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:
AA00008500:00012

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
7'


SLEi.R. 422-450


Issued July 1964


44I~
1.4 *

*:f" 4*
#.i~
j.i


UNITED


'STATES
AGRICU


AGRICULTURAL


RI


PESTICIDES REGU


DEPARTMENT
JLTURE

RESEARCH SERVI E

ELATION DIVISION


OF


/I-,


7n
-~0


CES


JUDGMENT


5- FUNGICIDE,


UNDER
AND RI


THE


FEDERAL


DDENTICIDE


INSECTICIDE,


ACT


Nos.


422-450


'jThe following notices of judgment relate to cases arising in the United
St4e.. District Courts and are approved for publication as provided in section
0 ~,. the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 135d).


.*

i.WArINGTON, D.O., February 12, 1964


M. R. CLARKSON,
Acting Administrator.


r4 Lack of registration of "RAT.DOOM." U.S. v. 151 one-pound boxes, more
or less, of "RAT.DOOM." Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture,
.:Ij~' ad destruction (I.F. & R. No. 471. I.D. No. 41696.)
SThe product "RAT.DOOM" was not registered under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
On August 7, 1962, the United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut,
atang tpon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United States
District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation of 151
on-pocund'boxes, more or less, of "RAT.DOOM," at Hartford, Conn., alleging that
thp product was an economic poison which had been transported interstate, on or
about March 15, 1962, by Lynwood Laboratories, Inc., from Norwood, Mass., in
oilftton of the act.
It .was alleged that the product was not registered with the Secretary of
kriculhure as required by section 4 of the act.
S'Oi March 1,1963, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation and
forfeiture was entered and the United States Marshal was ordered to destroy the
product,
S:2 Lack of registration and misbranding of "ALGEX-FIVE." U.S. v. 71 one-
"l- : gpn containers, more or less, of "ALGEX-FIVE." Consent decree of
" :: ipnaend nation, ordering destruction of 63 bottles of the product and re-
S 'lease 'of 8 bottles to Charles C. Whitmer and/or The Clayton Chemical
S Company for testing purposes only. (I.F. & R. No. 474. J.D. No. 40639.)
The product "ALGEX-FIVE" was not registered under the Federal Insecticide,
Ilnugicide, and Rodenticide Act and an examination of the product showed that
the labels affixed to the containers of the product did not bear an ingredient
statement as is required by the act.






342


INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE ACT


tN.,..I.A.W


together with
the alternative
together with
the product.
Mr. Charles
ship of the pr
tion. 0 Jun
destruction o


the total percentage of the inert ingredients, in the product, or, in
e, an ingredient statement giving the name of each active ingredient,
the name of each and total percentage of the inert ingredients, in


f


C. Whitmer, representing the Whitmer Company,. claimed owner-
duct and consented to the entry of a consent. decree of condemna-
* 3, 1963, a consent decree of condemnation was entered ordering
63 bottles of the product and release of 8 bottles to Charles C


Whitmer and/or The Clayton Chemical Coi

424. Lack of registration of "RED STAR
v. nine 25-pound bags, more or less,
less, of "RED STAR THE SUPER
condemnation, forfeiture, and destl
No. 40835.)


mpany for testinpurp sg j

THE SUPER GRO-MASTER." IU.S
and eleven 50-pound bags, more or
GRO-MASTER." Default decree of
ruction. (I.F. & R. No. 518. I.D.


The product "RETD STAR THH SUPER GRO-MAS TIR" w mi


under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, a
On January 24, 1963, the United States
acting upon a report by the Secretary of
DistrictC C:prt,. aia e rain seizure for
25-Wpom bas, snmore or less and eleven
STAR THE SUPER GRO-MASTER," at P
was an economic poison which had been tU
22, and July 19, 1962, by Downey Fertilin


nd Rodenticide Act.-
Attorney for the District of Arizona,
Agricult.ure- f-led inthe-- Unit*et1B
condemnation and confiscation of nine
i0-pound bags, more or less. of "RED
phoenix Ariz., alleging that the product
transported interstate, on or about May
ser Company, from Downey, Calif., in


violation of the act.
It was alleged that the product was not registered with the Secretary of-Agri- |
culture a~reqUi red by section 4 of the act.
On March 6, 1963, rtlaimapt avimigappeared, a decree of condemnation and
Torfeiture wasentered and the United States Marshal was ordered o esfrr
product.

425. Lack of registration and misbranding of "HARCO-PLEASANTLY PERI
FUMED DEODORANT BLOCKS." U.S. v. 22 cases, more or I!j each
containing 36 blocks of "HARCO-PLEASANTLY PERFUMED DEODOR-
ANT BLOCKS,' Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and de-
S. structioni (I.F. & R. No. 499. I.D. No. 41598.) :
T, product" 'HARBOOBPLASANT"LY. PERFUMED DEODORANT
was not registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act .
and the lattel affixed to tAe cotaine f the y d 4i eoto4
se whiicih are necessary and, if complied w~th, adequate for ei pro ec ino
the tblic.
On November 9, 1962, the United States Attorney for the District of Kansas,
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 22 ,
cases, more or less, each containing 36 blocks of "HARCO-PLEASANTLY PER-
FUMED tDEOI3RANT BLOCKS," at tansas City, Kans., alleging
product was an economic poison which had been transported interstate, on or
about August 10, 1962, by The Harvey Company, Inc., from Houston, Texas,.,in
Violation of the act. .1
l it was alleged that the product was not registered with the Secretary of Ag1i
culture as required by section 4 of the act.
It was further alleged that the product was misbranded within the meaning







422-450]


NOTICES 0


JUDGMENT


4:.?"


348


product showed that the labels flxed to the contaiers a the product did not
a statement of net weight or measure of the content; a .statement giing the
name and address of the manitfacturer, tegitraif tor erson for whom manu-
factured an ingredient stateltet; or a of the name, brand, o trade-
mark under which the product was LoId
On November 15, 1962, the United States Attortey for the District of New


Jersey, acting
States Distric
103 packages,
{N. J., alleging


upon a
t Court a
more or
that the


report by tihe ecr4tt y of Agriculture, filed. in the United
Slibel prayer seizure for condemnation and confiscation of
less of INSECT REiPELLENT TISSUES" at Elizabeth,
product was an economic poison which had been trans-


...ported interstate, on :r about Stember 14, 1962, by the Alliped Novelty Manu-
facturing Company, from Chicago, Ill., in violation of the act.
St was alleged that the product was not registered with the Secretary of Agri-
culture as required by section of the actt.,
It was alleged that the product was inisbranded within the meaning of the
act in that its labels id niot bear an ingredient, statement giving the name and
percentage of each active ingredient, together with the total percentage of the
iiirt goedients, in the product, or, in the aIteinative, an ingredients stateme t
g;w hg the name of each active ingredient, together with the name ot each and
Stotihl percentage of the inert ingredients in the product.
It was further alleged that the product failed t6 comply ith the provisions
Sto act in that the labels on the immediate containers did not bear a statement
o fthe etweiht or measure .of the contents of the containers.
Sfuthr alleged that the labels on the immediate containers did not
bear thie name and addtrss of the nianufatcturer, registrant, or person for whom
manufactured; or a statement of the name, brand, or trademark under which
gaid product was old.
On January 31, 1963, no claimant having appeared, a default decree of con-
demnation was entered and the United States Marshal was ordered to destroy
the product.

SLak .f registration and misbranding of "HOSPITAL VELVA-SHEENr
Sk~t11 sixteen-ounce cans, more or less, of "HO$PITAL VELVA-
SHEEN." Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction.
I. F.: & R. No. 502. I.D. No. 42702.)
pbo usItet- "HOSPITAL VELVA- SHEEN" was not registered under the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and the product was mis-
branded in that its labeling bore statements which were false of misleading.
n :,Nevember 14,1962, the United States Attorney for the District of Nebraska,
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United States
iit Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation of 115
sxtehn-ounce cans, more or less, of "HOSPITAL VELVA-SHEEN' at Omaha,
Nebr, alleging that the product was an economic poison which had been trans7
ported interstate on or about April 23, 1961, by Majestic Wax Company, froli
Denver, Colo., in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the product was not registered with the Secretary f
Agriculture as required under section of the act.
t Was alleged that the product was msbrainded within the meaning of tie
act in that its labeling bore the statements:


HtTA~


:: ""'~"',ji









344 INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT [N.J., L.F.

How to use HOSPITAL Velva-Sheen for control of cross-infection from
floors and air-borne dust ..
1. Sweep floors daily with mops treated with HOSPITAL Velva-Sheen I
in order to eliminate germ-laden dust particles and maintain floor beauty.
2. Use HOSPITAL Velva-Sheen sparingly! On freshly laundered or
new mops, spray HOSPITAL Velva-Sheen on mop strings till mop is
moist never wet. Too much HOSPITAL Velva-Sheen leaves
streaks. Mops can be retreated between laundering.
3. To unload mop, shake thoroughly. Note how all dust drops down ..
does not By into the air. *
Let HOSPITAL Velva-Sheen join your fight against the killer, cross-
infection. ,
and such statements were false or misleading since they implied or represented
that the product when used as directed, would eliminate germ-laden dust
particles and would control cross-infection in hospitals, schools, institutions,
stores and homes; nwereas, the product, when used as directed, would nft
eliminate ge3lden dust particles and would not control cross-infection a--
hospitals, oo, institutions, stores, or homes.
On May 2, 18, no l~aimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation and
forfeiture was entered and the United States Marshal was ordered to destroy
the product.


and misbranding of "WIZARD THE MIRACLE
4,988 siteen-ounce bottles, more or less, of "WIZ-
CLEANER." Consent decree of condemnation and
(I.F. & R. Nd. 510. I.D. No. 43232.)


