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:
AA00008500:00013

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

,1L


Issued November 1964


UNITED


STATES


DEPARTMENT


AGRICULTURE


OF


AGRICULTURAL


RESEARCH


SERVICE


PESTICIDES REGULATION DIVISION


NOTICES


JUDGMENT
FUNGICIDE,


UNDER
AND RI


THE


FEDERAL


ODENTICIDE


INSECTICIDE,


Nos.


451-485


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).


WASHINGTON, D.C., July


B. T. SHAW,
A dmin i.stra tor.


1964


Lack of registration and misbranding of
SUM." U.S. v. 135 eighty-pound bags, i
in part "GREEN-ACRES 4% IPC-GYI
demnation and release under bond for
No. 413. J.D. No. 399r25.)


* "GREEN-ACRES 4% IPC-GYP-
more or less, of a product labeled
PSUM." Consent decree of con-
purpose of relabeling. (I.F. & R.


The product "GREEN.
the Federal Insecticide,
to bear an ingredient stat
On September 27, 1961
acting upon a report by
District Court a libel I
135 eighty-pound bags, mi
4% IPC-GYPSUM," at
economic poison which hi
1960, by Greenacres Gyv


It was alleged
Agriculture as req
It was further
of the act in that
and percentage of
inert ingredients,


-ACRES 4% IPC-GYPSUM"'
Fungicide, and Rodenticide
ement.
, the United States Attorney fo
the Secretary of Agriculture, f
rayingg seizure for condeuInaI
ore or less, of a product labeled
Athena, Oregon, alleging th
ad been transported interstate
)sum Co., from Austin, Wash.,


that the product wa
uired by section 4 of th
alleged that the prod
its label did not bear
each active ingredient
in the product, or, in


giving the name of each active ingredient, together with the n
total percentage of the inert ingredients, in the product.
Greenacres Gypsum Co., Austin, Wash., claimed ownership
and requested its release under bond pursuant to the act and
entry of a condemnation decree. On November 1, 1962, a decree
was entered and it was ordered that the product be released to thi
such 'bond for the nnrnonm onf r l1nhl in o


I


was not registered
Act and its label


,r the I
filed in
tion an
in part
at the
on or a
in vio


le act.
uct was miabranded within the
an ingredient statement giving
, together with the total percent
the alternative, an ingredient s


ime of


under
failed


meaning
the name
age of the
statementt
each and


NJ., LFJR. 451-485


ACT


districtt of Oregon,
the United States
Id confiscation of
"GREEN-ACRES
product was an
bout February 29,
lation of the act.
the Secretary of


registered


of the product
consented to the
of condemnation
e claimant under


-14


with







368


INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


[N.J., LF..L


An examination of the products showed that their labeling bore statements
which were false and misleading.
On October 1, 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 S
fiscation
"SBT-12
less, of a
TEXTIL
"SBT-24
New Yor
had been
August 1


States District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and con-
of 739 one-pound containers, more or less, of a product labeled in part,
HOSPITAL ANTISEPTIC SPRAY," 10 fifty-five gallon drums, more or
product labeled in part, "SBT-12 AN ANTIMICROBIAL AGENT FOR
ES," and 85 one-gallon jugs, more or less, of a product labeled in part,
MULTI-PURPOSE HOSPITAL DISINFECTANT CLEANSER," at
*k, N.Y., and alleging that the products were economic poisons which
transported interstate on or about March 15, May 11, August 9 and
0, 1962, by Lever Brothers Company, from Edgewater, N.J., in violation


of the act.
It was alleged
was misbranded
statements:


that the product "SBT-12 HOSPITAL ANTISEPTIC SPRAY"
within the meaning of the act in that its labeling bore the


"S BT 12
HOSPITAL ANTISEPTIC SPRAY
KILLS WIAPHY LOOOT ON OON
HOSPITAL PATHOGENS DESTR'
* Staphylococci including antibioti
resistant strains Streptococci
Gram Negative bacteria (coliform
Proteus, Pseudomonas) Tubercl
bacillus
KILLS MODS INCLUDING
MILDEW ORGANISMS


TACT
OYED:
C


e


Vt K


Application-Discharge spray on surface from a
Areas are covered quickly and efficiently.
For use in operating rooms, bedrooms, wards and
breeding areas.
On Hard Surfacoos, walls, -tables, earl
equipment.
On Soft Surface---mattresses, pillows, blanke
curtains,
SBT-12 continues to act against air-borne bacteria
for several weeks after each application.


I
1


distance of


1-2 feet.


other hospital" sesis-

s and other physical

ts. shoes. clothing an h


ia on treated surfaces
VI .. ... # v : *5y


and such statements were false or misleading since they im lied or ryepre nt
that the product, when used as directed on hard and soft surfaces in operating
rooms, bedrooms, wards, and other hospital sepsis-breeding areas, (1) would
kill staphylococci on contact and (2) would destroy hospital pathogens such as
staphyloceci, streptococci, gram negative bacteria coliformss Proteus, Pseu-
domonas) and the Tubercle bacillus; whereas, the product when used as directed
on hard and soft surfaces in operating rooms, bedrooms, wards, and other hos-
pital sepsis-breeding areas, (1) would not kill staphylococci on contact and (2)
would not destroy hospital pathogens such as staphylococci, streptococ gra
negative bacteria (eCliforms "rMe, Psendmon s) a tdw
It was alleged that the product "SBT-12 AN ANTIMICROBIAL AGENT


83: EEEE~E~


k:"E E JE~ iiEi~d~?~E~ji~~j


ACT


v








451-485]


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


369


Directions for use:
Under ordinary wash conditions the recommended
to give bacteriostatic activity is:
For Cottons: 4.5-8 fluid ounces SBT-12 pQer
For blankets: 20-36 fluid ounces SBT-12 pe
An increased concentration renders the fabric i


doe rahgeof St-12

O Ipo*fl dy loAd.
ir O d dry load.
baeteriidal.


**f


and such statements were false or misleading since they implied or represented
that the product, when used as directed, would render textiles bacteriostatic
or bactericidal; whereas, the product, when used as directed, would not render
textiles bacteriostatic or bactericidal.
It was further alleged that the product "SBT-24 MULTI-PURPOSE HOS-
PITAL DISINFECTANT CLEANSER" was misbranded within the meaning
of the act in that its labeling bore the statements:
i~ f-TrURPO1 HOSPITAL DISINFECTANT CLEANSER


r~~~vri
""r y X


S BT-24
KILI GRAM POSITIVE AND GRAM NEGATIVE
*BAXERIAL PATHOGENS SUCH AS STAPHYLOOOOOI,
TREPTOOOOI, OOU FORMS, PSEUDOMONAS,
P -f OTETUS AND SALMONELLA DESTROYS MOST
DHR-PMATOPHYTlSf AND MILDEW ORGANISMS
I ALL HARD SURFACES


ori, Wals, Tables,
resses, Operating


Toilets,
Room


SBT-24 kills on contact ;
maintains residual activity.


To 4t$nfeet a
operation add
per gaUlo of
wit ponge or


ste Receptacles,

nd clean in one
2 ounces SBT-24
water and apply
mop.


SBT-24 cleans
in one operation.


disinfects


FOR HOSPITAL EQUIPMENT
Instruments, Catheters, Rubber
Sheeting, Tubing, Dressing
Containers, etc.
Clean and then immerse ten minutes
ilrni l tiona f P o3ne o BTS ewr


I~1~111:



li-
~seiiiiil;
IIIIIIIIIIIE"i


i~,~,,,, i;,,;;


Use 6 ounces SBT-24 per hundred pounds dry loi
of wash formula.

and such statements were false or misleading since th
that the product, when used as directed n hard s
laundries, (1) would act as a disinfectant and (
positive and gram negative bacterial pathogens
:::::* *r _ < -ns_ __ ntL _. n^_ Tr i i __ __ *


id. Add in final step


iey implied or represented
and soft surfaces and in
2) would kill all gram
sueeh as staphylococ-i,
Mt- k--_.- .JH ^ -L ^ .__ 4-t. _


'EiEEiiliEii~iiiiiE ,: EE: E: li"iiiiiiiiiil""i

~iili~i~iii;" r;;;;;,l"


"gallon of water.
For Laundry Use To apply Bacteriostatie Finish to Linens, Blankets,
etc.


..:iiir


1
I-






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

453. Misbranding and adulteration of "CHIPMAN ROTENONE 5% SPRAY
POWDER" and "CUBOR DUST '100'." U.S. v. 78 four-pound bags, more
or less, of "CHIPMAN ROTENONE 5% SPRAY POWDER" and 4 fifty-
pound bags, more or less, of "CUBOR DUST '100'." Default decree of
condemnation, forfeiture and destruction. (I.F. & R. No. 506. I.D.
Nos. 41295, 41296.)
An examination of the product "CHIPMAX ROTENONE 5% SPRAY POW
DER" showed that its label failed to bear adequate directions for use or aii
adequate warning or caution statement. An examination of the product also
showed that it contained 4.33% and 4.39% respectively of rotenone, instead of
5% as claimed, and it was also found to contain 3.32% and 3.30% respectively
of dichloro diphenyl triehloroethane. An examination of the product "CUBOR
DUST '100' showed that it contained 0.78% and 0.78% respectively of rotenone
instead of 1% of rotenone as c.laimned. The product was also found to contain
0.98% aldrin. The product was mwibranded in that when used as directed or in
accordance with commonly recognized prateice, it would be injurious to living
man and other vertebrate animals. It was also misbranded in that its labeling
failed to bear an adequate warning or caution statement.
On January 14, 1963, the United States Attorney for the District of Idaho,
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 78 four-pound bags, more or less, of "CH IPM A N ROTENONE 5%
SPRAY POWDER" and 4 fifty-pound bags, more or less, of "CUBOR DUST
'100'," at Fruitland, Idaho, alleging that the products were economic poisons
which had been transported interstate on or about March 7, March 30, and July
30, 1962, by Ohipman Chemical Company, Inc., from Portland Oregon, in viola-
tion of the act. It was alleged that the products were misbranded within the
meaning of the act in that their labels did not bear a warning or caution state-
ment which may be necessary and, if complied with, adequate to prevent injury
to living man and other vertebrate animals.
It was alleged that the product "CHIPMAN ROTENONE 5% SPRAY POW-
DER" was misbranded within the meaning of the act in that its labeling bore
the statement:
"CHIPMAN
ROTENONE 5%
SPRAY POWDER

