'N~


Ix






372-396>]


NQTKC1ES


JUflOMENT


309


ca n be disinfected with this Powerful
and Deodorant after the surface has
cleaned. Thahazard of cross infection
and virus will be reduced.
Deodosattion takes place as you disil
air is made more pleasant, and surface
more sanitary.


Disinfectant
been properly
by bacteria


nfect Indoor
%es are made


DRIES QUICKLY
Leaves No Oily Film.
ACTIVE INGREDIENTS:
HEPTA DECYL HYDROXY ETHYL IMIDAZOLINE
Isopropyl Alcohol,, Lauryl-methacrylate,
Qrthophenyl-phenol-Polyvinylpyrrolidinone complex.


INERT INGREDIENTS: 70.4%
Dichlorodifluoromethane,
Trichloromonofluoromethane, Perfume.


DIRECTIONS


SAs a Disinfectant--
Hold dispenser upright about 7" to 9" from surface
to be disinfected. Spray 4 seconds until surface
is wet.
*'
and such statements were false or misleading since they implied or represented
that the product, when used as directed, would disinfect toilet seats, wash
basins, refuse cans, telephones, urinals, office machinery, door knobs, laundry
chutes, hospital light switches, and all other equipment implied by the term
"other equipment"; whereas, the product, when used as directed, would not
disinfect toilet seats, wash basins, refuse cans, telephones, urinals, office
machinery, door knobs, laundry chutes, hospital light switches, or all other
equipment implied by the term "''other equipment."
On May 3. 1962, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation
and forfeiture was entered, and the United States Marshal was ordered to
destroy the products.
380. Lack of registration and required information on labels, and misbranding
of "5% ALDRIN GRANULES," "5% HEPTACHLOR GRANULES", and
"10% CHLORDANE GRANULES"; and adulteration of "10% CHLOR-
DANE GRANULES." U.S. v. 140 fifty-pound bags, more or less, of a
product labeled in part "5% ALDRIN GRANULES," 40 fifty-pound bags,
more or less, of a product labeled in part "5% HEPTACHLOR GRAN-
ULES," and 20 fifty-pound bags, more or less, of a product labeled in
part "10% CHLORDANE GRANULES." Default decree of condemnation,
forfeiture, and destruction. (I.F. & R. No, 438. J.D. Nos. 40295, 40296,
40297.)


The pro
ULES", an
Federal In
containers
measure o
mrna n far* t


)ducts "5% ALDRIN GRANULES", "5% HEPTACLOR GRAN-
id "10% CHLORDANE GRANULES," were not registered under the
secticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and the labels affixed to the
of the products did not bear a statement of the net weight or
f the contents; a statement giving the name and address of the
mr fifafriarnnt- rtr n r*nn far whnm ttho nTrndnptft WAr 1tlannff1-nrpflnf _"






a1*i~


lNlSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


[I.F.R.N.J.


"5% ALDRIN GRANULES", 40 fifty-pound bags, more or less, of a product
labeled in part "5% HEPTACHLOR GRANULES'" and 20 fifty-pound bags,
more or less, of a product labeled in part "10% CHLORDANE GRANULES,"
at Cary, North Carolin, alleging that the products were economic poisons
which had been transported inatrtate on or about November 10, 1961, by
Atlas Agricultural Chemicals, Inc., from Waynesboro, Ga., 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 alleged that the products failed to comply with the provisions of the
act in that the labels affixed ib to bbin iuts" e the products did not bear
a statement of the net weight or measurorhetutents of the containers.
It was further alleged thtt tbh ets did not comply with the provisions
of the act in that the lapl on thers : not bear the name and
address of the mannufptUr r s t or or whom manufactured.
It was further alleged th the ~d T inisbranded within the meaning
of the act in that their respective labels did not bear ingredient statements
giving the name and percentage of eah actie gedient, together with the
total percentage of the inert aIgredients thh produptsy or, in the alternative,
an ingredient statement giving the name of each active ingredient, together
with the name of each and total perfintagt f the inert ingredients, in the
products.
It was further alleged that the products were misbrkxji within the meaning
of the act in that the labels did not contains direct0ns for use which are
necessary and, if complied ith, adequate for the protedfion of the public.
It was further alleged that the products were misbrandeB within the meaning
of the act in that their labels did not bear a warning or caution statement
which may be neesary nd, if complied wth, adequate to present ini
living man and other vert6brate animals.
It was further alleged that the product "10% CULOAlIRDAli GR AN LES"
was misbranded within the meaning. of the act in that its ~hlaeU4 bore the
statement:


"10% Qhlordane Granules"


u P~i


and
tha
less
Ii
waE
fell
its


[ such statement Was false or misleadil
t the product contained 10% chlordane
V than 10 percent chlordane.
t was further alleged that the product
s adulterated within the meaning of the
below the professed standard Dr quality
labeling hire the statement


ng since it implied or represented
; whereas th roe con tailed

"10% CHLORDANE GRANULES"
act in that its strength or purity
as expressed on its labeling, since