'The product "WIZARD 1 T MXBAOLR CLEANEii" was no
the Federal Insecticide, Funcd, md Ra denticide Act. A
the product showed that the label affixed to the containers
ingredient statement and the product was misbranded in tl
claims which were false or misleading.
On February 25, 1&S, the United States Attorney for the Dis
acting upon a.report by the Sretary of Agriculture, filed in
District Court a libel praying seizure er condemnation ar
4,988 sixteen-ounce bottles, more or less, of "WIZARD
CLEANER" at Baltimore, Md., alleging the product was an
which had been transported interstate on or about March 20
by the < x Chemical Company, Ine., from Nashville. Tenn., i
It was alleged that the product was not registered with
rilci ttre as requred under section 4 of the act.
It W ts alleged that thb xrodnct was misbranded within th
t ii'n that Ssit ab dit~ bear an ingredient statement giv
percenii Of eat acti e ingredient, together with the total
inert ingredient, in the product, or, in the alternative, an ing
giving the name of each active ingredient, together with the
al percentae pof theJinert ingredients, in the product.
It wasalleged 'thatte prodtd was further misbranded with
the act in that its labeling bore the statements:


"Western Auto
Wizard
mrFI MITRuAn f lT T.FA1TSflR


)t registered under |
n examination ,.J
did not bear an
hat its label bore
trict of Maryland,
the Unite
id confiscaton o
THE MIRACLE
economic poison
and May 16, 196,
n violation of the
the Secretary of
e meaning of the
ing the name and
percentage of the .
rredient statement
name of each and
-- -- v. ** ^ ^^ ^ ^^ J ^^ ^ ^^^- 1 ^JB
in the meaning
"ii

3t


428 Lack of
CLEAD
ARDT
release







4~22-450]


NOTICE S


JUDGMENT


345


Wizard is
cleaner .
Cleans all
for suede
garments
delicate m
Wizard is


NOT "just another cleaner," it's the DIFFERENT
Excellent for car interiors and upholstering .
enameled and porcelain surfaces. Recommended
shoes, leather goods, sweaters and other type
Also can be used as a cold water detergent for
materials and all hand washable fabrics.
non-flammable.


1. ORIGINAL COLORS SPRING BACK TO LIFE when you
mix this safe, gentle concentrate with water and brush the
miracle cleaner into rug, carpet or upholstery.
2. PILE IS LEFT OPEN, LOFTY, FLUFFY--because Wizard
doesn't sog or mat the nap.
3. NO OILY, GUMMY RESIDUE-or any other objectionable
particles remain to cause rapid Resoiling.
4. SO CLEANING LASTS LONGER-and soil can be removed
from spots and traffic lanes without re-cleaning entire rug.


DIRECTIONS
1. Vacuum thoroughly.
2. Add 4-6 cups of Wizard


3. Apply with soft brii
Shake excess liquid o'
brisk back and forwa,
with several strokes ti
overlap to ensure even
4. No rinsing or wipin


stied 1
ut of
rd str
o lay


FOR

lolq
hand
brus
okes
nap


cleaning.
g necessary


RUGS & UPHOLSTERY

It. warm water.
scrubbing brush or long handled brush.
h after dipping in solution. Use short,
to work up rich foam on rug. Finish
down. Clean small area at a time and

y. Wizard evaporates completely leav-


ing fabrics soft and lustrous.
5. When dry, vacuum to raise nap.

and such statements were false or misleading since they implied or represented
that the product when used as directed, would disinfect car interiors, uphol-
enamel and porcelain surfaces, suede shoes, leather goods, sweaters and
S*type garments," and rugs; whereas, in truth and in fact, the product,
wa .d as directed, would not disinfect car interiors, upholstering, enamel
and porcelain surfaces, suede shoes, leather goods, sweaters and "other type
or rugs.
Wrn Auto Supply Company, Baltimore, Md., claimed ownership of the
product and requested its release under bond for the purpose of removing the
SIproduct from' the jurisdiction of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenti-
cide Act. On April 24, 19683, a decree of condemnation was entered and it was
ordered the condemned product be released to the claimant under bond.

429. Misbranding and adulteration of KEN-KO NEW "DDVP" FLY BAIT."
US v. 596 fourteen-ounce containers, more or less, of "KEN-KO NEW
"DDVP" FLY BAIT" Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture and
:: destruction. (LFt. & N 516. I.D. No. 4079.)
'The product- "KEN-KO NEW "DDVP" FLY BAIT" was misbranded and
adulterated in that it claimed less active ingredients, and more inert ingredients
than was claimed on the label.
.On Pebr ury .. 1908, the UnitedStates Attorney for the Eastern District
on f Kentuckyating upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
United States District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and
confiscation of 596 fourteen-ounce containers, more or less; of "KEN-KO NEW







INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


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


Formulated with .8% DDVP


and such statements were false or mi...ding since ethy imple~ r
that the product contained 0.5% 2,2-dichlorovinyl dimethyl phosphat
inert ingredients; whereas, the product contained less thu 0.5%j
vinyl dimethyl phosphate and more than 99.5% inert Ingredients.
It was further alleged that the product was adulterated within
of the act, in that its strength or purity fell below the professed
quality as expressed onrits labeling.
On April 12, 1968, no claimant having appeared, a default decree
nation and forfeiture was entered and the United States Marshal
to destroy the product.


e and 99.5%
2.2-dichloro-

the meaning
standard or


of condem-
was ordered


430. Misbranding and adulteration of "rLYCO BRAND DRY FLY BAIT."
U.8. v. 298 two-pound containers, more or less, of "FLYCO BRAND DRY
FLY BAIT? Deftlt decree of condemnation, forfeiture and destruc-
tion. (I.F. & H, No. 521. I.D. No. 40678.)
The product "FLYCO BRAND DRY FLY BAIT" was misbranded and adul-
terated in that it contained less active ingredients, and more inert ingredients
than was claimed on the label, and it also bore false or misleading statements.
On March 8, 1963, the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of


Kentucky, acting upon a report by the Secret
United States District Court a libel praying
confiscation of 298 two-pound containers, more o
FLY BAIT" at Lexington, Ky., alleging that
poison which had been transported interstate,
Fly-Cord, Inc., from Savannah, Ga., in violation o


ary of
seizure
r less. of


%gr
fo
"F


culture, filed in the
r condemnation and
LYCO BRAND DRY


the product was
on or about May
f the act.


economic
1961, by


It was alleged that the product was misbranuded within the meaning of the
act in that its labeling bore the statements:


flyco BRAND
DRY fly bait


"with
NEW instant acting
DDVP


SIMPLY
* Sprinkle in areas where flies congregate, or
* Make highly effective bait stations .


KILLS RESISTANT
;r *


FLIES


RECOMMENDED FOR USE IN


* Dairy barns
* Poultry houses
* Picnic areas


* Hog farms
* Stables
* Kennels


Here's How to Use it
Flyeo Brand dry fly balt is a new, highly improved bait formulation
which dn be used to kill both resistant and non resistant houseflies.