ACTIVE INGREDIENTS:
Rotenone -..---.-.-.------- ------- 5. 00%
Other cube resins -...--. --. 10. 00%
INERT INGREDIENTS -- _I...___....__..- 85. 00'%

and such statements were false or misleading since they implied or represented
that the product contained active ingredients consisting of 5.00% rotenone and
10.00% "other cube resins;" whereas, in truth and in fact, the product contained
less than 5.00% rotenone and contained an additional active ingredient not set
forth in the ingredient statement, namely, dichloro diphenyl trichloroethane.
It was further alleged that the product "CHIPMAN ROTENONE 5% SPRAY
POWDER" was adulterated within the meaning of the act in that: (1) its
strength or purity fell below the professed standard or quality as expressed on
its labeling, and (2) another substance, namely dichloro diphenyl trichloro-
ethanae had hcen nnhatil ntuo.a in n ar tofthA arti -ip






451-485]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


371


ACTIVE INGREDIENTS:


Rotenone -----
SN therT crbe resnTs.
TNERFTI T.NORIENTi N


--~l-L'L-L- ~I--- ---nl-- -


1.0o%
2.0%"
QqlnQC


-' U-Il I- -- --- -- ---- -- ---- -- L- -_ --- --- q__ t -

ind such statements were false or misleading since they implied or represented
that the product contained active ingredients consisting of 1.00% rotenone and
2.00%o "other cube resins;" whereas, in truth and in fact, the product contained
less than 1.00% rotenone and contained an additional active ingredient not set
forth in the ingredient statementniamely aldrin.
It was further alleged that the product "OUBOR DUST '100' was adulter-
within the meaning of the act in that: (1) its strength or purity fell below
the professed standard or quality as expressed on its labeling, and (2) another
stae, namiiely aldrin, had been substituted in part for the article.
was further a~eged ta't the product "OUBOR DUST '10(" was misbranded
whi the meaning of the act in that the product, when used as directed or in
aCCordance with commonly recognized practice, would be injurious to living man
rther vertebrate animals.
On March 8, 1963, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation
4 forfeituree was entered and it was ordered that the United States Marshal
said products.
: ta of registration of "TRITHION 8-E EMULSIFIABLE LIQUID,"
DBDT-25%-E" and "ETJION 4-E EMUSIFIABLE CONCENTRATE;"
,misbranding and adulteration of "DDT-25%-E ;" and lack of required in-
o-ii nation on label of "ETHION 4-E EMULSIFIABLE CONCENTRATE."
t.S. v. 166 thirteen-ounce containers, more or less, of 'TRITHION 8-E
MULSIFIABLE LIQUID," 3 one-gallon containers and one five-gallon
;ta":iner, more or less, of "DDT-25%-E," and 3 one-gallon containers,
; te or less, of "ETHION 4-E EMULSIFIABLE CONCENTRATE."
D detlt decree of condemnation, forfeiture and destruction of "DDT-25%-
Sand releaee of "TRITHION 8-E EMULSIFIABLE LIQUID" and
'ETHION 4-E EMUSIFIABLE CONCENTRATE" to Montgomery Seed
an ipply Compiany. (LF. & R. No. 507. ID. Nos. 42913, 42914,
rdu "Ts lTHION 8-E EMULSIFIARBLE LIQUID," "DDT-25%-E"
l "lfION 4-fE MULSIFIABLE CONCENTRATE" were not registered
under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. The product
"DDT-25%-E" was misbranded and adulterated n that it was represented to
contain 25% dichloro-dipheyl~trichlOroethane, whereas upon examination it
boind to contain 17.07% of .dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane; and it was
their misbranded in that the labels afixed to the containers of the product
wt bear adridate directions for use. The labeling for the product "rITHION
4-lE EMULSIFIABLE CONCENTRATE" failed to bear a statement of the net
wei~bght or measure of the contents of the containers.
On February 4, 1963 the United States Attorney for the Middle District of
aba North Division, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agridol-


ture, filed in the United States District Court a libel praying seizure for con-
eminnation and confiscation of 166 thirteen-oune containers, more or less, of
"T'THTON 8--E EMtLSIWIAB, LE LIQUID," 3-e-gallon ontainers and one
egalon containers, more or less, rof DDT- 25%r. 't d 8-one gtllon con-
tainers, more or less, of "ETHION 4-E EMULSIFIABLE CONCENTRATE" at


1- i






372


INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


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


"INGREDIENTS


(by weight)


Dichloro-diphen1yl-trichloroethane
minimum --------------------
Aromatic Petroleum derivatives-
In e rt ... .. .. .. ... .


(DDT


setting


point


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


25. 0%
70.0%
5.0%


TOTAL


-------- -_____ ---------- -_,_,__ ------,------- 100.


and such statement was false or misleading since it implied or represented that
the product contained 25% dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane; where, in truth
and in fact, the product contained less than 25% dichloro-diphenyl-trichloro-
ethane. I e
It was further alleged that the product "DDT-25%-E" was ...is.bra.indS
within the meaning of the act in that the label did not contain directions for
use which are necessary and, if complied with, adequate for the protection of the

It was further alleged that the product "DDT-25%-E" was adulterated within
the meaning of the act in that its strength or purity fell below the prorfee
standard or quality as expressed on its labeling in that it contained less than
25% dichlro-dipbenyl-trichloroethane.
It was further alleged that the product "ETHTON 4-E
CONCENTRATE" failed to comply with the provisions of the act in that the
label on its immediate containers did not bear a statement of the net weight
or measure of the contents of the containers.
The prtoduts were subsequently registered and on March 25 1963. a motion
ws .fled to withdraw thd srer of March 18, 1963, 6rL t Ul
of the products and entering a new order for the destruction of the three
one-gallon containers and one five-gallon container, more or less, of the pri"a~
"DDT-25%-r" and fitrtherordering the release and return of the "TRITHION
8-E .EMULBIFIABLE LIQUID" in 166 thirteen-ounce containers and the three
one-galon containers, more or less, of the product "ETHION 4-E EMULSI-
JTABLE CONOCNTRATE" to Montgomery Seed and Supply Company.
455 Misbranding and adulteration of "NEW FLYCO BRAND FLY SYRUP."
U.S. v. 476 eight-ounce bottles, more or less, of a product label in part,
"NEW FLYCO BRAND FLY SYRUP. Default decree of condemna-
tion, forfeiture, andetrueton. (f. & R. No. 513. I.D. No. 43115.)
An examination of the prodet "NEW ILYO BRAND FLY SYRUP" showed
that the labeling bore statements which were false or misleading and the product
was represented to contain 0.5% dimethyl 2,2-dicholorovinyl phosphate and 99.5%
inert ingredients. However, upon examination the product was found to contain
0.09% dimethyl 2,2-dichlorovnyl phosphate.
On January 14, 1988, the United States Attorney for the District of Vermont,
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 476
eight-oance bottes1 more or less, of a product labeled in part "NEW FLYCO
BRAlD LY sBBurP" at Burlington, Vt., alleging that the product was an eco-
nomic poison which had been transported interstate on or about April 3, 1961,
by Fly-Cord, Inc., from Savannah, Ga., in violation of the act.


It was allegea tat te product was misbranaea within
act in that its labeling bore the statements:
(NEAV ..


the meaning or tne


V t.. "X~:"


~llr ,, la;:xair






451-4851


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


373


When applying the fly syrup, choose areas where housefli8
congregate, such as windows, sunny areas around doors, etc.
dairy barns, milk rooms, livestock pens, poultry buildings, mink
and outdoors around restaurants, loading docks, etc.
Active ingredients:
Dimethyl Dichlorovinyl Phosphate- --ph__ ___
Inert Ingredients :--- .--.-... ...- --. .__--__- ..... _


normally
Use in
ranches,


00.5%


100. O/


* #


and such statements were false or misleading since they implied or represented
that the product contained 0.5% dimethyl 2,2-dichlorovinyl phosphate and 99.5%
inert ingredients and that the product, when used as directed, would be effec-
tive against flies; whereas, in truth and in fact, the product contained less
than 0.5% dimethyl 2,2-dichlorovinyl 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 in that it contained less than 0.5% dimethyl
2,2-dichlorovinyl phosphate and more than 99.5% inert ingredients.
On May 27, 1963, a decree of condemnation and forfeiture was entered and
the United States Marshal was ordered to destroy the product.
456. Misbranding and adulteration of "WHITMOYER FLY-STIK" U.S. v.
1,652 cartons, more or less, of a product labeled in part, "WHITMOYER
FLY-STIK." Consent decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruc-
tion. (I.F. & R. No. 520. I.D. No. 42486.)
An examination of the product "WHITMOYER FLY-STIK" showed that the
labeling bore statements which were false or misleading and the product was
represented to contain 0.25% dimethyl 2,2-dichlorovinyl phosphate and 99.75%
inert ingredients. However, upon examination, two of four containers of the
product were found to contain no dimethyl 2,2-dichlorovinyl phosphate and two
others were found to contain 0.027% and 0.059% respectively of dimethyl 2,2-
dichlorovinyl phosphate. The deficiencies were such that the product would not
be effective for the control of flies, the purpose for which it was intended.
On February 28, 1963, the United States Attorney for the Western District of
Virginia, 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 1,652 cartons, more or less, of a product labeled in part "WHITMOYER FLY-
STIK" at Barrisonburg, Va., alleging that the product was an economic poison
which had been transported interstate on or about April 27, and May 18, 1962,
by Whitmoyer Laboratories, Inc., from Myerstown, Pa., in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the product was misbranded within the meaning of the act
in that its labeling bore the statements:
(Carton label)


.Pl '


"* Whitmoyer

ATTRACTS AND EILLS
wEIL

<~~~n n tanjAjil.r~i~'!^iij~~mHj~i^^^t^xS/ u

FLIES


flaraf 41t~ai .n\mwad nan Swn a


"""EE
E:
liii


B~ii~Ie"


; ~4""9 4






374


INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


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


(Directions card)
Whitmoyer
FLY-STIK
ATTRACTS FLIES
KILLS RESISTANT
Homes Patios
Restaurants
Poultry
USE WHEREVER


3 FLIES FEED AND DIE
TT & NON-RESISTANT FLIES
* Camps Refuse Areas
* Dairy Barns Stables
Houses Feed Rooms
FLIES ARE A PROBLEM