.0% hlesrduine Onnles"


and uch statement represented that the prodttt reontained 10 percent c
dante wheieae, thi biuct contained less than 10 percent chlordane.
Only the "10% CH ORDANE GRANULES'" were available for seizure
on August 28, 1062, nob latiant hrltni appehrbd a default decree of
detination and brfeifnre was entered, and the United States Marshal
ordered to destroy the product.


hlor-

and
con-
was


387. Lack of registration of ILTRANE ITICIDE," misbranding of "DISOD
CRAB GRASS KILLED "8 CLORDANE DUST," and adultera-
tion of "8% CELORDAIE DUST U v 24 eight-ounce bottles, more
or less, and 11 on-lpte jeotl, iture or less, of a product labeled in part
S"KELTHANE MITIIDE,"2i7iht-oiuce bottles, more or less, and 36


*^ 3 ^^






372-391]


N mSi OF


31I


-V~t


an examination of the prodtt "8 CiLORDANE DUST"T showed thatlt ion-
tained less than 8 percent feerieal etlorddne and more than 92 percent inert
ingredients.
On April 11, 1962, the Unfed Sttes Attoney for the District of New Jersey,
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agrcuiture, Sled A !the United States
District Court a libel praying secure for endemnatin and confiscation of 24
eight-ounce bottles, more or; less, and 11 one-pjnt bottles, more or less, of a
product labeled in part "KELTUA4EIB MITICIDE," 71 eight-ounce bottles, more
or less, and 36 one-pint bottles; mO~l r less, of a product labeled in part "DISOD
CRAB GRASS KILLER," and 23 one-pound packages, sore or less, and 18 four-
pound packages, more or less, of a product labeled in part, "8% CHLORDANE
DUST," at Audubon, N.J., alleging that the products were economic poisons
which had been transported interstate, on or about December 26 and December
27, 1961, by Cambridge Labs, Inc., from Maspeth, Long Island, N.Y., in violation
of the act.
It was alleged that the product "KELTHANE MITICIDE" was not
registered with the Secretary of AgriiLture ias required by section 4 of the act.
It was alleged that the product "DISOD (RAB GRASS KILLER" was mis-
branded within the meaning of the act m that the labels affixed to the containers
f the product did not bear an ingredient statement giving the name and percent-
age of each active ingredient, together with the total percentage of the inert in-
gredienta, in the product, or, in the alternative, an ingredient statement giving
the name of each active ingredient, together with the name of each and total
percentage of the inert ingredients, in the product.
It was allg tt the product "8% OHLORDANE DUST" was misbranded
within the meaning of the act in that its labeling bore the statements:
"8%
CHLORDANE
DUST
*


ACTIVE INGREDIE TS:
CHLORDANE TECHNICAL*-------- -
INERT INGREDIENTS.EmrS.....-.....
TOTAL
*4.8% Octachloro 4.7-methano-tetrahydro-
indane, and 3.2% related compounds."


8.00%
92. 00%
100oo. o00%


and such statements were false or misleading since they implied or represented
that the product contained 8 percent technical chlordane and 92 percent inert
ingredients; whereas, the product contained less than 8 percent technical chlor-
dane and more than 92 percent inert ingredients.
It was further alleged that the product "8% CHLORDANE DUST" was adul-
terated in that its strength or purity fell below the professed standard or
quality under which it was sold, in that it contained less than 8 percent technical
chlordane and more than 92 percent of inert ingredients.
On July 6, 1962, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation and
forfeiture was entered and it was ordered that the United States Marshal deliver
the merchandise to charitable institutions in Camden, N.J., for their own use and
in no instance to be resold or used for commercial purposes.
388. Lack of registration and misbranding of "LITTLE ANGEL SCIENTIFIC
TEETHER." U.S. v. 574 containers, more or less, of a product labeled in
part "LITTLE ANGEL SCIENTIFIC TEETHfER" Default decree of
condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction or release of merchandise to
anhlie nr charitahip institutionn. ( T_.1r R No. 44.: TT.. NI.a 41.l4t






312


INSECTICIDESZ


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


[I.F.R.N.J.


economic potein wbichlw4 been transported interstate, on or about February
2, 198, by the Aan Jayplarlyte Company, from New York, N.Y., in violation
of the act.
It was aseged that the product was not registered with the Secretary of Agri-
eulture ast teuird by seeking 4 of the aet ,
It. was alleged that, the odut was misaded in that the labels affixed to
the containers of the product did not bear an ~od+iit statement giving the
name and percentage *t eh ahctre igrpdient together with the 'total per-
eentage of the inert ingredients, the poetry or, in the alternative, an
ingredient statement girvng the name of eand total percentage of the inert
ingredients in the product.
It was further alleged that the product was misbranded within the meaning
of the act in that its labeling bore the statements:


"Little
Angel
GERM'
tRES STAIIANT
SCIENTIFIC
Teether
" Gxx
TtESeeT


4


Little Angel
SCIENTIFIC ..
Teether
PERMANENTLY GERM RE SI STANT TEETHING AID
*
TO SAFEGUARD YOUR
BABY'S HEALTH
PERMANENTLY
COROBEX
STERILIZED
IT IS GiltRM
RESISTANT
*
'"ISEiLF-STERILIZING"
A protective barrier that aids in the eliminating
the causes of bacterial contamination.
"ACTIVELY ANTISEPTIC"
Clarolyte products treated with Corobex :
prove by laboratory tests that they help
inhibit germ life."
and such statements were false or misleading since they implied or represented
(1) that the product was self-sterilizing, (2) that the product was permanently
sterilized, (3) that the product could be relied upon to safeguard a ,baby's
health, (4) that the product: would be actively antiseptic n use, and (5) that
the product would eliminate the cause of bacterial contamination: whereas, (1)
the product was not self-steriliing, (2) the product was not permanently
sterilized, (3) the product could not bie relied upon to safeguard a baby's health,
(4) the product would not be actively: antiseptic in use, and (5) the product
would not eliminate the cause& of bacterial eofataimi.tion.
On June 19, 1962, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation
and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered that the United 'States Marshal
dftrnYv nr isaL thp nmipFrhsni tCo fT i or hkit hn i n nh intititina for IIse






372-396,]


c;:


)fs OFr


WDGMENT


313


ingredient
eight or mea
lion contain
the produce
nufacturer,
a statement
d.


stateit, adieFquate directions for use, or a statement of the net
sure of the contents of the containers. An examination of the one-
ers df the product showed that the labels affixed to the containers
t did not bear a statement givig the flame and address of the
regisfrant, or person for wom the product was manufactured,
t of the natip, brand; or trademark under which the product was
or m un r pr was


On May 21, 1962, the UiTited St4es Attorney for the District of Oregon, act-
ing upon a report by the Secr ry of Agricilture, filed in the United States
District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation of one
drum containing 55 gallons, mote or less, 2 thirty-gallon drums, more or less, 15
six-gallon containers, more or less, and 5 cases, each containing six one-gallon
containers, more or less of a product labeled in part, 'SOUTHERIN-PINE-TYPE
DISINFECTANT," at Pottland, Oregon, alleging that the product was an eco-
2BNmit polsaft which had been transported interstate on or about January 12,
1962, by Pompeian Olive Oil Otporation, from Baltimore, Md., in violation
of the act.
"It was alleged that the product was misbranded within the meaning of the
tet in that its label did not bear an ingredient statement giving the name and
rcenbtage of each active ingredient, together with the total percentage of the
inert ingredients, in the product, or, in the alternative, an ingredient statement
giving the name Of each active ingredient, together with the name of each and
total percentage of the inert ingredients, in the product.
t, W alleged that the product was misbranded within the meaning of the
aet in that the labels did not contain directions for use which are necessary,
and, if complied with, adequate for the protection of the public.
It was alleged that the product failed to comply with the provisions of the
act in that abela on otsn if mediate containers did not bear a statement of
the net weight or e'a sure qf the contents of the containers.
It was frtier alleged that the labels on the one-gallon containers of the
product did hnt comply With the provisions pf the act in that the labels on
the immediate containers did not bear the name and address of the manufacturer,
registrant, or person for whom Aanufactured, or a statement of the name, brand,
ar trademark under which the product was sold.
The Pompeian Olive Oil Corporation, Baltimore, Md., claimed ownership of
the product for the purpose of relabeling the product and bringing it into com-
tp$ere wi th the act and consented to the entry of a condemnation decree. On
August 9,: I62 a decree of condemnation was entered, and it was ordered that
asprodNct be released to the claimant.
9. Ja4 ff Mtrstiotn, IJack of required information, and misbranding of
t'i NE OIL NO. 5, U.S. v. one drum, containing 50 gallons, more or
^lt esone rum, containing 30 gallons, more or less, 13 five-gallon con-
tainers, more or less, and 5 cases each containing six one-gallon contain-
"s, oremorless, of a product labeled in part "PINE OIL NO. 5." Consent
t aree of condemnation and release under bond. (I.F. & B. No. 445. I.D.
"To. 41192.)
The product "PINE OIL NO. 5" was not registered under the Federal Insec-
ticide, .ungicide, and Rodenticide 4ct, An examination of the product showed
tht bels affixed to the containers of the product did not bear an ingredient
Directions for use, or a statement of the net weight or measure of the
of the containers. An examination of the one-gallon containers of the
S showed that the labels aftied to the containers of the product did not
bear a statement giving the name and address of the manufacturer, registrant,