"" i i ii; iii" "


~
- z y


~%~t~a







4~2-450]


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


347


Mfg. by Fly-Cord, Inc. P.O. Box 2006, Savannah, Ga., original
turers of Fly-Cord, the impregnated cord method that gives yo
long control of houseflies with one application.
ACTIVE INGREDIENT:
Dimethyl Dichlorovinyl Phosphate- -. --.____-_--.___
RT INGREDIENTS .--------- ---------.----- -----_- .._._._


manufac-
u season-


.5%*
99.5%


100.0%
*Formulated with 0.8% DDVP, but declared lower to allow for possible
loss during storage.

and such statements were false or misleading since they implied or represented
that the product contained 0.5% 2,2-dichlorovinyl dimethyl phosphate and 99.5%
inert ingredients and that the product, when used as directed, would be effective
against flies: whereas, in truth and in fact the product contained less than
0.5% 2,2-dichlorovinyl dimethyl phosphate and more than 99.5% inert ingredients
and the product, when used as directed, would not be effective against flies.
It was further alleged that the product was adulterated within the meaning
of the act, in that its strength or purity fell below the professed standard or
quality as expressed on its labeling.
On April 12, 1963, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation
was entered and the United States Marshal was ordered to destroy the product.


431.


Misbranding and adulteration of "MYZON FACE FLY AND FLY BAIT
SYRUP." U.S. v. 248 one-pound, five-ounce packages, more or less, of
"MYZON FACE FLY AND FLY BAIT SYRUP." Default decree of con-
demnation, forfeiture and destruction. (I.F. & R. No. 515. I.D. No.
9 0 0 S.)


Wp product "MYZON FACE FLY AND FLY BAIT SYRUP" was misbranded
Rated in that it contained less active ingredients, and more inert in-
gredients than was claimed on the label, and it also bore false or misleading

~ ry 21, 968, the United States Attorney for the Northern District
t WesternDivisio, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture,
S United States District Court a libel praying seizure for condemna-
tM an confiscation of 248 one-pound, five-ounce packages, more or less, of
'%ixY WNAIj FLY AND FLY BAIT SYRUP" at Sandusky, Ohio, alleging that
the product was an economic poison which had been transported interstate on
or about April 18, 1962, by Myzon Laboratories, from Chicago, Ill., in viola-
tion of the act.
It was alleged that the product was misbranded within the meaning of the
act" Iht its abelipg ore the st. events
....t ||1 .s labeling bore^ / ^^-*/- *'*^ l. ^*Ai*V- i^ ^.*, -^* *


FACE- FLY and
PLY BAIT SYRUP
NEW!
DUAL PURPOSE
ATATS KILLS s FAST
O OF WAOE FLIES AND HjOUSEI


FLIES


ACTIVE INGREDIENT ]


BY WT.


INE


i,


,,
,,,



,E


":; rff;Sd'r
.. SP")libi;L ;


""" ::""":::: ""


i


~~"b~









HOUSE
To use a
with the
Syrup on
by flies.
buildings,


INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT.


[N.J., I.PA.


FLIES:


s Fly Bait Syrup, merely remove Applicator Brush and replace
attached spout. Apply strips of MYZON Face Fly & Fly Bait
window sills, railings, rafters, bait stations, and places frequented
Excellent for use in dairy and livestock barns, milk room, poultry
loading docks, stock yards, etc. Repeat as needed.


and such statements were false or misleading since they implied or represented
that the product contained 0.5% 2,2-dichlorovinyl dimethyl phosphate and that 1
the product, when used as directed, would be effective against face flies and
house flies whereas, thedet contained less 0.5%
dimethyl phosphat$, ai4, hen sed as directed t 0 ep rout
effective against fae flikd hand oe fIs a
It was further alleged that the product was adulterated within the meaning
of the act in that its strength or purity fell below the professed standard or
quality as expressed on its labeling.
On March 7, XOS, 1O d aimnant ah ing apea red, a deiee f k d
and forfeiture was entered and the United States Marshal was ordered to
destroy the product.

432. Misbranding nd adulteratin of 'FARNAM DIE-FLY 3-WAY 'SUGAR-
BASE' FLY KILLERL" U. v. 188 one-pound containers, more or less,
and 103 five- n4 containers more or less, of "FARNAM DIE-FLY 3-
WAY 'SGAG-BASE' FLY K LLER." Consent decree of condemnation
and destruction (I.EA & r No. 497. I.D No. 41533.)
The product "FA INAN IJE-FLY 8-WAY 'SUGAR-BASE' FLY KILLER"
was misbranded and adulterated in that it contained less active ingredient and
more inert ingredients than were aimed on the la bel.
On January 15, 1963, the United States Attorney for the Northern District
of Texas, Fort Worth Division, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agricul-
ture, filed in the United Stahtes District Court a libel praying seizure for con-
demnation and confiscation of 188 one-pound containers, more or less, and 103 five-
pound containers, more or less, of "FARNAM DIE-FLY 3-WAY 'SUGAR BASE'
FLY KILLER" at Fort Worth, Texas, alleging that the product was an economic
poison which had been transported interstate oa or about March 15 and May 28.
1962, by The JParnim Compniy, from Onriaba, iNebr, Violati io othe at; .L
It was alleged that the product Was misbranded within the meaning of the act
in that its labeling bore the statements:


ACTIVE INGREINflINT
0,0-dimethyl, 2,2-dchlorovinyl phosph ate .......... ... 0. 5%
INET INGREDINTS------- ---------------- 99. 5%
q lr h-^ i ^-TO-TL___, .... ______i .- --a ... __ __ .. __ 0l.i 0s


and such statements were false or misleading since they implied a
that the product contained 0.5% O,-di yl, 2,2-dichlorovinyl phosphate and
99.5% inert ingredients; whereas, in fact, the product contained less than lOlr
0,0-dimethyl, 2,2-hl oviphosphate and more than 99.5% of inert
ingredients.
ItWas further alleged that the product was adulterated within the meaning of .







422-4W]


NOTICES


OPF JUDGMENT


;3419


The Welch Veterinary Supply Company, Fort Worth, Tesas claimed ownership
of the product and consented to the entry ofd a dener at eiidenati.on On
February 4, 1963, a consent decree of condemnation wal entered and the United
States Marshal was ordered to destroy said article.


433. Misbranding and adulteration c
BASE' FLY KILLER." U.S.
and 20 five-pound containers,
WAY 'SUGAR-BASE' FLY KI
forfeiture and destruction. (I


)f "FARNAM DIE-FLY 8-WAY 'SUGAR-
r. 200 one-pound containers, more or less,
more or less, of "FARNAM DIE-FLY 3-
LLER." Default decree of condemnation,
.F. & R. No. 522. I.D. No: 40676.)


The product "FARNAM DIE-FLY 3-WAY 'SUGAR-BASE' FLY KILLER"
was misbranded and adulterated in that it contained less active ingredients and
more inert ingredients than was claimed on the label, and it also bore false or
misleading statements.


On March 8, 1963,
tuQky, acting upon a
States District Cour
of 200 one-pound co.
or less, of "FARNA
Lexington, Ky., alleg
transported interstate


the United States Atto


.port 1
libel
iners,
DIE
that
in or


by the
prayi
more
-FLY
the pr
aEbout


from Omaha, Nebr., in violation of t


I Secret
ug seizu
or less,
3-WAY
oduct w:
February
;he act.


rney for the Eastern District of Ken-
ry of Agriculture, filed in the United
re for condemnation and confiscation
, and 20 five-pound containers, more
'SUGAR-BASE' FLY KILLER" at
as an economic poison which had been
y 26, 1962, by The Farnuam Company,


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


FARNAM
DIE-FLY
3-WAY
"S ugar-Base"
FLY KILLER
s***


ACTIVE INGREDIENT
0,0-dimethyl, 2,2-d!ilorovinyl phosphate--.. --- --.. 0.5%
INERT INGR EDIENTS ... -------- ------ ---------- --.. 99. 5%9
TOTI L i.m -.-m -f mmm mino100o. O no


Directions for


Farnam DIE-FLY kills both resistant and non-resistant strains of House
Flies. Continues to attract and kill fliem for weeks after application
when used as a dry bait or when dissolved in water and painted on as
directed, if it is not removed.
RECOMMENDED for control of flies in Dairy Barns, Calf Pens, Loading
Sheds, Stables, Poulty Boses, Dog Kennels and Animal Hospitals.
Also to reduce fly population ipouEnd Dairy BErns, Feed lots, Stock Yards
or Stables Loading Docks, Garbage Disposal areas or Outdoor
Latrines Open-Air Theatres, Drive-Ins, Creameries and Ice Cream
Stands. In all cases, good sanitation is essential. Remove all refuse
where flies breed as a first step in fly control.
AS A "BAIT" Sprinkle Farnam Die-Fly lightly in strips n floors,
window sills, walks and other horizontal surfaces in buildings where
flies gather. Use at least 4 ounces per 1000 sq. ft. IMPORTANT!--
lC nrinitnfn M^ *^n^r~ rtrfW~c'13fan^i v n.nfa, nSnwrran oA as wc m fln VtTVl 11T V n ni e- n A I


^ ?