Read Entire Label-Use Strictly in Accordance with Directions
IMPORTANT-To Yse: Unwrap Whittoyer FLY-STTK a
plete FLY-STIK in water. Wet Whitmoyer FLY-STIK thoroughly as
this causes a chemical action that releases ingredients attractive to flies.
The more flies that feed-the more attractive the FLY-STIK becomes.
Avoid excess wetting. WHITMOYER FLY-STIK WILL CONTINUE
TO ATTRACT AND KILL FLIES AS LONG AS THE FLY-STIK .
REMAINS INTACT. IT SHOULD LAST ONE COMPLETE SEASON.
A NEW SCIENTIFIyQ DISGO jR WITH PROVEN EFFECTIVE:
NESS Use Whitmoer fLY-STIK wherever files are a problem. Fies are.
attracted to Whitmoyer FLY4STIK and die in seconds after contact.
Whitmoyer FLY-STIK continues to kill flies for months. (In areas of
high fly population, dead flies should be brushed away from Whitmnoyer
FLY-STIK as necessary, to allow the live flies access to the FLY-STI K).
If killing action slows down, wet FLY-STIK again to reactivate kill-
ing action.
HOMES AND PATIOS: Put moistened Whitmoyer FLY-STIK in a
small dish. Place around patio or pool, refuse area, garbage cans or
anywhere flies congregate, out of reach of children or pets. INSIDE
Use one Whitmoyer FLY-STIK in a small room or two FLY-S TIK r lf
an average size room. Flies do not actually have to eat Whitmoyer
FLY-STIK .. they die as soon as they make contact with the FLY-
STIK.
RESTAURANTS, DRIVE-INS, ICE CREAM STANDS: Place around
refuse areas or where flies are a problem. Use one FLY-STIK per
100 square feet.
DAIRY BARNS, STABLE, POULTRY FARMS, DOG KENNELS:
Use one Whitmoyer FLY-STICK per 100 square feet of surface a rea
or one FLY-STIK per 10 linear feet of fence or wall. Place outskCfe
of corral areas to prevent aninlals from molesting FLY-STIK.
moesin LYSTK


WHITMOYER FLY-STIK
SURFACE OR HUNG IN
BETTER RESULTS ARE
FLY-STICK IS PLACED
FLIES NORMALLY FEED


CAN BE PLACED 0
A VERTICAL POSI
GENERALLY OBTA
CLOSE TO, OR ON
IN THIS AREA.


N A HORIZONTAL
TION. HOWEVER,
INED WHEN THE
THE GROUND, AS


*' *"


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


n~Th 8:IF"


ril iij;;jj:,~ "B" "" ""i~"""il ~~::i


i







451-4851


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


375


Misbranding and
'1'." U.S. v. 75
part, "FARMR
condemnation,
42475.)


adulteration of "FARMRITE PRODUCTS ROSUL DUST
five-pound packages, more or less, of a product labeled in
ITE PRODUCTS ROSUL DUST '1." Consent decree of
forfeiture and destruction. (I.F. & R. No. 524. I. D. No.


An examination of the product "FARMRITE PRODUCTS ROSUL DUST '1'
showed that the labeling bore statements which Were false or misleading and
the product was represented to contain 1% rotenone and 2% other cube resins.
However, upon examination, the product was found to contain 0.56% rotenone
and 1.31% of other cube resins. 'the deficiencies were such that the product
would not be effective for the purposes for which it was intended.
On April 11, 1963. the United States Attorney for the Western District of
Pennsylvania, 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 75 five-pound packages, more or less, of a product labeled in part,
"FARMRITE PRODUCTS ROSUL DUST '1'" at Butler, Pa., alleging that the
product was an economic poison which had been transported interstate on or
sbot June 19, and August 1, 1962, by Central Chemical Corporation, from
Sstown, Md., in violation of the act.
it was alleged that the product was misbranded within the meaning of the act
tat its labeling bore the statements:


DIRECTIONS


: For Dusting: Apply Rosul Dust '1' to crops when insects first appear,
covering all plant surfaces thoroughly. Repeat applications at 7 to 10
,days intervals as long as protection from insects is needed. On
commercial plantings use 25 to 50 pounds per acre.
For Spraying: To use as a spray make a suspension of Rosul Dust '1'
and water (one pound and five gallons). Make up only enough for
immediate needs. Wet plants thoroughly, both upper and under
surfaces of the leaves. Repeat as often as necessary.


iThe pests listed below are a few of the many affecting vegetables and
flowers that may be controlled with Farmrite Rosul Dust '1'.


Vegetables: Asparagus-Asparagus Beetles
Beanr-Mexican Bean Beetles, Bean Leaf Beetle
A r1 Cabbage, cauliflower, broccoli, brussel sprouts, other
crucifers-Cabbage Worms, Cabbage Loopers
Melons, squash, cucumbers, other cucurbits-Striped and
Spotted Cucumber Beetle, Melon Worms
Peas-Aphids*
Is 'Strawberries-Spittlebugs
Gladiolus-Aphids*
Roses--Flea Beetles, Rose Slugs, Aphids*
SOther ornamental plants-Aphids*
SAsterf-Flea Beetles, Aphids*
C Ohrysanthemum-Flea Beetles, Aphids*
,- Dahlit- lekA Beetle, Aphids*
Note: Apply more heavily if Aphids are a particular problem.
.~ ~~;:' I ^.^


- eyI


,, ,
r Ea
:::


"""
E:r:
::,xc,:B,




A...AAAA. A .AAAA ....AAA.A ..AAA .iAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.. A A


376


INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


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


On May 13, 1963, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation and
forfeiture was entered and the United States Marshal was ordered to destroy
the 'product.
458. Lack of registration and misbranding of "FUR LIFE." U.S. v. 3,453 twelve-
ounce containers, more or less, of a product labeled in part "FUR LIFE."
Consent decree of condemnation and release under bond for purpose of
< relabeling. (I.F. & R. No. 451. I.D. No. 41824.)
f The product "FUR LIFE" was not registered under the Federal Insecticide,
rhinigicide, and Rodenticide Act and an examination of the product showed that
the label affixed to the containers did not bear an ingredient statement.
On June 14, 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 confiscation
tf 3,453 twelve-ounce containers, more or less, of a product labeled in part
"LIFE," at New York, N.Y., alleging that the product was an economic
poison which had been transported interstate, on or about June 19, 1961, by
Old Empire Inc., from Newark, N.J., in violation of the act.
It ~se al gddd that the product was not registered with the Secretary of
Agriculture as required by section 4 of the act.
It was further alleged that the product was misbranded within the meaning of
the act in that its label did not bear an ingredient statement giving the name and
percentage of each of the active ingredients, together with the total percentage
of the inert ingredients, in the product, or in the alternative, an 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
Fashion Creatibn F~us, New York, R.Y., Ced ownership 6ot3
and request its release Buder bond for the purpose of bringing it into com-
pliance With site act, and ebnmented to the entry of a condemnation decree.
On August 6, 1962, a deree of condemnation was entered and it was ordered
that the product b reWased sto the claimant under such bond for the purpose
of relabeling t with t git label.
459. Misbranding and adulteration of "CATTLE GRUB POWDER." U.S. v. 2
fifty-pound bags, more or less, of a product labeled in part "CATTLE
GRUB POWDER." Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture and de-
struction. (I. No. 527. I.D. No. 42764.)
The product "CATTLE GRUI) POWDER" was misbranded in that its labeling
bore statements which were false or misleading. An examination of the product
showed that it contalid 3.65% qf rotenone instead of 5% rotenone as claimed
and contained a1g additionall active ingredient not set forth in the ingredient
statement, namely h.7 o0 dichloro diphenyl trichloroethane. The deficien of
rotenone was such that product would be ineffective for the control of ca
grubs.
On April 24, 1963, the United Staten Attorney for the Southern District of
Texas, Houston 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 2 fifty-pound bags, more or less, of a product labeled in part,
"CATTLE GRUB POWDER," at Houston, Texas, alleging that the product was
an economic poison which had been transported interstate on or about November
14, 1962, by the Thompson-Hayward Chemical Company, from Kansas City
Kansas, in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the product Was milabranded within the eaui
4'. 44.n n 4 4-:n inn:in 1r nit.,n Lien dl a~ afm nd-nw fl,+







451-485]


NOTICES


XEfhGMEN


377


DOSAGE


TABLE


Spraying--Mix carefully 7% pounds of Cattle
lons of water or 3% pounds in 50 gallons of
sure sprayer apply this liquid to the cattle as
or while confined in small pens. Complete
with heavy application to grub holes.


Grub Powder into 100 gal-
water. With a high pres-
they pass through a chute
coverage is recommended


Washing-With 1 gallon of water mix % (12 ounces) of Cattle Grub
Powder. Sprinkle along middle line of back of the animal by use of a
perforated container or a sprinkling can. Using stiff brush work liquid
into hair and down to the skin of animal particularly over infested
areas. One gallon of the wash liquid normally will treat 10 to 14 mature
animals.
Dipping-Prepare sufficient liquid dip by mixing this powder in the pro-
portion of 10 pounds to 100 gallons of water. Pass cattle through this
liquid, keeping their backs submerged at least 2 minutes.
y y .


and such statements were false or misleading since they implied or represented
that the product contained active ingredients consisting of 5.00% rotenone and
10.00% "other cube resins," and that the product when used as directed, would
be effective against cattle grubs; whereas, in truth and iii fact, the product con-
tained less than 5.00% rotenone and contained an additional active ingredient
not set forth in the ingredient statement, namely dichioro diphenyl trichloroeth-
ane, and the product, when used as directed, would not be effective against cattle
grubs.
It was further alleged that the product was adulterated within the meaning
of the act in that: (1) its strength or purity fell below the professed standard
or quality as expressed on its labeling, and (2) another substance, namely
dichloro diphenyl trichloroethane, had been substituted in part for the article.
On July 25, 1963, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation and
forfeiture was entered and the United States Marshal was ordered to destroy
the product.


460.


Misbranding of "VIKING 600 WW HUMIDIFIER" and "V-5 HUMIDI-
FIER." U.S. v. 15 containers, more or less, of an article labeled in part,
"VIKING 6000 WW HUMIDIFIER and 299 containers, more or less, of
an article labeled in part, "V-5 HUMIDIFIER." Consent decree releas-
ing articles to claimant for the purpose of removing products from under
the act. (l.F. & R. No. 523. LD. No, 43501.)


The products "
were misbranded
ineffective for th
On April 4, 196
acting upon a rei
District Court a
~" S t ontainers m
WW HUMIDIFI.
part, "V-5 HUM
products were ec
about September
inm nan fnr 9m


VIKING 6000 WW HtJMIDIFIwR" and "V-5 HUMIDIFIER"
within the meaning Of the act in that when tested they were
e purposes claimed f6r tden.
3, the United States Atorfey for tle District of Massaehusetts,
port by the Secretary ofA gteltr, filed in the United States
libel praying seizure fbr1 e eitmnatioA and confiscation of
lore or less, of an article labeled tir part, "VIKING 6000
ER" and 299 containers, more or lep, of an article labeled in
IDIFIER," at South Braintree, Mass., and alleging that the
*onomic poisons which had beea flausporte4 interstate on or
20, 1962, by Viking Air Prod uctsj Dvdision o' The Lan Blower
ei eraland flhir, i;. iun~+;n laio


wrrynuj p, C* VA flA, JLA oa An oV LJI La A IL LLle 4
Tt in nilB alwodlac i t" ftTac the nrniiu nt rn iniehroanA. uri+hFn ti macnitne P -fHa







378


INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


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


. For Greater Health, Comfort, and Property Protection:
Viking Humidifier To Your Present Heating System*
By Adding The Proper Amount Of Moisture To The Air In
Home, You Can:

2. Kill Cerms.
University of Ohicago re-
searchers have proved that
flu germs expelled in coughs
and sneezes remain virulent
indefinitely in dry air. Add-
ing moisture vapor makes
the air increasingly lethal to
germs, until almost 100% die
at 50% relative humidity,
***fl


(Pamphlet)


Add a


Your


"protect your health and household
during cold weather months with
POSITIVES HUMIDIFICATION
see


Kills Germs. Medical research has
proved that flu germs fourth in dry air.
By introducing 50% relative humidity
in the experiments, almost 100% of the
germs were destroyed.