314


a WSErr CEDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


[I..R.N.J.


by Kits Chemical Company, Inc., from South San Francisco, Calif., in violation

It ws alleged that the product was not registered with the Secretar of gri-
eultureasu required by section 4 of the act.
It was alleged that the product was misbranded within the meaning of the
act in that. ts label did ot bear an ingredient statement giving the name and
percentage of each active ingredient, together with the total percentage of the
inert ingredients, in tie product, or, in the alternative, an ingredient statement
givig the name of eah active ingredient, together with the name of each and
total percentage of the inert ingredient in the product.
It was alleged that tho pdt was misbrWad within the meaning of the
act in that the labels did ne contain drectis for use which are necessary,
and, if complied with, adeate f the protection of the public.
It wasn alleged that the pt ailed to comply vitthe provisions of the act
in that the labels on its immediate container did bear a statement of the
net weight or measure of th ~contsts of thie coptaine.s.
It was further alleged that the one-gallon containers of the product did not
comply~ with the provision o the act in that the~ imediate containers did not
have labels W ich bore the name and address q the manufacturer, registrant,
or person for whom. mantaetured, or a statement of the name, brand, or trade-
mark under which the product was 0 owesolp
KliE z emical COopanyb Ia o lt Sna Fr~uodo, Cpl.,;caimed ownership
of the product for the purn se o relabeing the product and bringing it into
compliance with theact and nsented to the entry of a condemnation decree.
On August 9,; 19O a decr e of a condemnation was entered, and it was ordered
that the product be released to the claima,*t *
*t14 tack of e ttran an irandingf A ONi U.S. v. 68 sixteen-
ounce containers,n eor otless, ot a prod ax in part "PURACON,"
and aem i ng lting of 0in~ S more or less, entitled
"Haea Clean Air~ Howea fault decree condemnation, forfeiture,
and.destruction. .V. &.No. 448. I.. 3728.)
The product "PUBRAON" was iot registered under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act End the labeling bore false or misleading
atemients. I
On May 15 19682, the nited Stats Attorney or he Eastern District of
Wisconsin, acting uip na report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
United States District oirt a libel praying seizure eor condemnation and con-
fiscation of 68 sixteen-ounce containers, meae onr ine of a product labeled, in
partv, "lURACON, oiand accompanying labeling cnsisting of 50 leaflets, more or
less, entitled "Hal a en Air Hobiee, at MitwIyu Wis., alleging that the
product was an t onome p&son iwhi~b had ben transported interstate on or



It was further alleged that the product was misbranded within the meaning
of the act in that itsKlabeing borethe statements :


(Container
front panel)


,,tAflAON

make a an
AIR P Jtf'


r"iilliil~


: I


i


i


~wx~






372-396]


NOrQES OF


J P G E


315


(Leaflet
back panel)


Have a Clean Air Home
FOR LESS THAN 1t A DAY
PURACON presents a wholly new concept in clean
air control by killing air-borne bacteria and odor-
carrying micro-organisms on contact, utilizing
science's greatest bacteria and odor killer (Quater-
nary Ammonium Compounds).
PURACON traps dust, fly ash, pollen, lint, bac-
teria, and odor-ladde micro-orgaisms that con-
tact filter.
PURACON is non-toxic to normal skin, non-irrita-
ting to the respiratory system, Safe as the purest


soap.
PURA

TO T
Apply
about
with 1


Rinse
to 10 t


Does not affect metals or plastics.
LCON is effective on any type of filter.
DIRECTIONS
GREAT AIR FILTERS WITH PURACOM
to clean, dry surfaces of filter. Hold can
12" from filter and spray each side evenly
eight coating. 0
TO CLEAN PURACON TREATED
AIR FILTERS:
with water. Only a few seconds required.
times faster than cleaning dil coated filters.
FILTER CLEANING SCHEDULE


Hospitals-Weekly Clinics-Bi-weekly
OFFICE BUILDINGS--30 days
Residences-30 days Schools--2-4 weeks
PURAOON No. 117
Active Ingredients: Di-ifobutyl phenoxy ethoxy
ethyl dimethyl benzyl ammo-
nium chloride, monohydrate
1.75%
Inert Ingredients: 98.2W%
Propllant: Fluorinated Hydrocarbon
CAUTION-DO NOT USE NEAR OPEN FLAME
Contents under pressure. Do xnt puncture; never
throw dispenser into fire or incinerator. Keep 'at
room temperature, away from direct sunlight,
radiators, store, lhot water and other heat. Do
not store above O0F., Exposure to high tem-
peratures may cause bursting. Spray in ven-
tilated areas.
16 oz. volume Made in USA"


and such statements were false and misleading since they implied or represented
that the product when used as directed would kill all bacteria that came in
contact with cooling, heating or ventilating filters treated with the product;
whereas, the product when used as directed would not kill all bacteria that came
in contact with cooling, heating or ventilating filters, treated with the product,
On June 18, 1962, no cJi4mant bhaviag yapppared, a decree of condemnation
and forfeiture was entered, agz the United States Marshal was ordered to
destroy the product.
392. Lack of registration and misbrandnig of "BABY PACIFIER AND TEETH-
ING RING." U.S. v. 53- cartons, more or'less, of a product labeled fr


J::







316


INSECTICIDE,


rfr#flIOXBE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


[LF.R.N.J.