~l~it~







SW


INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


SP ans, manure piles, feed lots, pou
Do not spray in dairy barns or tight
OTHER APPLICATIONS ... (1
available, teett se ks, boards, or s4
gather. First wet them. Then, a
liberally as a dry bait to manure
breeding places.


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


ltry houses, barns and out-bi
ly enclosed spaces.
) Where suitable surfaces
trips of cardboard, placed wh
ipply Farnam DIE-FLY. (2
piles, garbage dumps, and c


-*_ --:.:_J


fildings. **^

are. not .
ere jije
) Apply
either fly :


and such statements were false or misleading since they implied or represented
that the product contained 0.5% 2,2-dichlorovinyl dimethyl phosphate and 99.5%
inert ingredients and that the product, when used as directed, would .be effective
against fies; whereas, in truth and in fact, the product contained less than 0.5%
2,2-diorovdyl ditethyl phosphate and more than 99.5% inert ingredients and
the product, when used as irtet, whnot be effective against flies.
It was further alleged that te product was adulterated within the meaning of
the act in that ite stre~gtr purity fell below the professed standard or quality
as expressed on its labeling.
On April 12, 1963, n6eirmBlBt hatvlng appeared, a decree of condemnation and
forfeiture was entered ani the United States Marshal was ordered to destroy
the product


.11


ii
~I
:I

"I


434. Lack of registration and mtishnnding or "PET MATE FLEA & TC K
BOMB" and "PET MATE INSECTICIDAL BIRD SPRAY." U.S. v. 44
six-ounce cans, more or less, and 108 sixteen-ounce cans, more or less, of
"PET MATE FLEA & TICK BOMBI and 80 six-ounce cans, more or less,
of "PET MATE INSECTICIDAL BIRD SPRAY." Default decree of con-
demnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I.F. & R. No. 510. I.D. Nos.
42572, 42573.)
The products "PET MATE FiA & TICOK BOMB" and "PET MATE IN-
SECTICIDAL BIRD SPRAX" were not registered under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. The products were also misbranded in that the
labels bore false or misleading statements.


On January 17, 1963, the United States Attorney
New York, acting upon a report by the Secretary
United States District Court, a libel praying seiure
fiscation of 44 six-ounce cans, more or less, and 108
less, of "PET MATE FLEA & TICK BOMB" and
less, of "PET MATE INSECTICIDAL BIRD SPRAY
that the products were economic poisons which had


on or


for the Eastern District of
of Agriculture, filed in the
for condemnation and con-
sixteen-ounce cans, more or
80 six-ounce cans, more or
" at Brooklyn, N.Y., alleging
been transported interstate


about June 14, 1962, by Aero Packaging, from Camden, N.J., in violation


of the act.
It was alleged that the products were not registered
Agriculture as required under section 4 of the act.
It was alleged that the product "PET MATE FLEA
misbranded within the meaning of the act in that its label
"net weight 6 ozs."
and such statement was false or misleading since it imp
the net weight of the product was six ounce; whereas, i
net weight of the product was less tha six ounces.
It was further alleged that the product "PET MATE :
SPRAY" wa& misbranded within the meaning of the act
the statements:


with


the Secretary of


& TICK BOMB" was
ling bore the statement:

Uedor a
n truth and in fact. the

INSECTICIDAL BIRD
in that its labeling bore


'i:l" I I II; ":" ~ e 8~;;~; ~ ;; :::~ j j Z ~ I$ i ~:~:B ;: I i ~ 5 ii ~ ~ ~ ~:~ IS iii ii II~ ~~ ~ ~:







, 422-450]


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


351


bird.
week.


Hold 2 to 3 feet from bird when spraying. Use once or twice each
Spray lightly-no more tb 1 burst of 2 to 8 seconds.


net weight 6 ozs.
l as $9s


and such statements were false ornisleading since they implied or represented
that the product, when used as directed, would disinfect birds and bird cages,
and that the net weight of the product was six ounces; whereas, in truth and in
fact, the product, when used as directed, would not disinfect birds and bird cages,
and the net weight of the product was less than six ounces.
On February 14, 1963, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation
and forfeiture was entered and the United States Marshal was ordered to destroy
the products.


435. Lack of registration, misbranding, and lack of required information on
labels of "SHOO-FLY OUTDOOR TRAP" units. U.S. v. 57, more or less,
"SHOO-FLY OUTDOOR TRAP" units. Default decree of condemnation,
forfeiture and destruction. (I.F. & R. No. 537. I.D. No. 43621.)
The product "SHOO-FLY OUTDOOR TRAP" units was not registered under
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and the labels borne by
the product did not bear a statement of net weight or measure of the contents,
or in ingredient statement.
On June 7, 1963, the United States Attorney for the District of Maine, South-
ern Division, 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 57, more or less, "SHO00-FLY OUTIDOOR TRAP" units, at Portland,
Maine, alleging that the product was an economic poison which had been trans-
ported interstate, on or about December 19, 1962, by Lynwood Laboratories,
Inc., from Norwood, Mass., in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the product was not registered with the Secretary of Agri-
culture as required under section 4 of the act.
It was alleged that the product was misbranded within the meaning of the
act in that the labels on its outside containers or wrappers did not bear an in-
gredient 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 alternate ve 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 further alleged that the labels on its outside containers did not bear a
statement of the net weight or measure of the contents of the containers.
On June 24, 1963, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation and
forfeiture was entered and the United States Marshal was ordered to destroy the
product.

436. Lack of registration, misbrandinr and adulteration of "MODERN A.P.C.


ALL
less,
in pa
more
ONE
monr


PURPOSE CHEMICAL.* U.S. v. 13 forty-pound drums, more or
and 37 twenty-eight-ounce jars, more or less, of a product labeled
rt "MODERN A.PC. ALL PURPOSE CHEMICAL," 100 pamphlets,
or less, be he stnt 'WOW FOR THE FIRST TIME
CHEMICAL FOR COMPLETE POOL CARE!*," and 200 circulars,
or lens. hearin? the statement "COMPLETE POOL CARE WITH


"~x 0




A wi&!~%rM,4~,1et!w1t~~ufl~unruE


352


INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


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


the labeling bore false and misleading statements.


Upon examination, the prod-


uct was found to contain less than 70% available chlorine and would not destroy
bacteria or all algae.
On August 7, 1962, the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey,
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Argiculture, filed in the United States
District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation of 18
forty-pound drums, more or less, and 37 twenty-eight-ounce jars, more or less,
of a product lebeled in part, "MODERN A.P.C. ALL PURPOSE CHEMIOAL,"
100 pamphlets, more or less, bearing the statement "NOW .FOR THE FIRST

more or less, bearing the statement "COMPLETE POOL CARE WITH ONE
OHEMICAL*," at flemington, N.J., alleging that the product was an economic
poison which had been transported interstate, on or about May 18, 1962, by
Modern Pool Products, Inc., from White Plains, N.Y., in violation of the act
It was alleged that the product was not registered with the Secretary of
Agriculture as required by section 4 of the act.
It was alleged that the pdU was misbranded within the meaning of the
act in that its label dId t bear an ingredient statement giving the name and
percentage of each active ngredint, together with the total percentage of the
inert ingredients, ki the product, or, m the alternative, and ingredient state-
ment 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 further alleged that the product was misbranded within the mean-
ing of ithe ettiai tt its balingb e the statements :
o~f VJ e fLU? ltf^mll^ Xl J t"^^ lUJ^


(Label)


"THE


* PREVENTS
DESTROYS
BAOT RIA


Chief ingredient


(Pamphlet)


COMPLETFI WATER TREATMENT
POR SWIMMING POOLe .
MODERNN

ALL PURPOSE CHEMICAL
AND PREVENTS .


DESTROYS :
AND ALGAE


Caleium Hypochiorite (available Chlorimn
*4*" *- .


O' W *.
hOR THE FIRST
ONE CHEMIC.
FOR
COMPLETE
POOL
CARE !*
.* i ir' *i :.


TIME
AL


AND
FUNGUS


'I


70%).