(Newspaper Tear Sheet)


"... Famous VIKING
HUMIDIFIER

Destroys Winter Germs
see


# V-6000 V-5

and such statements were false or misleading since they implied or represented
that the devices, when used as directed, would destroy almost all air-borne
winter germs and would protect family health; whereas, the devices, when used
as directed, would not destroy almost all air-borne winter germs or protect
family health.
The Lau Blower Company, Dayton, Ohio, claimed ownership of the products
and requested their release under bond pursuant to the act and consented to
the entry of a condemnation decree. On June 11, 1963, a consent decree was
entered releasing articles to claimant for the purpose of removing products from
under act, and it was ordered, adjudged, and decreed that, said accompanying
folders and pamphlets having been destroyed, the United States Marshal for
this District shall release said articles from his custody to the custody of the
claimant, upon payment of said court costs and fees.
461. Lack of registration of "SCHRADER'S TERMITE CONTROL." U.S. v. 22
one-pound fourteen-ounce containers, more or less, of a product labeled
in part, "SCHRADER'S TERMITE CONTROL" and accompanying label-
ing consisting of 46 folders, more or less, entitled "WHAT YOU SHOULD
KNOW ABOUT TERMITE AND FUNGUS DAMAGE AND HOW TO
4nVbMFDflT T1 wM fl nlnld As n -na a.t ......: C.rtg... nAi A0


i
!
*::
I:






451-485]


It was
Agriculture
On July
forfeiture
the produce


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


alleged that the product was notjregistered
e as required by section 4 of the act.
1, 1963, no claimant having appeared, a deer
was entered, and the United States Marshal
t and accompanying labeling.


379


with


the Secretary


ee of condemnation and
was ordered to destroy


462. Lack of registration and misbranding of "DeWITT'S CREOSOTED WOOD
PRESERVATIVE." U.S. v. 143 one-gallon containers, more or less, of
a product labeled in part "DeWITT'S CREOSOTED WOOD PRESERVA-
TIVE." Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture and destruction.
I.F. & R. No. 528. I.D. No. $428.)
The product "DEWITT'S OCREOSOTED WOOD PRESERVATIVE" was not
r registeredd under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
An examination of the ,product showed that the labels borne by the product
did not bear an ingredient statement as required by the act.
On April 22, 1963, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of
Ohio, Western Division, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture,
tiled in the United States District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation
glstcation" of 143 one-gallon containers, more or less, of a product labeled
S rt, DWITT'S O"8CREOSOTED WOOD PRESERVATIVE," at Cincinnati,
io, and alleging that the product was an economic poison which had been trans-
ported interstate on or about January 24, 1963, by DeWitt Products Company,
fr Detroit, Mich., 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 further 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 ingredient, together with the total percentage of
the inert ingredients, in the product, or, in the alternative, an ingredient state-
ment giving the name of each active ingredient, together with the name of
Sand total percentage of the inert ingredients, in the product.
Qa &iBeptember 17, 1963, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemna-
tion and forfeiture was entered, and the United States Marshal was ordered to
y he product.
463. Lack of registration and required information on label and misbranding of
.." BUG DEATH SATELLITES." U.S. v. 68 containers, more or less, of
a product labeled in part "BUG DEATH SATELLITES." Default decree
|I; condemnation, forfeiture and destruction. (I.F. & R. No. 489. I.D.
No. 41587.)
The product "BUG DEATH SATELLITES" was not registered under the Fed-
1 Ieticide, "ngicide, and Rodenticide Act. An examination of the product
showed that the labels affixed to the containers of the product did not bear a
statement of the net weight or measure of the contents of the containers or an
ingredient statement.
.n .Oetober 22, 1962 the United States Attorney for the Western District of
Missouri, St. Joseph Division, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agri-
iled in te United States District Court a libel praying seizure for
condemnation and confiscation of 68 containers, more or less, of a product labeled
in part "BUG DEATH SATELLITES" at St. Joseph, Mo., and alleging that the
product was an economic poison which had been transported interstate, on or
about June 26, 1961, by B D Products Corporation, from Rialto, Calif., in viola-
tion of the act.
T was ailered that the Droduct was not registered with the Secretary of Arri-






380 INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT [N.J., IFS.

On December 14, 1962, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation
and forfeiture was entered, and the United States Marshal was ordered to
destroy the product.
464. Lack of registration and required information on label and misbranding of
"CSCO SPECIAL ALGAE CONTROL TABLETS." U.S. v. 24 cartons,
more or less, of a product labeled in part "CSCO SPECIAL ALGAE
CONTROL TABLETS." Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture and
destruction. (I.F. & R. No. 531. I.D. No. 42964.)
The product "OSOO SPECIAL ALGAE CONTROL TABLETS" was not reg-
istered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. An
examination of the product showed that the labels affixed to the containers of
the product did not bear a statement of the net weight or measure of the
contents of the containers, or an ingredient statement.
On May 10, 1963, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of
Florida, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
United States District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and
conflnatian of 24 lrtns, more or less, of a product labeled in part "CS0
SPEOIAL ALGAE CONTROL TABLETS," at Tampa, Fla., and alleging that
the product was an economic poison which had 'been transported interstate,
on or about February 13, 1961, by the Chemical Solvent Company, Inc., from
Binmgnbhar, Ala., 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 failed to comply with the provisions of the
act in that the labels affixed to the containers of the product did not bear a
statement of the net weight or measure of the contents of the containers. I
It was fUrther alleged that jdut was misbranded within the meang
of the at in that the labels did t be an ingreaent
name and percentage of etch active ingredient, together with the total per-
centage of the inert ingrdeients, in the product, or, in the alternative, an in-
gredient statement giving the name of each active ingredient, together with
the name of eaeh and total percentage of the inert ingredients, in the product.
This case was transferred to the United States Attorney for the Middle
District of Florida, Tampa Division, since the articles were located there and
on Nov-ember 22, 1tS pi claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation j
and forfeiture Was entered, ~d the Unitta States Marshal for jg distqrj
was ordered to destroy the product. .. .
465. Lack of regitration of "K9-KOP DOG REPELLENT." U.S. v. 266 twelve-
ounce containers, more or less, of a product labeled in part, "K9-KOP
DOG REPELLENT." Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and
destruction. (I.F. & R. No. 535. I.D. Nos. 43525, 43575.)
The proidu "K9-KOP DOG REPELLENT" was not registered under the
Federal seeticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act.
On May 29, 1963, the United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut,
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United States
District Court a ibel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation of 266
twelve-ounce containers, more or less, of a product labeled in part, "K9--KOP
DOG REPOX4S&T," at Fairfield, Conn., and alleging that the product was an
economic e ~oison which had been transported interstate on or about February 27,
1963, by LyIwood Laboratories, Inc., from Norwood, Mass., in violation of
the act
It was e t e pr oduct wa s not regitecrd wit i 8 1.^:*1
Agriltura ae required by section 4 of thed i g
I r was al g r.e g*er. ed-,- .......
A ic re as recluired by section 4 of the act. ,, ,,i ,






451-485]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


381


On May 13, 1963, the United States Attorney
Illinois, acting upon a report by the Secretar$ of
IStates District Court a libel praying seizure for


of 27 three
part, "GLA
III., and al
transported
Milwaukee,
It was a
Agriculture


4
I


and one-half pound cont
SHINE PURDY'S OLES
leging that the product
interstate on or about M


Wis., in viol
leged that
as required


latio
the
by


It was further alleged th
of the act in that its labeling


n of the
product
section
at the p
bore the


for the Northern District of
Agriculture, filed in the United
condemnation and confiscation


ainers, more or less, of a product


labeled in


IR RINSE DISINFECTANT," at Chicago,
was an economic poison which had been
:arch 13, 1963, by Purdy Products, Inc., from
act.
was not registered with the Secretary of
4 of the act.
product was misbranded within the meaning
statements:


"glashine
PURDY'S
CLEAR RINSE
DISINFECTANT


The
Barman's
Choice


ODORLESS-TASTELESS
DIRECTIONS
Dissolve half an ounce (approx. 2 teaspoon-
fuls) of Glashine to each gallon of water
last rinse tank. for 200 P.P.M. strength.
Before sterilizing, wash glasses in Trophy
First Tank Cleaner, or liquid Drel, to
remove grease, lipstick and other foreign
matter. Glasses will then AIR DRY crys-
tal clear with a NO STREAK---NO SPOT
lustre.
Strength of Solutions
100 P.P.M.-- oz. (approx. 1 teaspoon)
per gallon of water.
200 P.P.M.--A oz. (approx. 2 teaspoons)
per gallon of water.


***flr"


and such statements were false or misleading since they implied or represented
that the product, when used as directed, would sterilize orf disinfect glasses;
whereas, the product when used as directed, would not sterilize or disinfect
glasses.
On June 11, 1963, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation and
forefiture was entered and the United States Marshal was ordered to destroy
the product.


467. Lack of registration and misbranding of aRI
v. 22 two-pound containers, more or less,
"RIESEN CHLORICIDE." Default decree
and destruction. (I.F. & R. N- 582. 1DB.
The product "RIESEN CHLORICIDE" was not
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and
tainers bore statements which were false or mislead.


iEEN CULORICIDE." U.S.
of a prodnet labeled in part,
Sof condemnation, forfeiture
No. 4204.)
registered under the Federal
the labels affixed to the con-
.jet ... .co n-






382


INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


[N.J., I.F.R


(Front
Panel)


"Riesen


CHLORICIDE


( Side
Panel)
We always recommend washing
before disinfecting as a dean disinfetant is
more effective.

A Germicide containing chlorine
Tasteless-Easy on the Hands-Odorless
Disinfects-Deodorides
CHLORICIDE is used as an aid in disinfecting Glasses,
Dishes, Cooking and other Utensils.