On May 28, 1962, the TUited States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts,
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agricurtire, led in the United States
District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation of 53
cartons, more or less, of a product labeled in part, "BABY PACIFIER AND
TEETHING RING, at NeedhHeights, Mass., alleging that the product
was an economic poison< which had been transported interstate on or about
April 25, 1962, by Louis A. Boettiger Compaiy, Inc., from Hewlett, L.I., N.Y.,
in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the prodtet was not registered with the Secretary of
Agriculture as required by section 4 of the act.
It was alleged that the prodUct was misbranded within the meaning of the
act in that the labels affixed to the containers ofthe product did not bear
an ingredient statement givihg the name and percentage of each active in-
gredient, together with the total percentage of the iie7it ingredients, in the
product, or, in the alternative, an ingredient statement giving the name of
each active ingredient, together with the name of ei h and total percentage
of the inert ingredients, in the product.
It was further alleged that the product was misbtanded within the meaning
of the act in that its labeling bore the statements: U


(Counter
display
carton)


"NOW!.
GERM-FREE
FOREVER!
FOR BABY'S
PROTBETION


*t *


GERM
COROBEX
PROOF"


* *


and such statements were false or mislending since they implied or represented
that the product was germ-free forever and that it would protect babies from
germs; whereas, the product was not germ-free forever and it would not protect
babies from germs.
On June 25, 1962, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation and
forfeiture was entered anl it was ordered that the United States Marshal
destroy or deliver the merchandise to public or charitable institutions for use
and not for sale.


Lack of
1/10."
more (
cree o
I.D. N


required information on the
U.S. v. two 5-pound bags,
r less, of a product labeled i
F condemnation, forfeiture,
o. 40617.)


label and tisbranding of "DIPHACIN
more or less; ard five 25-pound bags,
n part "DIPHACIN 1/10." Default de-
and destruction. (I.F. & R. No. 456.


An examination of the prod-pt ^"LIPHACIN 11b"I showed that the labels
affixed to the containers of the product did not bear a statement giving the
name and address of the manufacturer, registrant, or person for whom it was
manufactured; the labels did not coiain directions for use which are necessary
and, if complied with, adequate for the protection the public; and the labels
did not bear an ingredient sta reqiaad by the act.
On June 29, 1962, the United States Attorey for the Southern 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 condem-
nation and confiscation of two 5-pound bags, more or 14s, and five 25-pound






372-396.]


:3IiQWiOES


, AIUDQNENT


31!7


S.as further alleged that the product was misbranded within the meaning
act in that the labels did not contain directions for use which are
essry and, if complied with, adequate for the protection of the public.
It was further alleged that the product was misbranded within the meaning
t act nthahe laeed to the containers of the product did not bear
"irient statement giviT g fthe name and percentage of each active ingre-
dient, together with the total percentage of the inert ingredients, in the product,
he ltrnatie, ai ingredient statement giving the name of each active
ibnt" together wh the nade of each and total percentage of the inert
ts, in the'product.
I pptember 7, 1962, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation
freiture was entered and the United States Marshal was ordered to de-
e product.
394. Misbranding and adulteration of "GOOD-BY MR. FLY" and "GOOD-BY


FL'


MR. FLY TRAY O'FLY BIIT." U.S. vw.83 boxes, more or less, each con-
tninng 12 two-uince ~kes, of a product labeled in part "GOOD-BY MR.
PLY," and 18 boxes, more or Iess, each containing 12 two-ounce cakes of
a product labeled in part "GOOD-BY MR. FLY TRAY O'FLY BAIT."
i JIefaflt decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I.F. & R.
No. 447. I.D. Nos. 41032, 41033.)
i examination of the products "GOOD-BY MR. FLY" and "GOOD-BY MR.
STRAY O'FLY BAIT," showed that thi labeling bore statements which