I:,


i i


modern
A.P.C. DOES A
1. Prevents
2. Prvents


THREE
and Kills
and Kills


-FOLD JOB:
Bacteria!
Algae!
* *. i a~ I <-.t


j


I


i







1422-450]


NOTICE S


OF JUDGMENT


358


and such statements were false o0
that the product contained 70%
when used as directed, would d
product contained less than 70%
reacted, would not destroy all bacter
It was further alleged that the
of the act in that its strength o0


r misleading since they implied or represented
of available ehldfn and that the product,
estroy all bacteria and algae; whereas, the
of available chlorine and, when used as di-
ia or algae.
product was adulterated within the meaning
r purity fell below the professed standard or


quality as expressed on its labeling, since its labeling bore the statements


Chief ingredient:


Calcium Hypochlorite


(available Chlorine, 70%).


e$g'


and such statement represented that the prow
chlorine; whereas, the product contained less
Modern Pool Products, Inc., White Plains,
product and requested its release under bond
product into compliance with the act and the
pamphlets and circulars and consented to the
On March 6, 1963, a decree of condemnation


educt contained


70%


available


than 70% of available chlorine.
N.Y., claimed ownership of the
for the purpose of bringing the
destruction of the accompanying
entry of a condemnation decree.
was entered and it was ordered


that the condemned product be released to the claimant under bond.


Lack of registration, lack of requ
ing of 'TOILET BRITE THE
v. 274 packages, more or less,
BOWL CLEANER." Default d,
struction. (I.F. & R. No. 514. I


ired information on labels, and misbrand-
AUTOMATIC BOWL CLEANER." U.S.
of "TOILET BRITE THE AUTOMATIC
ecree of condemnation, forfeiture and de-
C.D. No. 42064.)


The product "TOILET BRITE THE AUTOMATIC BOWL CLEANER" was
not registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
An examination 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 manufactured; a statement of the net weight
or measure of ,the contents: or an adequate warning or caution statement.
An examination of the labels affixed to the containers of the product also showed
that they did not bear an ingredient statement on that part of the immediate
container of the retail package which is presented or displayed under cus-


tomary conditions
statements.
On January 14,
of Illinois, Easte,
culture, filed in t
condemnation and
BRITE THE ATU


of purchase and


1963. the United
m Division, actin
he United States
I confiscation of
AROMATIC BOWL


labeling also


ig
I

(


bore false or misleading


States Attorney for the Northern District
upon a report by the Secretary of Agri-
District Court, a libel praying seizure for
;74 packages, more or less, of "TOILET
JLEANBR," at Clarendon Hills, Ill., alleg-


ing that the product was an economic poison which had been transported inter-
state on or about November 5. 1962, by L & J Water Specialties, Inc., from
New Berlin, Wis., in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the product was not registered with the Secretary of
Agriculture, as required by section 4 of the act.
It was alleged that the product was further misbranded within the meaning
of the act in that the labels on its outside containers or wrappers did not
bear an ingredient statement giving the name and percentage of each active




: ..*
.............................................................................................................................................................................:
IHI


354


INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


[N.J., I.F.K.


It was further alleged that the product was misbranded within the meaning
of the act in that its labeling bore the statements:
"TOILET
BRITE


NO RAGS
NO MOPS


4 K ./: K :


(Label on imm
c Otainer)


(Cireular


Her<


toilet bowls
cleaned by
flushing only


ediate

Gleans
Disinfeet




PSODOBIZES
WITH FLUSITING ACTION
OF THE TOILET ONLY
2,000 FLUSHINGS OR UP TC


IlTPEAR


e's flo
1. take Tdp Cf oft i eri Container. Fill wit with
anit in OverfitSr Aipe a sh ow on tight. Be s
tube is between the chiaiesml cartridge and out
2. Place shorter plastic tube into overflow pipe.
3. Bend the coppe toilet tubing that outlets into
enough to slide larger ptas~ti tube ver the end
to hang outside of overflOw pipe.
4. Unit nosV ready to use. ]For best results, clean
use.


, Water. Hang
ure the plastic
Side container.

overflow pipe
of pipe; allow

toilet prior to


and such statemrefts were false or misleading Since they itiplied
that the product, when used as directed, would disinfect Milet bo
action; whereas, the pi'bduct, Whii Used as directed, *Oidt not
bowls by flushing action.
It was further alleged that the labels on its outside contain
did not bear a statement of the name and addreSs of the manu
trant, or person for whom manufacture.
It was further alleged that the labels bn its immediate con
its outside containers or wrappers did not bear a statement of
or measure of the contents of the cotaner.
On February 28, 1963, no claimant having appeared, a decree ol
and forfeiture was entered and the United States Marshal v
destroy the product.


or represented
wls by flushing
disinfect toilet


rs or wrappers
facturer, regis-


trainers and on
the net weight


f condemnation
vas ordered to


438. Misbranding of "F E HOSPITAL DISINFECTANT." U.S. v. 133 fifteen-
ounce containers, more or les, ofl "a I HOSPITAL DISINFECTANT."
Default decree of condemnnation, foriture and destruction. (I.F. & R.
No. 44 I.D. No. 405. )


...... ........I


i







1 432-4501


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


It was alleged that the product was misbranded within the me the
act in that its labeling stated in part:


"powerful quick acting
fyte
hospital


DISINFECTANT
DEODORANT
TUBERCULOCIDAL
STAPHYLOCIDAL
FUNGICIDAL
BACTERICIDAL


This product will control the following organ
Salmonella typhosa, Shigella paradysenteriae,
leri, Escherichia Coli, Staphylococcus aureus, i
Mycobacterium smegmatis, Trichophyton int
glaucum.
This powerful Hospital Disinfectant and Deodor
surfaces such as Metal Beds and Springs, Whe
Hampers, Refuse Cans, Dressing Carts, Clear
Draperies, Furniture, Air Ducts, Toilet Seats, Te
Urinals, Light Switches, Office Machinery, .
Knobs, and other equipment, after the surface ha
Will reduce the hazard of cross infection by
*


isms: Tubercle Bacilli,
Salmonella schottmuel-
Streptococcus pyogenes,
:erdigitale, Penicillium


rant acts on germ laden
!el Chairs, Linen Carts,
i-up Carts, Mattresses,
,lephones, Wash Basins,
Laundry Chutes, Door
s been properly cleaned.
bacteria and viruses.


Excellent for use on bowling shoes,-disinfect, controls
prevents mildew,-dries instantly, leaving no oily film.


athlete's feet,


DIRECTION


For Disinfecting-
Hold dispenser upright about 6" to 8"
fected and spray 3 seconds until surface is


from surface to
wet.


be disin-


* *"


and such statements w
that the product, whe
surfaces listed in the
implied by the term "
ganisms listed above;
not disinfect the artic
those implied by the


ere false and misleading since
n used as directed (1) woufl
above-quoted statement and
other equipment," and (2) w(
whereas, the product, when i
'les and surfaces listed in the
term "other equipment," and


disease organisms listed above.
On July 18, 1963, no claimant
and forfeiture was entered and
destroy the product.


having appeared.
the United States


they
3 dis
those
would
used
abo
(2)


implied or represented
;infect the articles and
e articles and surfaces
control the disease or-
as directed (1) would
ve-quoted statement or
would not control the


a decree of condemnation
Marshal was ordered to


439. Lack of registration and misbranding of "Rx SAFE AIR." U.S, v. 42 eight-
ounce containers, more or less, of "Rx SAFE AIR." Defaul deree of
condemnation, forfeiture and destruction. (I.F. & R. No. 512. .1. No.
43124.)


- -.- -u -- .-i -


JrP, ii r







INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


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


It was further
of the act in that i


alleged that the product was misbranded within the meaning
ts labeling bore the statements:
'tax
Safe
air


the fragrant
room refresher
that sanitizes


it~i:


where tousehr
~afet-ir


as a disinfectant
SAFE-A IR coqtan leo l
16-22 thati t'emral c
Infection by aii
when sprayed it air, andl
To disinfect: Aft cleaning
thoroughly until we .

and such statements were 1 i r
that the product, when used as dire
surfaces; whereas, the product, wi
sanitizer or disinfect surfaces.
On March 5, 1968, no claimant hav
forfeiture was entered and the Unit
the product.


ieaard
and Hyamir
on surfaces.
spray surfaces


leading since Ithy implied or represented
cted, would act as a sanitizer and disinfect
ien used as directed, would not act as a

ing appeared, a decree of condemnation and
ted States Marshal was ordered to destroy


440. Lack of registration of "CRABGRASS WALK'N WEED." U.S. v. 90
fourteen-ounce containers, more or less, of a product labeled in part
"CRABGRASS WALK'N WEED." Default decree of condemnation, for-
feiture and destruction. (I.F. & R. No. 511. I.D. No. 43129.)
The product "CRABGRASS WALK'N WEED" was not registered under the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
On January 14, 1963, the United States Attorney for the District of Maine,
Southern 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 90 fourteen-ounce containers, more or less, of "CRABGRASS
WALK'N WEED" at Portland, Maine, alleging that the product was an economic
poison which had been transported interstate on or about May 25, 1962, by
Lynwood Laborat ries, Inc., from Norwood, Mass., in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the product was not registered with the Secretary of
Agriculture as required by section 4 of the act.
On January 29, 1963, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation
and forfeiture was entered and the United States Marshal was ordered to destroy
the product.