(Side RIESEN CHLORICIDE GUARANTEE
Panel)
When used as directed, Chloricide will be found an
efficient germicide or disinfectant and is gua ra nteed
to meet the requirements of Public Health Officials.


The combination of Easy Work, Clear Glass and tl
perfect germicide, Chloricide, is the long awaited
answer for washing glassware. First, clean the g
ware thoroughly with Clear Glass in the first tank.
by using Chloricide and Clear Glass in the last rinw
tank, you will have clean, spot-free glassware; or
as directed by Local Public Health Official s.


heass-
Then


Dishes can be washed and sterilized the same way,
and they too will be dry, spot free and shiuy.
A GERMICIDE CONTAINING CHLORINE
Leaves no odor-Leaves no taste
DIRECTIONS:
2 level teaspoonfulls of Riesen Chloricide
equals about % of an ounce.
For 200 P.P.M.* solution use % ounce for
each gallon of water in rinse tank.
Clean glassware and then rinse thoroughly
in a Chloricide solution of 200 P.P.M.*
*P.P.M. means "Parts of available chlorine per
million parts of water."


and such statements were false or misleading since they implied or represented
that the product was a sterilizer and a perfect germicide and that the product
when used as directed, would sterilize or disinfect glasses, glassware, dishes.
cooking and other utensils and would meet the requirements of Public Health
Officials; whereas, the product was not a sterilizer or a perfect germicide and
the product when used as directed would not sterilize or disinfect glasses,
glassware, dishes, cooking and other utensils and would not meet the require-


ijl


J"~k~ :B~


;;
,,,






451-485]


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


3;83


On June 24, 1963, the United States Attorney for the District of Rhode Island,
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 236
fourteen-ounce containers, more or less, of a product labeled in part, "SHOO-FLY


ROACH
was an e
10, 1963,
the act.
It was
culture a


AND ANT KILLER," at Woonsocket, R.I., and alleging that the product
economic poison which had been transported interstate on or about May
by Lynwood Laboratories, Inc., from Norwood, Mass., in violation of

alleged that the product was not registered with the Secretary of Agri-
s required by section 4 of the act.


On August 8, 1963, r
and forfeiture was ent'
distribute the aforesaii
institutions as may be
proper assurance of its


to claim
ered and
d seized
selected
legitimate


nt having appeared, a decree of condemnation
the United States Marshal was authorized to
property to one or more public or charitable
by the United States Attorney, who can give
e use.


469. Misbranding and adulteration of "MILLER KWIK-TOX INSECT DUST."
U.S. v. 156 three-pound bags, more or less, of a product labeled in part
"MILLER KWIK-TOX INSECT DUST." Default decree of condemna-
tion, forfeiture and destruction. (I.F. & R. No, 541. LD. No. 43270.)
The product "MILLER KWIK-TOX INSECT DUST" was misbranded in that
its labeling bore statements which were false or misleading. The product was
adulterated within the meaning of the act in that its labeling bore a statement
that the product contained 4%. malathion and 96% inert ingredients; however,


upon
tively
On
West
the I
confis
"MIL
that
on o0
from
It
act ii


examinat
of malati
June 18,
Virginia,
united Sta
cation of
LER KW


a


ion, the product was ioui
lion.
1963, the United States
acting upon a report by
tes District Court a libel
156 three-pound bags, moi
IK-TOX INSECT DUST,"


the product was
: about June 15,
Baltimore, Md., i
was alleged that
1 that its labeling


3d


to contain 3.04% and 3.07% respec-


Attorney for the Northern District of
the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in
praying seizure for condemnation and
re or less, of a product labeled in part,
at Charles Town, W. Va., and alleging


an economic poison which h
1962, by the Miller Chem
in violation of the act.
the product was misbrand
bore the statements:


ad been transported interstate
ical & Fertilizer Corporation,

ed within the meaning of the


"ACTIVE INGREDIENT:
Malathion* __- -- _--_--_ --~--._-_ -_ .... -__- ------.- _-
INERT INGREDIENT :- .... .- _-- _,- .....- ,-a_ ---
*0,0-dimethyl dithio phosphate of diethyl mercaptosuccinate.


4%
96%


and such statements were false or misleading since they implied or represented
that the product contained 4% malathion and 96% inert ingredients; whereas,
in truth and in fact, the product contained less than 4% malathion and more
than 96% 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 18, 1963, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation and
forfeiture was entered, and the United States Marshal was ordered to destroy
the0. Lack of registration of "GARY FLEA AroductGARY IN-
470. Lack of registration of "GARY FLEA AND TICK BOMB." "GARY IN-


2,
II
I'


I mm




Ann AN ~AAAa


I3M4
DOGI

Rode
DELI
prodni
On


INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT [N.J., I.F..

a products "GARY FLEA AND TICK BOMB," "GARY INDOOR REPEL-
I FOR DOGS AND CATS," "GARY OUTDOOR DOG REPELLENT FOR
S AND CATS," and "GARY PET TRAINER DELUXE HOUSE
AKER" were not registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, 2n .
nticide Act. An examination of the product "GARY PET TRAINER .
UXE HOUSE BREAKER" showed that the label on the container of the
let did not bear an ingredient statement as required by the act.
June 3, 1963, the United States Attorney for the Southern Distri o


York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the Uni..
States District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation
of 58 seven-ounce containers, more or less, of a product labeled in part, "GARY
PET TRAINER DELLUXE HOUSE BREAKER," 56 seven-ounce containers, more.
or less, of a product labeled in part, "GARY FLEA & TICK BOMB," 58 five-
ounce containers, more or less, of a product labeled in part, "GARY INDOOR
REPELLENT FOR DOGS AND CATS," and 82 five-ounce containers, more or
less, of a product labeled in part, "GARY OUTDOOR DOG REPELLENTW
DOGS AND CATS," at New York, N.Y., and alleging that the products were
economic poisons which had been transported interstate on or about March 1,
1963, by Aero-Packaging, Inc., from Camden, N.J., in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the products were not registered with the Secretary of
Agriculture as required by spifon 4 of theiact.
It was alleged that the product "GARY PET TRAINER DELUXE HOUSE
BREAKER" was misbranded within the meaning of the act in that its labels did
not bear in 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 ingredient together with the name of each and total percentage of the
inert ingredients, in the product.
On July 16, 1963, no clamant having appeared, a decree of condemnation and
forfeiture was entered, and the United States Marshal was ordered to destroy
the products.


TENCY AL
or Jlegs,
Default dec


feature and destruction |(L. & B. Nor. 5 4.
The product "Rx HI-POTENCY ALGAECIDE"' was
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act;
On June 24, 1963, the United States Attorney for
Texas, Houston Division, acting upon a report by the
filed in the United States District Court a libel praying


IGAECIDE." U.S. v.
a product labeled in
ree of condemnation,
I.D. No. 27321.)
not registered under


322
part
for-


the


the Southern District of
Secretary of Agriculture,
seizure for condemnation


and confiscation of 322 thirty-two ounce containers, more or less, of a product
labeled in part, "BR HI-POTENOY ALGAECIDE" at Houston, Texas, and
alleging that the product wasn eeonomlic poion which had been transported
interstate or or about May 14, 19863; by Chem -ib Products, Inc., from Downey,
Calif., in violation of the act. .
It was alleged that the product was not registered with the Secretary of
Agriculture as requited by secion 4 of the act
On November 15, 1903, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation
and forfeiture was entered, and the United States Marshal was ordered to
destroy the product
472. Lack of registration of 'WPC TILE AND PORCELAIN CLEANER" and
"R, HI-POTENCY ALGAECIDE." U.S. v. 33 twenty-four ounce con-
tainers, more or ies, of a product labeled in part, "TPC TILE AND


Lack of registration of "RP lHIP(
thirty-two "uned c ntainMrd, norn
"RI HI-POTENCY ALGAECIDE."






451-485]l


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


385


ounce containers, more or less, of a product labeled in part, "TPC TILE AND
PORCELAIN CLEANER," and 198 thirty-two ounce containers, more or less,
i of a product labeled in part, "Ri HI-POTENCY ALGAECIDE," at Phoenix, Ariz.,


and alleging that the products were economic poisons whi
interstate on or about April 29 and May 10, 1963, by Ch
from Downey, Calif., in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the products were not registered
Agriculture as required by section 4 of the act.
On September 30, 1963, no claimant having appeared, a
and forfeiture was entered, and the United States M
destroy the products.


with


473. Lack of required information on label, misbranding and adulteration of
"E-Z-FLO DAIRY AND LIVESTOCK SPRAY." U.S. v. 7 five-gallon
cans, more or less, of a product labeled in part "E-Z-FLO DAIRY AND
LIVESTOCK SPRAY." Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture and


and destruction.


((I.F. & R. No. 562.


I.D. No. 42161.)


Upon examination, the product "E-Z-FLO DAIRY AND LIVESTOCK
was found to be misbranded and adulterated in that another substaunc
parathion, had been substituted in part for the article. Further exa
of the product showed thaL the labels affixed to the containers did
an adequate warning or caution statement and it was misbranded


- a------


the product when
practice would be
On August 30,
of Indiana, India
Agriculture, filed
for condemnation
product labeled i


used
injury
1963,
napol
in th
and
n pa


as directed or in accordan
ous to living man or other


*he United
Division,
United Sta
confiscation
"E-Z-FLO
going that t
estate by


States
acting


963, in violation
e product was


re
c
rt


Plainfield, Ind., and alle
had been transported int
N.J., on or about April 2, 1
It was alleged that th


act in that its labeling bore the


ACTIVE INGREDIENTS:
Di-n-butyl Succinate* *
Pyrethrins-----
Piperonyl Butoxide, Ti
Petroleum Hydrocarb<


Attorney


upon


SPRAY"
?, namely
mination
not bear
in that


with commonly recognized
rtebrate animals.
for the Southern District


a report


Secretary


1 District Court a libel prayin
7 five-gallon cans, more or i
AIRY AND LIVESTOCK SP
product was an economic pois
uffer Chemical Company from
n of the act.
misbranded within the meanil


statement:


------------------------- -
ech'l***
O -----------------------------------


g seizure
ess, of a
RAY" at
on which
Ba yonne,

ng of the


0. 50%
0. 025%
o. 25%
99. 225%


100. 000 %"
and such statement was false or misleading since it implied or represented that
the only active ingredients in the product were those set forth in such state-
ment; whereas, in truth and in fact, the product contained an additional active


ingredient
It was f
of the act
part for th
It was f
the act in


name
further
in that
ie article
further
that it


necessary and, if


y parathion.
alleged that the product was adulterated within the meaning
Another substance, namely parathion, had been substituted in
e.
alleged that the product was misbranded within the meaning of
s labels did not bear a warning or caution statement which is
complied with, adequate to prevent injury to living man and


other vertebrate animals.