wr ereent '-dimethy l 2,-dichlorb inyl phosphate and 99.75 percent inert ingre-
dfe flbtWevr, upon examination, the products were founrid to contain less
th1a 0.25 percent of dimethyl 2,2-dichlorovinyl phosphate and more than 99.75
pecat inert ingredients.
On May 26, 1962, the tnUntd4 Stites Attorney for the District of Connecticut,
acting upon a report by Fe Sretarry of Agriculture, filed in the United States
District CoAtC libtl aprayi g seizure' for iondemnation and confiscation of 83
boxes, more or less, eaeh cntailing 12 tWo-outnce cakes, of a product labeled
in part "QpQD-BY M1W. PLY," and 18 b s, imore less, each containing 12
two-ou i cakeaes o prpbdWc t labeled ifi part "GOOD-BY MR. FLY TRAY O'FLY
BgT"7 at Broad Brk, Con, alleging that the phdbucts were economic poisons
ih d interstate on about July2, and August 3, 1961,
by Esquire CeilM Oorpuy, from Downers Grove, III., in violation of the act.
It waa alleged that the product "GOOP-BY.MR. FLY" was misbranded with-
in the iceaning'dfihe ct in that its labeling bboe the statements:
th ain r* y** *-**^ ^ i' *.. ^*"* *


"TO U
water,
action
sive wE
OUTS:
Bait w
area, g
INSIDE
ened fl
pets, a.
drink i
used m


SE: Unwrap the Tray O' Fly Bait
wetting the ly ~ait thoroughly as
that releases'ingredients attract
?tting.
IDE HOUSES AND PATIOS : Pla


he
ar
)E
y
nd
ng
er


Sand dip completely in
this causes a chemical
ire to flies. Avoid exces-


ce Tray of


moistened Fly


're flies are a problem around dwelling, pool, patio, refuse
'bage cans or anywhere flies congregate.
HOMES: Place Tray of Good-By Mr. Fly fly tray of moist-
bait in protected areas, out of the reach of children and
where dying flies cannot fall into food, utensils, or
water. Note: Not more than 1 Tray O'Fly Bait should be
average sized room.


, RESTAURANTS and OTHER EATING ESTABLISHMENTS; Use
one Tray O' Fly Bait per 100 sq. ft. around refuse area.


1P

1:


]k






'18


INSECTICIDE,


?UNGOIDBE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


Ac?


[I.P.R.N.J.


Active Ingredent: Dimethjl 2,2-DZlhlorotvyl Phosphate__-------- s 0. 25%
Inert Irngre~11entit: -- -- 99. 75)

and such statement were false or misleading sine. they implied or represented
(1) that the product, whey used as directed, would be effective for the control
of files, and (2) that the product contained 0.25 percent of dimethyl 2,2-dichloro-
vinyl phosphate d 99.75 percent ip ingredients; whereas, (1) the product,
when used as directed, would not be .effective for he control of flies, and (2)
the product contained less than 0.25 percent of dimethyl 2,2-dichlorovinyl phos-
phate and more than 99.75 percent inert 'ingreients.
It was further alleged that the product "GOOD-BY 32. fly," was adulter-
ated 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 Ingredient: fiimethy 2,2-Dichlorovinyl Phosphate- 0.25%
Inert Ingredient: ,S. i^ w---:----- ---- --- t-t- 99. 75 %"
and such statement represented that the product contained 0.25 percent of di-
methyl 2,2-dichlorovinyl phosphate; whereas, theproduct contained less than
0.25 percent of dimethyl 2,2-dichlorovinyl phosphate.
It was alleged that the product "GOOD-BY MR. FLY TRAY O'FLY BAIT"
was misbranded within the meaning of the act in that its labeling bore the
statements:
"WILL KILL OTHER INmSETS. Good-By Mr. Fly Tray O'Fly Bait attacks
insects through the nervous system and will kill most every type that comes in
contact with it, including Roaches.
TO USE. Unwrap the Tray O' Fly Bait and dip completely in water, wetting
the fly bait thoroughly as this causes a chemical action that releases
ingredients attractive to flies. Avoid excessive wetting.
Houses and Patios: Place Tray of moistened Fly Bait where flies are a
problem around dwelling (only out of doors), pools patio, refuse area,
garbage cans or anywhere flies congregate.
Restaurants and Other Eating Establishments: Use one Tray 0' Fly Bait
per 100 sq. ft. around refuse area.
Dog Kennels, Pet Shops, Stables, Dairy Barns, Poultry Houses, Outbuildings,
etc.: Use one Tray O' Fly Bait per 100 sq. ft. of area hig sure that
pets, poultry and livestock will not come in contact with the bait.
GOOD-BY MR. FLY 'TRAY 0' LY BAIT' should last one complete season. If
its killing action slows down, wet the bait again to reactivate.