Lack of registration and misbranding of "I
SOLVO." US. v. 430 twelve-ounce cans, more
in part, "TRIPLE STRENGTH DESOLVO."
nation and release under bond for purpose
nrnlar lcinrAinHnm ut the urt IT i' A, TI ?N J


TRIPLE STRENGTH DE-
or less, of a product labeled
Consent decree of condem-
of removing product from
4d. T NT Tn SIffl8.1


: .i ?::L








li
1 '422-450] NOTICES OF JUDGMENT

.I 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
borne by the product did not bear an ingredient statement gi
percentage of each active ingredient, together with the total
inert ingredients, in the product, or, in the alternative, an in


giving the name of each ac
total percentage of the inert
The Desolvo Company,
requested its release under
decree. A consent decree


the claimant


whereby
thereof.


:tive ingredient, together w
; ingredients, in the product.
Pittsburgh, Pa., claimed o
bond, and consented to th
of condemnation was ei


salvaged


the containers


;ith the

wnershi
e entry
itered ]


while destroying


357


the Secretary


in that the label
ving the name and
percentage of the
gredient statement
name of each and

p of the product,
of a condemnation
February 2, 1963,


the contents


442. Lack of registration and misb
PANTS," and accompanying ma
"FOR PERSONAL HYGENIC
RAYON PANTS." U.S. v. 552
pair of a product labeled in pa
and 50 display cards, more or
SONAL HYGENIC PROBLEM
PANTS." Consent decree of c4
purpose of removing product fr
No. 478. I.D. No. 41886.)


randing of "SANI-PAN PLASTICIZED
trial consisting of display cards entitled
PROBLEMS SANI-PAN PLASTICIZED
boxes, more or less, each containing one
irt, "SANI-PAN PLASTICIZED PANTS"
less, bearing the statement "FOR PER-
(S SANI-PAN PLASTICIZED RAYON
condemnation and release under bond for
tom under jurisdiction of act. (I.F. & R.


The product "SANI-PAN PLASTICIZED PANTS" was not registered under
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. An examination of the
product showed that the label affixed to the containers did not bear an ingredient
statement.
On August 30, 1962, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of
New York, 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 552 boxes, more or less, each containing one pair of a product labeled
in part "SANI-PAN PLASTICIZED PANTS" and 50 display cards, more or less,
bearing the statement "FOR PERSONAL HYGENIC PROBLEMS SANI-PAN
PLASTICIZED RAYON PANTS," at New York, N.Y., alleging that the product
was an economic poison which had been transported interstate by Murray Salk,


Inc., from Allston,
It was alleged th
culture as required
It was further al
by the product did
centage of each act


Mass., on or ;
at the product
by section 4 of
leged that the
not bear an i
ive ingredient,


ingredients, in the product, or, in the
the name of each active ingredient,
percentage of the inert ingredients, in
Murray Salk, Inc., Allston, Mass.,
product was removed from the requi
containing the garments as well as


about July 13, 1962, in violation of the act.
was not registered with the Secretary of Agri-
the act.
product was misbranded in that the label borne
ingredient statement giving the name and per-
together with the total percentage of the inert


alternative, an ingred
together with the na]
the product.
claimed ownership of
rements of the act by
the placards, under


Client statement giving
me of each and total


the product, and the
destroying the boxes
the supervision of a


representative of the United States Department of Agriculture.


Misbranding of "RHODIA CL-1301."
mnre nr loa nif a nrnduritf linhol in


U.S. v. 175 one-gallon containers,
nnar "HRIflfITA PT 12A1 and 104t







ij58rs


INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


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


WITH HEXACHLOROPHENE IN A WATER SOLUTION," at Chicago, Ill.,
alleging that the product "was an economic poison which had been transported
interstate, on or about January 8, 1962, by Rhodia, Inc., from New Brunswick,
N.J., in violation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
It was alleged that the product was misbranded within the meaning of the act
n that its labeling bore the statements :

CLEANER GERMICIDE DEODORIZER


DWIB IO ONS PR 1SE


SO)ORS.
WASHROOMS
WALLS
TILE,
SRNIT
WNDOWS pER i



Increase Concen inpa
ridail(i action iis dscirM u 2 se per
K^ ^ ^ K S ^ ^ ^^ K


TE~L


Soiled Surfaces
gallon.
* *


Where rapid bacte-


I~~~: YEaB ,1O


Rhlodia's sparkling clear CL-iS01 Cleaner-Sanitizer is a multi-
action cleaner which combines three vital functions in a single
application. ;
Efficient cleaning. fierwhlological ontrol. Deodorization.
OLh-8 L contains Hexahilrophne, a miracle ,bactericidal in-
gredientb which will degem any surface more completely and
effectiUely than the strongest aloholA.
-P' t Bt


(Brochire)
"OL-IS01
SA w Clean tir and I
rophene In A Water Soltion .
htion Witei A Sipg Product, .. W

HEXAOHLOROPHI*ENf IN .AQUUEOUS


Now, for the first time Rhoditg brings
compound which combines outstanding p
and deodorizer in one product.
Developed, tested and perfected over
bacteriolgists, Rhodia O-130i is an
ophene (patent pedig).
Long noted for its effectiveness as a ge


F


Deodorizer With Hexachlo-
Performs All Three Func-
Fithout Rinsing

SOLUTION
you a completely new chemical
'operties as a cleaner, germicide


a ~eod of years
kqueous solution

nrm killer and ldeod


by a team of


orizer thle nuse .


of hexachlorophene for many sanitation purposes has been deterred by
the nec~sty of combining it with hydrocarbon solvents which impart
* % 1'I. .*4 ,. ai- a '1. I L 2j t *. a : i- n *. AJ c n A E- .- n. a nf n*


I







I 422-450] NOTICES OF JUDGMENT

I. CL-1301 AS A GERMICIDE
: CL-1301 contains hexachlorophene, the miracle bactericidal ingredien
| When used on any surface it will degerm that surface more complete
and effectively than the strongest alcohols.
When this highly bacteriostatic residual agent is used on floors, wall
and other surfaces it helps reduce the bacterial count of the surrounding
atmosphere, as well as of the surface itself.
OL-1301 is a non-selective germicide which is effective in counted
acting a wide range of microbiological germs. Actual use in hospital
has shown that CL-1301 is particularly effective against Staphylococcu


Aureus 80/81 which accounts for 69% of all Staph-type infections and
epidemics in hospitals. Laboratory tests and U.S. Testing Company
reports show that CL-1301 completely destroys Staph 80/81. Also,
actual hospital data proves that Staph Aureus can be eliminated
completely through the use of this product.


359


t.
y

s
g

ISr-


OL-1301 is also a residual germicide. Tests made in these same res-
taurants show that the chemical sterilizing action of CL-1301 persists for
as much as twelve hours after application.

OL-1301 also has proven highly effective as a germicide in the food
processing field. It prevents or eliminates bacterial contaminations
such as Salmonella, staphylococci, streptococci, coliforms, thermophilics,
thermodurics, etc.
*


.U.S. Department of Agriculture tests show that OL-1301
'bacteria within two minutes of contact with any surface.


kills


and such statements were false or misleading since they implied or represented
(1) that the product is recommended or endorsed by the United States Depart-
ment of Agriculture, (2) that tests by the United States Department of Agricul-


ture show that the product kills all bacteria within two min


any surface, (3)
germicide on floor
leather, plastics,
the term "etc.,"
coccus Aureus,"
tions salmonella
thermodurics, an
"etc.," (d) would(


t
'SI


bhat the product, when
woodwork, painted wall


used as directed


,tile,


synthetic rubber, and all other
(b) would be effective against 1
(c) would prevent or eliminate
, Staphylococci, streptococci,
d all other germs or bacterial cc
d act as a residual germicide, (


(f) would provide a chemical sterilizing action


metals, gras
articles or


the
the
col
)mb
e)
tha


germ or
germs o
forms,
nations
would d
t persist


utes of contact with
(a) would act as a
s, ceramics, formica,
surfaces implied by
bacteria "Staphylo-
r bacterial combina-
thermophilics, and
implied by the term
egerm surfaces, and
3 as much as twelve


hours after application; whereas, (1) the product is not recommended or en-
dorsed by the United States Department of Agriculture, (2) tests by the United
States Department of Agriculture do not show that the product kills all bacteria
within two minutes of contact with any surface, and (3) the product, when used
as directed, (a) would not act as a germicide on floors, woodwork, painted walls,
tile, metals, glass, ceramics, formica, leather, plastics, synthetic rubber, or all


other articles or surfaces implied by the term


"etc.,


against the germ or 'bacteria "Stapylococcus Aureus," (
eliminate the germs or bacterial combinations salmonell
cocci, coliforms, thermophilics, and thermodurics, or all
combinations implied 'by the term "etc.." (d) would not