ch had been transported
iem Lab Products, Inc.,


the Secretary


decree of condemnation
arshal was ordered to


1


P
1


-- --






386


IN~SE CT ICI D E


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


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


Lack of requ
"E-Z-FLO
cans, more
LIVESTOC
destruction


ired informal
DAIRY AND
or less, of a
;K SPRAY."
. (1.F. & R.


tion on label, misbranding and a
I LIVESTOCK SPRAY." U.S. v
product labeled in part "E-Z-FL(
Default decree of condemnation,
No. 560. I.D. No. 42162.)


adulteration of
. 47 five-gallon
3 DAIRY AND
forfeiture and


Upon examination, the product
was found to be mhisbranded and
parathion, had been substituted
of the product showed.that the
an adequate warning or caution
product when used as directed
practice would be injurious to li


"E-Z-FLO DAIRY AND LIVESTOCK SPRAY"
adulterated in that another substance, namely
in part for the article. Further examination


labels affixed to the
statement, and it was
or in accordance wit
iang nan and other vi


On August 80, 1963, the United States Attor
of Indiana, New Albany DIvieo, acting utiof
Agriculture, filed in the united States District
for condemnation and confiscation of 47 five-g
product labeled in part "Er-ZLO L DAIRY A
Butlerville, Ind., and alleging that the product


mney fo
a arep(
Court
allon c
ND LI
was at


containers did not bear
misbranded in that the
:h commonly recognized
ertebrate animals.
ir the Southern District
Jrt by the Secretary .of......
a libel praying seizure
,ans, more or less, of a
VESTOCK SPRAY" at
I economic poison which


had been transported interstate by Stauffer Chemical Company
N.J., on or about April 2, 198, i violation of the act.
It was alleged that the product was misbranded within the
act in that its labeling bore the statement:


ACTIVE INGREDIENTS:
Di-n-butyl Sucin ate* *- ,- --,- -- -- -- -
Pyrethrins ---- -..-.- ---- ----- -
Piperony Butoxide, Tech'1**** .-..-__ .
Petroleum Hydrocarbon ----_------ ----- ----.- -


from Bayonne,


meaning of the


0. 50%
0. 25%
0. 25%
99. 225%


100. 000%"


and such statement was false or misleading since it implied (
the only active ingredients in the product were those set forth
whereas, in truth and in fact, the product contained an ad
gredient, namely parathion.
It was further alleged that the product was adulterated w
of the act in that another substance, namely parathion, hai
in part for the article.
It was further alleged that the product was misbranded w
of the act in that its labels did not bear a warning or caution
is necessary and, if complied with, adequate to prevent inj
and other vertebrate animals.
It was further alleged that the product was misbranded .
of the act in that the product, when used as directed or i
commonly recognized practice, would be injurious to livir
vertebrate animals.
On October 2eL 1903, no claimant having appeared, a decre
and forfeiture was entered and the United States Marshs
destroy the product.


,r represented that
in such statement;
ditional active in-


withinn the meaning
d been substituted

within the meaning
in statement which
ury to living man


within the meaning
n accordance with
ig man and other


e of condemnation
il was ordered to


Lack of required information on label, misbranding and ad
"E-Z-FLO DAIRY AND LIVESTOCK SPRAY." U.S. v.
cans, more or less, of a product labeled in part "E-Z-FLO
LIVESTOCK SPRAY." Default decree of condemnation. f


ulteration of
3 five-gallon
DAIRY AND
orfeiture and







451-485]

On August 30
Indiana, Indian
culture, filed in
condemnation ai
labeled in part
Ind., and allegi
transported inte


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


, 1963, the United States Attorney for
apolis Division, acting upon a report b
the United States District Court a
nd confiscation of 3 five-gallon cans, m
"E-Z-FLO DAIRY AND LIVESTOCK
ng that the product was an economic
state by Stauffer Chemical Company, f


about April 2, 1963, in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the product was misbranded
act in that its labeling bore the statement:


387


the Southern Dis
Iy the Secretary o
libel praying seiz
ore or less, of a I
SPRAY" at New
poison which ha
rom Bayonne, N.J


within


trict of
f Agri-
lire for
product
Castle,
d been
.. on or


the meaning of the


"S1 *


ACTIVE INGREDIENTS:
Di-n-butyl Succinate**----
Pyret h ri ns s---------------
Piperonly Butoxide, Tech'l***-----
Pet rolem Hydrocarbon---------


50%c
025%r~
t25%c


100.000%"


and such statement was false or misleading


g since it implied or represented that


the only active ingredier


whereas,
ents, nam
It was
of the ac
trichloroe
It was


in truth


ely
furt
t in
than
aB


rurt


its in the product were
u fact, the product co


parathion and di
her alleged that
that other subs
ie had been subsi
her alleged that


chloro diphenyl
the product wa!
.ta nces, namely
tituted in part f
the product wa!


those set forth in
stained addition
trichloroethane.
s adulterated wit
parathion and d
or the article.
s misbranded wit:


such statement;
1 active ingredi-


bin the meaning
ichloro diphenyl

hin the meaning


of the act
is necessa
other vert
It was
of the aci


in that i
ry and, if
ebrate an
further a
t in that


ts labels did not bear a warning or caution statement which
complied with, adequate to prevent injury to living man and
imals.
alleged that the product was misbranded within the meaning
the product, when used as directed or in accordance with


commonly recognized practice,
tebrate animals.
On October 2, 1963, no claim
and forfeiture was entered ar
destroy the product.


Lack of required inf
"E-Z-FLO DAIRY
cans, more or less,
LIVESTOCK SPRAY
destruction. ,(I.F.


would be injurious to living man and other ver-

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


ormation on label, n
AND LIVESTOCK
of a product labeled
IY." Default decree
& R. No. 561. I.D.


nisbranding and
SPRAY." U.S.
in part "E-Z-FI
of condemnation
No. 42164.)


adulteration of
v. 18 five-gallon
,O DAIRY AND
1. forfeiture and


Upon examination, the product "E-Z-FLO DAIRY AND LIVESTOCK SPRAY"
was found to be misbranded and adulterated in that another substance, namely
parathion, had been substituted in part for the article. Further examination of
the product showed that the labels affixed to the containers did not bear an
adequate warning or caution statement. and it was misbranded in that the


product
practice
On Au
Indiana,
culture,
el nn -t a: 4


whe
wou
gust
Ind
filed


- n -


n used as directed or in accordance with
Id be injurious to living man and other ver
30, 1963, the United States Attorney for th
ianapolis Division, acting upon a report by
in the United States District Court a libel p


- ,.t 0 r n rt j. : ~ -


CP 10 flyrn nnhi .- a, -.~q n


commonly recognized
tebrate animals.
e Southern District of
the Secretary of Agri-
raying seizure for con-
nfl I flC *i2 flC '1 .'t A .ni


-a---







INSECTICIDE,


ACTIVE INGREDIENT
Di-n-butyl Succinate
Pyrethrins
SPiperonyl Butoxide,
et roleum Hydroca


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


AC


'S.


Tech'l*** ................--... __
Srbon -------------- -----------..- -
- -- --- -
: --O --




f V Vflf


388


1oU. UUoy%"


apd such statement was false or misleading since it implied or
the only active ingredients in the prouptve ast o 4
whereas, in truth aand in fact, the product contained an add
gredient, namely parathion.
It was further alleged that the product was adulterated wit
of the at in that another substance, namely parathion, had be
part fori te article.
It was further alleged that the product was misbranded wit
of the act itr that its labels did not bear a warning or caution
is necessary and, if complied with, adequate to prevent injul
and otlhtv rtebrate animals.
It was fluther lUeged that the product was misbranded wit
of the act in that the product, when used as directed or in accol
lonly recogn dprge b ijurious to living man and
animals.
Oi.n(toerZ 1Q68, no climant )ianng appeared, a decree
and forfeitr was eter mn te *Xpit States Marshal was o
*h A Jfl S


represented that

itiona a e r


hin the meaning
ena substituted n


bhin the meaning
statement which
ry to living man


;in the meaning
rdance with corn-
other vertebrate

of condemnation
ordered to destroy


lt e proUUCL. t I: % i !jit
477. La&k of retired information on label, misbranding and adulteration of
9E-Z-FI DAIRY AND EIVESTOCK SPRAY." U.S. v. 6 five-gallon
tahs (Batch dOdes CO 32938, CO 40121), more or less, of a product
labeled in part, "E-Z-FLO DAIRY AND LIVESTOCK SPRAY." De-
fault decree o1 condemnation, forfeiture and destruction. (I.F. & R. No.
5500 ID. No. 42105.)
Upon examination, the product "E*FLO DAIRY AND LIVESTOCK SPRAY"
was found to be mitbranded sd adulterated in that another substance, namely
parathion, had been substitu ed, i, jrt for the article. Further examination
of the product showed that the labels affixed to the containers did not bear an
adequate arnbgi or eiuti statement, and it was misbranded in that the
product when utsed as A. & in Cdordance with commonly recognized prac-
tiee nwolde tn be tir ti i ian and other vertebrate animals.
On August T, 19083 the United Staes Attorney for the Northern District of
Indian,; South Bm~i DiD itis iteon a report by the Secretary of Agri-
culture, filed in the United State SDifrict Court a libel praying seizure for
condermation and confiscation of 6 five-gallon cans (Batch Codes CO 32932,
COi4012FliI n otr lusioi a product labeled in part "E-Z-FLO DAIRY AND
LIVESOgOK SPRAY" at Logansport, Ind., and alleging that the product was
an economic poison which had been transported interstate by Stauffer Chemical
Gempany, froa Bayrde, W:J., on or about April 2, 1963, in violation of the act. .
It was alleged that Ite product was misbranded within the meaning of the
act in that its abe~ bore thta statement :
i 'i ': ". i i.I' i .--" .( *. ................ ....


ACTIVE INEGUEDIENTS:
t yl *ll lllli i II


M~Hi:


T L [N.d., I...I. .


0.50%
0.025% .i
0. 25% .:

a a a a S *.


IIIIIr i""~lli~i'i;ll:illl III~~""
liiiiE:: Eiiiiiiii~Eilii"


n







451-485]


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


389


It was further alleged that the product was misbranded within the meaning
\ of the act in that its labels did not bear a warning or caution statement which is
necessary and, if complied with, adequate to prevent injury to living man and
other vertebrate animals.
It was further alleged that the product was misbranded within the meaning
of the act in that the product, when used as directed or in accordance with
commonly recognized practice, would be injurious to living man and other
vertebrate animals.
On October 9, 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 required information on label,
"E-Z-FLO DAIRY AND LIVESTOCK
(Batch Code CO 32932), of a product
AND LIVESTOCK SPRAY." Defaul
ture and destruction. (I.F. & R. No.


misbranding and adulteration of
SPRAY." U.S. v. 1 five-gallon can
labeled in part "E-Z-FLO DAIRY
t decree of condemnation, forfei-
557. I.D. No. 42166.)