*
Active Ingredient: OO-O,-dimethyl-2,2 dichlorovinl posphate 0. 25%
Inert Ingredient : --.... __-- ...- .... ----- --------_, 99. 75%
100.00%
and such statements were false or misleading since they implied or represented
(1) that the product, when used as directed wou be dective for the control of
flies, roaches, and all other insects implied by the term "*other insects," (2)
that the only active ingredient contained in the product is OO-O,O-dimethyl-2,2
dichlorovinyl phosphate, arid (3) that the product contained 0.25 percent of
OO-O.O-dimethyl-2.2 dichlorovinyl phosphate; whereas, (1) the product, when
used as directed would not be feetve for the control of flies, roach, or
all other insets implied by the term "other insees," (2) the only active ingre-






-72-396]


S* NOTICES O:F J DG ENT


319


"Active Ingredient
Inert Ingredient:


O0-O,0-dimethyl 2,2 dichlorovinyl phaphate. 0.25%
-.- .- -- ----. -- --- --- --- --. .l--- i.I. M--- 99 75%


S100.
and such statement represented that the product contained 0.25 percent
methyl-2,2 dichlorovinyl phosphate, whereas the product contained less
0.25 percent of dimethyl-2,2 dichloroviiyl phosphate.
None of the product "GOOD-BY MR. FLY TRAY O'FLY BAIT was ava
for seizure. On October 8, 19 .no claimant having appeared, a deci
condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered that the I
States Marshal destroy the product, "GOOD-BY MR. FLY."


00%"
of di-
than


dilable
:ee of
United


395. Lack of registration and required information on label and misbranding
of "FAB-BRITE MAGIC SHAMPOO? U.S. v. 118 sixteen-ounce bottles,
more o less of a product labeled in part "FAB-BRITE MAGIC SHAM-
POO" Deftelt doere of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction.
(L IB& RB. Na 46 I.D. No. 406i1.)
The product, "FAB-BRITE MAGIC SHAMPOO" was not registered under the
Ieert Ineticidde, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. An examination of the
produce showed that the labels affixed to the containers of the product did not
bea a statement of net weight or measure of the contents of the containers, or
an ingredient statement The label also bore statements which were false and
misleading.
O July 17, 1962, the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of
n tpett, tiw t ppn a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
Tght'i&-t Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and con-
fctk 118 sixteen-ounce bottles, more or less, of a product labeled in part,
.BRIMT MAGIC SHAMPOO," alleging that the product was an economic
bi wliehta been transported interstate on or about May 27, 1960, by Rex
Cheeal Cooewany, from Nashville, Tenn., in violation of the act.
it 6a alleged t'it the product was not registered with the Secretary of
rwt uiid by section 4 of the act.
I M ifu1rafilegedi that the product failed to comply with the provisions
of thie aLt in that the label affixed to the containers of the product did not bear
a statement of the net weight or measure of the contents of the containers.
It was further alleged that the product was misbranded within 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 active ingredient,
together with the total percentage of the inert ingredients, in the product, or, in
the alternative, an ingredient statement giving the name of each active ingre-
dient, together with the name of each and total percentage of the inert ingre-
dients, in the product.
It was further alleged that the product was misbranded within the meaning
of the act in that its label bore the statements:


"MAGIC SHAMPOO
FAB BRITE
CLEANS BEAUTIFIES
RUGS UPHOLSTERY
DISINFECTS AND MOTH PROOFS


Directions for Upholstery
1. Vacuum thoroughly
2. Add 4 to 6 tablespoons Fab-Brite to 1 quart warm water. Mix well.
3. Apply with soft bristled scrubbing brush or large sponge. Shake excess






320


NSIECTIOJIXE,


fUNOICWE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


[I.F.R.N.J.


Directions for .
1. Vacuum thoroughly
2. Add 4 to 6 tablespoons Fab-Brite to 1 quart warm water.
8. Apply with soft bristled hand scrubbing brush or long handled
Shake excess ifquid out of brh after dipping in solution. Use
brisk back and forward strokes to work up rich foam on rug.
with several strokes to lay a pown. Clean small area at a tin
overlap to ensure even cleaning.
4. No rinsing or wiping necessary. Fab-Bite evaporates complete.
ing rgs soft and lustrous.


brush.
short,
Finish
ae and
y lear-


and sCh statements were false or misleadirgsin they implied or represented
that the product, when ped as directed, weod act as"da i-n ta nt; whereas,
the product, when uped as direete, wolfd lt a~k as a liiaectant.
On October 2, 196f no ciimant ha ing appeared, a> decree of condemnation
and forfeiture was entered and the Unitr: States Marshal was orderedd to destroy
the product.
396. Laek of registration and required ition tion on label and misbranding
of "MOON GLOW PATIO CANDLE" U.S. V. 09 containers, more or
less, of a product labeled in part "MOON GLOW PATIO CANDLE."
Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture hnd destruction. (I.F. & R.
No. 469. I.D. No. 42012.)