)) would not be effective
c) would not prevent or
a, staphylococci, strepto-
other germs or bacterial
act as a residual sermi-






INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


[N.J.. I.F.B.


of the manufacturer, registrant, or person for
did they contain directions for use which are
adequate for the protection of the public.
a stateet of net weight or measure of the
ingredient statement.
On January 16, 1963, the United States Attor
acting upon a report by the 'Secretary of Agri'


Whom it was manufactured; nor
necessary and, if complied with,
The labels also failed to bear
contents of the containers or an


aey for the District of Connecticut,
culture, filed in the United States


District 9rta libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation of four
30-galon drunw, muore o less 4 h:e 55-gallon drums, more or less, of a
product la l, "PM at eyw H alleging that the product was an
economic lpoison whhic ~ d fee transpqtad interstate, on or about September
19, Octob0r 16, and ovwnber 8, 1962, y B tam Wax Company, Inc., from
Long Island City, NY,, in violatM of the act
It was afleged that the product iied to comply with the provisions of the act
in that the labels affixed to the cgtpi~rts of the product did not bear a statement
giving the name and address of the manufacturer, registrant, or person for whom
manufactured.
It was further alleged at te product was misbranded within the meaning of
the act in that the labels did lot contain directions for use which are necessary
and, if complied with, adequate for the protection f the public.
It was further alleged that the product failed to comply with the provisions of
the act in that the labels aflied to the containers of the product did not bear a
statement of the et weight or measure of the contents of the containers.
It was Aurther 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 f the inert ingredients in the product, or, in
the alternative, an ingrndient stet giving the name of each active ingredient,
together with the name of each and total percentage of the inert ingredients, in
the product.
On July 29, 196l no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation and
forfeiture was entered and the United States Marshal was ordered to destroy
the product.


Misbranding and adulteration of CO-PRAL* 25% WETTABLE
ANIMAL INSECTICIDE." US. v. 102 four-pound boxes, mo
of a product labeled in part, ^CO-RAL* 25% WETTABLE
ANIMAL INSECTICIDE." Default decree of condemnation,
and destruction. (I.F. & R. No. 576 I.D. Nos. 44114, 44985.)


POWDER
re or less,
POWDER
forfeiture,


An examination of the prodiet "CO-RAL* 25% WETTABLE POWDER ANI-
MAL INSECTICIDE," showed that it contained another active ingredient,
name, dicbhoro diphenyl triehloroethane, which was not named in the ingredient
statement. The product was also misbranded in that the labels did not bear
adequate warning or caution statements.
On October 30, 1963, the United States Attorney for the District of New Mexico,
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United States
District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation of 102
four-pound boxes, more or less, of a product labeled in part, "CO-RAL* 25%
WETTABLE POWDER ANIMAL INSECTICIDE," at Clovis, New Mexico, alleg-
ing that the product was an economic poison which had been transported inter-
state on or about May 7, 1963, by Chemago Corporation from Lubbock, Texas,
in violation of the act.
It was allied that the product was misbranded within the meaning of the act







I 423-450]


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


361


and such statement was false or misleading since it implied or represented that
the only active ingredient in the product was that ingredient listed in said state-


ment; whereas, in truth and in fact, the product contained
ingredient, namely dichloro diphenyl trichlorethane.
It was further alleged that the product was adulterated w
the act in that another substance, namely dichloro diphenyl
been substituted in part for the article.
It was further alleged that the product was misbranded
of the act in that the labels did not bear a warning or caut


an additional active

within the meaning of
trichloroethane, had

within the meaning
ion statement which


is necessary and, if complied with, adequate to prevent injury to living man or
other vertebrate animals.
On December 2, 1963, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation
and forfeiture was entered and the United States Marshal was ordered to destroy
the product.


446. Misbranding and adulteration of "FLY MORT WITH DDVP." U.S. v. 118
one-pound containers, more or less, of a product labeled in part, "FLY
MORT WITH DDVP." Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and
destruction. (I.F. & R. No. 539. I.D. No. 43432.)


The
bore s
to con
ents.
0.50%
dients.


product "]
statements
tain 0.50%
However,
dimethyl


FLY
whici
dime
upon
2.2-di


MORT WITH DDVP" was
i were false or misleading.
ethyl 2,2-dichloroviuyl phos
examination, the product
eblorovinyl phosphate and


On June 11. 1963, the United States
ana, Fort Wayne Division, acting upo
filed in the United States District Cou
and confiscation of 118 one-pound con
in part, "FLY MORT WITH DDVP,"
was an economic poison which had be
tember 21, 1961, by The Corn King Co


misbranded in that its labeling
The product was represented
phate and 99.50% inert ingredi-
was found to contain less than
more than 99.50% inert ingre-


Attorney for the Northern District of Indi-
n a report by the Secretary of Agriculture
rt a libel praying seizure for condemnation
trainers, more or less, of a product labeled
at Decatur, Ind., alleging that the product
en transported interstate on or about Sep-
mpany, from Cedar Rapids, Iowa, in viola-


tion of the act.
It was alleged that the product "FLY MORT WITH DDVP" was misbranded
within the meaning of the act in that its labeling bore the statements:


"ACTIVE INGREDIENT: 0,0-Dimethyl 1-2-2 Dichlorovinyl
Phosphate --------------------------------------......
INERT INGREDIENTS ... -...


0. 50%
99. 50%"


and such statements were false or misleading since they implied or represented
that the product contained 0.50 percent of dimethyl 2,2-dichlorovinyl phosphate
and 99.50 percent inert ingredients; whereas, in truth and in fact, the product
contained less than 0.50 percent of dimethyl 2,2-dichlorovinyl phosphate and more
than 99.50 percent inert ingredients.
It was further alleged that the product was adulterated within the meaning
of the act in that its strength or purity fell below the professed standard or
quality as expressed on its labeling.
On July 31, 1963, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation and
forfeiture was entered and the United States Marshal was ordered to destroy the
product.


dA7. Minhrnndinr annd nduHirnf inn of "PI.V MlRT WITH TI VP M TTQ wv 1lA








son


INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


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


uibre, filed in the United States District Court a libel praying seizure for
condemnation and confiscation of 164 one-pound containers, more or less, of
Sfproduct labeled in part, "FLY MORT WITH DDVP," at Blythe, Calif.,
alleging that the product was an economic poison which had been transported
tntefstfte on or about May 7, 1962, by the Corn King Company, Inc., from
Cedar3Rapids, Iowa, in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the product "FLY MORT WITH DDVP" was misbranded
Within the meaning of the act in that its labeling bore the statements:
G(Center
Psiiel


t .


MORT


A FLY Bait for Use Either as it Comes from the Can or Mixed with
Watr anid UsedCa a p. Eifetive Against Flies Resistant to
t)DT oM other Chlori nated Byrocarbons.
ACTIVE INGREDIENT : 0,0-Diethyl 1-2-2
Dichlorovinyl Phosp at---- ,-----i-- ----- --- 0.50

Sd contents 1 Pound


(Right
Pnnl


a** q^-k~


DIRECTIONS
Use as a dry sprinkle fly bait as it comes from can, or dis-
solve i lb. in % gallon of water and use as a syrup. The
Syrup may be used in a sprinkler can or pieces of burlap
may be saturated and hung up in areas frequented by
flies. Make up only that amount of syrup needed for im-
mediate use. Use wherever flies congregate, in all live-
stock buildings including dairy barns and milk rooms,
poultry houses, around garbage cans,dumps, and outside
areas of human dwellings, restaurants, drive-ins, ice cream
stands, dog kennels, etc. Sprinkle lightly either wet or
dry on exposed surfaces such as floors, walkways, alley-
Sways, -etc. Use about % lb. per 1000 square feet of floor
. area.-


:DIR;EO~tNS


(Continued)


Valuable in cage layer operations by sp
* afd uid@ ager
The number' of applichtiens per week
upon the fly population. It is impor
the bait present in areas frequented
controL Avoid sprinkling in litter an
it may sift away out of reach of flies.


wrinkling in the alleys

is entirely dependent
tant to always have
by flies for constant
d other places where


* *1P


(Left
Panel


r"~*" : ";


.i r :, r i i, :i .; i;.I ;


I~ *$ "4







I421-450]


NOTICES


JV~u;~aonniEJ


363


448. Lack of registration of "GULFCLOR 74E." U.S. v. five 55 gallon drums,
more or less, of a product labeled in part, "GULFCLORA 74E." Consent
decree of condemnation and release under bond for purpose of relabeling.
(I.F. & R. No. 487. I.D. No. 42513.)