Upon examination, the product
was found to be misbranded and


parathion, had
of the product


been substituted
showed that the


"E-Z-F
adulte
in par
abels a


'LO DAI
rated in
t for th(
fixed to


RY
tha
e ar
the


AND
t ano
tide.
cont


LI VESTOCK SPRAY"
their substance, namely
Further examination
miners did not bear an


adequate warning or caution statement, and it was misbranded in that the
product when used as directed or in accordance with commonly recognized
practice would be injurious to living man and other vertebrate animals.
On August 27, 1963, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of
Indiana, South Bend 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 1 five-gallon can (Batch Code CO 32932), of a product
labeled in part "E-Z-FLO DAIRY AND LIVESTOCK SPRAY" at Michigan City,


Ind., and alleging that the produce
transported interstate by Stauffer
or about April 2, 1963, in violation o
It was alleged that the product


act in that


was an economic
chemical Company,
the act.
as misbranded wit


its labeling bore the statement:


poison which had been
from Bayonne, N.J., on


bin


the meaning of the


ACTIVE INGREDIENTS:
Di-n-butyl Succinate** ... ........----- --- ....---
Py ret hrins .. - -
Piperonyl Butoxide, Tech'l***
Petroleum Hydrocarbon ---- ------------------ -


o. 50%
0. 025%
0o. 25%
99.225%


100oo. 000%"


and such statement
the only active ingr
whereas, in truth
ingredient, namely r
It was further a
of the act in that a
part for the article.
It was further a
of the act in that i


was false or misleading since it implied or represented that
edients in the product were those set forth in such statement;
and in fact, the product contained an additional active
parathion.
alleged that the product was adulterated within the meaning
another substance, namely parathion, had been substituted in


alleged th
ts labels


at the product was misbranded within the meaning
did not bear a warning or caution statement which
-.: *_: 4 t






390


INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


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


479. Lack of required information on label. misbranding and adulteration of
"E-Z-FLO DAIRY AND LIVESTOCK SPRAY." U.S. v. 61 one-gallon
cans, more or less, 32 five-gallon cans, more or less, and 3 thrty-gallon
drums, more or less, of a product labeled in pat "E-F
AND LIVESTOC SPRA Default decree of ondemnt, fe
and destruction. (I.F. & R. No. 554. I.D. Nos. 42172, 42174, 42175
Upon examination, the product "E-Z-FLO DAIRY AND LIV2ESTOCK
SPRAY" was found to be misbranded and adulterated in that another sub-
stance, namely parathion, ad bee stibstituted in part for the article. Further
examination of the product showed that the labels affixed to the containers did
not bear an adequate warning or caution statement. and it was misbranded in
that the product when used as directed or in accordance with commonly recog-
nized practice wotld be injuwious to living man and other vertebrate animals.
On August 20, 196, the United States Attorney for the Western District of
Michigan, Southern Division, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agricul-
ture, filed in the United States Distriet Court a libel praying seizure for condem-
nation and confiscation of 61 one-gallon cans, more or less, 32 five-gallon canes,
more or less, and 3 thirty-gallon drums, mor or less, of a product labeled in part,
"E-Z-FLO DAIRY AND LIVESTOCK SPRAY" at Lansing, Mich., and alleging
that the product was an economic poison which had been transported interstate
by Staffer Ohemical Company from Bayonne, N.J., on or about April 16 and
May 8, 1963, in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the product was misbranded 'within the meaning of the act
in that its labeling bore the statement:


ACTIVE INGREDIENTS:
Di-n-butyl Succinate** ---- - --------
Pyrethrins -_--_ -- ._. ---- -.- -- ----------- __
Piperonyl Butoxide, Tech'l***_- -
Petroleum Hydrocarbon .. _...--- -. __ -------------


0. 50%
0.025%
0. 25%
99.225%


100. 000%"


and such statement was false or misleading since it implied
the only active ingredients in the product were those set
ment; whereas, in truth and in fact, the product contained
ingredient, namely parathion.
It was further alleged that the product was adulterated
of the act in that another substance, namely parathion, had
part for the article.
It was further alleged that the product was misbranded w


the act in that its labels did not bear a warning
necessary and, if complied with, adequate to p
other vertebrate animals.
It was further allfled that the product was
of the act in that the product, when used as
commonly recognized practice, would be inju
vertebrate animals.
On October 10, 196, no imant; having app
and forfeiture was entered ind the United State!
the product.
480. Misbrandine and adulteration of "E-Z-FI


nhT11T*~P K-,


n~ a l.


or represented that
forth in such state-
an additional active

within the meaning
been substituted in


within the meaning of


g or caution statement which is
prevent injury to living man and

misbranded within the meaning
directed or n. acordan
rious to living man and other

eared, a decree of
s Marshal was ordered to destroy


LO DAIRY AND LIVESTOCK
F U a I I 1 W _


*1~







451-485]


NOTICE S


On August 22, 1963,
Kentucky, acting upon


OF JUDGMENT


the United States Attorney
a report by the Secretary


'United States District Court a libel pr
confiscation of 21 five-gallon cans, more
"E-Z-FLO DAIRY AND LIVESTOCK SP
that the product was an economic poison
by Stauffer Chemical Company from Bay
in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the product was n
act in that its labeling bore the statement:


sayingg seizure
or less, of a
RAY" at Lexi
which had bee
'onne, N.J., on


isbranded


391


the Eastern Dis
Agriculture, filed
for condemnati
product labeled
ngton, Ky.. and
n transported inl
or about May 1


within


the Imeani


2


trict of
in the
on and
in part
alleging
rerstate
4-, 1963,

Sof the


ri1 *S


ACTIVE INGREDIENTS:


Di-n- butyl Succinate**---------------
Pyrethrins -------------------------- --_.___
Piperonyl Butoxide, Tech'l*** -
Petroleum Hydrocarbons---- ----_______


0. 50%
0. 025%
0. 25%
99. 225%


1K)O. 000r "'


and such statement was
that the only only active
such statement; whereas
tional active ingredient, n
It was further alleged
of the act in that another
for the article.
It was further alleged


of the act in that th
commonly recognized
vertebrate animals.
On December 27, 19
and forfeiture was E
destroy the product.


YI


e pr
pra


false or misleading since it implied or represented
ingredients in the product were those ser forth in
in truth aud in fact, the product contained an addi-


amely trithion.
that the product was adulterated within the Imeaning
substance, namely trithion, had been substituted in part


that the product was misbranded within the meaning
product, when used as directed or in accordance with
ictice. would be injurious to living man and other


5,--


63. no claimant having appeared,.
entered and the United States


Lack of registration of "INDU
STAINLESS," and "SAFE L
gallon containers, more or I
TRIAL CONCENTRATED
quart containers, more or
LIQUID BOWL CLEANER.
ture and destruction. (I.F.


--.


a decree of (1(lndelninition
Marshal was ordered to


TRIAL CONCENTRATED


IQU
ess,
INS
less,
" I
& R


lID BOWL CL
of a product
ECTICIDE SI
of a product
)efault decree
*. No. 428. I.D


INSECTICIDE


EANER." U.S. v. 9 one-
labeled in part "INDUS-
'AINLESS" and 40 one-
labeled in part "SAFE
of condemnation, forfei-
. Nos. 41 405-414(:7.)


The
LESS,


products


SAFE


Federal Insecticide
On or about Au
District of Oklahoi
in the United State
confiscation of 9 on
"INDUSTRIAL C(
quart containers, x
BOWL CLEANER
poisons which had
Industrial Chemica


"INDUSTRIAL


CONCENTRATED


L, IQUID BOWL CLEANER."
, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
gust 2. 1962, the United State
na, acting upon a report by the 1
Is District Court a libel praying


ie-galloi containers.
)NCENTRATED I:
iiore or less, of a
," at Tulsa. Olka..
been transported ii
I Laboratory, from


more o
CSECTI
product
alleging
nterstat
Omaha.


INSECTICIDE


STAIN-


were not registered under the


Attorney


ther Nor~t Izerr


ec.rttary of Agrici
seizure for c

r less, of
('IDE S'
labeled
that th<
e on or :
Nebr.. ii


TAI
ipn

rn \'ic


parl

it A
r)lat


oct labele<
ESS" aLnd
t "SAFE
cts were t
IngLust 15.
ioi n o*t' thle


1 in I!

LIQI


act.


I m m I


I


w v




il
..Op

392 INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT [N.J.. LF..


F


product showed that the labeling on the
an ingredient statement as required by the


On July 25, 1963, the
Georgia, Atlanta Division
filed in the United States
and confiscation of 319 fi
part "FERTAL-GRO T-M
was an economic poison


United States
, acting upon a
District Court a
ifty-pound bags,


ULCH"
which


at Atla


containers of
act.
Attorney for
report by the
Slibel praying
, more or less
Lnta, Ga., and


been


transported


the product did not bear

the Northern District of
Secretary of Agriculture,
seizure for condemnation
, of a product labeled in
alleging that the product


interstate on


or about


April 10, 1963, by Eastern Dehydrating Company, from Lexington, N.C., in
violation of the act.
It was alleged that the proet was rideg rewtiith
culture as required by section 4 of the act.
It was further alleged that the product was misbranded within the meaning
of the act in that its labels 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 state-
ment giving ite name of each active ingredient, together with the name of each
and total percentage of the inert ingredients, in the product.
On September 5, n196, no claimant having appeared, a decree of
and forfeitute was entered, and the United States Marshal was order o
destroy the product. p


Misbranding
Ki LL ER.
pound con
DIE-FLY
nation, fo


: and adulteration of "FARNAM DIE-FLY
U.S v, 81 ane-pound containers, more
itainers, more or less, of a product labels
'SUGAR-BASE' FLY KILLER." Default
rfeiture and destruction. (I.F. & R. No.


'SUGAR-BASE' FLL
or less, and 15 five-
ed in part l :
it decree of condem-
571. I.D. No. 42769.)