The product "MOON GIXOW PATO dANDI WEas not registered under the
Federil nsecticide Fungicide, and "t"enti~ige Act An examination of the
product showed that the labels affixed to the containers of the product did not
contain directions for use which are iecessary and, if comid with, adequate
for the protection of the public; a statement of the net wqjigt o measure of the
contents of the containers ; or an ingredient statement as riqired by the act.
On July 24, 1962, the United States Attrney for the EaStIrn District of Wis-
consin, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agrieulttire, filed in the United
States District Court a libel praying seizure for coAdemnati h and confiscation
of 309 containers, more or less, of a fodixt labeled in pa1t, "MOON GLOW
PATIO OANDLEJ'" at tRacin% Wis., llg that th@ rioa was an economic
poiton which had been transported interstate, On or out l 27.1962, by John
M. Shawv&n Oompany, from Forest Park,, ll, 'in vi~ ltion of tgh act.
It as alleged that the product was fibt regsed wth the Secretary of
Agriculture as required by section 4 of the act ,
It was further alleged that the product was mib nd within the meaning
of the act in that its labels did not contain directions fr f e which are necessary
and, if complied with, adequate for the protection of the public.
It was further alleged that the product failed to omply the provisions of
the act in that the labels on the immediate coitazi ~f tfle produi4 did not bear
a statement of the net weight or measure of the contents,
It was further alleged that the prodtet was isbranded within 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 active ingre-
dient, together with the total percentage of the inert ingredients, in the product,
or, in the alternative; an gredent statement giving the name of each active
ingredient, together with the name of each and total percentage of the inert in-
gredients, in the product.
On August 22, 1962,,po claimant having appeared, a dpae of condemnation
and forfeiture was entered and the TUnited State, )MAril was ordered to






72961INDEX

INDEX TO


OTICES


NOTICES OF
N.J. No. I


I


JUDGMENT


321


JUDGMENT 372-396


N.J, No.


Amway Germicidal Concentrate
Amway Sales Corp__. -
Baby Pacifier and Teething Ring
Louis A. Boettiger Co., Inc -
Chemically Treated with Nomor-
germ
Padco Manufacturing Co.,
Inc --.------------------
Corn Meal
Abalene Pest Control Serv-
ice, Inc..-- ---- ---
Diphacin 1/10
Neochem Products Co., Inc_
Disod Crab Grass Killer
Cambridge Labs., Inc ..
8% Chlordane Dust
Cambridge Labs., Inc
Fab-brite Magic Shampoo
Rex Chemical Co-.....
5% Aldrin Granules
Atlas Agricultural Chemi-
cals, Inc_ --------..----
5% Heptachlor Granules
Atlas Agricultural Chemi-
cals, Inc--------------
Good-by Mr. Fly
Esquire Chemical Co-
Good-by Mr. Fly Tray O'Fly Bait
Esquire Chemical Co..
Kelthane Miticide
Cambridge Labs., Inc
Little Angel Scientific Teether
Alan Jay-Clarolyte Co -,
Mark 7 Germicidal Liquid Syn-
thetic Detergent
Piatt & Smillie Chemicals,
Inc-..--- ------------- .--
Moon Glow Patio Candle
John M. Shawvan Co....
New! Staph-Kill
The Selig Co .............
No One Likes to Clean Toilet
Bowls
Sta-Kleen Co----- ------
Patterson's Dairy Cattle Dust
Pearson-Ferguson Chemical
Ce __- S ,_- ----------


Permachem Household Spray
Permachem Home Products
CorP ------------------
Pine Odor Disinfectant
Hunt Manufacturing Co .--...
Pine Oil No. 5
Klix Chemical Co., Inc....-
Puracon
Worth Chemical Products
Co .... ___
R-H Dalirhap
Reasor-Hill Corp-.....
R--H Dieldrin 17%
Reasor-Hill Corp.._ .
R-H Malathion 57%
Reasor-Hill Corp n..
Refill for Sta-Kleen Bathroom
Appliance
Sta-Kleen Co----- ---....-
Repel Insect Repellent
Reasor-Hill Corp
Rough Grind
Abalene Pest Control Serv-
ice, Inc-__ -
Saf-T-Clean Porcelain Cleaner
James Varley & Sons, Inc_
Sandahl's Silicone Clipper Lube
L. R. Sandahl Mfg. Co.
(McRay's) --------
Sani-Trol Treatment for
Dust Mops & Dust Cloths
Frontier Chemical Products,
Inc .-------
Selig's Aseptene
The Selig Co..-------....-
Southern-Pine-Type Disinfectant
Pompeian Olive Oil Corp___
Sta-Kleen Bathroom Appliance
S. Disinfects
Sta-Kleen Co -......-----.
10% Chlordane Granules
Atlas Agricultural Chemi-
cals, Inc- --.----
The Hyon Bag Water Purifier
Hydronics Corp ...._




UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
111 1 i llIIIIll 1i11 1 1 1 1 11 UI BI
3 1262 08588 8401


IIII