The product
secticide, Fung
On October
New York, act
United States
confiscation of


"G ULFCLOR


ici
15,
:inj
D
fi,


"GULFCLOR 741
poison which ha


Gulfstream
It was a
Agriculture
Gulfstrea
product, re
compliance
On or aboi
was ordered


de, and
1962,
g upon
district
ve 55 g
E"at B
d been


Chemica
alleged th
* as require
m Chemi
quested i
with the


It


1 Cc
at
ed b


December 27,


74E"


was not registered


under the Federal In-


Rodenticide Act.
the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of
a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and
allon drums, more or less, of a product labeled in part,
rooklyn, N.Y., alleging that the product was an economic
transported interstate, on or about July 12, 1962, by
company, Inc., from Miami, Fla., in violation of the act.
the product was not registered with the Secretary of
), section 4 of the act,
Company, Inc., Miami, Fla., claimed ownership .of the
-elease under bond for the purpose of bringing it into
:. and consented to the entry of a condemnation decree.


1962, a decree of condemnation was entered and it


d that the product be released to the claimant under such bond for


the purpose of relabeling and bringing it into compliance with the act.


Misbranding
containers,
demnation,
trol Office,
No. 488. I


and adulteration of "DOW DOWPON." U.S. v. 26 fifty-pound
more or less, of "DOW DOWPON" Default decree of con-
forfeiture, and release of product to Economic Poisons Con-
New Mexico State Department of Agriculture. (I.F. & R.
.D. No. 42302.)


The product "DOW DOWPON" was represented to contain 85% of the sodium


of dichloropropio


pionic acid)
found to con
less than the
than 15% of
On October
acting upon
District Cou


and 15%
itain less 1
equivalent
inert ingri
r 9, 1962, I
a report
rt a libel


fifty-pound containers
Mex., alleging that th
ported interstate on o
Supply Company from


nic acid, equival
of inert ingrediei
than 85% of the
t of 74% of dalap
edients.
the United States
)y the Secretary
praying seizure
i, more or less,
e product was ar
r about May 4,
Plainview, Tex., i


ent to 74% of dalapon (2,2-dichloropro-
nts. Upon examination, the product was
sodium salt of 2,2-dichloropropionic acid,
ion ( 2,2-dichloropropionic acid), and more

Attorney for the District of New Mexico,
of Agriculture, filed in the United States
for condemnation and confiscation of 26
of "DOW DOWPON" at Tucumeari, N.
i economic poison which had been trans-
.May 15, and July 30, 1962, by Plainsman
in violation of the act.


It was alleged that the product was misbranded within the meaning of the
act in that the label stated in part:
"Active Ingredient:
2,2-Dichcloropropionic Acid. Sodium Salt ...-.....-.... 85%
Dalapon (2,2-Dichloropropionic Acid) Equivalent 74%
Inert I ngred ien ts :------------- -- ------ -- 15%"
and such statements were false or misleading since they implied or represented
that the product contained 85%. of the sodium salt of 2,2-dichloropropionic acid,
the equivalent of 74% of dalapon (2,2-dichloropropionic acid), and 15 percent
inert ingredient; whereas, the product contained less than 85 percent of the
a.nti i .. o^/^/l -n S t Y? 9 'XAr-ti nnw anTir nzlrl n a Mn a 4-h oin 4-ha anni 'ir lani- jdP '4 n wn







INBECTCIDtE FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT [N.J., I.F.R.

if the sodium salt of 2,2-dichloropropionic acid, and less than the equivalent of
t454~eent of dalapon (2,2-dichloropropionic acid).
On November 14, 1962, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation
and forfeiture was entered and the United States Marshal was ordered to turn
said articles r to the Economic Poisons Control Office, New Mexico State
partdnt 6 Agicult &uz

450. Misbranding of "STRIKE-BAC," U.S 95 one-gallon jugs, more or less,
o a product e in at StJdt -f-AC" and accompanying labeling
consistig of 0 leaflets, more ot less, entitled "NEVER BEFORE *
NEW ST lKE-RAC," Defaultjuecree of condemnation, forfeiture and
destruction. .(L. 1. fo.f, 5 1SNYo. 42232.)
An examination of the ptodudi SXttiKE- AC" showed that the label affixed
to the containers did not bear an ingredient statement.
On December 18, 1962, the United States Attorney for the District of Oregon,
acting upon a report by te SCrtay of Agriculture, filed in the United States
District Court a libelpra3ng seizure for condemnation and confiscation of 95
one-gallon jugs, more or les, of & product labeled in part, "STRIKE-BAC," and
accompanying labeling consisting of 100 leaflets, more or less, entitled "NEVER
BEFORE N* EW SBTIKEEBAC," at Portland, Oregon, alleging that the
product was an economic poison which had been transported interstate, on or
about April 17, and July 20, 1962, by the Chemical Research & Mfg. Co., from
bakland, Calif., in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the product was misbranded within the meaning of the act
in that its labels did not bear an ingredient statement giving the name and
percentage of each active ingredients 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.
On June 21, 1963, a decree of condemnation and forfeiture was entered and
the United States Marshal was ordered to destroy the product.







422-450]


NOTICES


INDEX


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


JUDGMENT


365


422-450


N.J. No.
Algex-Five
The Clayton Chemical Co, 423
CL-1301 A New Cleaner,
Sanitizer and Deodorizer
with Hexachlorophine In A
Water Solution
Rhodia, Inc------. 443
Complete Pool Care With One
Chemical
Modern Pool Products, Inc. 436
Co-Ral* Wettable Powder Ani-
mal Insecticide
Chemagro Corp .......----- 445
Crabgrass Walk'N Weed
Lynwood Laboratories Inc- 440
Dow Dowpon
Plainsman Supply Co-- 449
Farnam Die-Fly 3-Way "Sugar
Base" Fly Killer
The Farnam Co ....------ 432
Farnam Die-Fly 3-Way "Sugar
Base" Fly Killer
The Farnam Co----.......--.. 433
Flyco Brand Dry Fly Bait
Fly-Cord, Inc.......--- .. 430
Fly Mort with DDVP
The Corn King Co, Inc.... 446
Fly Mort with DDVP
The Corn King Co., Inc ... 447
For Personal Hygenic Problems
Sani-Pan Plasticized Rayon
Pants
Murray Salk, Inc-----....... 442
Fyte Hospital Disinfectant
Hysan Products Co--...--... 438
Gulfclor 74E
Gulfstream Chemical Co.,
Inc ...-- -_ -- -- 448
Harco-Pleasantly Perfumed De-
odorant Blocks
The Harvey Co., Inc__.... 425
Hospital Velva-Sheen
Majestic Wax Co_________ 427
Insect Repellent Tissues
Allied Novelty Manufac-
turing Co ...-------... 426


Ken-Ko New
Private
Modern A.I
Chemical
Modern
Myzon Face
Syrup
Myzon L


Now


Buckingham
Pet Mate Flea


N.J. No.
"DDVP" Fly Bait
Brands, Inc .... 42
?.C. All Purpose


Pool Products Inc_
Fly and Fly Bait

aboratories...... -
,r The First Time


Wax Co.....
& Tick Bomb


Aero Packaging ..--- -
Pet Mate Insecticidal Bird
Spray
Aero Packaging-. .....--
Rz Safe Air
Lynwood Laboratories, Inc.
Rat Doom
Lynwood Laboratories
Inc ---------.... -. --------- -
Red Star the Super Gro-Master
Downey Fertilizer Co---
Rhodia CL-1301
Rhodia, Inc ------------
Sani-Pan Plasticized Pants
Murray Salk, Inc-----
Shoo-Fly Outdoor Trap
Lynwood Laboratories,
Inc .- ------.....-----------
Strike-Bac
Chemical Research & Mfg.
Co -- -
Toilet Brite the Automatic
Bowl Cleaner
L & J Water Specialties,

Triple Strength Desolvo
The Desolvo Co-.---.....
Wizard the Miracle Cleaner
Rex Chemical Co., Inc....


One Chemical for Complete
Pool Care!*
Modern Pool Products, Inc-


F(]




,,,,,


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

S11111 uIll 111 11 111
3 1262 08588 8427


;;i;;;"
EE;"::"ji