The product "FABNAM .DIE-FLY 'SUGAR-BASE' FLY KILLER" was mis-
branded in that its labeling be statements which were false or misleading. The
product was represent t contain 0.5% dimethyl, 2,2-dichlorovinyl phosphate
and 99.5% inert ingredients, whereas upon examination it was found to contain
no dimethyl 2,2-dich rovinyl phosphate. The deficiency was such that when
used as directed, the product would nt be effective as a fly-killer.
On October 17, 1963, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of
Texas, Galveston Division, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture
filed in the Utteid Sttes District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation
and confiscation *bo81 one-pound containers, more or less, and 15 five-pound
containers, mor of aof adptoauct lab led in part "FARNAM DIE-FLY
'SUGAR-BASE' FPL nLERf' ttt G(lettA, Tex., and alleging that the prod-
uct was an ecdnomie ison lwhb had been transported interstate on or about
October 19, 192 by TheRsit Company, from Omaha, Nebr., in violation of
the act.
It was alleged that the product was misbranded within the meaning of the
act in that its labe*tUg bore the statements:


nA^bX^B


DIE-FLY
3-WAY
"Sugar-Base"
FLY KILLER
(1) Apply it as a "dry bait." Scatter lightly on
gather, or (2) Dissolve it in water, and 'paint it on
waters and "spray it on" outside surfaces. Flies ar
44 jCbnn, Ala S/ *^
tf~~ft^^ ^-'-u~t.,uf41,~tlnv w *vn~nnd-aa


c19; in


surfaces where flies
f' or Yflrut
e attracted to it, feast .


- -


r






451-485]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


393


RECOMMENDED for control of flies in Dairy Barns, Calf Pens, Load-
ing Sheds, Stables, Poultry Houses, Dog Kennels and Animal Hospitals.
Also to reduce fly population around Dairy Barns, Feed lots, Stock
Yards or Stables Loading Docks, Garbage Disposal areas or Out-
door 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
window sills, walks and other horizontal surfaces
flies gather. Use at least 4 ounces per 1000 sq. ft.
By wetting surfaces before scattering Farnam DIE-
solves its sugar base. It then dries into a laque
continues to attract and kill flies for weeks after
removed. Repeat application as necessary.


in strips on floors,
in buildings where
IMPORTANT!-
FLY, moisture dis-
r-like surface that
application if not


AS A "PAINT". Dissolve Farnam Die-Fly in water, and paint on
surfaces where flies gather. Continues to attract and kill flies for weeks
after application. Use only enough water to dissolve it and bring mix-
ture to lacquer-like consistency. Repeat applications as necessary.


AS A "SPRAY" (For outdoor
Fly to each gallon of water a
feed and congregate, around
cans, manure piles, feed lots,
Do not spray in dairy barns or


OTHER
available
gather.
liberally
breeding


use) Dilute 8 ounces of Farnam Die-
md spray surfaces and places where flies
sewage plants, garbage dumps, garbage
poultry houses, barns and out-buildings.
tightly enclosed spaces.


APPLICATIONS .. (1) Where suitable surfaces are not
, treat sacks, boards, or strips of cardboard, placed where flies
First, wet them. Then, apply Farnam DIE-FLY. (2) Apply
as a dry bait to manure piles, garbage dumps, and other fly
places.


S* *'$
and such statements were false or misleading since they implied or represented


that
inert
as a
0.5%
and
It


the product contained 0.5%
ingredients and that the p.
fly-killer; whereas, in tru
dimethyl, 2,2-dichlorovinyl
the product, when used as
was further alleged that t


dimethyl,
product, whi
th and in
phosphate
directed,
he product


2,2-dichlor
en used as
fact, the I
and more
would not
was adul


ovinyl phosphate and 99.5%
directed, would be effective
product contained less than
than 99.5% inert ingredients
be effective as a fly-killer.
terated 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 2, 1964, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation and
forfeiture was entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.


Lack of registration of "QUICK KILL ALGAE
CLO STABILIZER & ALGAECIDE," labeled
LETS SWIMMING POOL WATER CONDITI
pound containers, more or less, of a product
KILL ALGAE DESTROYER" and 212 contain
uct "NU-CLO STABILIZER & ALGAECIDE,"


DESTROYER" and "NU-
in part, "NU-CLO TAB-
ONER." U.S. v. 478 two-
labeled in part, "QUICK
rs, more or less, of a prod-
labeled in part, "NU-CLO


TABLETS SWIMMING POOL WATER CONDITIONER." Consent de-
cree of condemnation and release under bond. (I.F. & R. No. 552. I.D.
Nos. 43050, 43051.)


The products "QUICK KILL ALGAE
IZER & ALGAECIDE," labeled in part,


DESTROYER" and "NU-CLO STABIL-
"NU-CLO TABLETS SWIMMING POOL


I!.






394


INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


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


about April 7, 15, and 26, 1963, by Alden-Leeds, Inc., fror
violation of the act.
It was alleged that the products were not registered wit
Agriculture as required by section 4 of the act.
Alden-Leeds, Inc., Newark, N.J., claimed ownership of the
their release under bond for purpose of salvaging the chemi(
destroying the containers of said products and consented
condemnation decree. On February 11, 1964, a decree of
entered, and it was ordered that the products be released to
bond.


Misbrandi
DUSTY
labeled
eree of
ID. No


n

h


Newark,


N.J.,


the Secretary of


products,
cal components and
to the entry of a
condemnation was
the claimant under
G~;


ng and adulteration of "MORGRO ROTENONE 4
U.S. v. 214 one-pound containers, more or less, of a
in part "MORGRO ROTENONE GARDEN DUST." Di
condemnation, forfeiture and destruction. (I.F. & R.
42207.)


GARDEN
i product
fault de-
No. 553.


Upon examination of the product "MORGRO ROTENONE GARDEN DUTST"


it was found to contain less than 1% rotenone as cla
trained an additional active ingredient not set forth
ment, namely chlordane and when used in accordance


practice would be injurious o living man rx other
On August 2, 1963, le Uitend; Statas Attorney f
acting upqn a report by the Secre y of Agricultur
District Court, a libel praying seizure for condemn
one-pound containers, more or less, of a product
ROTENONE GARDEN DUST" at Denver, Colo., ai
was an economic poison Which had been transpo
February 6, 1962, by Wasatch Chemical Company,
in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the product was misbranded
act in that its labeling bore the statements:


ve
or
e,.
lti
nd
EUd


imed on its label and con-
in the ingredient state-
with commonly recognized
hrtebrate animals.
the District of Colorado,
filed in the United States
on and confiscation of 211
beled in part "MORGRO


alleging that the p


interstate on or
Salt Lake City,


rted
from


within


product
about
Utah,


the meaning of the


"MORGRO
ROTENONE
GARDEN DUST


INGREDIENTS Rotenone -
Other active extractves_
Inert $ --


and such statements were false or ~MleaqIng since they
that the Product contained i10 pe @nt roten one and 2.C
exnctives" wheroas, in truth and in fact, the produ
1t0 percet rotenone atl contained a d ~itid active i
in the ingredient statetn namely ) rt .
t was further laeged tt tlhe prwuct was adultery
of the act in that i1)its strength or purity fell below
or quality as :~pessed on its Ib$i, and (2) anot
chlordane, had been ftbstituted n part for the article.
It was further alleged thathe prod uct was misbrand
of the act in that the product, when used as directed
commonly recogied active w e inurious to
vertebrae animals .


1.0%
2. 0%
97. 0%


implieri or represented
) percent "other active
ct contained less than
ingredient not set forth

?d within the meaning
the professed standard


her


substance,
. ~ ~ *. .:*?*.. :- .- /


namely


ed within the meaning
or in accordance with
living man or other
4 ia"" F""Tht~~:, ~l :l~ni


('n an rr#.At. 10yvkiilrw 104 naln ni k rln a oi- i )n n n. nw anrana nand ian no -








451-485]


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


395


INDEX TO


NOTICES OF


JUDGMENT


451-485


Bug Death Satellites---
CSCO Special Algae
Tablets------------
Cattle Grub Powder--
Chipmaa Rotenone 57
powder ------
Cubor Dust "100"---
DDT-25% -E
DeWitt's Creosoted Wi
servative -


Ethion -
cent rat
E-Z-Flo
Spray
E-Z-Flo
Spray
E-Z-Flo
Spray
E-Z-Flo
Spray
E-Z-Flo
Spray
E-Z-Flo
Spray
E-Z-Flo
Spray
E-Z-Flo
Spray
Farmrite

Farnam
Fly Ki


C-E Emulsifi
Dairy and

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


Dairy
Dairy

Dairy

Dairy

Dairy


and
and

and

and

and


Dairy and

Dairy and


Products


Contnr


Spray


Ga ry Outd oor Dog Repellent for
Dogs a ud Ca t s- _ _
Ga ry Pet Trainer De Lu x e N on se
B rea k e r
G I a d h i n e P u rd y's Clear Ri n se
D i a i n fee t a n t - -
C: reen-Acres IIJ CZC; yps u m _
In d ud t r is 1 Co ncen t rR red In YtlCt i -


cide
Ii 9- Ii O
,11 ill~r
;\Io rg io
New FI
K u-Clo
\Va te
QuicL I
R, Hi-
R, I-I i-
lii~~en
XBT-lf
io r
~BT-1:


tainle~is-_-_______ _____
Dog Rrlt' lien t -
vik-l`os 1 nsect L, ~~st___
otencne Ga rd ell
o Bra ntl Fl~r
'a blets Pool


r Condition er______
; i 11 X I g3 e I)~St L'O~lfl'
'oteucS Algn tu~ i de _
'o t e u c;S cU g a ec id e _
Cbluricitlt~______ ___
A11 ~ n t i ~lic rob i 3 L
e ii t i le~ _ _
Hosli tnl A tit i~el, t i


i\grent

C-,,,


XB T-l~ BZ nit i-Pur
Disin fectant C1
Liquid Eonl
Pch ra (.le r' s Ternli t
g h a o- F IS Rna ch a
TPC Ti le 17 nd Po re
'r ri t h i o u I E E u:


rlose Hlspitnl
ea user,,,,
Clt~a ne r_ ___ _
eCont ro I_____
nd A nt Ii ill~r _
2ela i u Cle~ uer-
lulsiBal, le Liq-


Ii Il Ir_ __ __ _______ ___
1 n ~v aulllilliser____
S h on id Ei now A brj u t
a ud F u ng uy Da ma ge
To C'ont rol It----_--
F1S-Stik___________ _


,J, No,



16~
459

453
453


NJ, N~,


4TO

I'iO

-I~iS
-151

-181

-109
J8.T,
~53








J


45~
~S1
-Itjl
~ris




-ItiO
~tio



401
-15Ci


ood


C~n-


io


tble


Lirestocli

Livestock

Livestock

Li Festock

Livedtock

Liveatock

Li vestook

Li restal;


C
]


R~ul


Dust


Die-Fly '' Su gar Base"
lie r__________________ _


uiil--_--
Hum it
80(i(
\\' hat l~c>u
Term i te
and Hon
\\' h i t IlloS e r


Fertal-Gro T-~I ulch-----_
For Life--------------- -


Ga ry Flea and Tick Bomb_ -- -
Ga rg In door Repellent for Dogs
and Ca ts_ - _




UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
III 3 1111111112 2 0i85 8l5111111 111
3 1262 08588 8435


IIl